More Info About Lightroom 5's Smart Previews

One of Lightroom 5's new features is Smart Preview, which is a 2540-pixel raw format that you can generate.  They can be edited and exported just like the full resolution photo.  I was very interested in this feature because it would allow me to edit my shots faster when I don't need the full resolution photo.  However I found out that it's not exactly what I imagined it to be.

• I found that Smart Previews aren't designed as alternative files for editing.  Rather they are only designed to allow you to work on your photos when they are offline (i.e. are disconnected from the hard drive that contains the raw files).  It appears there is no built-in function to force LR to edit the smart previews when the originals are available (one way is to eject the hard drive - but also see below).
• If you really want to use Smart Previews as alternative files, it is possible to export the Smart Preview as a DNG and add those to your catalog.  You would have to take the originals offline to force LR to use the Smart Preview, then export those as DNG, then import those new DNGs.  But see below re loss of quality.
• Although Smart Previews are called 'raw' files, they have less information than the original files (not just in terms of resolution), similar to the lossy DNG format.  Victoria Brampton (LightroomQueen.com) said that if you make extreme exposure adjustments (e.g. +5EV) to the Smart Preview you may see artifacts, although those may disappear when the originals become available.
• When a file has a Smart Preview, it will load faster in the Develop module.
• If you are working on the Smart Preview (offline) and you click on 1:1 resolution, you will see the 1:1 view at the Smart Preview's resolution, not the original photo's resolution.
• When you edit a Smart Preview, the edits sync to the original photos automatically when the original becomes available.  Lightroom will compensate for the difference in resolution (e.g. in adjustments to noise reduction).

Read More

Lightroom 5 beta

Lightroom 5 beta is here!  I think this is a very significant upgrade - in my opinion, bigger than the upgrade from LR3 to LR4.

Features:

• Advanced Healing Brush: instead of correcting just a spot, you can now paint a correction.  This is so convenient!  I used to be forced to go to Photoshop just for that.  Hopefully it works well.  Update: tried it and just got reminded it's not a substitute for content-aware spot healing because it has to take the brushed area from another area, just like the old spot healing.
• Smart Previews: can generate a 2540-pixel raw file (while keeping the original file).  Wow.  Most of the time I don't need a full-resolution shot and I wished that the D600 had an sRaw (small raw) format just like Canon.  LR5 makes that dream come true!  Update: now I'm a little confused because I don't know when I'm looking at the preview and when I'm looking at the original.  What I do know is that with smart preview, LR5 is super responsive (not surprising given that the smart preview is only 1mb whereas the actual image is 20+mb).
• Radial Gradient: similar to the gradient tool except you can do it with a circular or oblong pattern.  This is very useful to me because I otherwise have to resort to using the adjustment brush.  Update: very usable.  I think I will use this tool very often.

Comment re Smart Previews: because of the smaller preview size LR5 is incredibly responsive even on my not super fast laptop (i5, 8gb ram). (I can only imagine the performance benefit with SSD.) I know some people have hesitated to upgrade to a high-res camera like the D800, D600, or D7100 because of the concern about processing high-res files. For example, for wedding photographers who have to take hundreds or thousands of shots per wedding, a D800 or even a D600 or D7100 might not be practical. With smart preview, this is no longer a concern.  Plus you have the flexibility of using the full resolution if you want to.  If LR5 was out at the time of the D800, I might have bought the D800 instead of the D600.  More detailed analysis of smart previews: http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4225934/adobe-lightroom-5-beta-hands-on-smart-previews-radial-gradients-easy-straightening

UPDATE: I found that Smart Previews isn't exactly what I hoped for. See this post for more info about Smart Previews.

[Some may wonder - what's the point of a high-res camera if it will be downsampled. The benefits include sharpness and less noise.]

Other features:

• Upright tool: automatically levels horizons and corrects keystoning.  This is a new tab under Lens Corrections.
• Video slideshow: combine photos, videos, and music in a creative HD slideshow.
• Upgrades to the Book module.
• In the spot removal tool, there is a new option called 'Visualize Spots' to show spots more easily.

Still no layers, unfortunately (Corel's Aftershot Pro does have that).

Download here:  http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom5/

Note: the beta expires June 30, 2013 therefore expect LR5 to be available on or before then.

Note 2: historically, Adobe has only provided raw support for the new cameras in the current version of Lightroom (and Photoshop) therefore if you buy a new camera after LR5 is released, don't expect to find Adobe raw support for it in LR4 or previous versions of LR.  You'll have to use the DNG converter unless you get LR5.

Read More

The Nikon D7100 Alternative I Chose

Happy April 15th!  Hopefully you are receiving a tax refund! :)

This post is a follow-up to my previous post where I discussed alternatives to the Nikon D7100.  Here, I'll talk about which one I chose, and why.

All of the alternatives I presented were genuinely attractive to me, so I had to use a process of elimination.  Please note much of my reasoning is particular to my situation, and everyone has unique circumstances so the best choice would likely be different for each of us.

Fuji X-E1.  I love the image quality (including the quality of the Fuji X system lenses).  I also really like the Fuji colors (especially skin tones).  However, I have two significant concerns: first, the lens selection is too limited.  I want to use a telephoto with my 2nd body and there aren't any fast telephoto lenses (yet) for the X-E1.  I also want to use ultrawides and the widest Fuji lens right now is only 21mm equivalent, with no fisheyes available.  Although it does have good primes, I already have those focal lengths covered with the D600.  Second, its flash system is also a weak point for me -- Fuji's wireless flash system is a lot simpler than those of Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony (for example, no wireless TTL), and its sync speed is a sluggish 1/180 (and since my settings are in 1/3 stops, then I actually have to use 1/160).  I might consider this system in the future if I wanted to shoot more simply and they have prime lenses in a 28 or 35mm equivalent and an 85mm equivalent.

Nikon D5100.  I could have saved a lot by choosing this camera, and it has a very good sensor plus the tilt screen that I want.  But I was concerned that I might run into some of its limitations in the future, such as not having a built-in focus motor, or a built-in flash commander.  The biggest concern I had was the absence of AF fine tuning.  When I had a D90, I found it performed very well but my 24-70 was backfocusing on it, therefore images were always out of focus.  It annoyed me enough so that I sold the D90 and replaced it with a D300S.  With the D5100, I didn't want to end up with the same problem.  However, if I had only a few lenses and could buy the D5100 from a local store that would allow me to test the body with my lenses and exchange bodies if necessary, this might have been a viable choice.

Olympus OM-D E-M5.  I was really tempted by the fast and accurate autofocus, and the tilting touch screen, both of which I think could greatly increase my chance of capturing candid shots, which is what I shoot most of the time.  I am only slightly concerned about the depth of field which is deeper than an APS-C camera. Because I'm using my 2nd body for wide angles (where I usually want a deep DOF) or for telephoto (where the DOF is deep enough even with m4/3, and in fact has a more usable DOF than a full frame) it's not a significant disadvantage for me.  The problem for me was the cost of changing my lenses.  I'm already too invested in the Nikon system.  If I didn't have any lenses yet or if I wanted to shoot with just a couple of primes, this would have been my first or second choice.

Nikon D700.  There is very little to complain about the D700, which is a great camera from pretty much everything relevant to me including dynamic range, high ISO performance, and autofocus.  One concern was the cost of having to changing my DX lenses to FX equivalents.  That is balanced out by the strengths of the FX alternatives (for example, the Nikon 70-200 f4 VR and Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC both seem better than the Sigma 50-150 non-OS).  Ultimately I did not get the D700 because I could not find one that I felt was reasonably priced, and the only ones I saw were more than double the cost of the camera I chose.  In the future, when D700 prices drop sufficiently, I may trade up to a D700.

And the camera I chose, somewhat predictably, is the

Nikon D7000.  When the D7000 first came out I was very impressed with its specs.  I was even more impressed when I found out about how well its sensor performed (for high ISO and for dynamic range).  I wanted one for a long time but was put off by the high prices (even for used ones).  This year, with the release of the D7100, D7000 prices have come down to more reasonable levels.  Most importantly for me, it has no significant weaknesses.  I do have a little concern about the autofocus (some have complained about it) but I'm hoping it will be acceptable.

Meanwhile, I found a used one that was reasonably priced and was described as in very good condition from Adorama.  Note: Adorama and B&H have very stringent ratings for their used cameras. When Adorama or B&H says the camera is in 'very good' condition, I interpret that as another seller's 'excellent' condition.  On top of that, the camera had a 6-month warranty.  Indeed, the camera was in great condition with no scratches or dings (it was missing the manuals though).  Its shutter count was only 3003!  So, in the next coming weeks I will be testing the D7000 out and will post about how it compares to the D600 and the D7100.

There is actually one more reason I chose the D7000 (a reason that applies equally to the D700): I can add a tilting LCD to it!  Specifically, the D7000 uses an older analog audio/video output (not the HDMI port of current models) which is compatible with the Aputure Gigtube, a compact external live view monitor and remote shutter with a tilting LCD screen.  (The Gigtube is available for several Canon and Nikon cameras.)

The Gigtube can be mounted to the camera and function as a tilting LCD screen.  I will be posting about how well the Gigtube works in practice.

a waist-level finder for the D7000!

Read More

Pop Quiz

I was testing out a new camera today, and I took this photo, what camera/lens would you say were used to take this?

Read More

Alternatives to the Nikon D7100

Nikon D7100 + Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5D.

Are you tired of reading all these posts about the Nikon D7100?  Well don't worry, I'm taking a break from the D7100 posts.  Last week, when I was doing tests on banding, I could not find a satisfactory solution to the banding issue.  In my frustration, I actually returned the D7100.  Ironically, right after I did, I found out from the Flickr D7100 Group about RawTherapee, which pretty much solves the banding problem and puts the D7100 back on the top of my list.  So, yes I will repurchase it.  But in the meantime, before I found out about RawTherapee, I considered several alternatives to the Nikon D7100.



Here are the cameras I considered:

Nikon D7000.  Known for having incredible shadow recovery capabilities.  Even though its high ISO is not as good as that of the D7100, it still has one of the best high ISO capabilities among APS-C cameras.  Now available used for $600+ or sometimes less.  Even the Nikon refurbished one is only $750.  Possible concerns: some have complained about the autofocus.  Some have also complained about having dust or oil spots on the sensor.

Nikon D5100.  Same incredible sensor as that of the D7000 but adds a tilting LCD screen, which I want for unusual shooting angles.  Available refurbished for a very reasonable $400.  I have a long list of concerns: this would be the first entry level Nikon for me, and it lacks many of the features I have gotten used to such as having two command dials and having a built-in commander.  Most importantly, it doesn't have AF fine tuning.  It also doesn't have an autofocus motor and I have some lenses that don't have built-in AF motors (Tokina 10-17, Tokina 11-16, Nikon 28-105 and who knows what else in the future).

Nikon D700.  For the longest time I had wanted a D700 but I ended up getting a D3 because of the high prices for a used D700.  Prices have now come down since then, and I've seen it a few times in the $1200+ range, although more typically it is a little higher.  Great high ISO performance and shadow recovery.  Good AF system.  Doesn't have video but I can live without that.  "Only" 12mp but that's still more than what I need.  My concern is that because it's full frame, I will have to change some of my lenses.  But some of the choices will be easier.  For example I could use the Sigma 35 1.4 on the D600 and Nikon 85 1.8G or Tamron 70-300 VC on the D700.

Olympus OM-D E-M5.  My coauthor MShafik loves his.  See here.  The biggest attraction for me is the fast and accurate autofocus.  I would also like the tilting LCD.  I also wonder whether the small size would change my shooting style (perhaps I might try shooting candid street photos).  My concerns are that I would have to change some of my lenses, and might have to buy an m4/3 flash.  I am also a little bit concerned about reselling it in the future because there are fewer m4/3 shooters than Nikon shooters.

Fuji X-E1.  I have heard very good things about the image quality (which are in part due to the excellent lenses in Fuji's X system) and the autofocus.  It also looks very stylish (I can't believe I'm saying that!  But at least I do know my wife would love to use it).  Just like the OM-D I would have to replace some of my lenses, and the X system has fewer lenses to choose from (and no fast telephoto lenses yet).  Obviously resale is a big concern.  Also, no one knows if the X system will still be around down the road.

Nikon D600.  I would love to have a second one but obviously it costs too much.  The funny thing is I saw a used one advertised on craigslist for just $1350!  But when I read the details -- supposedly "shipped to me by Adorama" but "was given as a gift" and therefore has no box, etc. etc.  It was obvious there was something fishy going on.

In my next post, you'll see which one I chose.

Read More

Nikon D7100 - FAQ and Helpful Links

Here are some helpful links for information related to the Nikon D7100. Most of the information here is posted on the Flicrk D7100 Group.

Reviews of the D7100

Hands-on real-world user review: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-hands-on-real-world-review.html
More reviews: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632998778705/

Comparison between D7100 and D7000
First Impressions: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633048733669/
ISO 6400: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633049390320/
User perspective by Alex Boge and macwalter44: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633117224006/

Comparison between D7100 and D600
Daylight shots: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633061265256/
Low light test shots: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/7215763304547485...

DXO score
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633101662527/

Image quality tests

DPReview studio scene test: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d7100/7

Imaging Resource studio scene test: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7100/nikon-d7100A7.HTM
High ISO comparison vs. D7000, D600 and D700: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/high-iso-comparison-d7100-vs-d7000-d600.html

Low light teaser: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-low-light-teaser.html

Samples of moire: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633004426130/

Banding

Real world dynamic range preview: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-real-world-dynamic-range.html

Shadow recovery: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2013/03/nikon-d7100-shadow-recovery.html

Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot

Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding

D7100 Tips (including importing raw into Lightroom)
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632998886398/
Importing raw into Picasa, Faststone:
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633006777765/
Importing raw into Picasa and Rawtherapee:
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633058180679/

Lenses tested with the D7100
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633031077056/

User's manual
support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/18247

When can we expect shipment? (thread includes Canada)
www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632958569796/
Amazon: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157632993134705/
Amazon UK: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633044987172/
Adorama: www.flickr.com/groups/nikond7100/discuss/72157633008595665/

Read More

Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding

I haven't posted in a while but only because I've been doing a lot of testing about the Nikon D7100 banding issue.  In this post, I will discuss ways to reduce the chance of banding, and what to do if it does show up.

THE NIKON D5200 AND D7100 BANDING ISSUE

First of all, the banding is real. It affects the Nikon D5200 and Nikon D7100, both of which share the same Toshiba sensor.  Although the D5200 / D7100 sensor outperforms the Nikon D7000, the D5200 / D7100 sensor can have horizontal line pattern noise in deep shadows in low ISOs if the exposure is pushed significantly.  Let's look at each of those factors one by one.

Deep shadows.  Banding will show up only in shadows, and only if the shadows are deep enough.  If the shadows are not very deep, there will be little or no banding.  Here is a test shot:

In post, I raised the exposure by +5EV, way past what is needed for recovering shadows in the image.  (For the argumentative ones among us, I'm obviously doing this for discussion purposes only.)



If you look at the result, even at 100% view, there is mostly no banding, except in the darkest parts of the shadows.  The thinner left branch has negligible banding while the part of the tree trunk in the middle has some banding visible.  

Most of the image has negligible banding, like the left branch, which shows that banding tends to appear only in the deepest shadows.

Low ISOs.
If the ISO is high enough, the banding will not be easily discernible because of the noise in the image.  Here is a test shot at 1000 ISO (cropped).


Even if the exposure is raised +5EV, the banding is hardly visible.

100% crop

Significant pushing
From testing several shots at 14-bit raw, it seems that the banding will show up if exposure is pushed by around +2.7 to +3EV. But see below re shadow recovery vs. exposure.

If you combine these three factors, it gives you an idea of the likelihood of the banding issue affecting your shots.  For most people, it is very unlikely.  For a few people, such as those who like to shoot sunsets, it is more likely to be observable (depending on other factors such as whether they like sunsets that show a lot of shadow detail or no detail like as a silhouette).  In my case, I like to shoot backlit shots and I often underexpose intentionally to preserve highlights, then push the exposure in post.  So I would say my risk is higher than average.  Nonetheless, I have not yet seen banding in my normal shots, except for that day when I shot with 12-bit lossy compression (see below).

NOT A MANUFACTURING DEFECT

Earlier I had wondered whether it was an issue affecting only some units (i.e. a manufacturing defect) because the DPReview and Imaging Resource samples seem to show very little banding.  However, I have gone back to the store where I purchased my camera and tried out another D7100.  It showed the same banding behavior as my camera.  A couple of folks on the Flickr D7100 Group and the DPReview forum have also tried more than one unit, and they also showed banding.  This suggests that the banding issue affects all units.

WHAT ABOUT OTHER CAMERAS?
I had a chance to compare the D7000 and D7100.  Here are shots I took using the same exposure and same lens:

D7100

D7000


Using the in-camera raw processor, I pushed exposure by 2 stops.  Here are the results:

D7100


D7000



Here is a screenshot of a side-by-side comparison (note: there is a difference in magnification due to the difference in resolution):

I have looked at files from my older Nikons and I pushed the exposure +5EV in shots with deep shadow.  At +5EV, I did not find any banding in the Fuji S5, Nikon D300S, D300, D90, or even the 7-year old D80.  (Definitely no banding on the D3 or D600.)  I did see banding on the D70 when exposure was pushed significantly.  And y'all probably know banding also affects Canon cameras.

HOW TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF BANDING

Given that the banding is a real phenomenon for the D5200 and D7100, what can we do to reduce the chance of banding (besides the factors already mentioned above)?

14-bit raw

The easiest way to reduce banding is to use 14-bit raw.  In a previous post I found that 14-bit raw has far less banding than 12-bit raw.  Go to the shooting menu on the camera, find the option for NEF (RAW) Recording and set it to 14-bit.  We may as well use lossless compression as well, just in case.

JPEG vs. RAW

In some cases, using JPEG instead of raw shows less banding partly because the JPEG would clip shadow details that would otherwise be retained in the raw version, albeit with banding.  However, for me, using raw has too many advantages that I don't wish to forgo simply to avoid banding, so I can't really do much about this except perhaps to use JPEG + Raw for shots where I suspect I will get banding.  At least I will have the option to choose.

Shadow vs. Exposure

It appears that in Lightroom, using the shadow slider may show banding more readily than an adjustment with similar brightness that uses the exposure slider.  However, if the version with the exposure slider is adjusted in other ways to look the same as the one with the shadow slider, then the amount of banding is similar.

Non-factors
I tested other factors and did not see a significant effect on banding from the use of Active D-Lighting, Liveview vs. viewfinder, sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, high ISO NR, long exposure NR.

There may be other factors but these are the ones I am aware of.

BANDING THERAPY

In this part, we'll talk about what to do when banding appears.

If banding does show up in your shot, the good news is that it can be mitigated in RawTherapee (thanks to Markku for the tip!), at the expense of some shadow detail.  If you're not familiar with RawTherapee, hold off on googling it for a moment and check out the results first.

I used RawTherapee v4.0.  I exported the problematic shot as a DNG, which RawTherapee was able to open.


BTW this was one of those shots that I took using 12-bit lossy compression before I found out the problem with doing that.  Anyway, I noticed that the saturation and contrast were a little different (I suspect because LR uses custom profiles such as Adobe Standard, Camera Standard, etc. etc., which are not part of the metadata).  I increased the saturation and contrast to match the Lightroom version a little more closely.

I zoomed in an area that I knew had banding in LR.  Interestingly, in RT, the banding was much less noticeable.

Lightroom version (exported as a TIFF) with visible banding.

RawTherapee version with less visible banding.

Hold on, we're not done.  RT has a debanding tool called line noise filter.  Click on the Raw tab (it looks like a checkerboard) or use the keyboard shortcut Alt-R.  Under 'Preprocessing,' you'll find line noise filter.  What line noise filter does is disguise the banding by adding noise.  As far as I can tell, it affects only the areas with the banding noise, leaving the clean parts of the image alone, so in that sense it is better than simply applying the grain effect to the whole image in Lightroom.  Anyway, you should use as little of the filter as possible because the more of it you use, the more details you lose.  Plus, at stronger levels, it creates artifacts on the edge between the noisy areas and clean areas.

Anyway, I started out with 1, then tried 10 and went upwards in increments of 10.  When the banding was removed, I tried going down from that point by 5, etc. gradually identifying the minimum level.  In this case I applied a filter level of 15.  Here is the result:

And here are the complete images for comparison (click for full-resolution)

Lightroom version:


RawTherapee with line noise filter:


So there you have it.  On the hopefully uncommon occasions where you have banding on the D5200 or D7100, RawTherapee is available to mitigate the banding.  (Incidentally, I must say I really like the way RT rendered the highlights on the skin. I like it much better than how it was rendered in Lightroom.)  BTW did you take my request not to google RawTherapee?  That's because I wanted to save the best bit -- it's free! :D


RELATED POSTS
Nikon D7100 Hands-On Real World User Review
Importing D7100 Raw Files Into Lightroom
Nikon D7100 Low Light Teaser
Nikon D7100 FAQ and Helpful Links

Nikon D7100 Shadow Recovery
Nikon D7100 Real World Dynamic Range
Nikon D5200 and D7100 Band-Aid: Solutions for Banding
Sample of D7100 banding in a real world shot

Read More