DIGITAL CAMERA IMAGE QUALITY Posted Wed Jul 1, 2009, 0:25 AM ET

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (0)

LCD HD TV FOR SLIDESHOWS Posted Sat Jun 27, 2009, 4:05 PM ET

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (3)

FINDING PHOTOGRAPHS Posted Sun Jun 21, 2009, 6:18 PM ET

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 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/

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (1)

CONVERGENCE Posted Wed Jun 3, 2009, 11:51 PM ET

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (0)

CALL IT iSNOOP Posted Tue Jun 2, 2009, 6:57 PM ET

onOne software just announced an iPhone application that supports a the operation of a Canon EOS digital camera remotely. This can be accomplished through a computer that has a WiFi internet connection when the Canon dSLR is tethered to the computer.

This new iPhone application from onOne Software makes it possible to use an iPhone to change the camera setting, trigger and exposure, view images stored on the cameras memory card, and even obtain a live viewfinder look at what the camera is focused upon with Live View.

The obvious use for this is some kind of surveillance of course, but I will leave what kind to everyone’s imagination. But for many pros who cover events of all kinds this capability may be invaluable. And combined with Apple’s Mac Mini or a MacBook a camera could be situated almost anywhere within a WiFi hot zone, places where a photographer might not find very comfortable or safe to be to get the picture recorded.

The Professional edition of this new iPhone application from onOne software has list price of just $19.99 and a limited introductory ticket of just $9.99. It may be purchased immediately from the App Store in Apple’s iTunes (. A free application that is a necessary companion is needed and can be download for installation on the Mac or Windows computer being used to connect the Canon EOS dSLR.

More specifics on the camera and computer requirements to use this new camera control iPhone application can be found at: www.onOnesoftware.com/iPhone/. A version of this software that provides similar function support for Nikon digital cameras is under development by onOne Software, so keep tuned into the App Store on iTunes

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (0)

COLORWIKI Posted Sun May 31, 2009, 11:26 PM ET

Color is a part of our environment and a part of our awareness of it from early on. We take it for granted and usually learn to identify colors by name before kindergarten. Our first foray into mixing paints teaches us that mixing red and blue produces purple and mixing yellow and blue, green. And if we have the benefit of science teaching and physics that color is a property of light and behaves in certain ways. Otherwise color is taken for granted, even for photographers whose awareness can be expanded to understand that the primary components of color in light are red, green and blue, and the colors of inks and dyes are their complements, cyan, yellow and magenta.

But even with a photographic understanding of color functions and behavior, Color Management is often a world of confusion. And fortunately or not, Color Management is an essential to obtaining a color match between a photo displayed on a computer monitor and print output. Exactly why it is confusing may be due in part to the expectation that if a computer is involved it should reproduce the same color put into it in a print made by that computer - isn’t there any standard involved? Unfortunately not because when computers were brought to the desktop I don’t think anyone of the manufacturers was thinking any farther ahead than just getting established and surviving in a business that was a new frontier. So when color computer devices began to appear, each one reproduced color differently, and color independence has continued without any effort to standardize to this day.

Color Management is a scheme to essentially standardize color reproduction using a computer. It resulted from some of the major computer companies coming together and forming the International Color Consortium, the ICC. This organization developed the framework for color management as well as a standard color palette so everyone could reference the same colors using a computer. but many users are having difficulty implementing Color management to obtain a match between screen and print output, in part possibly for some photographers because there was no precedent, or corollary function in analog film photography. Or maybe because it is such an entirely abstract process.

Regardless, one Color Management service provider, www.chromix.com, a few years ago put together an on-line resource library that has grown to be both comprehensive and easy to access most of the support information one would need to understand how Color management functions. So there is good help available at www.colorwiki.com thanks to the good and generous people at Chromix in Seattle.

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (0)

THE CURIOUS CASE OF ACDsee FOR THE MAC Posted Tue May 26, 2009, 11:32 PM ET

I used to obtain references to ACDsee from Windows users as it was an affordable option for image asset management over much more complex and expensive professional products. But recently I’d heard nothing of it until macWorld announced a bets is available for the mac. Apparently ACDsee for the Mac will be available in release version for $170 in 2010.

The MacWorld announcement engendered a firestorm of retribution from Mac Deneba Canvas users who feel betrayed since Deneba was purchased by ADCsee and the Mac version has since been dropped. That seems to be tit for tat since another popular image asset management that was a 3rd party Apple application was bought out by Microsoft and has since fallen on the ill machinations of the folks in Redmond, Washington.

Aside from that some point out that ACDsee doesn’t do much that Apple’s own iPhoto, that comes free with a Mac is capable of, or can be purchased if need be for about half the cost of ACDsee for the Mac. To carry that argument a bit further, any Apple Mac user who is into digital photography gets the latest version of Adobe Photoshop Elements, also about half the cost of ACDsee for the Mac, gets the Adobe CS4 version of Bridge, which has just about all of the features of ACDsee and more, as well as Adobe Camera Raw and a very competent, easy to use photo editing application.

So I am curious what the folks at ACDsee are thinking, it is something about which to be curious, whether they are thinking at all.

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (1)

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Posted Wed May 20, 2009, 6:26 PM ET

I receive all too many reports from people who have purchased a new dSLR camera that they cannot open the camera Raw files, or their computer doesn’t recognize the file format. The same thing with Adobe Photoshop, Elements and even LightRoom users, they can’t access the images from the Raw files their camera saves. Sometimes it as simple as downloading the latest upgrades of Adobe Camera Raw from the Adobe web site. But too often it’s is not that easy. Older Photoshop versions for instance do not support the latest versions of upgrades to Camera Raw, or even the computer operating system will not support these newest dSLR Raw file formats.

Generally this problem can be avoided in one of two ways. First do a thorough search of the camera manufacturer web site relative to the camera you want to buy, and look for “minimum requirements”, especially for software. This is a bit like the fine print in a mortgage loan contract, if you don’t pay attention you may find there is something you signed and thereby agreed to that can become a serious problem down the road - we hear about that in the news almost daily these days. In other words find out what you need in computer system and application software that is essential to be able to use all of the capabilities of the new camera you plan on purchasing. So, be sure the camera you buy is supported by the computer and software you have. And once you do buy a camera, install the provided software that usually includes a Raw file converter application for free. Then at least you have that access to your raw files, and often the best quality of conversion to a standard computer file format like TIFF.

Second, as a general rule with primary hardware and particularly computer operating systems and key applications like Adobe Photoshop whether CS, Elements or Lightroom: register the product you have just installed with the manufacturer and provide your e-mail address. Microsoft, Adobe and Apple provide e-mail notification if you sign up for it for bug fixes, patches for virus vulnerabilities as well a maintenance and new feature upgrades. If you have a broadband connection these patches, fixes and upgrades can even be installed automatically. This is far better than later on finding your system or software is not up to date with the minimum requirements needed to support your new camera or other new hardware and software. Bringing an old computer up to date can be a daunting task because usually the latest upgrade, like SP3 for Microsoft Windows XP, requires that the previous upgrades, SP1 and SP@ were previously installed.

Some of you don’t want to register your system or provide your e-mail address for fear of getting a lot of spam advertising e-mail you don’t want. That does not happen with the major companies if in the sign up you select not to receive e-mail from the company’s partners, Microsoft, Adobe, Apple and other major vendors don’t abuse having your e-mail on file, they know better than to alienate their customers. But what if you don’t have a fast broadband internet connection and use dial-up? Well, large software downloads then may not be a possibility, or on the other hand upgrading your computer and software yourself is just too confusing.

There are professional “computer geek” services available in many communities, or at least a local computer repair shop. An expert computer repair person can upgrade a system usually quite quickly and efficiently. But in times of tight budgets like these days, that may be an expense you don’t want to afford. There may be a more affordable option as close as your local community college or even high school. Most public schools these days have computer technology classes. So call the school and talk to the instructors. I would guess there are a few students, even those that help maintain the school’s computers (my daughter did this when in university) that may also provide computer assistance on call in your home. So you can both support your local community schools and students, and get often very up-to-date computer expertise to assist you for a modest fee.

PS If you bought a computer from Dell, HP or any other brand, besides registering the computer with the maker, also be sure to register your copy of Windows with Microsoft on their web site!!!!!

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (5)

dSLR PHOTOGRAPHY - A NICHE MARKET? Posted Wed May 13, 2009, 8:34 PM ET

I have been preoccupied now and for some time by the challenge of defining an affordable platform for inputting digital photographs and then printing them with matched color and density to an LCD display image. There are quite a few LCD display choices at $1,500 and up which support both color and density print matching with a color managed workflow. But an affordable consumer LCD display ($300) has been the elusive goal of a lot of searching. And from what I have heard from industry insiders is that the major display manufacturers in the immediate future are cutting back on their support for high-end, niche pro-graphics market displays.

At $1,500 and up for a display, that is a niche market surely, only supported by higher end computer designers, artists and top-rung commercial photographers. But the fact I am aware of hundreds of consumer outlets that sell dSLR cameras, I got thinking the serious digital photography community must be larger by many fold. So I started looking for data as to what the sales figures in America are for dSLR cameras. That was a bit harder to find out than just a simple Google search because the companies that that gather and publish such data charge huge fees for an Acrobat .PDF file copy of their reports, and I am not one to shell out hundreds of dollars for a small segment of information. But after a lot more searching I did find some information, and finally got a reliable figure of dSLR annual sales, and it was substantial, 9 million units per year considering these cameras are priced usually beginning about $600.

So just how large might the population of the serious photography community be? I have not seen a credible estimate for 30 years, but at the height of 35mm SLR camera sales in 70’s it was assumed to be approaching 20 million. America has grown a lot in the generation since, and gotten richer, so maybe now close to 30 million to be conservative? That is not out of line considering a goodly percentage of homes today have at least one computer. And that leads me to wonder why there are no LCD displays configured to support digital photography, there are sure plenty of PC models targeted at high-end gaming and that can’t be any larger a population.

Would a $300 plus a bit, LCD display that has good quality support for digital photography be all that difficult to put together? I don’t think so as the screens are already available as well as any other technologies needed to make print matching for both color and density capable out of the box. What features would be needed for a digital photography model LCD display: 1. Either a lower backlight brightness level, or a backlight brightness level adjustment control, and the ability to set the white luminance to 90.0 CD/m2. 2. A wider color gamut of 92% of NTSC color gamut. 3. Both contrast (gain) and brightness adjustment. 4, Discrete settings to adjust the display to D65, 6500K color temperature. and a 2.2 or L* gamma. 5. DVI-DDC support that current color management display calibration and profiling software can engage to adjust the display. 6. A wide-screen diagonal size of 21 to 23 inches.

If such a “digital photography” LCD display model were made I do not think there would be much impediment to getting it to the potential buyers. There are already dozens and dozens of consumer outlets offering dSLR cameras as well as computers. I think if digital photographers knew there was an affordable LCD display made to support what they do with their computer to process and print photographs they would be in line waiting to buy one, even in today’s depressed market.

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (6)

THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGING Posted Sat May 2, 2009, 8:07 PM ET

The severity of and multiple factors that caused the recent economic crisis are a force of change. For a time fear has frozen activity economically among a lot of people at all levels, but that will thaw as people find they need to get along in their lives and the market for essentials remains substantial, even automobiles will pick up in sales as many will need to replace what they have out of necessity. And as most people get back to their lives, they will also return to the activities that are essential only to their enjoyment of life, including photography.

In the meantime the big dip in buying, especially non-essentials, has put great stress on all kinds of companies, and some will not survive if they relied too much on cutting the margins very close to attract buyers. But even the largest like Microsoft is being reactionary apparently running ads attacking Apple, which has felt it necessary to respond with their own ads. That irrationality pervades in times of stress is to be expected, but why is an 800 pound gorilla (Microsoft) afraid of a small monkey (sorry Mac users), in the jungle of modern commerce, it sure would not happen in nature. The monkey high up in the trees is no threat to the gorilla’s territory on the ground. And in reality the territory Apple has carved out in computing is quite distinct from the territory Microsoft dominates. To me it is just more evidence the real world is much more rational and sensible than the artificial turf of business, which seems to get even more insane than usual when times are difficult.

But out of this cauldron of nonsense some good things seem to be emerging. Hard times has forced inertia aside and survival means adapting to a changing world. Computer publications like CNET and Apple Insider have just reported that we can look forward to some lower priced Apple computer models in the near future. And in general it seems the demand for computers has not lessened so much as there is a consumer shift to less costly models. This of course has lowered gross sales figures which looks worse really than what buyer activity actually says about the future. People are still going to get new stuff, they are just not going to be quite so extravagant in their choices. Specifically as far as Apple is concerned the immediate focus seems to be on offering more affordable laptops and possibly an iMac at $899, which would reduce the high cost as a barrier for users who might switch to an Apple Mac.

I am sure many of you have noticed, if you allow e-mails from computer sellers, that sales inducements featuring much lowered prices are now more frequent. Personally I have my doubts that there is much value associated with these lo-balled products being pushed at us. But later in the summer as the appeal is directed at the back-to-school crowd, some entirely new products with better value for the computer user will be a part of the offerings.

In the meantime, there are other hints that inertia is not enough to keep old ways going. An announcement was made jointly by Photo District News and B&H Photo/Video that they are jointly sponsoring a virtual photo trade show in the later part of May (http://w.on24.com/r.htm?e=141788&s=1&k=FEC0D98EF9DD57D1EFCD16826A740772.). So will the change in economic conditions finally displace anachronisms like the photo trade show? For those who are thinking that such expensive ways of doing things traditionally can be shifted to the internet surely have to consider the fact how much of the American market has broadband or even internet capability, and how many who do not will they lose as customers. It would be interesting to know from the long established mail order businesses like Adorama, how much of their business is still old-fashioned mail order, how much is done by their 800 toll free phone access and how much is now done over their web site? America is well behind most of the first-world countries in broadband implementation, in large part because the US government has kept out of it and allowed the private communications companies a free market. But the result of that is that cable and telephone companies have only been interested in easy profits and are not concerned that people who could most benefit in low population density outlying areas of the country obtain efficient and affordable internet service. Maybe the Stimulus Bill recently passed by Congress will help to change that.

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (1)

CONNECTING THE LAST DOTS Posted Tue Apr 28, 2009, 6:07 PM ET

I had finished my second article on “prints too dark” with information identifying the cause and how it can be eliminated from the workflow. But it is in the works and I have no idea when it will be published. So, I continue to get e-mail from photographers whose digital prints are too dark.

Many of them report that their monitor is calibrated and profiled and they are following a color managed workflow. But my response has been that is not a solution because there is only color information in profiles and density information is actually in the image file being printed. so a color managed workflow is really incidental and not the cause of the prints too dark problem. Well, that is true as far as it goes.

Since finishing my report on how to avoid prints too dark I mentioned above, I have been testing a new LCD display, which incidentally is adjusted to a white luminance of 90.0 CD/m2. And as part of my testing I have gone to my CD collection of archived image files made in the last 2-3 years since I have been using LCD displays. Then my displays were set at a white luminance of 120.0 CD/m2 which then I had found I could not go below much without adversely affecting image reproduction quality on-screen, and it was also the default recommended by many color management companies like X-Rite. With a 30 point difference in display brightness, obviously the images on CD did not appear to have a desirable brightness on-screen, and needed to be adjusted if I expected them to print at an ideal density. But not only did I need to adjust the image brightness of theses saved image files, when I did lighten them to look right on my screen set at 90.0 CD/m2 I found I also had to adjust the level of saturation. That got me thinking that maybe brightness/density are in fact dots that need to be connected to make color management function fully.

If the goal of color management is to match color between display and print output, then if you took the measurement of a color that’s on the screen of a calibrated and profiled display, and then in the print out, measured the color with a spectrocolorimeter, what we used to call a reflective color densitometer, the RGB values measured should be the same. But if you are getting dark prints obviously there will be a big difference in the RGB numbers between the image on screen and print, so color management isn’t working. In other words the normal functioning of the popular monitor/display calibration and profiling software and sensor is not providing a profile that CAN match with print output if the monitor is a typically bright LCD display.

What is required is the integration of the display white luminance adjustment into monitor calibration and profiling so it matches the white of printing paper. In other words if you are working in Photoshop and you open a new white blank image, its brightness must be the same value as the white of the paper you will be printing on. When I have suggested this some have argued paper white can vary depending on how much light it is reflecting, how bright the illumination source is. But there is a standard if you want to measure paper white that is used for instance in the illumination that is provided in print viewing booths used in pre-press. For pre-press the default white luminance for a display to provide a match is 80.0 CD/m2. But for pre-press you are dealing with papers that are generally not as bright white as high quality photo printing paper for an inkjet, so I have extrapolated that difference applied to digital photography and have assumed a display white luminance of 90.0 CD/m2, and my test printing has confirmed it works.

The bottom line is color balance, saturation and brightness are dots that must be connected and matched for color management to function and provide the predictable results the system is intended to accomplish. But standard monitor calibration and profiling hardware and software is often incomplete and does not connect all the dots and match them, so many users have been led astray and as a result get too dark prints.

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (5)

CLIFF'S CAMERA CORNER Posted Sat Apr 25, 2009, 0:34 AM ET

I don’t think my town is all that much different from a lot of places in America today. Not that many years ago there were three locally owned and operated camera stores, and today there are none. The only local selection of camera’s and photo gear is Walmart has to sell. Yet in the current economic situation the pundits and politicians talk about small business as the source of jobs and economic recovery, while I see ever more empty commercial spaces where another locally owned and operated business has disappeared; and the businesses that remain are big-box stores and corporate fast food, drug and office and home supply outlets. Maybe they (McDonalds and Best Buy) are a part of the businesses the media and Congress’ count as being “small”.

I can’t count how many times Shutterbug readers have e-mailed me for purchasing advise because there is no place they can get to and see in reality what to choose from to buy, much less talk to a knowledgeable sales person about personal needs and the products that might fill those requirements. Of course should I complain as it does keep me busy. But I cannot forget that when I was a young photographer the local camera stores in the small city I was in were an invaluable knowledge resource and it would have been much more difficult to acquire a basic understanding of photography without the generosity of those behind the counter, as well as the books and magazines not to mention all of the stuff in the stores you could not afford but piqued your curiosity. Those days are gone but for a few professional photographer’s stores in select large cities.

Obviously the clock can’t be turned back and the past restored, but there are a lot of people out of work these days, and I am sure many with a knowledge and understanding of computers and what it takes to set-up and run a digital darkroom as well as those who know something of photography; one, two or more living in your town. The economic gurus talk of entrepreneurship and making opportunities for one-self, but is there a way in today’s world? I can imagine with so many businesses closing there must be a wealth of goods that could be bought and resold to the advantage of many digital photo enthusiasts, but there is no go-between, no one on a small local level trading in used and surplus photo gear and computers. For instance, when the violence subsided in Iraq the street markets bloomed with shops like sprouting mushrooms, not here, however.

The reason that with so many Americans out of work are not going into business for themselves with shops sprouting in open lots like mushrooms, like we see in news video from Iraq, and many 3rd world countries almost daily, is that there is a built-in structural impediment in America. After decades of corporate big-box marketing expansion, often with the tacit approval of local governments, and and active encouragement I’m sure, walls of impediments have been built to shut out the small, locally owned individual kinds of self-employment, very high individual business license fees at a local level along with myriad zoning and use restrictions, safety issues, etc., etc., etc, and then at county and state levels the governments demand an assurance of their collecting sales taxes, and other requirements of a regulatory nature are met. Even at the federal level, income tax rules and rates favor being the salaried slave of the corporations, paying the IRS is automatic and relatively simple for the employed, but if you work for yourself, besides the burden of self-employment tax you have to document every day’s activity from beginning to end to be sure all your costs of doing business are proved on paper or you even pay taxes just for trying to do business, much less than just on profits. Some might say that only the naive or the masochistic would choose to be self-employed, and people like me who found working for corporations is worse.

You might get the impression that I am prejudiced against the corporations, but how can I be when there are companies like Canon, Epson, Apple and Adobe without which we would have no digital photography! But these last few months have revealed that the influence of corporations on our quality of life has been for the corporations like shooting themselves in the foot, not just one, but both feet. Although they claim the rights of an individual person, a corporation seems to lack the human ability to learn from their mistakes and can’t see that if what they do isn’t good for people, it isn’t good for them either.

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (3)

3D GAMING LCD DISPLAYS ????? Posted Sat Apr 18, 2009, 10:42 PM ET

I recently submitted my report on how to avoid “prints too dark”, but I am still doing research trying to find affordable, even inexpensive, LCD displays that can used that can be adjusted for brightness to provide print density matching. There are $1,000 plus solutions that are easy to implement and effective, but as budgets are getting smaller, obtaining an effective reliable digital photography experience with a computer virtually disappears if the price is affordable. However looking at one low coat LCD display after another I noticed a new breed of displays that are specifically enabled to support 3D gaming. And today I received my copy of Computer Graphics World and the lead article is about 3D graphics including gaming, with the inside cover ad touting these new 3D LCD displays.

Serious digital photography to the computer industry is a small niche market that only obtains support in LCD displays with high-cost specialty brands and models like Eizo ColorEdge, LaCie and the very limited XL line of Samsung Syncmaster brand displays. I’d mention too NEC’s SpectraView displays (in the same high price category), but word is that many of their displays will not support a low enough brightness to match printing paper brightness. But I have had some luck with much more modest cost displays adjusting, calibrating and profiling them to provide both color and density print matching. However, there are hundreds of different consumer LCD display models and sadly the information (specifications) give no indication if they will or will not work and can be adjusted, calibrated and profiled successfully, and although I would like to find out and develop a list of affordable displays I can recommend for digital photographers, without actually testing some, it is not a possibility.

But in general, should putting together a computer system and setting up the component hardware and software to obtain color and density matching between display and output without “prints too dark”, be that difficult and expensive? It should not be so, as it is really not rocket science, although color management profile making software does involve high level color science, implementing a color managed work flow is relatively simple and involves well established known hardware and software elements. There are a dozen or so companies that can produce all kinds of ways to make it easy to do image manipulation that took time and skill manually with Photoshop, and they are selling plugins to all kinds of digital photographers either too lazy or intimidated to learn how to use Photoshop. There should be some of that resource of programming talent that could devise a Wizard that would walk a user through adjusting their display, and setting up their system to enable color management and a workflow that would output photographic images that aren’t either too dark or off color. So, why not?

It used to be a principle of business success to discover a need and fill it as a way to make money. But today it seems that everyone is trying to make some gee whiz gizmo, usually not needed, that will become the latest fad to turn a buck in the marketplace. I have been immersed in trying to find solutions to “prints too dark” for months now, and it still seems to be a taboo subject within the digital photography industry. I would think someone would recognize that making the challenge of putting together a moderate cost computer system configured and capable of inputting and outputting digital photographs of good quality, reliably, out of the box is a golden opportunity. Maybe some company has something in the works that’s still secret, but I am fearful maybe there is nothing because everyone just hopes the problem will go away because they don’t really understand what’s involved.

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (3)

WORDS & PICTURES Posted Mon Apr 13, 2009, 1:57 AM ET

I came across a YouTube video of Stephen Shore the photographer commenting about photography and his approach to it. In one scene about his experience teaching, Shore comments that photography is a solitary occupation that involves visual thinking, but teaching is a verbal activity that requires words that express those visual ideas. I had a parallel experience for a different reason than Shore’s, interviewing photographers first as a staff editor at Petersen’s PhotoGraphic magazine and then later on for a time as editor of PhotoPro magazine. I found many photographers are like Shore described, used to the solitary, purely visual experience of making photographs, and often not prepared or comfortable verbalizing what they did with a camera or why.

That the verbal and visual worlds are somewhat separate and seldom brought together is evident in how little serious writing has been published about photography by philosophers and scholars who live mostly in a n environment of words, although when photography was new at the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries many essays about photography were written and published by enthusiasts, advocates and detractors alike. Among philosophers Roland Barthes book Camera Lucida and Bill Jay’s Negative/Positive are exceptions as well as articles and essays published by The Friends Of Photography featuring Jay and Beaumont Newhall amongst others can be found. In modern culture photography does not stand alone, it is very much a part of what we now call media, and in this context the most insightful commentary about the photograph is in Marshall McLuhan’s book Understanding Media published in 1964 found on page 188. I think most photographers won’t get beyond the title of chapter: 20 The Photograph: The Brothel-without-Walls. But I assure it is an allusion without pejorative connotations. Photographers are part anthropologist, somewhat participant observers of life and the world, voyeurs of a curious kind of usually innocent purpose.

If I may quote parts of one paragraph from Marshall McLuhan, “A century ago the British craze for the monocle gave to the wearer the power of the camera to fix people in a superior stare, as if they were objects. .... Both monocle and camera tend to turn people into things, and the photograph extends and multiplies the human image to the proportions of mass-produced merchandise. The movie stars and matinee idols are put in the public domain by photography. They become dreams that money can buy. They can be bought and hugged and thumbed more easily than public prostitutes. Mass produced merchandise has always made some people uneasy in its prostitute aspect. Jean Genet’s The Balcony is a play on this theme of society as a brothel environed by violence and horror. The avid desire of mankind to prostitute itself stands up against the chaos of revolution. The brothel remains firm and permanent amidst the most furious changes. In a word, photography has inspired Genet with the theme of the world since photography as a Brothel-without-Walls.”

Marshall McLuhan writing in the early 60’s, long before the word paparazzi was a part of our cultural lexicon, and before Britney Spears’ parents were probably born, described exactly how the era of celebrity would develop. It is good to know and understand how the media’s use of photography has evolved. But to what extent does the media even as pervasive as it is today affect photography as a folk art, the way it is practiced by amateur enthusiasts? I think some of it rubs off and colors the experience especially how the camera’s use affects others, and objectifies the person by putting them on the pages of a family album to be scrutinized out of the context of time. How many people are embarrassed by their drivers license photo? Does the merchandizing of Paris Hilton and every celebrity make most of us uneasy and give rise to second thoughts about photography when we see riotous crowds of paparazzi on TV news?

A generation ago Duane Michaels scribbled notes on Polaroid snapshots and it was elevated to fine art, and today we have FaceBook. But little real understanding or insight seems to be recognized about the relationship between words and photographs, it’s like a dysfunctional marriage, occasional shouting and little mutual understanding. That words and pictures do go together is a fact, but it is not something even a writer/photographers like myself fully appreciate. And after writing captions for photos to be published for almost 40 years, my mind still balks at the task, and goes numb until I prod myself that it has to get done no matter how uncomfortable it is.

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (3)

SO I AM BIASED Posted Mon Mar 30, 2009, 5:44 PM ET

Yes, I am biased in my perspective on what works best for digital photographers. But what is bias other in my case of having acquired a lot of experience with computers and digital photography doing it every day now for almost a quarter of a century. Some of that experience has been good, some not so and on that basis I have formed some opinions of what might be a better choice among all those that are out there. And, I believe it is because of this very bias due to experience readers look to me for advice, besides the fact what I do and have done for all these years is try out all kinds of new hardware and software to find out how it works and if it is worth having.

But my bias seems to come up as a negative almost entirely in regards to the old saw of Mac vs PC, the never ending dispute and rivalry between Apple and Microsoft. The latest episode of this TV series is the subject of ZDnet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes blog today URL http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4046&tag=nl.e550 regarding a new Microsoft ad attacking Apple. the ad is titled, “I’m just not cool enough to be a Mac person”; but its really about someone who wants a laptop on the cheap. But you make up your mind about that, and its not why I am writing this blog entry.

That reason is that someone from the PC industry thought it is time I was berated for being biased because I favor Apple Macs for digital photography, and sent me a long e-mail trying to make me feel guilty because in his opinion I was misleading my readers. Well if truth be told I was a PC/Microsoft person for many years, beginning with my first personal computer purchased by the publishing company I worked for then and plopped on my desk with the implication I was expected to use it. It is only after much disappointment and frustration at the hands of Microsoft that I switched my allegiance to Apple, and was not entirely weened from PC’s until a couple of years ago.

As I said I use this stuff to do digital photography, testing a variety of devices like scanners, printers, displays and associated software on a full-time daily basis, year in, year out. From this experience I have learned a bit about what works and what does not. My long experience using PC’s and Windows was not all bad, but it was painful at times, frustrating at others, and rarely peaceful without the interruption of some disaster or another from sickness due to a virus or indigestion from a multitude of incompatibilities. About 10 years ago I was fed up, not just with PC’s and Windows , but with the fact Microsoft was not particularly concerned or interested in supporting digital photography. So I bought my first Apple Mac. It worked quite well and I was pleasantly impressed. I still had a couple of PC’s one workstation for graphics and another I used in my office. But as time continued and new models of both hardware and software came out I purchased more Apple Mac computers and eventually, about two years ago I retired my last PC because by then I could run a copy of Windows on an Intel Mac as a boot-up alternative.

The bottom line is that over all the years I have been doing computing and digital photography, much of it was done with Windows PC’s but of late that has transitioned to all of my work now being done on an Apple Mac, even Windows software evaluation. The Apple Mac experience has been without any incidents, never a hardware breakdown nor an operating system failure. It has been a most pleasant and rewarding experience that has allowed me to concentrate entirely on my main occupation of working with digital photography. So how can I with such a cumulative experience not be biased in favor of Apple Mac computers? Why would I recommend anything else when my experience over many years has convinced me otherwise? Is there any reason why I should not think if Apple Macs have been so good for me and my digital photography that they shouldn’t also work as well for others?

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

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (,129)

BY THE NUMBERS Posted Fri Mar 27, 2009, 3:08 AM ET

Before digital I spent a lot of time in my darkroom often experimenting, trying different kinds of chemistry, modified techniques, something old, something new, and often learning just how limited the silver halide photographic process is. Since Photoshop and image editing I found digital photography to be pliable to an almost boundless extent. Of course the abandon you have to change the values of pixels has a different kind of limit by producing images that have no redeeming qualities what so ever. From that experience of course one should learn just because you can do something does not mean you should.

However playing with pixels can be rewarding not just in the creative exercises it affords, but also in the values of discipline and control, as well as an appreciation of the nature of the digital beast. Yet how many really understand what a digital camera really does, its just another kind of camera, right?

A generation ago when I was still doing film test reports I would photograph Kodak color targets and a Color Checker, and after the film was processed measure the results with a densitometer. That’s not done any more with digital for several reasons including the obvious. Another is culture, people today are media savvy, exposed to large volumes of images reproduced in all kinds of media and human perception is schooled in accommodating the differences between reality and its fidelity reproduced on print or screen. The other reason films tests serve no purpose, aside for the fact new films are rare these days, a digital camera is not at all like a film camera, it is really an information sensing instrument that measures what it is focused upon and records the data describing that reality in discrete numbers, red, green and blue values, for each pixel that represents the scene and provides the building blocks for its reproduction. Then when the image file saved by a dSLR is opened in Photoshop, those number values corresponding to a color value in the subject photographed are displayed in an Info window. So if you know the RGB number values of the subject, if it were a ColorChecker for instance, you have a precise basis of evaluation of the fidelity of the image to the subject. In other words your digital camera does automatically without being asked, everything I accomplished with much effort using a densitometer and tedious effort testing film in the old days.

All of the MTF curve graphs published in Kodak Film Guides are now obsolete, as well as archaic, if anyone ever did pay attention to them or understand the meaning and significance of a Modulation Transfer Function. What image quality is today consists of a learned perceptual discrimination that is a part of the culture, it doesn’t have to be measured, most people today know what to expect from the media reproduction of every aspect of reality, in fact reality today may be more a stranger than its replication in the media. A colleague and acquaintance from my old days when I enjoyed a lot of time in my darkroom had an unusual distinction, he had a signed print made by Ansel Adams framed behind glass hanging in his darkroom. It was hung in such an unusual place for a practical reason, to provide guidance of what good print quality should look like. Years ago few ever saw what good image reproduction should look like, but today it is everywhere all the time so it would be unusual if a buyer of a digital camera does not have a realistic expectation of what the camera’s output should look like. 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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (3)

CHANGE: GOOD OR BAD? Posted Wed Mar 18, 2009, 7:38 PM ET

An article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about some who cling to film reveals as much about life as it does about photography. One quote in particular caught my attention and got me thinking. “With digital, you’re only as good as your Photoshop technician,” Mark said. “He’ll take heads off bodies and switch them around. It’s a totally different medium.”, followed by another concluding statement regarding those who still cling to film, “-we’re a dying breed.”

But isn’t survival and success in human life the result of adapting to change? One wonders when the country voted for change, and now the loudest voices are saying they don’t like the change that is occurring. So apparently there are conservative photographers as well as politicians and those that vote conservative, who don’t like change. But isn’t change a function of time, of the fact we live in a different world each day which includes new people just born and old people who just passed on?

Aside from the philosophical implications the remark about Photoshop is significant in that it assumes that someone else other than the photographer taking the pictures does that, and second that it is only about special effects alterations. Both are and should be considered inaccurate. If digital is to be criticized from a truly traditional film perspective, for most serious photographers in the old days you weren’t just a “shooter”, you also developed your own film and made your own prints. It was only in the recent past of a dominance of color photography that serious photographers utilized a lab to develop and print their photographs. Now with digital, it is much easier to “develop” and print your own photographs as well as make the exposures, and not just be a “shooter”. So, in a sense the modern digital photography age at least can be more like the traditional photography practiced from its beginning through most of the 20th century.

I am convinced that the greatest photographers like Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and W. Eugene Smith achieved their success in large part because they controlled their own use of the photographic process from beginning to end. And that provided an advantage that was lost by the color “shooters” that followed them. All of those great creative photographers were advantaged by their darkroom experience processing their film and printing the photographs themselves because it provided a continuous loop feed back system of invaluable information and a greater level of understanding of the photographic process. First of all this provided more precise control, as what was learned in the darkroom was applied to what they did exposing the film with a camera; and this control allowed each to personalize the process to suite more exactly what their individual, unique visual perception should reproduce in a photograph.

With digital photography if the photographer fully utilizes a computer and an image editing application like Photoshop this same level of feedback and enhanced understanding of the complete photographic process can be achieved. An application like Photoshop can be used to alter the nature of an image’s relationship to the reality it represents, something only achieved in the past with great difficulty, but more importantly it re-establishes the photographer with access to the complete image creating process from beginning to end. And what can be learned by color correcting, adjusting and editing digital color photographs can provide a level of understanding of the process superior to anything possible in the past in terms of applying individual creative control over the process. Digital is far more exactly repeatable and therefor predictable lending the digital darkroom user even better understanding of how light is recorded and color is seen, than analog film photography afforded in the past. The reason for that is digital reduces the physical variables in a process dependent on films that were never exactly produced, and processes that were impossible to regulate precisely.

All that results as film disappears is a loss of familiarity with a comfortable old world that is only better by the nostalgia that is attached to it. For some having to learn something new and different is sometimes particularly challenging and painful, but to entirely lose a cherished interest and activity by refusing to adapt just prevents ever learning that others have chosen digital not just because it is new, but because it is better with even more advantages to the enthusiast than film photography provided. But should that mean everyone must switch to digital? No more than the popularity of TV required abandoning radio or movies. Film will persist and find a different niche as long as some cling to film and its use, and that is neither good or bad, it’s just how we humans are and what we do. Some live in the past, others in the future, while most of us in the present try to accommodate both past and future.

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (3)

EVERYONE LOSES Posted Sun Mar 15, 2009, 0:14 AM ET

Although “free market” self-governance may seem to smack of a political issue, its application affecting technology business has had an affect that has been to no one’s advantage. What I am alluding to is a well known example, the old fight for dominance between Sony Beta and VHS and the recent similar competition with Blu-Ray’s win for HD-DVD media dominance. In the Beta/VHS outcome the lower cost but inferior recording technology won and users, as well as VCR business suffered as a result. it is too early to tell if Blu-Ray dominance will be a loss for all sides, consumers and producers alike, but history forgotten has a habit of repeating itself.

A similar but largely unpublicized situation has affected LCD displays for computers. When industry, both computer makers and LCD display manufacturers agreed to a standard DVI interface connection between display and computer, a part of that basic design is one pair of connectors intended to provide Direct Digital Control of the display settings by a computer. This was included physically but never agreed to as a standard by all of the parties involved. The result has been one company has used this DDC capability in a proprietary manner that excludes the use of any software but the manufacturer’s from engaging this DDC connection to adjust and control the display by a computer. And, another has bypassed the DDC physical connection to provide the same kind of direct computer control of the display. Most other display manufacturers either provide little or no DDC support or it is limited to the transmission of Plug-N-Play information from display to computer.

I have frequently urged digital photography users to obtain a colorimeter and software to calibrate and profile their display. The reason I have given is, your computer has no idea what you are seeing on-screen even though the computer generates the signal that results in what is on screen. The basic idea for Direct Digital Control (DDC) of the adjustment factors of a display via the DVI connector by the computer, was initially attractive as a convenience. But it could also do much more, if supported by the operating system so the adjustment and its result were information recorded by the operating system and accessible to applications and utilities like printer drivers. But without any agreed to standards for DDC, and there were none, everyone can do their own thing or nothing, so Apple and Microsoft cannot facilitate and make use of what DDC could provide in establishing a more effective and efficient relationship between a computer and its display.

Color Management and the facilities provided and required to calibrate and profile displays to become a part of workflow management system to provide screen to print matching only involves color information. The adjustment and functioning level of brightness and contrast at which a display is functioning is not included in data recorded in an ICC/ICM display profile. The result has been that many users working with LCD displays that are bright are obtaining “prints too dark”. If DDC were standardized and adjust/calibration included brightness and contrast factors, and that information were recorded to append a display profile, then a display profile could be referenced by an application or printer driver so print density could be adjusted relative to a known source screen image brightness and contrast.

Because digital photography computer/display users are disadvantaged by only having partial control over screen to print matching, there is considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment in printing photographs directly with a computer. And because DDC direct digital control of display adjustment by the computer is not standardized and enabled by operating systems, relatively expensive proprietary workarounds are limited options for just a few. If the industry could and did agree to provide a standard connector between display and computer (DVI) the industry should be required to accommodate a consensus for a standard to facilitate DDC functioning everyone can access and utilize so the cost and inconvenience of proprietary work-arounds are not required or needed.

So it all comes down to the question of, if a standard would benefit all consumers as well as computer makers and operating system software publishers, should the disagreement of one or a few to such a standard be allowed? Does anyone in football, cricket or any international sport get to choose to not abide by standard rules and still be allowed to play? So shouldn’t the same principle be applied to business, especially a technology product like computers and their displays.

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

Blog Entry  ::  Comments (2)

ECONOMIC CONFIDENCE FROM CANON Posted Wed Mar 11, 2009, 1:10 AM ET

From what the blogosphere reflected from Las Vegas Photo Marketing Association show was as discouraging as what most of the news media has been about of late. Fewer people on the floor of the show and a dearth of new higher-end dSLR camera models. Many of the point-and-shoot cameras offered had already been introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show. In other words there did not seem to be much confidence expressed by either the vendors or the press on hand. But really with retail camera stores becoming fewer year after year undercut by Walmart and other box stores, and even chain giants like Circuit City closing its doors, what purpose do “closed to the public” sales shows like PMA serve any more? Other than to keep a tradition going and have an excuse to schmooze with old friends, I don’t get it.

I hope this is more realism than sour grapes from an old warrior who had his fill of trudging the aisles years ago. And when I received the March 2, news release from Canon that they are offering new Mark II versions of the Pixma top-of-the-lne 13 inch printers I wondered if the doom and gloom was just another kind of virus spread around the show floor. Canon apparently has confidence that in times of hardship photographers will spend more time in their digital darkroom and be helped along by either a new Canon Pixma Pro 9500 pigment ink or Pixma Pro 9000 dye ink printer. These new models are evolutionary improved versions of very successful printers that are now faster and better than their predecessors of course.

But what I found particularly interesting was that these new printers are accompanied by new Easy Photo Print Pro software, that has a feature that has until now only been generally available as an attribute in custom made printer profiles. An adjustment can now be made to a print in Canon’s Easy Print Pro affecting the print color balance to accommodate differences in ambient light conditions where the print will be exhibited. This Ambient Light Correction is now included with the printer and bundled with Adobe Photoshop Elements, or as a plug-in for Adobe applications like all Photoshop CS versions 2 through 4 etc., as well as Canon’s Digital Photo Pro application. This Ambient Light Correction has a color temperature range to output prints for room lighting from 6500K cool daylight to warm incandescent/CCFL at 3000K. In addition the Easy designation is earned in part by supporting printing from JPEG or TIFF files as well as Raw digital camera files directly without prior conversion.

And that’s not all, Canon added a new Oomph! model LiDE scanner too. If you’re not familiar this scanner it’s the handiest for any desktop or even laptop computer. The Canon LiDe scanners are powered only by the USB connector, are very thin (I have an older model that I keep stored in a desk drawer) and is ideal for making a quick scan of a document for a copy, or to produce a JPEG file to attach to an e-mail from a snapshot print. It’s handy convenience, but this newest Canon LiDE700F Color Image Scanner will also scan 35mm film at a resolution up to 9600dpi. Can you beat that for just $129 estimated street price.

Canon apparently has confidence things are not so bad. And maybe photo enthusiast may have a little more time to enjoy their favorite activity - making photographs. Isn’t that what it’s all about?

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (1)

MINI MAGIC FOR A DIGITAL DARKROOM Posted Thu Mar 5, 2009, 3:14 PM ET

I am an admitted oddball, as well as a gadfly, so it is not unusual that the Apple product announcements today had me rather enthused by a new version of the Mac Mini computer. I have been favorable to Mac Mini’s since first introduced, and the last version I believe is the best choice for a digital photography enthusiast on a budget. And, with the new upgrade, chiefly much more powerful Nvidia graphics, which in previous models was maybe the weakest aspect of performance in terms of digital photography processing. But why this odd, ultra small Apple Mac? First at $599 as the entry level price it’s affordable even if that does not include a keyboard or mouse, and you have to also add a display. And that you have to choose a display is a great advantage, because for digital photography it is probably more important factor than the computer that’s running the display. Also new from Apple is a new compact wired USB keyboard similar to the recent and current but smaller Apple keyboard that are the best I have used. As for a mouse, you won’t believe this, but the USB Microsoft mouse that is optical and supports both PC’s and Mac’s, is the best both for ergonomics and right click support that is very efficient working with photo image applications. The one thing Microsoft makes that is the best!

The specs are respectable, but this is not a MacPro and a small fraction of the cost. It has besides the new Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics, a 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and either 2GB or I GB RAM base model and a 120GB HD or in the $799 model 320GB Serial ATA HD, and both models have 8X slot loading CD/DVD Super Drive with DVD burning. All Mac Mini have support for Apple Airport wireless networking and Blue Tooth, as well as 5 USB an 8oo FireWire and Ethernet support.

So far I have purchased three Mac Mini’s (the first now retired and on its way to a friends house), and I also have a MacPro, and find although the MacPro is very quick and powerful, the Mac Mini is never any kind of drag in comparison, The Mini handles all kinds of digital photography processing including handling Raw dSLR image files and really large scan file input and editing as well as driving medium and large printers.

Although the Mac Mini and MacPro are the only Apple Macs that do not come with built-in displays and offer digital photographers a choice of a good graphics display, that advantage is somewhat diminished by a rather small number of good choices. The great bulk of LCD displays available are made for the masses of the home/office market and most don’t provide good support for digital photography as well as being the cause of the “prints too dark” problem. And there has been little new in LCD displays for pro-graphics, Just new Eizo models that are a bit pricey if the consideration of a Mac Mini is budgetary, and a new and affordable NEC Multisync P122W. The rest that I can recommend is a short list I have been touting for some time now, including the NEC Multisync #90 series displays, the Samsung Syncmaster 245T, and my best buy recommendation, the LGE L2000Cp display.

If you need digital darkroom how-to support, visit my website at: https://sites.google.com/site/davidbrooksfotografx/

External Link  ::  Blog Entry  ::  Comments (4)

1 2 3 4 Older Posts >