Nikon has an ongoing sale for several of its lenses (see list here). Note: the sale expires March 2. Not surprisingly, many of the lenses sold out, to the point where other merchants were selling them for higher than the discounted prices. Now Amazon has restocked the lenses, although they will ship sometime March 7. Note that many of them are offered with free 2-day shipping with Amazon Prime plus have a 2% credit for future purchases.
Thursday, 28 February 2013
Last year, I had a chance to visit the cathedral of Los Angeles, the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels, which has amazing post-modern architecture. Here are some photos I took (click on any photo for a higher-res version).
 |
| The windows are made of alabaster |
 |
| Those are not paintings... they're tapestries! (i.e. they're woven, not painted) |
 |
| The cathedral's park / playground |
EQUIPMENT USED
Nikon D3 (reviewed here)
Tokina 10-17 Fisheye (reviewed here) Note: the Tokina 10-17 is designed for APS-C cameras but can be used on full frame at 14.5mm or longer.
Fuji S5 Pro (reviewed here)
Tokina 11-16 2.8 (reviewed here)
Tuesday, 26 February 2013
Ever since I started photography, I have tried several photography related equipment. Some of them turned out to be good, and some were bad. And even though some were good, I didn't actually use them for one reason or another. That's what this series of posts is about.
Please note that this list has many disclaimers. For example, certain equipment may have been useful to me at one point but because my shooting style changed, it became less useful. Just because I didn't keep it doesn't mean it would be bad for you. In addition, there are some equipment that I don't use much but which I still kept because they don't cost much and occasionally they are the best tool for the job. That's why I've taken pains to give my reasoning. Hopefully, it will help you decide not just whether the equipment is good but whether the equipment is actually useful for you.
In this part I'll discuss cameras, lenses, and accessories. Next time I'll discuss lighting equipment.
CAMERAS
For photographers who shoot candids and who have more than one lens, I strongly recommend getting a second body. It is one of the best photo-related purchases I made because I got to use my other lenses so much more. You don't have to get a very expensive body either.
- Nikon D70 - Great camera because of the unlimited sync speed. It's also the cheapest Nikon that has a built-in commander (but it can only command one group, and only in Channel 3). In retrospect, I would have preferred to get a D70s because the latter can use a radio remote shutter, and has almost the same cost. The D70 can only use infrared which is not reliable. The D70's high ISO performance is not good by today's standards and you're capped at 1600 ISO but it's ok if you have enough light (natural or flash). The 6mp resolution is low but is more than adequate if you and your audience don't print large. The controls for reviewing shots on the LCD are a little unusual compared to newer Nikons but I got used to them.
- Nikon D80 - This is the cheapest Nikon DSLR that has a full popup commander capability (up to 2 groups + popup, 4 channels). In all other respects it is not bad, and it is a clear step up from the D70, except for the sync speed. The controls are better than those of a D70 and are more similar to newer DSLRs.
- Nikon D90 - Yes it has decent low light capability. I also like the feature where you can assign the Fn button to the top item on My Menu, just like the newer Nikons (I assign it to the popup commander menu). But actually the D300 is not far behind, and these days, the D90 and D300 can be found for almost the same cost. I would not trade in the advantages of the D300 (especially AF fine-tuning and the better AF system) for the slightly better high ISO, video capability, and Fn button functionality of the D90.
- Nikon D300 - These days it can be found for very low prices and I think offers one of the best value for your money in its price range. The high ISO performance isn't spectacular, but it's not bad. For web viewing, I consider 3200 ISO usable. When I had the D300 I was tempted to get a D90 because of the better high ISO performance, but a couple of years later, when I did buy a D90, I found it wasn't a big difference and in retrospect, I would have bought another D300 instead of a D90.
- Nikon D300S - I don't know why there is such a big difference between the used prices of a D300 and D300S. If you can find a D300S for a good price, then yes the dual memory cards, better live view controls, and perhaps the video are useful. Otherwise I would just save your money and go for the D300.
- Nikon D3 - reviewed here. If you're looking for full frame, a D3 is a fine option. My regret is that I found it too big and heavy to bring with me on some occasions (like casual shooting). In retrospect I think it would have been better to get a D700 as long as I can get it for a much lower price. Not only would I have saved money, but the D700 is more compact, and has a popup flash with commander.
- Nikon D600 - Reviewed here. Still very happy with it. Among my photo-related purchases, it is one of those that I am most satisfied with. Considering that it costs around $2k, that's saying a lot. I think the refurb ones that are now available at $1600 offer a very good value, and if I wanted a full frame camera, that's probably what I would get unless I could get the D700 for 35% less or something.
- Fuji S5 Pro - Reviewed here. The femme fatale. I'm still happy with it notwithstanding the many issues. Problems: slow (reviewing shots takes a few seconds, slow buffer, slow continuous shooting speed, cumbersome playback controls, poor high ISO performance by today's standards. Nonetheless, the highlight detail is just amazing, and the very long shoulder gives its images a unique tonality, even compared to the newest DSLRs with wide dynamic range. To me it is like shooting with negative film but with the convenience of digital. How can you not love that?
- Nikon N90 - I shot with it a few times but because of the cost of 35mm film, I was hesitant to shoot with it. When I got an S5 and a full frame camera I had even less reason to shoot with it. Today it just gathers dust. If I were to shoot with film my choice would be medium format which is still supposed to have a better image quality than a DSLR. With 35mm I get better highlight detail but the shadow detail and noise is not as good as a DSLR, so the inconvenience and cost of film might not be worth it. If I really wanted a 35mm film Nikon, then yes I think the N90 is ok although I would try harder to find an N90S (which has better autofocus) or better yet, a bargain F100.
- Nikon P300. Reviewed here. Lack of a hotshoe was limiting. Image quality is just ok. Upgraded to LX5.
- Lumix LX5. Reviewed here. I use this frequently for product photos and as a camera that I bring with me anywhere, especially when a DSLR would be too large. It's not perfect because the low light capability is not astounding but I like it for what it is. I find the hotshoe very useful. I also like the ability to change aspect ratios. When used copies of micro-4/3 cameras such as the Pen dropped down in price dramatically, I was very tempted to sell the LX5 and get m4/3 instead. However, an m4/3 camera is not really pocketable (because of the lens) therefore I stayed with the LX5. My only regret is that one time I saw the LX7 for $299 and thought that was the normal price and didn't feel rushed to buy it. It has since gone back up to $399 or more. I should have snapped up the LX7 to replace the LX5.
- Fuji Real 3D W3 - This is the camera I've been bringing with me everyday since I got it a few weeks ago. Review coming soon.
- Tokina 10-17 Fisheye. Reviewed here. Shot with it a lot a few months ago. In recent months I hadn't shot with it much, partly because I have several other lenses to test. To be honest though I still like it and am looking for more opportunities to shoot with it. Complaints: autofocus can be unreliable. I was lucky to get a good price for it. If it was offered instead at full price, I would probably save the money and buy a Samyang fisheye (or one of the other rebranded versions). One advantage that the 10-17 has over the Samyang is that the 10-17 can be used for a full frame camera to cover an even wider area (although corners will be soft).
- Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6. Reviewed here. I found it very useful, although for people and other moving subjects, it works best with a DSLR that has good low-light capabilities. I later upgraded to a Tokina 11-16. If I were looking for a low-cost wide angle, I probably would buy the Tokina 12-24 instead.
- Tokina 11-16. Reviewed here. Happy with it and still shoot with it often. However, if I had a camera body with good high ISO capability, I would probably save the money and get a Tokina 12-24 instead, not just for the savings but also for the wider range of focal lengths.
- Tamron 17-50 VC. Reviewed here. I sold this only because I wanted to cover the standard focal length range with a full frame camera for shallower depth of field. Otherwise I would have kept it. Even now I sort of regret not keeping it because its image stabilization is the only affordable way for me to get stabilized video for the normal zoom range (the Tamron 24-70 VC is too expensive for me).
- Nikkor 24-70 2.8. Reviewed here. If I had only one lens this would be the one I would choose. However, nowadays I find it a little boring and predictable, therefore I would hesitate to buy it at its current prices.
- Nikkor 28 1.8G. Dunno yet.
- Nikkor 28-70 2.8. Reviewed here. Was happy with it. If you can get a good deal then in terms of performance it was almost as good as the 24-70. The biggest difference for me was that the 24-70 has a significantly shorter minimum focusing distance. Otherwise I think the 28-70 is pretty good.
- Tamron 28-75. Used it only on DX (with the D80). On DX, the focal length was perfect for portraits. I was pleased with the performance. The only issue was that it wasn't wide enough. But if you're not interested in wide angle, it's great. I'm now interested in it again as a fast standard zoom for full frame.
- Tamron 28-105 2.8. Reviewed here. Biggest issue for me was the halation, which became distracting, and the softness wide open at wider focal lengths. Otherwise it was ok. Not bad if you can get a good price for it.
- Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5. Reviewed here. I use this often for its 1:2 macro capability and sometimes as a walkaround lens. For the price I think it is a good deal.
- Sigma 50 1.4. Reviewed here. Smoothest bokeh I've seen among the lenses I have. Useful focal length on full frame. Hard to focus at f/1.4. Usually I have to use f/2.0. Somewhat regret selling it because it could be useful not just for full frame but as a short telephoto for APS-C (it can be paired with a wide angle on my full frame camera).
- Nikkor 50-135 3.5 AIS. Nice range for portraits. Nice bokeh, good contrast, and looks sharp wide open. Haven't used it for real shots yet but it didn't cost me much so I'm not in a rush to sell it. Now that I have more experience shooting with manual lenses, I plan to use it for real photos. Issues: lens creep.
- Sigma 50-150 HSM II. Reviewed here. Very compact for a fast telephoto zoom. Like the Nikon 85 1.8G, I like that it is usable wide open. Its biggest issue is lack of VR.
- Nikkor 70-200 VR I. Was way too big and heavy to bring around except on "real" assignments. I was also not impressed by the VR. Due to the bulk, I got to use it only a handful of times. In retrospect I should not have bought it. I sold it and kept the Sigma 50-150 instead.
- Tamron 70-300 VC. Previewed here. Impressive acutance and image stabilization. Much better than I expected. Haven't shot with it much lately though.
- Nikkor 85 1.8G. Reviewed here. Very happy with it. Nice contrast. Bokeh is usually not bad. Best feature is that it's actually usable at f/1.8. A few months ago I didn't use it much because I preferred to use a standard zoom. Now I have sold the standard zoom and this is one of the lenses I usually bring with me.
- Loreo 3D Lens. Reviewed here. Delivers 3D photos. But is hurt by a lot of flare, plus softness at f/11. If I had known that I would really enjoy 3D photography, I probably would have just bought the W3 and skipped the Loreo.
- Hoodman LCD flip up cover: I find it very bothersome. I would only recommend it if you want to pretend you have a film camera or you're trying to break a chimping habit.
Monday, 25 February 2013
Today I will talk for a bit about my recent experiences with my OMD, and I would like to start with the image you see above, this was taken during an auto-cross event that I attended last Saturday, it is a wheel of a Mitsubishi Evo wearing a slick tire as you can see, the car was stationary for a moment before starting the race.
I captured the image you see above @ 300mm equivalent with my Olympus 40-150mm f/4-5.6 lens wide-open, I like the lighting, the grooves on the brake disc and the worn out slick tire. That lens is quite sharp and incredible considering the $100 price when purchased as a kit.
I am hardly using zoom lenses anymore, I find pleasure when using a fast prime, it gives me fast shutter speeds, shallow DOF and one less thing to think about when shooting (focal length, obviously). However, I wanted to get to know my zoom lenses more, currently the Olympus 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 lens and the 40-150 tele-zoom I mentioned above, the first lens I hardly used other than for macro shots and video, and I still have to get used to it, maybe when I go to desert next time.
The 40-150 I have tried a couple of times, and I am impressed with the sharpness and contrast so far, it's no secret that I love portraits with long focal lengths, I love that background compression effect and the shallow DOF that results from the extra background magnification, so I was apprehensive I wouldn't get that with the small m4/3 sensor, but looking at the portrait shown above, I say nice, not as nice as my 200 f/2.8 on the 5D of course, but quite good, and that was 105mm (205mm eq.) @ f/5.6.
I gave it another try as you can see above, this one was taken at 62mm (124mm eq.), great colors, contrast and sharpness, so good so far except for the lousy zoom ring, which is too stiff right now, but I bet will get smoother with more mileage.
One thing to mention when shooting portraits, I almost forgot how to focus on the eye, the OMD's auto near-eye detection and focusing is simply the best invention in all of the recent cameras in my opinion, I leave it on all of the time, and I just compose and shoot, never worrying about the whereabouts of my focusing point, it immediately snaps to the nearest eye and gets it in focus no matter how shallow the DOF is, I'd say the hit rate is 85% with another 5% lost for focusing on the wrong eye.
I was using my friend's 60D with the 200mm f/2.8 the other day, and I immediately remembered how hard it was to get sharp eyes with such a combo, 320mm equivalent, no image stabilization; so the finder is wobbly, and I have to put one of the nine tiny dots on my subjects eye while I hit the shutter button, if Sony's A99 has that feature, I would consider it next time I am going back to FF, it makes life much easier.
And here's one last shot from that auto-cross event, a dandy-green handsome looking VW Beetle, I have special love for this car having owned a 1972 VW Beetle 1300.
One thing I am learning about with the OMD and the RX100, those Sony sensors doesn't give as much highlight recovery headroom as I am used to from my Canon sensors, while on the other hand they are extremely tolerant for extreme shadow pushing without showing banding or noise blotches, and in the worst cases noise shows up as fine grain that I can easily cleanup, this caused me to start under-exposing the images with very bright highlights like this shiny VW Beetle, and push the shadows later on post. That's exactly the opposite of what I was to do with Canon, where I usually exposed for the right instead, interesting, and will see how it works, Mic tells me that he's used to the same behavior from Nikon sensors.
On a different note, we went to a burger restaurant called Fuddruckers, I believe it is American, it was a lot of fun for the kids and for me, since it presented me with a new environment to take pictures of my kids in, the shot you see above is taken there, and this gave me a pleasant surprise regarding the OMD's AWB for the second time.
The first time (if you read my posts carefully) was when I used it under incandescent light at my home, for some reason the correct WB under my home lighting is around 2500 kelvin, and none of the cameras I have ever used was able to get the correct WB except for the OMD, this list includes several P&S and mobile phone cameras, the Canon G11, 550D, 60D, 5D2, 5D3, Sony RX100, Nikon D3100 and D7000. Back to the restaurant, there were lots of light sources, incandescent, CFL, flourescent and deeply colored walls, we had a deep yellow wall to the camera left, and you can see the red wall in the background, and the OMD got the WB perfectly, the image you see above is the RAW output with some blacks added and highlights reduced.
As usual, I was shooting with the Panasonic 25 f/1.4 lens, which my favorite focal length, I don't find much reason to stop-down this lens at all (unless I need more DOF, obviously), it is quite sharp at f/1.4, add that to the OMD's auto near-eye focusing, and you always get sharp eyes, the obvious benefit (which is one of the main reasons that got me thinking about MFT in the first place) is that I get a fast shutter speed and enough DOF at the same time to get the eyes in sharp focus, and a comprehensible background which is still convincingly out of focus. I was shooting wide-open @ ISO 1600 and was getting 1/125 shutter speeds that enabled me to get sharp shots of my girls.
TTL flash, finally!
I received my Olympus FL-600R finally after a long waiting period, first impressions are:
- It's tiny, incredibly tiny, I will show it in a separate article beside Canon's 600EX behemoth.
- It features a quite powerful continuous LED light (with variable power).
- Head rotates 180 degrees both sides, though it is quite stiff.
- Plastic foot with the new quick locking mechanism, not an issue if the head wasn't so stiff.
- Touch button for power, it powers on with the camera, and turns off when I turn it off.
- Not as powerful as a 580EX, obviously, but I was used to pushing the 580EX hard by bouncing indoors at sync speed and ISO 400.
- Accurate TTL metering, more so than the Canon.
- When I press the shutter, the camera hesitates for a split second before firing the shutter, TTL measurement?
- It can act as a full featured master or a salve, and can be triggered with the OMD’s accessory flash.
The above shot was taken with the 25 f/1.4 lens (wide-open as usual) and bounce flash to camera right and a bit behind my shoulder, who said MFT can't get shallow DOF?
More to come soon.
More to come soon.
Posted with BlogsyThe Nikon D7100 is so well-spec'd that many people figured it took over as Nikon's top-of-the-line DX camera. In fact, Nikon USA calls it the "flagship" DX model. However, it wasn't referred to as a "professional" body, which raised a few questions: first, was the D7100 intended for professionals? If not, was Nikon saying that pros had to move up to FX, or will there eventually be a pro-grade DX body (presumably the mythical D400)?
As reported by NikonRumors, Nikon Europe stated in response to a DPReview user inquiry that the D7100 was not intended to replace the D300S as the flagship DX model, notwithstanding what is stated on Nikon USA's website. NikonRumors also pointed out that the D7100 does not qualify as a primary camera for NPS (Nikon Professional Services). To me, this means there will probably be a true D300/D300S replacement - the Nikon D400. This makes sense because Canon's 7D Mark II is reportedly going to be priced in the $2000 range, presumably with features to match, which gives Nikon room to create an equivalent competitor.
If indeed there is a D400, what can we expect? The D7100 seems to have almost everything and is already far ahead of the D300S on most features.
I think the D400 is to the D7100 what the D600 or D800 is to the D4. The D600 is a very capable camera but it is missing the mark slightly on a few things such as a pro-grade AF system. The D800 also has nearly every feature a pro would want and has a very high 36mp resolution, but because the resolution is so high, it is not a fast camera, which makes it unsuitable for some pros such as sports, wildlife, or arguably even event photographers. Meanwhile, the D4 has less resolution than the D600 or D800 but does have everything pros could want in a body.
The D7100 does have nearly everything, but there is still room for a D400 to improve on it. Here are some features that are missing from the D7100 and that may be offered by the D400:
1. Full magnesium body. The D7100 does have a magnesium frame and full weather sealing but the magnesium doesn't cover the front. Here is what the D7100 frame looks like:
Here is what the D300S frame looks like:
2. Larger viewfinder?
3. Dedicated AF-ON button.
4. Continuous shooting buffer. The D7100's buffer fills up very quickly (just 7 raw shots in 12-bit lossless compressed mode), therefore it might not be the best camera for sports or wildlife. I expect the D400 to have a larger buffer, or one that can sustain continuous shooting for a longer period.
5. Continuous shutter speed. The D7100 is already reasonably fast at 6fps, going to 7fps in 1.3x crop mode. However the D300S went as high as 8fps with the grip. Nikon usually doesn't take any step backward for newer models, therefore I would expect the D400 to have at least 7fps/8fps with grip.
6. Lower resolution? I would not at all be surprised if the D400 had a lower resolution of 16 or 20mp because that is one way the buffer and continuous shooting speed could be improved.
7. Slightly better high ISO performance?
8. 9-shot bracketing.
9. PC Sync.
10. Pro-style controls. The D300S had pro-style controls with the triple button arrangement (WB/Qual/ISO). The D400 can't have a 3-button arrangement like the D4 because it doesn't have the buttons below the LCD screen. Instead I expect it to have the 4-button arrangement like the D800 (WB/Qual/Bkt/ISO). I expect that it won't have a D600/D7000/D7100 style U1 and U2 mode and will instead have shooting banks (yuck). And no we probably won't find the green auto mode or scene modes :)
11. Headphone jack. The D7100 has an external mic jack but not a headphone jack.
12. A few more options, including the option to specify whether exposure compensation affects flash exposure (like the D4 and D600).
13. Built-in GPS or wi-fi?
14. May use a CF/SD combination instead of dual SD cards.
15. D4-style video capability.
16. Price: $1700, same as the D300S.
As for me, I rarely use continuous shooting so I'm happy with the D7100 specs as is, and the extra features aren't worth the extra $500. For many pros however, I could see the D400 as being worth the extra cost.
If you are interested in the Nikon D7100, you can join the Nikon D7100 group on Flickr for discussions and samples from the D7100. I will be posting there regularly.
As reported by NikonRumors, Nikon Europe stated in response to a DPReview user inquiry that the D7100 was not intended to replace the D300S as the flagship DX model, notwithstanding what is stated on Nikon USA's website. NikonRumors also pointed out that the D7100 does not qualify as a primary camera for NPS (Nikon Professional Services). To me, this means there will probably be a true D300/D300S replacement - the Nikon D400. This makes sense because Canon's 7D Mark II is reportedly going to be priced in the $2000 range, presumably with features to match, which gives Nikon room to create an equivalent competitor.
If indeed there is a D400, what can we expect? The D7100 seems to have almost everything and is already far ahead of the D300S on most features.
I think the D400 is to the D7100 what the D600 or D800 is to the D4. The D600 is a very capable camera but it is missing the mark slightly on a few things such as a pro-grade AF system. The D800 also has nearly every feature a pro would want and has a very high 36mp resolution, but because the resolution is so high, it is not a fast camera, which makes it unsuitable for some pros such as sports, wildlife, or arguably even event photographers. Meanwhile, the D4 has less resolution than the D600 or D800 but does have everything pros could want in a body.
The D7100 does have nearly everything, but there is still room for a D400 to improve on it. Here are some features that are missing from the D7100 and that may be offered by the D400:
1. Full magnesium body. The D7100 does have a magnesium frame and full weather sealing but the magnesium doesn't cover the front. Here is what the D7100 frame looks like:
 |
| image by Nikon USA |
 |
| image by Nikon Imaging |
3. Dedicated AF-ON button.
4. Continuous shooting buffer. The D7100's buffer fills up very quickly (just 7 raw shots in 12-bit lossless compressed mode), therefore it might not be the best camera for sports or wildlife. I expect the D400 to have a larger buffer, or one that can sustain continuous shooting for a longer period.
5. Continuous shutter speed. The D7100 is already reasonably fast at 6fps, going to 7fps in 1.3x crop mode. However the D300S went as high as 8fps with the grip. Nikon usually doesn't take any step backward for newer models, therefore I would expect the D400 to have at least 7fps/8fps with grip.
6. Lower resolution? I would not at all be surprised if the D400 had a lower resolution of 16 or 20mp because that is one way the buffer and continuous shooting speed could be improved.
7. Slightly better high ISO performance?
8. 9-shot bracketing.
9. PC Sync.
10. Pro-style controls. The D300S had pro-style controls with the triple button arrangement (WB/Qual/ISO). The D400 can't have a 3-button arrangement like the D4 because it doesn't have the buttons below the LCD screen. Instead I expect it to have the 4-button arrangement like the D800 (WB/Qual/Bkt/ISO). I expect that it won't have a D600/D7000/D7100 style U1 and U2 mode and will instead have shooting banks (yuck). And no we probably won't find the green auto mode or scene modes :)
11. Headphone jack. The D7100 has an external mic jack but not a headphone jack.
12. A few more options, including the option to specify whether exposure compensation affects flash exposure (like the D4 and D600).
13. Built-in GPS or wi-fi?
14. May use a CF/SD combination instead of dual SD cards.
15. D4-style video capability.
16. Price: $1700, same as the D300S.
As for me, I rarely use continuous shooting so I'm happy with the D7100 specs as is, and the extra features aren't worth the extra $500. For many pros however, I could see the D400 as being worth the extra cost.
If you are interested in the Nikon D7100, you can join the Nikon D7100 group on Flickr for discussions and samples from the D7100. I will be posting there regularly.
Friday, 22 February 2013
Nikon claims that the sensor in the D7100 is completely new. DPReview has said that it is not the same as that of the D5200. However, I compared the specifications of the sensors in the brochures:
D5200
Effective pixels: 24.1 megapixels
Sensor size: 23.5mm x 15.6mm CMOS
Total pxels: 24.71 million
Image sizes (pixels):
Large: 6000 × 4000
Medium: 4496 × 3000
Small: 2992 × 2000
D7100
Effective pixels: 24.1 megapixels
Sensor size: 23.5mm x 15.6mm CMOS
Total pxels: 24.71 million
Image sizes (pixels):
Large: 6000 × 4000
Medium: 4494 × 3000
Small: 2992 × 2000
I also looked at the sensor specifications for the D3200 (which, like the D5200 and D7100 has 24mp):
D3200
Effective pixels: 24.2 megapixels
Sensor size: 23.2mm x 15.4mm CMOS
Total pixels: 24.7 million
Image sizes (pixels):
Large: 6,016 × 4,000
Medium: 4,512 × 3,000
Small: 3,008 × 2,000
(Note: the D3200 sensor is indeed different from that of the D5200, and they have different performance, with the D5200 having better high ISO performance.)
The similarity in specifications between the D5200 and D7100 sensors seems to show that they are in fact the same sensor, except that the D7100 doesn't have a low pass filter. I'm therefore expecting that the DXO scores will be practically identical (just like the similarity of scores between the D800 and D800E). We'll see soon enough.
If you are interested in the Nikon D7100, you can join the Nikon D7100 group on Flickr for discussions and samples from the D7100. I will be posting there regularly.
D5200
Effective pixels: 24.1 megapixels
Sensor size: 23.5mm x 15.6mm CMOS
Total pxels: 24.71 million
Image sizes (pixels):
Large: 6000 × 4000
Medium: 4496 × 3000
Small: 2992 × 2000
D7100
Effective pixels: 24.1 megapixels
Sensor size: 23.5mm x 15.6mm CMOS
Total pxels: 24.71 million
Image sizes (pixels):
Large: 6000 × 4000
Medium: 4494 × 3000
Small: 2992 × 2000
I also looked at the sensor specifications for the D3200 (which, like the D5200 and D7100 has 24mp):
D3200
Effective pixels: 24.2 megapixels
Sensor size: 23.2mm x 15.4mm CMOS
Total pixels: 24.7 million
Image sizes (pixels):
Large: 6,016 × 4,000
Medium: 4,512 × 3,000
Small: 3,008 × 2,000
(Note: the D3200 sensor is indeed different from that of the D5200, and they have different performance, with the D5200 having better high ISO performance.)
The similarity in specifications between the D5200 and D7100 sensors seems to show that they are in fact the same sensor, except that the D7100 doesn't have a low pass filter. I'm therefore expecting that the DXO scores will be practically identical (just like the similarity of scores between the D800 and D800E). We'll see soon enough.
If you are interested in the Nikon D7100, you can join the Nikon D7100 group on Flickr for discussions and samples from the D7100. I will be posting there regularly.
NikonUSA's website only has a low-res slideshow for now.
Comment: the sample shots of the airplanes seem to bode well for the D7100's autofocus performance.
Here is the official brochure: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/pdf/d7100_8p.pdf
Comment: confirms that the D7100 does have the non-HSS 1/320 sync speed option. Still reading...
If you are interested in the Nikon D7100, you can join the Nikon D7100 group on Flickr for discussions and samples from the D7100. I will be posting there regularly.
Comment: the sample shots of the airplanes seem to bode well for the D7100's autofocus performance.
Here is the official brochure: http://chsvimg.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7100/pdf/d7100_8p.pdf
Comment: confirms that the D7100 does have the non-HSS 1/320 sync speed option. Still reading...
If you are interested in the Nikon D7100, you can join the Nikon D7100 group on Flickr for discussions and samples from the D7100. I will be posting there regularly.
Nikon has finally stepped up to the plate and offered to service Nikon D600 units that have spots that can't be removed by a blower.
Here is the announcement: http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18180
Nikon USA Quote: "Some D600 users have reported the appearance of random spots on their images which is generally attributed to the natural accumulation of dust. While understanding that dust will occur over time, and steps may be taken to reduce the occurrence, the complete elimination of these dust spots may sometimes be difficult." (underline added)
Note that Nikon only mentioned dust spots. Nothing about oil. So far I agree -- I still haven't seen solid evidence of oil spots.
Nikon claims that the spots are from 'natural accumulation' of dust. They do not admit that the D600 has an unusual susceptibility to dust, or that the dust may be internally generated by the camera. Interestingly, Nikon Europe has a very differently worded explanation here.
Nikon Europe quote: "Some users have indicated the appearance of multiple granular dust spots in images captured with the Nikon D600 digital-SLR camera. These granular dust spots are reflections of internal dust generated with camera operation, or external dust particles that have found their way into the camera, either, or both of which, have adhered to the camera's low-pass filter." (underline added)
Nikon Europe's explanation appears to vaguely allude to internally-generated dust from the D600.
Both Nikon USA and Nikon Europe recommend that you first use the built-in sensor cleaning function. If that doesn't work, use a blower (DO NOT make contact with the sensor with the blower or with a sensor swab). If that doesn't work, call them for service. Makes you glad you bought a Nikon domestically and not gray market.
RELATED POSTS:
See Nikon D600 Resource Page (under "Dust/Oil Spots")
Firefly DSC-2000 Review
Here is the announcement: http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18180
Nikon USA Quote: "Some D600 users have reported the appearance of random spots on their images which is generally attributed to the natural accumulation of dust. While understanding that dust will occur over time, and steps may be taken to reduce the occurrence, the complete elimination of these dust spots may sometimes be difficult." (underline added)
Note that Nikon only mentioned dust spots. Nothing about oil. So far I agree -- I still haven't seen solid evidence of oil spots.
Nikon claims that the spots are from 'natural accumulation' of dust. They do not admit that the D600 has an unusual susceptibility to dust, or that the dust may be internally generated by the camera. Interestingly, Nikon Europe has a very differently worded explanation here.
Nikon Europe quote: "Some users have indicated the appearance of multiple granular dust spots in images captured with the Nikon D600 digital-SLR camera. These granular dust spots are reflections of internal dust generated with camera operation, or external dust particles that have found their way into the camera, either, or both of which, have adhered to the camera's low-pass filter." (underline added)
Nikon Europe's explanation appears to vaguely allude to internally-generated dust from the D600.
Both Nikon USA and Nikon Europe recommend that you first use the built-in sensor cleaning function. If that doesn't work, use a blower (DO NOT make contact with the sensor with the blower or with a sensor swab). If that doesn't work, call them for service. Makes you glad you bought a Nikon domestically and not gray market.
RELATED POSTS:
See Nikon D600 Resource Page (under "Dust/Oil Spots")
Firefly DSC-2000 Review
Thursday, 21 February 2013
I was able to preorder the D7100 over the phone after all, from Bel-Air Camera. The last time I tried, the rep I spoke to said I would have to physically come to the store. This time I spoke to Rika and when he found my customer record, he took the preorder by phone. I'm not sure if that's something they do for everyone or just existing customers.
BTW Rika said the D7100 might arrive before 3/21/13. In any case they'll call me when they get it.
You may be wondering why I ordered from my local store instead of through Amazon or some online retailer. First of all, Bel-Air Camera is a good store and I want to support them and other local businesses when I can. Second, because the D7100 is so new, it could develop issues and if that happens I want to be able to talk to a live person face-to-face and resolve the problem then and there, not get bounced around through some voicemail system. For example, when my D600 got spots they took a look at it and cleaned it for me. Third , I know I will get my camera at least a day ahead of online orders that have to be mailed. :)
What about sales tax? AFAIK, most places that have a sales tax also have a use tax (California definitely does). The use tax is the same amount as the sales tax and is triggered when you buy something from some other state and don't pay a sales tax. So you ought to be paying the same amount either way.
If you're interested in the D7100, please join the Flickr group for it right here. I will be posting there regularly.
-----
On a separate note, I ordered an autographed copy of Neil van Niekerk's book the Direction and Quality of Light. I got the book because I am passionate about lighting and because Neil thinks that this is his most essential book about lighting, and I owe practically all my on-camera lighting knowledge (and more) to him. So I am taking Neil's word that it's worth it. As for ordering the book, I ordered it directly from Neil because it's my way of saying thank you for everything that I learned from him. Yes, it's definitely more expensive than buying from Amazon or some other source. But what I learned from him was definitely worth waaaaay more than the $12 or so extra cost. Anyway I will be reviewing this book when I get it.
Wednesday, 20 February 2013
Last week NikonRumors posted that Nikon scheduled a product announcement for this week, possibly for the D7100. A couple of days ago, it looked like the announcement would be for a high-end Coolpix. But indeed, the Nikon D7100 has been officially announced.
Release date is March 21, 2013.
A majority of the specs I predicted came true, with a couple of surprises:
Release date is March 21, 2013.
A majority of the specs I predicted came true, with a couple of surprises:
- Surprise! Sensor: I guessed it was the same as the D5200's (which is 24mp with slightly better high ISO performance that the D7000). DPReview says the D7100's sensor is completely new. Update: notwithstanding what Nikon says, the D7100's sensor may be the same as that of the D5200. See here.
- Surprise! NO low pass filter. This is a surprise. One of the things I liked about the D300 is that it had a weak low-pass filter which made everything look sharper. The D7100 has no low-pass filter at all. I'm not super worried about moire because I think it can be handled it post. I hope.
- As predicted: The new, smarter Auto ISO (just like the D4, D800 and D600) that can take into account the focal length.
- As predicted: Support for WU-1a allows remote live view.
- As predicted video: Can do 1080p at 30fps or 1080i at 60fps (D7000 can only do 1080p at 24fps).
- As predicted: Exposure mode dial has a button and lock, just like the D600.
- Surprise! It has the instant 100% zoom on playback that was present on the D300, D700, and pro bodies but was missing from the D600.
- Surprise! 51 AF Points with new AF algorithm, and low-light AF capability. I thought it was unlikely but thank goodness Nikon pulled through. Not just that, but it's supposed to focus up to -2EV, which beats even the D600 which can focus at -1EV.
- As predicted: still no PC sync.
- As predicted: 1/8000 shutter speed.
Partial surprise: As predicted: flash sync is 1/250(no mention of 1/320 non-HSS sync speed)with the option for non-HSS 1/320 sync speed.- New! 1.3x crop mode. In this mode, the image will be cropped slightly (effectively 2x crop compared to full frame 35mm, very similar to Micro 4/3 and 4/3 ratio). The focal length will be effectively 2x instead of 1.5x, the continuous shooting speed increases to 7fps, and the AF points will fill the frame from edge to edge. The crop mode also works in video. If the implementation is the same as that of the D600, then the 1.3x-cropped video will still have full 1080 or 720 resolution.
- New! Spot white balance: instead of taking a manual white balance shot of the whole screen, you can take the white balance from any small spot of the screen (in Live View). No need to look for a gray card.
- New! LCD screen is slightly larger (3.2 inches vs. 3.0), higher resolution (1.229M vs. 921k) and brighter (has white pixels, not just RGB).
- As predicted: Price is $1200 for body only.
- Wishful thinking: Can specify whether exposure compensation affects ambient only or both ambient and flash. Not sure yet whether this is true.
Early verdict: I was sort of on the fence whether to order this because the D7000 is already such a great camera, but:
- probably kickass sensor (otherwise Nikon would use the D5200's sensor), --> but see here
- no low-pass filter
- new AF system
- smart Auto ISO
- instant 100% zoom
...are just enough for me to take it up instead of the D7000. So, yes I will preorder one.
If you're interested in the D7100, please join the Flickr group for it right here. I will be posting there regularly.
Comment: One issue is whether it's better to spend money on a good body or a good lens. From a purely financial standpoint, spending money on a good lens is a better way to save because lenses depreciate more slowly than bodies. On the other hand, in terms of actual impact on your images, it appears that a great sensor with a good lens outresolves a good sensor with a great lens (see this post from LensRentals). In addition, a good body has the potential to improve all your images (from a lower noise sensor, or a body with better autofocus), not just the images from a single lens. So, as long as you're ok with the inevitable financial hit, I think choosing a better body is a reasonable decision.
If you're interested in the D7100, please join the Flickr group for it right here. I will be posting there regularly.
Comment: One issue is whether it's better to spend money on a good body or a good lens. From a purely financial standpoint, spending money on a good lens is a better way to save because lenses depreciate more slowly than bodies. On the other hand, in terms of actual impact on your images, it appears that a great sensor with a good lens outresolves a good sensor with a great lens (see this post from LensRentals). In addition, a good body has the potential to improve all your images (from a lower noise sensor, or a body with better autofocus), not just the images from a single lens. So, as long as you're ok with the inevitable financial hit, I think choosing a better body is a reasonable decision.
Hi everyone. Been very busy at work (yes believe it or not I have a day job). But I will have a post tonight.
FYI I went ahead and ordered the Nikkor 28 1.8G ($100 discount until March 2 or until supplies last). Meanwhile, here are some upcoming topics:
FYI I went ahead and ordered the Nikkor 28 1.8G ($100 discount until March 2 or until supplies last). Meanwhile, here are some upcoming topics:
- Nikkor 28 1.8G review
- Tamron 70-300 VC review
- Fuji Real 3D W3 review
- Loreo macro lens review
- Scanning film with a digital camera
- Mir 26B 45 3.5 review
- Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180 2.8 review
- Keepers and regrets: which equipment do I actually use a lot, and which ones are gathering dust?
- Analysis of strip lights and review of 2 strip softboxes
- Apollo softbox clone
- Comparison between light modifiers
- Review of Ming Thein's Photoshop Workflow DVD
- Book Review - Layers by Matt Kloskowski
- Book review - Wild Side of Photography
- Review of National Geographic collection DVD-ROM
- Photoshop vs. Elements - is it worth upgrading?
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Big discounts on Nikon lenses only until March 2, 2013! Plus 2-day free shipping with Amazon Prime AND additional 2% credit for future purchases through Amazon. (Update: Amazon itself has run out of stock of some of these lenses such as the 28 1.8G and if you buy from another merchant on Amazon, it won't necessarily be eligible for Amazon Prime or the extra 2% credit.)
Some of them (arranged by widest focal length):
Some of them (arranged by widest focal length):
- 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VRII: $250 off --- that's a 30% discount = $597 . At this price it's cheaper than Tamron 18-270 VC!
- 24-70 2.8G (reviewed here): $200 off = $1687
- 24-120 f/4 VR: $300 off = $997
- 28 1.8G: $100 off = $599 . I am reeeaallly tempted to get this one.
- 28-300 f/3.5-5.6G VR: $250 off = $897 . Great for traveling.
- 50 1.8G: $20 off = $197
- 70-200 2.8 VR II: $300 off = $2097
- 85 1.8G (reviewed here): $100 off = just $399! Wow. It was a good deal at full price. At this price it's irresistible.
Here is the complete list:
- 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ($100 discount) = $569 . Bob Krist likes this lens.
- 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VRII ($250 discount) = $597 . At this price it's cheaper than Tamron 18-270 VC!
- 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR ($300 discount) = $697
- 24mm f/1.4G ($200 discount) = $1819
- 24-120mm f/4G ED VR ($300 discount) = $997
- 24-70mm f/2.8G ($200 discount) = $1687
- 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR ($100 discount) = $497. Some D600 buyers bought theirs as part of a kit and are selling them at a steep discount so the resale value will be hurt, therefore this might not be such a good deal. But at least you get a warranty.
- 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR ($250 discount) = $897
- 28mm f/1.8G ($100 discount) = $599
- 35mm f/1.4G ($200 discount) = $1597. Before you buy this, strongly consider the Sigma 35 1.4, which appears to be the best in its class and costs much less.
- 50mm f/1.4G ($100 discount) = $484. Before you buy this, consider the Sigma 50 1.4 (reviewed here) which has smoother bokeh.
- 50mm f/1.8G ($20 discount) = $197
- 60mm Micro f/2.8G ($100 discount) = $497
- 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII ($300 discount) = $2097
- 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ($350 discount) = $1369
- 85mm f/1.4G ($200 discount) = $1499
- 85mm f/1.8G ($100 discount) = $399
- 85mm Micro f/3.5G VR ($100 discount) = $427
If you're buying any of these lenses, please consider buying through our Amazon links to support the blog and help get more equipment for reviews!
 |
| Visual allegory |
Yesterday I took our kids to visit my parents. I got the chance to try out the tilt adapter for real world photos.
CHALLENGES
Using the tilt adapter poses several challenges for candid photos. First, there is no autofocus. That is hard enough as is with moving subjects, but to compound the focusing issue, the area in focus is intended in this case to be narrow therefore simply narrowing the aperture to get greater depth of field is not an option. In addition, as the adapter is tilted and rotated, the focus will change even if the relative positions of the camera and subject remain the same. Another issue when used with a D600 and some of the newer Nikon DSLRs is that using the focus trap technique doesn't work. On the plus side, I get focus confirmation on the D600 but not the Fuji S5.
Getting a good exposure is also a challenge. The tilt adapter is completely manual therefore the camera can't control the aperture. On the D600 and S5, I can use manual exposure mode or aperture priority. Yes, stop down metering is possible (assuming the lens has an aperture ring). Moreover, I can activate Auto ISO. However, I find that the metering is unpredictable and often unreliable when the lens is tilted. The indicated metering also varies depending on whether I use Live View or not. In addition, the exposure changes as the lens is tilted or rotated even if the amount of light in the scene doesn't change.
All I can say is, thank goodness for digital.
MY APPROACH
For now, I just set the tilt to the maximum and think only about the ideal rotation angle for the lens. I simplify that decision further by usually choosing only between left or right tilt. In the future I hope to be comfortable enough to adjust to any other angle or tilt.
The exposure changes too rapidly for me to use manual exposure. I just had to roll the dice with Auto ISO, ride exposure compensation, and hope for the best.
With respect to focusing, I can get the focus close to the correct focus but it is almost never in perfect focus. Plus, the focus changes very rapidly due to subject movement and rotating the lens. When I can, I try to do focus bracketing by taking several shots as I slowly adjust the focus. For somewhat static subjects, I use live view to help me focus.
OBSERVATIONS
As a tool for getting an apparently shallow depth of field, the tilt adapter fulfilled my expectations. When I first tried out the tilt adapter, I experimented with small objects, at fairly close range (see previous post). Although I was impressed with the unique results made possible by a tilt adapter, in the back of my mind I was hoping for a shallower depth of field than what I observed. However, when I took real-world shots, the shallow DOF was much more noticeable than I first thought. That's because...
...The effects of a tilt adapter are most noticeable with farther objects. Here's a shot of an orange tree:
As you can see the DOF appears to be shallow. IIRC, I was shooting about 15 feet away from the tree. At that distance, I don't think even a 50 1.4 wide open on a full frame camera will have such a blurred background.
The tilt adapter works best when I want two things in focus that are not on the same [normal] focal plane (i.e., parallel to the sensor). In such a case using the tilt adapter makes the most sense.
 |
| without tilt - faces on left picture frame not entirely in focus |
 |
| with tilt - left picture frame is in focus while other objects are blurred |
On the other hand, while I can tilt the adapter left or right to create the appearance of a very shallow depth of field, objects on the opposite side of the out-of-focus area have an increased depth of field that is sometimes distracting. Here, I tilted the lens to the left (if I had tilted to the right, the field on the left would not look so out of focus).
However, because I tilted the lens to the left, the lens' focal plane extended to the right, thus bringing my son into focus. As an alternative, I will try tilting up or down.
Despite the challenges, getting keepers is not as hard as I expected, as long as you keep your expectations realistic.
I saw my daughter running down this path and prefocused at the line on the path. When she was crossing the line, I took several shots.
Overall, I would say that for an intermediate photographer, combined with a digital camera that has forgiving files, a tilt adapter is a practical, usable and accessible tool even for candid shots.
And it's fun to use!
UPDATE: B&H is now offering the Samyang 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift. As I feared, the price is indeed $1000. If you want a wider angle tilt, the Arax tilt adapter that I used here would not be a good choice because the only Pentacon 6 mount lens that's wider than the Mir26 I used would be a 30mm lens, which in medium format is a fisheye lens. Instead, an alternative may be the Arax 35mm tilt shift lens which at this time costs $700, a little less than the Samyang although not as wide. Another alternative may be to use a Micro 4/3 body, which can use a tilt adapter that works with Nikon F mount lenses. You can then use the Sigma 10-20 or some similar lens to get an effective focal length of 20mm with tilt.
UPDATE: B&H is now offering the Samyang 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift. As I feared, the price is indeed $1000. If you want a wider angle tilt, the Arax tilt adapter that I used here would not be a good choice because the only Pentacon 6 mount lens that's wider than the Mir26 I used would be a 30mm lens, which in medium format is a fisheye lens. Instead, an alternative may be the Arax 35mm tilt shift lens which at this time costs $700, a little less than the Samyang although not as wide. Another alternative may be to use a Micro 4/3 body, which can use a tilt adapter that works with Nikon F mount lenses. You can then use the Sigma 10-20 or some similar lens to get an effective focal length of 20mm with tilt.
 |
| Pillow fight! |
 |
| Can I have some? |
Friday, 15 February 2013
So I got an old lens on eBay. It was advertised as 'clean and clear'. But when I received it, look what I found:
Disgusting fungus. Just looking at it makes my skin crawl. I don't dare get it anywhere close to my cameras or other lenses. Hopefully I can get this lens returned without issues.
Note: I can only see the fungus at certain angles. To get a photo of the fungus, I had to light the lens with direct flash. Here is a shot where the fungus is not at all apparent. Caveat emptor.
RELATED POSTS:
How I Keep Fungus Out
I'm excited to hear more news about the D7100. NikonRumors reports that Nikon has a press conference next week for several countries (see NR post here). I am not completely surprised that Nikon is moving fast, because it reported a decrease in expected earnings and its stock took a serious beating (down ~20% in one day).
I'm also excited to read that Nikon will be focusing on DX. If what NR says is true about new DX lenses, then just maybe Nikon might produce a stabilized 50-135 2.8 DX lens (70-200 equivalent) in a compact size. That would be my dream lens. (Or at least one dream lens.) Yes Sigma does have the 50-150 2.8 OS but it's the same size as a 70-200, so I don't think it's practical for me. And the Nikon 70-200 f/4 is only a little shorter than a 70-200 and it's one stop slower. That's why I've kept my Sigma 50-150 non-OS. But I digress....
Getting back to the topic, I tried to preorder the D7100 through the same store where I preordered and ultimately bought my D600, Bel-Air Camera. There's good news and bad news. The good news is that they are indeed accepting preorders for the D7100 / D400. That's an improvement from the time I preordered the D600 where I had to talk to different people and cajole someone into accepting a preorder for the D600. Some reader even called their store after I placed a preorder and the sales rep called me a liar for claiming that I preordered the D600. No such hassle this time.
The bad news is that they will only take preorders at their store -- no phone orders. Not even if I'm an existing customer. It's a security measure to prevent credit card fraud. Sigh. Well, I guess I will be trekking to their store.
RELATED POSTS:
D7100 Specs Predictions
D7100 Specs Predictions
We got several requests for post processing workflow tips here on our blog, so every couple of weeks, I am going to choose one picture that I have shot and show you how I go through the post processing, this will be strictly limited to Lightroom since I don't use anything else. Now let's go.
I got a question on how I processed this picture specifically, so this is going to be my first one, it was shown here before in my Sony RX100 review. Before I start I will state a few disclaimers:
- I don't believe in excessive post-processing, all those photoshop filters, plugins, layers and opacities do not float my boat, the most time I spend on a photo is 2 minutes, and this is only when it's tricky or requires several local adjustments. However I don't dis-respect skilled photoshoppers, in fact, I am awed each time I watch a skilled person processing a photo on photoshop, I don't like those who turn women into plastic dummies.
- I want post-processing to be as fast as possible, since I usually return from a shoot with 200 or 300 photos that need processing, and if it takes too much time, it will be hell for me.
- One thing I learned from Zack Arias, be consistent, even if you make a mistake, be consistent in that mistake, so when you work in lightroom, you can process the first picture, then synchronize these changes to the other pictures, that's how I usually go through my pictures quickly.
- I always shoot RAW, mainly for the white balance flexibility.
- Not everyone has the same taste, what I might like you might not, so please keep this in mind, I am 100% sure that someone out there can take this photo and make it even better (in his opinion), but I am a photographer, not a retoucher, and if a casual picture needs more processing than what is shown below, then I shouldn't have bothered to take the picture in the first place.
- A final thing, if you're not watching this on a calibrated or a near-calibrated monitor, you will not understand what I am going on about, you might see wrong colors, deeper blacks, etc...
- Anther final final thing, I have different default import settings in lightroom for each camera, this means that whenever I import a picture from that camera, it gets a few adjustments applied that usually get me through 80% of the needed post-processing, it takes time to get used to each camera's RAW output, but I find myself always applying a certain contrast setting, highlights recover, etc... to each picture, so instead I save these settings as the defaults, and 80% of the time, once the pictures are imported, they are ready for export.
Now to the main topic, below is the RAW file as it came out of the camera, it is one of the rare moments when someone else takes a picture of me that I actually like, so this is why I decided to give it more than usual attention.
It is good and I like it, but as known to the Sony sensor, it chose a slightly cool/pink white balance and I wanted a tighter crop, so the crop goes first, you can click on any picture and it will show a 1920px wide image:
You can see above some of the defaults for my Sony RAW files, +15 Contrast, -10 Blacks, -10 Highlights, +10 Clarity and +10 Vibrance.
Crop done, now there is less visual clutter in the image, next is white balance, my favorite tool is the eyedropper, I try that first in an area I am certain is white or neutral grey.
I chose the white under-shirt but it didn't work, I tried a few ther things but nothing worked, so I used the sliders manually, I learned a neat trick from Zack Arias, I keep swinging the slider left and right widely, then slowly until I reach a point that my eyes like, it is an area between too blue and too warm, then I do the same with the pink/green slider. If I had to choose between coola nd warm, I'd choose a slightly warm setting.
That's how I liked it, I ended up adding around +550 points towards the warm side, with that done it's time to check the exposure sliders in order, lighting was coming from huge windows and open sky from the camera right side, so one half of the face was significantly more lit than the other, it is not bad, but I wanted to see if I can do better, the key is being subtle, small changes enhance the image and doesn't make it too apparent.
So next I slided the highlights to the left to see if something would look better, mainly the left part of the face, I pull it too much to see how it works.
-50 on the highlights slider is too much, and it kills the mood of the picture, turning it more gloomy, I only want less highlights on the left of the face, but that will have to wait, I return the highlights slider back, and add some post-crop vigneting, this is a matter of personal taste, but I knew I'd be adding some vignetting to get more focus on the main subject, and I'd want to apply it before I start playing with the blacks and the shadows, so I add a slight vignette, not too heavy, and I raraely go past that value.
Looking good, next is the blacks, I usually pull the blacks to the left with the ALT key held down until I start getting some clipped blacks in the photo, then I release the ALT key and see if I like it and start modifying to taste if needed.
Next is the shadows, the right half of the face could use some fill, but again, I don't like to lift all the shadows in the picture, so I do a couple of local adjustments next to deal with the face.
A quick rough paint with the brush (no more than 5 seconds) is fine, I reduce the highlights until I like it.
Here's the picture with the red mask removed:
Same for the shadow part, it needs more fill, I brighten the shadows and increaese the exposure a teeny bit.
And here's the result:
The next screenshot will show you the history of all the steps I went through, click to see a larger version.
And here's the final result:
Which started as the one below, little tiny modifications go a great way in enhancing a picture, unlike strong pulls of the sliders to get a strongly over-processed image.
UPDATE: to explain a bit here, one of my friends showed me a picture for people in a desert, with like 100% saturation added, you can try this setting in any of your images and see what will happen, I like to call it techni-color vomit. On the other hand, some images really require a lot of manipulation with the sliders, and the final result looks very good, but that's not the case usually.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
