Just wanted to share a few of the photos I took for Halloween. These were with the Nikon D600 and Sigma 35 f/1.4. Have a safe and happy Halloween!
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Monday, 28 October 2013
Nikonrumors just did another post with rumored specs of the Nikon DF.
It seems from the specs that the DF is designed to be a compact digital rangefinder-style camera (not actually a rangefinder because it has a pentaprism). IOW a Nikon version of a Leica. If so the rumored $3000 price tag would make sense. But as Nikonrumors pointed out, it's called a hybrid camera, but we don't know yet in what sense it is a hybrid.
So far, I find the Sony A7 more intriguing. More particularly I am most interested in the A7's autofocus capabilities. The A7 uses a hybrid contrast detection and phase detection system. With contrast detection there is of course coverage on the entire frame. It makes sense that they broke the frame up into 25 smaller areas (I.e., for faster navigation -- have you tried moving the AF point around on a Nikon DSLR in live view mode? It's like encouraging a turtle to run faster.).
The phase detection mode has 117 AF points, but more importantly, look at the coverage (the blue rectangle in the image below).
It covers all but the borders of the frame. This is far larger than the coverage of even the 51-AF points of some Nikon full-frame DSLRs. In fact, it is a larger area than the 51-AF points on an APS-C Nikon (such as the D300 or D7100), being significantly taller and only slightly narrower. I think this is the killer feature of the Sony A7.
Couple that with Sony's promise of faster autofocus and automatic focusing on the near eye, and it looks like an amazing camera. Plus it has a tiltable viewfinder (for unusual angles or for waist-level shooting).
Those are some of the reasons I'm more interested in the Sony A7. It's not perfect though. The sync speed is a dismal 1/160 and it has the weird Sony/Minolta hotshoe. But if you've seen my recent posts you know I don't shoot with flash much these days anymore. So I'm willing to overlook them. I also wish it had a touchscreen like the OM-D (though hopefully with they Eye AF there won't be a need for it).
The bigger questions are lens selection and longevity. If they can at least get 3rd party support from Sigma then I think it becomes more viable. Otherwise it would be prudent to wait and see.
Meanwhile, about the Nikon DF, I still hope that by hybrid they mean hybrid AF (like some newer Canons which are DSLRs not mirrorless but have a hybrid AF system). And it ought to have a wide AF area coverage, with autofocusing on the near eye, as promised by the A7. Even then it might still be twice as expensive as the A7, and won't have a tilting LCD. Though if it does use the Nikon F-mount that would be a huge advantage.
11/4/13 EDIT:
Here are supposed shots of the Nikon Df.
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/this-is-the-nikon-df.aspx/#more-66660
Based on the shots, I think what Nikon means by hybrid camera is that it's somewhere between analog and digital. It's digital at its core, but it has many knobs and dials just like an analog camera. I'm not betting on contrast detection / phase detection AF hybrid because that would be contrary to the spirit of being analog-digital. If this assessment is correct, then this looks to me like a nicer-looking but more expensive D600 with a D4 (16mp) sensor.
11/4/13 EDIT: It looks like I'm right so far: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/nikon-df-body-only-price-2746-95.aspx/#more-66728
11/4/13 EDIT: If I were to choose between these three cameras, I would choose the Sony A7. Why? The Nikon Df is pleasing to look at, but in terms of actual function I think the A7 is superior. The A7's biggest advantage is that it is mirrorless, and has a very short flange focal distance, which means that with an adapter, it can be used with practically any lens, including Leica, Voigtlander, or any exotic lens.
So if you are nostalgic for "classic" image quality, then I think the A7 is the better way to get it (with the right lens). As for me, I don't plan to get any of them, though the A7 will be on my radar. What I'm waiting for:
- Sony needs to come out with the lenses I want (with good quality and price). Alternatively, if Sigma supports the new full frame E-mount I would be satisfied. Sigma already has the 35 1.4 and 85 1.4, both with good quality/price.
- Sony needs to fix the autofocus of the A7 to make it both accurate and quick. I'd like it to be as good as that of the Canon 70D or the Olympus E-M5 or E-M1.
If neither of these happen, it's not a big deal for me. I'm waiting for prices of used Sony RX1s to drop. Paired with the Nikon 85 1.8G on a Nikon D600, it would make for an awesome combination. :)
11/4/13 EDIT:
Here are supposed shots of the Nikon Df.
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/this-is-the-nikon-df.aspx/#more-66660
Based on the shots, I think what Nikon means by hybrid camera is that it's somewhere between analog and digital. It's digital at its core, but it has many knobs and dials just like an analog camera. I'm not betting on contrast detection / phase detection AF hybrid because that would be contrary to the spirit of being analog-digital. If this assessment is correct, then this looks to me like a nicer-looking but more expensive D600 with a D4 (16mp) sensor.
11/4/13 EDIT: It looks like I'm right so far: http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/04/nikon-df-body-only-price-2746-95.aspx/#more-66728
11/4/13 EDIT: If I were to choose between these three cameras, I would choose the Sony A7. Why? The Nikon Df is pleasing to look at, but in terms of actual function I think the A7 is superior. The A7's biggest advantage is that it is mirrorless, and has a very short flange focal distance, which means that with an adapter, it can be used with practically any lens, including Leica, Voigtlander, or any exotic lens.
So if you are nostalgic for "classic" image quality, then I think the A7 is the better way to get it (with the right lens). As for me, I don't plan to get any of them, though the A7 will be on my radar. What I'm waiting for:
- Sony needs to come out with the lenses I want (with good quality and price). Alternatively, if Sigma supports the new full frame E-mount I would be satisfied. Sigma already has the 35 1.4 and 85 1.4, both with good quality/price.
- Sony needs to fix the autofocus of the A7 to make it both accurate and quick. I'd like it to be as good as that of the Canon 70D or the Olympus E-M5 or E-M1.
If neither of these happen, it's not a big deal for me. I'm waiting for prices of used Sony RX1s to drop. Paired with the Nikon 85 1.8G on a Nikon D600, it would make for an awesome combination. :)
Saturday, 26 October 2013
 |
| Blockbuster |
This year has witnessed an incredible range of very interesting camera releases (can you guess how many?), there are a lot of tidal shifts in the market, players that are becoming stronger, and others that are referred to as stagnant and old fashioned. I am not attempting to analyze the market and company strategies in this post, instead I will be thinking aloud, analyzing what is going on around, what to do regarding any further camera purchases, and where to head to. The more I think about the new camera releases in 2013, the more I get confused, so I decided to get a white paper and a pen, and jot it all down so I can be able to make a clear analysis. Hit the jump to continue reading, and be astounded with the sheer amount of cameras released in 2013.
Before I begin though, one word about the opening picture, this is my niece in the foreground, and my daughter at the back. I have been trying to emulate movie images and posters recently (as a result of seeing some beautiful cinematic-looking images, but more about that later), and this was one of my favorites. I will be posting another one midway.
Back to the cameras. I headed over to the internet to find out what cameras have been released this year, and I found dpreview's camera releases timeline very helpful, so this is where I started. I decided to skip any camera with a sensor smaller than 1/1.7" (the one found in Canon's G and S series cameras), so what you're going to see below are cameras with the following sensor sizes: (1/1.7", 2/3", 1", Micro Four Thirds, APS-C, Full Frame). I will write a very short description beside each camera, so here goes.
P.S. Cameras are sorted in ascending order by the release date, starting from Jan 2013 till Oct 2013.
P.P.S. ILC = Interchangeable Lens Camera, usually goes with a mirror-less compact camera.
- Samsung NX300 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, no VF)
- Fuji X100S (APS-C, 16MP, 23mm f/2 fixed lens, hybrid VF)
- Fuji X20 (2/3", 12 MP, 28-112mm f/2-f/2.8 fixed lens, OVF)
- Nikon 1 S1 (1", 10 MP, ILC, no VF)
- Nikon 1 J3 (1", 14 MP, ILC, no VF)
- Sony NEX 3N (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
- Sony SLT A58 (APS-C, 20MP, DSLT, EVF)
- Nikon D7100 (APS-C, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Nikon Coolpix A (APS-C, 16MP, 18.5mm f/2.8 fixed lens, no VF)
- Canon 700D (APS-C, 18MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Canon 100D (APS-C, 18MP, tiny DSLR, OVF)
- Panasonic GF6 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
- Samsung NX1100 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, no VF)
- Ricoh GR (APS-C, 16MP, 18,3mm f/2.8 fixed lens, no VF)
- Panasonic LF1 (1/1.7", 12MP, 28-200mm f/2-f/5.9 fixed lens, lousy EVF)
- Panasonic G6 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, EVF)
- Samsung NX2000 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, no VF)
- Olympus E-P5 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
- Leica X Vario (APS-C, 16MP, 28-70mm f/3.5-f/6.4 fixed lens, no VF)
- Pentax K-500 (APS-C, 16 MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Pentax K-50 (APS-C, 16 MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Pentax Q7 (1/1.7", 12MP, 23-69mm f/2.8-f/4.5 fixed lens, no VF)
- Galaxy NX (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, EVF, Android OS)
- Fuji X-M1 (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
- Sony RX100 II (1", 20MP, 28-100mm f/1.8-f/4.9 fixed lens, no VF)
- Sony RX1R (Full Frame, 24MP, 35mm f/2 fixed lens, no VF)
- Canon 70D (APS-C, 20MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Panasonic GX7 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, great EVF)
- Canon G16 (1/1.7", 12MP, 28-140mm f/1.8-f/2.8 fixed lens, lousy OVF)
- Canon S120 (1/1.7", 12MP, 24-120mm f/1.8-f/5.7 fixed lens, no VF)
- Sony NEX 5T (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
- Sony Alpha A3000 (APS-C, 20MP, ILC, poor EVF)
- Sony QX100 (1", 20MP, 28-100mm f/1.8-f/4.9 fixed lens, no VF, mobile phone add-on)
- Olympus OM-D EM-1 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, best EVF)
- Fuji X-A1 (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, no VF)
- Nikon 1 AW (1", 14MP, ILC, no VF, waterproof)
- Pentax K-3 (APS-C, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Nikon D610 (Full Frame, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Sony RX10 (1", 20MP, 24-200mm f/2.8 fixed lens, EVF)
- Sony A7 (Full Frame, 24MP, ILC, EVF)
- Sony A7R (Full Frame, 36MP, ILC, EVF)
- Panasonic GM1 (MFT, 16MP, ILC, no VF, tiny)
- Nikon D5300 (APS-C, 24MP, DSLR, OVF)
- Fuji XQ1 (2/3", 12MP, 25-100mm f/1.8-f/4.9 fixed lens, no VF)
- Fuji X-E2 (APS-C, 16MP, ILC, great EVF)
Nikon DF (Digital Fusion) Hybrid (Full Frame, OVF, F-Mount, D600 AF)?
Can you believe that? 45 new cameras with large sensors released till now, and there are still two full months remaining in 2013. The rumors about the new Nikon full frame compact, and the Olympus Stylus are almost confirmed, it's just a matter of time, we'll see them in November.
Now let us do some quick stats, out of 45 new cameras:
- 10 have mirrors (DSLR/DSLT), 21 mirror-less ILCs, 14 fixed lens compacts (except for the RX10).
- 4 have Full Frame sensors, 23 have APS-C sesnors, 6 have MFT sensors, 6 have 1" sensors, 2 have 2/3" sensors, 4 have 1/1.7" sensors.
- The most common APS-C sensors are 16MP (variance from 16MP to 24MP).
- 23 have built-in view finders, 11 of them are optical (9 DSLRs + Fuji X20 + Canon G16), and 12 are electronic.
- A handful of the ones without a built-in VF have the option of an accessory EVF, or even an accessory OVF (Sony RX1R).
 |
| Cinema Style? |
And now is the time for some quick thoughts on a few select cameras and systems, this is where I think in a loud voice.
1/1.7" AND 2/3" SENSORS
These cameras were great and sought after two years ago, maybe even one year ago. But with today's tiny and much larger sensor cameras (RX100, Olympus PEN, Panasonic GM1, fixed lens APS-C or FF like the Nikon Coolpix A or the Sony RX1), they are not the rave anymore. Don't get me wrong, they still produce great images, and with a camera like the Canon G16 with a fixed f/1.8-f/2.8 zoom lens, it is a great choice. There are people (even proffesionals) that still buy them and use them, but for me, having owned a G11 and used it's RAW files, they are behind the larger sensors.
FIXED LENS APS-C OR FULL FRAME
Doesn't make sense to me because of the 35mm equivalent focal length, no matter how great the camera and the lens are. I said before that I wish Sony made their RX1 with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, and that would be something I'd buy and use exclusively (I know I can sort of do this with the A7 and the Zeiss 55 f/1.8, but I'll keep this discussion for later).
Famous cameras in this category are the Fuji X100/S, Sony RX1/R and to a less degree, the Nikon Coolpix A and the Ricoh GR. However they make sense to street photographers and people who make use of such a wide focal length, not me.
DSLR CAMERAS
After living with the OM-D EM-5 and great small lenses for almost a year, I have lost all feelings and attractions towards DSLRs. Whenever I handle my brother's 60D, it feels too big and bulky, and when I don't see the playback of the picture in the viewfinder, I am a little taken back, when I don't see the blinking highlights and blocked shadows when composing, it feels ancient.
That's not to say that I don't miss my 5D Mark III when I'm shooting my running kids and the EM-5 fails to track them, or when I want to completely eradicate a busy background with the 50mm f1/.4 lens. As I see it now, the main attractions for DSLRs is that they are getting better and better sensors, they have a huge range of established lenses to pick from, they produce great video footage, and they are becoming more affordable at the same time. Canon's 100D is a good try in providing the DSLR experience but in a small package.
As I see it now, MFT sensors are competing with APS-C sensors image quality wise, they are not behind anymore, and the DOF difference is not really that different, and most MFT prime lenses have exceptional image quality starting from wide-open. That puts an APS-C DSLR out of my radar forever. However, that being said, the falling prices of full frame DSLRs, along with the increasing prices of high-end MFT cameras are really appealing. Assuming that size and weight are not an issue, wouldn't you be inclined to get a $1,400 Nikon D600 or a $1,500 Canon 6D over the $1,400 Olympus OM-D EM-1? Just for that full frame look? Tough choice.
FUJI X, SONY NEX AND SAMSUNG NX (ALL APS-C CAMERAS)
Great performers, great image quality, interchangeable lenses and comes in a small package. What's not to like? The lens line-up, that's what. Fuji has produced very good lenses, and are doing good work developing more, but right now, there are like 5 lenses, and if they don't cover what you need you're out of luck. The Fujis also have that famous X-Trans sensor, the internet says it has very high quality, but there are RAW issues when used with Adobe's Camera RAW engine, which is what I use for 100% of my photos.
The same lack-of-lenses argument goes for the Sony NEX, I've been following Kirk Tuck's adventures with the NEX series (BTW, he sold all of them after a long love story), and before I decided on buying my EM-5, I was really considering the NEX 6 (as it was the cheapest one with an EVF), but the lack of lens choices, the weird flash hot-shoe compatibility issues and my general feeling that Sony won't be in a hurry to improve the issues, I decided to head to MFT instead. And now Sony have ditched the NEX series completely.
As for the Samsung NX, funny enough, Kirk Tuck is testing them out for us, he's the one who brought it to my attention. I didn't notice before that Samsung had an APS-C interchangeable lens camera. He tested the finder-less NX300 and the Android powered Galaxy NX, and is reporting they have great image quality, and that the 18-55mm kit lens is very good. However, lens choices for these cameras are very limited, and quite expensive in my opinion. I had a chance to shoot a friend's NX1000 with the kit lens, and it is erm.. bad.
SONY A7/R FULL FRAME MIRRORLESS GOODNESS
Sony is a mega electronics company, and they used to make (still make) great weird gadgets, I have always lusted after their products in the 80s and the 90s. So when they came up with the RX1 35mm f/2 fixed lens full frame camera, the internet went berserk, and despite the lack of a built-in VF and the astronomical $2,800 price, it sold very well and was praised in the reviews.
And now they've done it again. What was the hottest ILC camera on the internet a few months back? The Olympus EP-5 with the exceptional VF-4 viewfinder. Then Panasonic released the cheaper, better looking, tilt-able EVF GX7, and the EP-5 sort of went down the drain, as if it was never announced, I can't remember reading a blog about the EP-5 one month after the GX7 release. Next comes the $1,400 Olympus EM-1 and the whole world applauds, but the GX7 didn't have anything to fear because of the $400 price differential. A lot of people pre-ordered the EM-1.
Then Sony comes a little late to the party, bag in hand, shows everyone two full frame mirrorless cameras that are the same size as the Olympus EM-5 and (sorry for the expression) pisses on the party, or at least that's how it felt when they announced the $1,700 and $2,300 prices for the 24MP A7 and the 36MP A7R respectively. The internet went even more berserk, people were cancelling their EM-1 orders, and pre-ordering the Sonys.
For $300 more than an EM-1 you can get a full frame mirrorless camera that is smaller in size, has a built-in VF that is quite good. Who wouldn't want that? The crazy thing is that the entry prices are much much cheaper than the big boy full frames, the Canon 5D3 and the Nikon D800, and the 24MP A7 is even cheaper than bot the Canon 6D and the Nikon D610! Want to know a more crazy thing? The Sony A7 plus either the Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 or 55mm f/1.8 is cheaper than the Sony RX1R. And when Sony released the A7, it claimed that it focuses much faster than the RX1R, now that's a company that's innovating, not afraid of competing with its self and not crippling it's own products to make you buy another of its products.
So after all this gushing, am I going to buy one? Nope, won't happen I'm afraid. For starters, it is a very new product that is not available yet, and is destined to create a huge tidal wave in the market, during which I would prefer to be eating popcorn and watching the market go crazy. Then there are the lenses, the only interesting one right now is the $1,000 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss, I'd rather wait and see, remember, it's Sony we're talking about here, they have no issues killing or creating a whole eco-system whenever they feel like it. And then there's the Nikon DF that shall be announced by the 6th of November, the key advantage I see here is the F-Mount, with all their lenses available for immediate use. We'll see.
MICRO FOUR THIRDS
And I finally reach my current system of choice. The EM-5 is serving me really well, and I'm extremely happy with the images I am getting, if you haven't seen my 43rumors article, please do, it is the perfect summary of how I feel about the MFT compared to owning APS-C and FF DSLRs.
I have posted before about the GX7, and my expectations from the EM-1 before, so I'm not going to repeat them, but I've not commented on the EM-1 yet. I still have doubts about the looks of the EM-1 leather finish (top view looks even sexier than the EM-5 though), it just looks odd in the photos or the videos I've seen, maybe it looks better in hand, but that will have to be a leap of faith. I have promised myself since the day I bought my EM-5 and discovered the faulty eye-sensor that I would buy it's successor. The EM-1 is not the EM-5's direct successor, and at $1,400, it is expensive for a MFT camera, so I am not yet sure I am ready to buy one, especially with all the shifting in the market. Maybe the $1,700 full frame Sony A7 will force the EM-1 to lower its price? I have a feeling that Olympus might quickly drop $200 from the EM-1's price after the holidays, or even earlier, but that's just a hunch based on zero facts.
As for why I'd want an EM-1, here are the reasons in the order of their importance:
- Focus tracking that works, and 6.5 fps with continuous focus, 10 fps without.
- The best EVF ever, detailed, true colors, large magnification (same as FF DSLR).
- Better ergonomics and customizable buttons.
- Wi-fi, would be very useful during product shoots, where I can show the pictures on my iPad immediately.
- Better video options, mic input, levels, someone said you can touch to focus during recording.
- Better LCD resolution, the EM-5 weakness appears at 100% magnification.
- Larger buffer, the EM-5 gets filled up in two seconds after a 9 fps burst.
- Better IBIS and focusing speed.
- Slightly better image quality.
Now that I've said all I have, what do you think?
P.P.P.S. I have not had time to proof-read the post, so please excuse any mistakes, it took me a long time to prepare and write this post.
Friday, 11 October 2013
In my last post, I discussed my strategy for exposure for digital cameras, which usually results in images that are underexposed when downloaded straight-out-of-the-camera (SOOC). In this post, I would like to discuss my current strategy for recovering shadows. Here I use Lightroom but the same techniques can be used in other post-processing software.
COMPARISON OF THREE APPROACHES
Here is the SOOC version of the image above.
I used the approach I discussed in my last post, relying on ADL to expose for the highlights. As expected, the SOOC is underexposed. However, the relevant highlights are preserved:
 |
| even the candle highlights are preserved |
The highlights in the window on camera right are not preserved but that's ok. They don't add to the image (it was an overcast day with gray skies) and exposing for them would have led to more noise without much offsetting benefit.
Easy approach
The easiest approach is of course to use the shadow slider (increase it as needed) and the highlight recovery slider (decrease as needed). In my opinion it is also the least satisfying way to recover underexposure. The result looks HDR-ish (but if you like that effect, then this is perfect for you -- boost the clarity slider next to make it look more like HDR). Moreover, in some sensors like that of the D7100, using the shadow slider is more likely to reveal noise or worse, banding.
 |
| Using the shadow slider: HDR much? |
Global approach
The next approach is one that I've posted about before. In brief, instead of relying on the shadow slider, I use the exposure slider. I do use the shadow slider as well, but only up to about +20 or sometimes +30. More than that and it looks too artificial for me. I use as little of the shadow slider as possible.
A +20 or +30 shadow adjustment for a scene that's exposed for highlights will nowhere be enough. Therefore the heavy lifting ( sorry :) ) is done with the exposure slider which I use as much as necessary. Using the exposure slider will be more likely to blow the highlights that are actually captured. To offset that, I use aggressive highlight recovery. As much as -200 (by using an adjustment brush on top of the highlight adjustment). Unlike using the shadow recovery slider I don't find any issues with the highlight recovery.
For very contrasty scenes I get a little help by changing the camera calibration to a low contrast picture style and if necessary, by decreasing the contrast as well.
When the midtones look normal, I then work on restoring the oomph because the image will otherwise look very flat / low contrast. To do that, I increase the white slider (making whites appear more white), and I decrease the shadow slider (deepening the blacks). Does that effectively negate what I did with the highlight recovery and shadow recovery? Not at all. The net effect of those changes is to move the shadows and highlights a little closer to the middle, where it is easier to see them (partly because our eyes can differentiate more midtone shades).
Here is the result:
Here again is the first method for comparison:
This second method produces a more natural and more three-dimensional appearance. Now let's talk about the third approach.
INTRODUCING THE HOBBY APPROACH
I call my current approach the Hobby approach for two reasons: first, it is styled after Strobist David Hobby's logic of using lights; second, because it is customized for each image, it is probably not usable for event pros who need to edit thousands of shots. So, it's just for us hobbyists. :) Well, ok, editorial and portrait shooters too.
Until about a year ago, I was a huge strobist fan. My lighting collection attests to that (someday I'll review more of my lighting gear). I'm still a fan, but after having gotten the D600 with its exceptional shadow recovery abilities, I found that I could get results with postprocessing that closely mimic real artificial lighting (lol). Here's how it works (strobists among you will recognize the logic):
Shadow detail legibility
The first thing I do with the underexposed image is to raise the exposure for shadow legibility. In strobist-speak that means increasing the exposure to the point where the details of relevant shadows can be seen. What that exactly means varies depending on your shot and your taste. If for example you want an intense-looking dramatic scene then the shadow details would be barely visible. If you want a look that mimics Mr. Hobby's shooting style, you want shadow details that are pretty easy to see (enough that if you print the shot on newsprint with a lousy printer, you will still have enough detail). I myself prefer something in between.
Here again is the SOOC shot:
Highlights
To tame the highlights, I use the highlight recovery slider, that's all. I don't mind being aggressive with it, although I watch to make sure the image doesn't become too flat. For stubborn highlights, I use an adjustment brush or radial gradient to bring them down further.
Midtones
To raise the midtones, I use Lightroom 5's radial gradient. To me it looks more convincing than using the adjustment brush. If you're new to LR5, pls. note that the radial gradient can be changed to an oval/ellipse and can be tilted.
I use an inverse mask which means the effect will be within the circle that you apply instead of outside it. I also increase the feathering from 50 to 75. This simulates real world lights more closely (unless you want it to look like you used a snoot, in which case you decrease the feathering). For each gradient I try not to increase more than +0.7 or else the result looks too obvious.
I apply this radial gradient everywhere I want to raise the midtones, starting from the darkest midtones. For some areas, I apply overlapping radial gradients that are progressively smaller. For example if I have a portrait shot from the waist up then I'll apply a radial gradient for the head and body, then to highlight the face, I'll add another radial gradient just to the head area. Note that I don't just use one huge radial gradient to cover the arms as well -- I apply a separate radial gradient to each arm.
From the previous shadow legibility step:
Here are the areas where I applied a radial gradient (see the dots):
Result with midtone recovery:
Contrast
As with the second approach, I add punch to the image using the white slider, black slider, and sometimes the clarity slider.
That's pretty much all there is to this approach. Note that this method cannot recreate rim lights or kickers or hard lights. For those I use ambient light sources or flash.
Here are some more samples:
Remember my recent Abstracts post? It was during the same day that me and my friend found a dead gecko on the bathroom floor. It was tiny, but it presented a good photographic opportunity and allowed us to occupy some of the long free boring time we had on hand, hit the jump for the full story.
Before I start, I want to show you how tiny this gecko is, the camera in the picture is a Canon 60D and that's my very own Canon 60mm Macro f/2.8. The tripod is my Manfrotto 190CX Pro3.
My friend is still learning about lighting, so I let him lead to see what he would do, and every now and then I gave some pointers and suggestions. So, he started with the obvious, a slightly high angle, shooting directly on the same table where we put the gecko, and shooting from the same direction where the light came from (a large door-sized window with sunset light, which you can see from the shadow).
Here is what came out:
Not the best background, lots of dust specks (we really didn't notice it with our eyes), and it turns out the gecko had some string attached to its front left leg. And more importantly, the light didn't look good. I did a few spot removal in lightroom, and this is what I was able to get, still not good enough.
For the next attempt, I suggested that we should get rid of the brown background, and use something black instead. The only thing we had that worked was my friend's leather tablet cover.
As for lighting, I suggested shooting through the gecko with the sun coming from behind and opposite to the lens (backlighting). We also improved the composition, and shot from a much lower angle, almost from the eye-level of the gecko. Here's the setup shot, but after the sunset light went away (notice the useful tilting LCD, and the extremely useful tripod's extending center column):
And here's how it looked like with just the sunset backlighting the gecko, you'll notice we cleaned the tablet cover thoroughly, yet I had to do a little bit of spot removal.
We were shooting at f/6.3, with the lowest ISO, and the sun was setting down quickly, consecutive shots looked slightly different because of moving light. For the next iteration, I decided we should use flash, and have complete control over our lighting.
The 60D had a commander pop-up flash that triggered a remote 580EX (also my very own) in TTL mode, we were able to adjust the flash compensation either from the camera or the flash itself (which I held in my hand).
For the lighting setup, I decided to mimic the backlight as in the shot above, but with some fill from the front. To diffuse the light, and in the same spirit of the place we were staying at, I used a large (1m x 1.5m) plastic bag to diffuse the flash light and soften it. It is transparent with some writing on it that didn't affect the color of the light. I held the bag behind the gecko, and held the flash almost one meter away from the bag. It acted as a huge (compared to the gecko's size) diffuser, and gave some very soft light. For fill, I used an idea that I used previously with great results. I used a yellow piece of paper in front of the gecko to reflect the diffused light on his eye, and open up the shadows. The benefit of the yellow paper is that it reflect the light with a golden tint. Here's how it came out:
You can see the effect of the yellow reflection on his eye. And to show you the difference, here is the same shot with a normal white paper, and without the vignetting. Much less appealing in my opinion.
At that stage, we were quite satisfied with what we got, but we decided to play with the position of the backlight and the diffuser a bit, sometimes raising the light and sometimes lowering it. It resulted in different pictures for the same subject, especially for the background, and the rim light.
Finally, here's the opening picture (my favorite) again:
RELATED POSTS
Sharing Some Macros
Macro Talk: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM
Macro Fun @ Home
Abstracts With The Olympus 40-150R
Flash Series - Part 1: Canon Speedlites Chat (580EX II vs 580EX vs 430EX)
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
New cameras have been announced by Nikon and Pentax. Here are some thoughts.
Nikon D610: virtually the same as the Nikon D600, except that it has a new shutter mechanism that can do 6fps instead of 5.5fps. The new shutter can also use continuous shutter in quiet mode. The big question that everyone has is whether it will fix the dust problem. If it does then it might be worth getting the D610 instead of the D600. The cost of getting dust swabs, blowers, etc. can mount, and they are inconvenient to use. If the D610 doesn't fix the dust problem then at least you can get a D600 at hopefully larger savings.
Pentax K-3: lots of great features. The big question for me is which sensor they used? Judging by the resolution of 6016 x 4000, I think they used the same sensor as the Nikon D3200 which is by Sony. If so, that would be welcome news. The Toshiba sensor in the D5200 and D7100 has great high ISO performance but lousy shadow recovery (it has banding when shadows are recovered).
Sunday, 6 October 2013
In the third episode of this series, I will show you how I post processed the picture you see above, this is dedicated to Muhammad Usman based on his comments on the original post where I posted this photo. Hit the jump for the full post.
This photo was part of a macro shoot that I did at home, this is a small lock that I use to lock my bag during travel. I originally shot that same lock with my Canon 60mm macro a while ago, and I liked it so much that I decided to do it again with my OM-D and 12-50 lens.
On with the post then, here's the original shot:
NOTE: You can click on any of the screenshots below to see the full 1920x1080 picture.
And here's how it looked like in lightroom, with the default adjustments, you'll notice a specular highlights around the numbers 9 and 6 (shown in red), this is a useful feature in lightroom, you can press "J" while in develop module, and it will show any blown highlights in red, and deep blacks in blue:
Next I increased the blacks using the black slider until there were a few black parts in the picture, which is what I like to have in most pictures, they are shown in blue below:
And since this is a photo of an object, and not a portrait, I increased the clarity until it the picture had enough bite and a little more micro-contrast.
Now that I am done with global adjustments, it is time to crop the picture to show just the lock dials, which is what I had in mind when I was shooting:
Time for black and white, there are a few ways to do that in lightroom, and my favorite is to click the B&W button in the "HSL / Color / B&W" module on the right hand, this provides me with some color control (yes, in B&W, similar to gelled filters used in front of B&W film cameras) which I find useful in portrait and landscape shots, I will be using it in a small bit.
Usually I like more contrast and more blacks in B&W photos, unless I am going for a soft high key look, and I don't mind having large areas with crushed blacks as long as they don't contribute to the details of the image. So my next modification will be adding more blacks, since you can see the lock looks gray-ish instead of black.
Then I reduce the highlights more to bring some of the missing details around the numbers 9 and 6 which is the focus of the image.
And here's where I use the colors under the B&W section, I click the targeted adjustment tool (the small circle on the top left corner of the B&W module), and move my mouse to the part where I want to change the color, and use the scroll wheel, scrolling up lightens that color, and scrolling down makes it darker. After a few scrolls down, the lock looks better.
Still missing something, I don't like the logo at the top of the photo. Cropping to a 16 x 9 ratio will solve the issue.
And some post-crop vignetting, I don't mind going a bit strong in a B&W picture.
And for the final touches, some spot-removal to remove the spots and dust particles. There is a very useful feature in Lightroom 5 when using the spot-healing brush, you have at the bottom of the picture a square which when you tick, helps you visualize the spots in the picture.
A few clicks to remove the spots, and we're done.
I hope this has been a useful post. Finally here's the before and after.
RELATED POSTS
Post Processing Series: Episode 1 - Indoor Portrait
Post Processing Series: Episode 2 - Landscape
Macro Fun @ Home
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
