Having Fun

This image was edited in Lightroom only.  Do you know how it was done?

The effect was done in-camera.  It happened because I was shooting through a net.  Shooting through through the net at the right distance is similar to using shaped bokeh (where you place a cutout in front of your lens to shape the bokeh).  Here, the net created an interesting diagonal bokeh pattern.  I went further and blurred the whole shot to use the diagonal bokeh like a brush, to paint an impressionistic scene.  It's something you can try next time you're shooting through a barrier instead of wishing the barrier was gone :)

Read More

Comments on recent news about lenses

Just wanted to share some thoughts on some recent news about lenses.

TAMRON 70-200 2.8 VC

DXO recently released its test results for the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC for Nikon. DXO found that the Tamron 70-200 (22 P-mp on a D800) is sharper than the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II (20 P-mp) and the Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR (21 P-mp).

I would be interested in the Tamron but am very concerned about the size and weight. If it's too inconvenient to carry with me I will likely end up not using it very often. For now, my preferred telephoto lens is still the Nikon 85 1.8G (19 P-mp on a D800 or D600).

SIGMA 18-35 1.8

Last week, Sigma announced the pricing and availability for the Sigma 18-35 1.8, which will have a street price of $799 in the U.S. and will be available in July. I had been interested in this lens as a complement to the Nikon 85 1.8G. The price is not low but I was actually expecting it to be higher. Nonetheless I will probably pass on this lens. The reason is that the Sigma 18-35 1.8 is equivalent to having a 24-50 2.8 full frame lens in terms of depth of field and effective sensitivity. In that regard, I already have the Nikon 28-70 2.8D which I'm happy with and in addition I already have the Sigma 35 1.4. If you ask me, I would prefer the Sigma 35 1.4 over a 24-50 2.8.

My problem is that if I use the Sigma 35 1.4 on my D600, I don't have a great telephoto alternative for the D7000. The 85 1.8G perhaps, but it's kind of long for my purposes.

Anyway here are Photoworld's hands-on impressions of the Sigma 18-35 with sample shots.

ALTERNATIVE TO TOKINA 11-16

I'm currently using the Tokina 11-16 2.8 (on the D7000) to complement my 85 1.8G (on the D600). I like the Tokina but it's a little shorter than I'd like on the long end. I am contemplating replacing the Tokina 11-16 with a Sigma 10-20 3.5. The 30mm equivalent on the long end would be useful to me. When I had the 28 1.8G I liked the focal length and I think it would be a good compromise between having a 28mm and 35mm lens. I've also had the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 which I found quite sharp, so I am pretty sure that the 10-20 3.5 will be sharp enough for me. Besides, according to DXO, the Sigma 10-20 3.5 and Tokina 11-16 are both about as sharp (8 pmp on a D7000). The Sigma is slower than the Tokina but the D7000's high ISO performance is decent, so I don't feel I need a fast wide angle lens as much as I needed to with the Fuji S5.

Read More

Nikon D7000 vs. Nikon D7100

D7000 + Tokina 11-16

I've been using the Nikon D7000 for a couple of months now, and in this post I'd like to share my thoughts on the Nikon D7000 and Nikon D7100, after having about 1600 shots on each.

BACKGROUND

I got the Nikon D7100 on launch day and was very pleased with it.  Here is my review.  However, I found that it was susceptible to banding if I make significant exposure adjustments during postprocessing.  Because I often do just that for scenes with a wide dynamic range, I returned the D7100.  Only later on did I find that the banding could actually be significantly mitigated using RawTherapee.

Meanwhile, however, I got a D7000 as a replacement.  I chose the D7000 because the cost had dropped significantly and partly because I could use it with an external tilting LCD, the Aputure Gigtube (reviewed here).

In this post, I'd like to discuss the most significant differences I've found between these two cameras.  My concern is not so much on theoretical differences between them, but whether their differences matter to me the way I normally use my cameras.  

At the time I got the D7100, I upgraded from the 12-megapixel D300S (and before that the D90).  The D7100 was therefore a major upgrade for me in many ways, not the least of which was the resolution.  However, I usually don't make large prints and 95% of the time, I post my shots for online viewing only, at web sizes.  In my case web size means 1200 or 1600 pix, and I view them on a mere 15 inch laptop screen.

SHARPNESS

When I first got the D7100, I was surprised that the D7100 shots did look sharper to me, even at moderate web resolutions (1200 or 1600 pixels on the long edge).  The D7100 web-sized shots had a certain crispness to them that I had not seen from any of my previous DX cameras.  You can click on the images below for 1600-pix versions.

D7100 with 28-105 3.5-4.5D at f/4.2

D90 with 24-70 2.8G at f/4

On the other hand, between the D7100 and D7000, the difference in resolution is not as great.  Below are test shots I was able to take the day I got the D7100 (please ignore the filenames and EXIF) with the same 35 1.8G lens.  Please note that on the D7100 shot, I adjusted the exposure +1/3 stop to account for the difference in real ISO between the two cameras (as found by DPReview).  When I compare the test shots below at this web-size resolution (1600 pix), I can't see a difference.

D7000

D7100

Here are a couple of real-world web-size samples (at 1200 pix).  In both shots, I used the Tokina 11-16 at f/2.8, although the exposures are different, and there is a difference in focusing distance (and hence DoF).

D7000 + Tokina 11-16 @ f/2.8, 1/2000, ISO 100.

D7100 + Tokina 11-16 @ f/2.8, 1/100, ISO 250.

NOISE

One of the strengths of the Nikon D7100 is its low noise.  Actually when D7100 shots are viewed 100% they are about the same as that of the D7000.  However, when a 24mp D7100 shot is viewed at the same size as a 12mp photo from the Nikon D3 or D700, they appear to have about the same amount of noise (IOW, the D7100 is just as good in terms of noise as the D700 even though the latter is full frame).  Resizing a D7100 image to match the 16mp D7000 size also has a similar effect of making noise less apparent, but the effect is more noticeable at higher ISOs.  See this post for more information.

The issue is, would the D7100 still have better noise than the D7000 at the sizes I usually view my shots?  Check out the test shots above at the camera store.  Both were at ISO 6400 with no noise reduction applied, and to me, they are both clean enough at these smaller viewing sizes.

Here are two real world samples at still higher ISOs.  The light conditions in them are not the same because to be honest I have very few shots at extremely high ISOs and these were the only ones I saw that were somewhat comparable.  The D7100 shot is at ISO 12800, with no flash.  The D7000 shot was at ISO 3200 but pushed two stops, also with no flash.  You can click on them for 1200-pix versions.

D7100, ISO 12800



D7000, D3200 + 2 stops (~ 12800). Note: image intentionally desaturated

The D7100 shot is of course sharper because the subject is not moving.  With respect to noise, the D7100 looks a little cleaner to me, though the difference is not so obvious at smaller viewing sizes.


BANDING

As I mentioned above, I was very concerned with the D7100's banding because I do push my exposure from time-to-time for high contrast scenes, such as this:



D7000 + Tokina 11-16.  After postprocessing.

Straight out of the camera.



In the shot above, I intentionally underexposed to preserve the detail in the sky outside. In Lightroom, I had to push the exposure +4.68 EV and +34 shadow to get the final shot.  With the D7000 there is no banding even at these extreme adjustments.  With the D7100, banding would have appeared with these extreme adjustments.

However, viewing the images at web sizes, the D7100 banding is not visible.  Here is a shot that does have banding (in this version of this shot, I did not use RawTherapee):

At web sizes, the banding is not visible, even at a 2048-pix size.  This means that it only becomes necessary to mitigate banding when you need to make very large prints (or when you want to engage in internet debates).  BTW, you can click on the shot to see other resolutions, including the full 24mp resolution where banding is visible.

AUTOFOCUS

I liked the autofocus of the D7100, not just because its 51 AF points covered most of the frame, but because it was snappy and worked well in low light.  I have never experienced the D7100 autofocus hesitating in low light, even when I shot in very dark conditions.

On the D7000, the 39 AF points are adequate for me.  They encompass the intersections of the rule of thirds.  There are occasions when the extra coverage of the 51 AF points would have been useful but I can make do with the 39 AF points.

As for low light, I did encounter situations where the D7000 has sometimes found it difficult to autofocus in low light, especially with slower lenses.  On the whole, however, I found the D7000 autofocus performance to be adequate.

I have heard some people complain about the D7000's autofocus accuracy, but I haven't had any issues with accuracy (I do use AF fine tuning for my lenses).

AUTO ISO

One of my favorite features on the D7100 is its smarter Auto ISO.  Like the D600, the D7100 can take the focal length into account for the minimum shutter speed.  Moreover, the D7100 uses the effective focal length with the 1.5x crop factor.

That is one of the features I miss on the D7000.  With the D7000, I just have to set the minimum shutter speed manually (usually around 1/125).  Activating Auto ISO is also not as easy on the D7000.  On the D7100, I could hold the ISO button and the sub-command dial to activate it.  On the D7000, there is no such option.  Instead, I assign Auto ISO to the top item in My Menu and use the Fn button to activate the top item in My Menu, i.e. Auto ISO.

IMAGE REVIEW

When reviewing images on the D7100, you can set the OK button to show a 100% view of the image to quickly confirm autofocus accuracy.  The D7000 has no such feature (neither does the D600).

EFFECT OF EXPOSURE COMPENSATION ON FLASH

Historically, on Nikon cameras, adjusting exposure compensation will affect both the ambient exposure and flash exposure (whereas on Canon cameras, adjusting exposure compensation only affects ambient exposure). For example, if you want to underexpose the background while having a subject lit by flash with normal exposure, then you would dial -2 exposure compensation let's say (to underexpose the background), but because the -2 exposure compensation also affects flash exposure, you need to raise the flash exposure by +2 to offset the reduction. Regardless of Nikon's reasons for its implementation, I don't like it and it slows me down.

The Nikon D4 was the first Nikon camera to include an option to change the effect of exposure compensation. You could specify whether exposure compensation affects both ambient and flash or just ambient. Although this new feature was not included in the D800, it did make its way to the D600 (one of the reasons I really like the D600), and it also was included in the D7100. To me, this is a significant advantage of the D7100 over the D7000, if you often use TTL flash with semi-automatic exposure (Program, Aperture priority, or Shutter priority).

LIVE VIEW

The implementation of live view on the D7100 is the same as that of the D600: both of them have a live view button, surrounded by a switch between photo and movie mode.  To toggle live view, you press the live view button.

The live view control on the D7000 is different.  There is a button surrounded by a switch but they have different functions from those of the D7100 and D600.  To activate Live view, you flick the spring-mounted switch.  There are no separate photo or movie modes.  Instead, when live view photo is active, it behaves like live view photo mode.  To record a movie, you press the record button in the middle of the switch.

The D7100 implementation has practical advantages over the D7000 implementation:
1. It is faster to toggle live view by pressing a button than flicking a switch.  This is useful for example when changing the aperture.  I double-tap the button to quickly exit and reenter live view to see the actual aperture in live view.
2. The D7100 has separate Fn and Preview functions for movie mode.  The D7000's Fn and Preview buttons don't change whether you are taking photos or recording a video.
3. The D7100 implementation is less confusing with respect to changing the aperture.  Both the D7000 and D7100 do not allow changing the aperture in real time while live view is active (unless you use a lens with an aperture ring).   In the case of the D7100, when you are in movie mode, rotating the front dial will not change the aperture.  In photo mode, rotating the front dial will change the aperture (even though the change in DOF will not shown in real time in live view) because the photo you take will be taken at the aperture you selected.

In the case of the D7000, rotating the front dial will seem to display a change in aperture.  When taking a photo, indeed, the photo is taken at the aperture you selected.  However, if you record a movie, the movie will be recorded at the aperture you selected at the moment you activated live view.  Rotating the front dial has no effect notwithstanding the change in indicated aperture.

CONCLUSION
The D7100 is the best DX camera I've owned.  It is far better than my previous DX cameras (D70, D80, D90, D300, D300S, even Fuji S5).  However, the D7000 is also better than those cameras and is a reasonable alternative to the D7100.  To me, the most significant advantages of the D7100 over the D7000 are its features: autofocus performance, Auto ISO, instant zoom when reviewing images, more logical flash control, and live view.  With respect to image quality, it depends on how you view your images.  If you make large prints, the D7100 will have better image quality than the D7000.  If, like me, you only view your images online at web viewing sizes, the difference in image quality between the two will not be discernible.  This is true not just for sharpness and noise, but also with respect to banding.

SAMPLES FROM THE D7000

Sigma 35 1.4

Sigma 35 1.4

Sigma 35 1.4

Tokina 11-16

Tokina 11-16

Tokina 11-16

Tokina 11-16

Tokina 11-16

Read More

An Evening with Friends Part 2

Some more observations from the photos I took a few weeks ago at my friend's party.  Part 1 is here.




LENSES
I spent about 6 hours taking photos (not including the time for setting up and for dinner).  In that time, I took a little over 1,500 shots.  I narrowed that to around 250 shots which I edited and gave to my friend.  I found it interesting that of the final shots, more than half (131 shots) were from the 70-200.  I would have thought that the majority would have been from the 28-70.

The shots I chose tended to be the ones where I liked the expressions and emotions, so I think it's not a coincidence that many were from the 70-200.  It was simply easier to capture candid moments with the long focal length.

And I think even when the subjects were aware that I was taking a photo, they were more a little more at ease because I was farther away.

To be honest, I was kind of distant and aloof, focused on my task instead of being friendly and co-mingling with the guests, so perhaps that was a factor, and a more friendly photographer would have had more keepers from a closer range.  Anyway, this makes me reconsider the importance of a telephoto lens for an event.

Speaking of taking photos at a closer range, I liked the group shots where I was closer to the group and was using a wide angle lens (28mm or 35mm), like the shot at the beginning of this post and the one below.

Those shots feel more natural and intimate to me than shots taken from a distance.  However, I should note that when I'm using a wide angle lens this way, the subjects have to be kind of close to each other or else they will appear too spread apart.  In that regard, a lot of the credit goes to the guests, because they were close friends so they were physically closer to each other.  The people at the party were also friendly to me and most were comfortable in front of the camera.

I'd like to talk about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 as well.  I found it incredibly useful.  I didn't use the 35mm for a long time, relying instead on the versatility of the 28-70.  However, the Sigma 35 1.4 had a much higher percentage of final keepers.  The 28-70 had 66 finalists out of 588 shots (11%).  The 35mm had 35 finalists out of 131 shots (27%).  At least part of that is because I was able to warm up with the 28-70, but still, even during the time when I was switching between the 28-70 and 35 1.4, the 35 1.4 had more keepers.  I think it was partly due to the field of view and partly due to the shallower depth of field.

28mm

35mm

Switching topics, about the Tokina 11-16, I didn't use it as much as I thought I would.  On the other hand, the shots from it were unique and would not have been easily done on other lenses.

In the shot below, the flowers were actually very small.  The Tokina 11-16 allowed me to move close to them and make them appear large relative to the hotel.

CAMERAS
I used the Nikon D600, Nikon D7000 and Fuji S5.  It was incredibly useful to have the D600.  The shots from it were far cleaner than those from the D7000.  It was not even close.

The D600 could get clean shots at 25,600 ISO.  The shot below was SOOC (except for white balance and a slight crop) with no noise reduction.  With the D7000, I had to use a lot of noise reduction.

ISO 25,600

The D600 also allowed me to adjust the photos as much as I wanted.  Nonetheless, I was glad I used flash.  The flash improved the shots significantly, compared to those where I turned off the flash.

I would say my ideal combination for this kind of event would be two D600s -- one with a 35 1.4 and the other with a 70-200.  The D7000 actually is fine with the 70-200.  The only thing is that with the crop factor, the gap between the 35mm and 105mm equivalent is a little too wide.

Anyway, here are more shots from the party.

Read More

Lightroom 5 Now Available

Lightroom 5, previewed here, is now available.  The full price is $149, or $79 for an upgrade.  It's available direct from Adobe. Alternatively, it is also included with your subscription to Creative Cloud.



IMO, this is a major upgrade and, given how essential Lightroom is for my workflow, I upgraded right away. I downloaded and installed the upgrade without any issues.  However, please note that if you tried the LR5 beta, then LR5 will open your LR5 beta catalog by default.  If you plan to use your old catalog, you need to open your old catalog, and you will be prompted to convert it (just to be sure, back it up before you do so).  Be warned: converting your old catalog can take a while, depending on the size of your catalog.

ISSUES
I edited some of the party shots using LR5 and after I exported them, I noticed that some of the shots reverted to an earlier state in Lightroom.  However, the exported shot is the correct version.  This happened for a handful of shots.  Not sure if this bug is unique to LR5.  I was able to go to the correct version using History.  Another weird effect: my S5 shots had a +30 saturation applied to some of them.  I was editing the shots until 3am so I could have done that by mistake but it could be another bug.

One issue for users of Jeff Friedl's Picasa plug-in: it won't be imported to LR5.

Another bug reported by Jeff Friedl: you should not select images in a grid while in a publish service.  See here.

ADOBE CAMERA RAW 8
If you use Photoshop CS6, you should upgrade to Adobe Camera Raw 8 to ensure compatibility with LR5.  Just go to Help... Updates to check if you have the current version and update as needed.  Do this after you convert your catalog because you may need to close Lightroom 5 to complete the Photoshop update.

ACR8 will be slightly disabled in CS6 -- you won't be able to add new effects such as radial gradient --  Adobe's way of coercing you to get a Creative Cloud subscription, notwithstanding the hundreds of dollars you already paid for CS6.  Fortunately, if you have an image edited on LR5 or Creative Cloud with the new effects, the updated CS6 will be able to view the new effects (even as a Smart Object) although you won't be able to change the new effects.

For older versions of Photoshop, you can export from Lightroom as a TIFF.

Read More

Thank You

This week, we reached a milestone for this blog - a million pageviews.  Thank you very much for your support!

We will be celebrating this milestone in a special way that we hope you will like.

LET'S CELEBRATE!

In gratitude for your support, we're donating all proceeds since the blog's inception from our Amazon Affiliates account to charity.  We're still just a relatively small blog, so the commissions are not earth-shattering but here they are ($253.74): 

The charity we chose is the Task Force for Global Health, Inc.  Initially I thought of donating to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation because of the amazing projects they are doing for the world (such as working to eradicate malaria).  However the Gates Foundation suggested donating directly to the recipients of their grants.  In that regard, one of the largest recipients of their grants for 2013 was the Task Force for Global Health.  I figured the Gates Foundation did their due diligence and found them to be a very effective charity before awarding them such a huge grant, so that's the charity we chose as well:

The specific TFGH project selected was Global Health Promise, which is for victims of human trafficking.  So, to all of you, thank you very much.  In addition, going forward, all proceeds from this blog will be donated to charity.  If you have other ideas for how we can help our brothers and sisters in need, we're open to suggestions - just email us at info AT betterfamilyphotos.com.

UPDATE
BTW, I owe you guys an update.  I haven't posted this week because I'm still editing the shots from my friend's party, plus working on a few other projects.  I will be posting regularly again starting tomorrow.  Posts I will be working on include:

- Nikon D7000 vs. Nikon D7100 vs. Nikon D600
- Tamron 28-75 vs. Nikon 28-70 2.8D
- A compact camera bag for two DSLRs

Read More

A suggestion for the photography industry

I felt really bad about the Chicago Sun-Times photographers being laid off. I have an idea of what it's like to be in their shoes. When the economy tanked in 2008, my industry got hit hard and I eventually had to look for another job. I'm very thankful that I did. For these photojournalists, I can imagine it being much harder due to their shrinking industry. Photojournalists aren't the only photographers who are suffering. Other professionals, such as wedding photographers, have also been hit due to the democratization of photography.

I think one solution may be to require licenses in order to charge for photography.

Photographers invest time and money in order to learn their craft and buy the equipment needed to realize their vision. If there are no barriers to entry, they are being disincentivized from making that investment. The end result is that there will be fewer professional photographers. Of course, with so many people having cameras, there will always be people ready to take your photos for little or nothing. The issue for us as consumers is that, on the average, the quality will probably not be as good. Even talented amateurs who have the skills to produce good photos would find it hard to compete in a marketplace where someone is always available to offer their services for free.

We require licenses in several professions partly for health and safety, such as for doctors and engineers. But there are other professions for which a license is required even though there is no physical danger to consumers, such as lawyers, accountants, or even gardeners. Simply because we want someone to do the job competently. I think consumers would benefit from a similar assurance of competence for photographers.

I think the fact that a license has generally not yet been required for photography is because the skills and equipment required for photography served as a natural barrier to entry. But because the photographic industry changed virtually overnight, the law hasn't kept up. Eventually, if almost all competent photographers switch jobs and enough consumers are burned by ugly photos, consumers themselves will probably ask legislators for some sort of license for photography. I'm just suggesting we do that before we lose the talent of this unique generation of professional photographers who have used both film and digital cameras.

Read More