Plugged In: Beware misuse of photo manipulation

By Joe Kashi for the Redoubt Reporter

When does a supposedly straightforward documentary photo-graph become so manipulated or “Photoshopped” as to become dishonest?

That problem’s been around since the beginning of photography. Many famous Civil War photographs were “improved” by moving and posing the bodies of dead soldiers. From our modern perspective, that practice seems ghoulish and lacking integrity. Perhaps, though, this was more understandable at a time when cameras were not mobile and the photographer wanted to make a point that was otherwise impossible, given the primitive technology of the day.

Later, Stalin became known for causing official photographs to be altered by airbrushing out the faces of generals and others who fell from Stalin’s favor after the shutter clicked. Being airbrushed out of photographs and rewritten out of history was usually only the first step on the road to being “rubbed out” by Stalin, who ruthlessly eliminated any potential rivals, not just photos of them.

Figure 1 — “Migrant Mother” by Dorothea Lange.

More recently some of the classic, emotionally charged Depression-era photographs of starving mothers and Dust Bowl poverty have been criticized by scholars as posed images rather than truly spontaneous documentary snaps. Figure 1 is Dorothea Lange’s image of a migrant farm worker mother with seven children, while Figure 2 shows Arthur Rothstein’s image of a 1930s Dust Bowl family taking shelter from a dust storm. These images remain iconic as part of our culture, as well as controversial among scholars.

No one denies the lasting emotional power of these images but the possibility that they were not truly spontaneous documentation does raise some concerns because they were widely used to bolster public support for President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. By the way, in the interest of full disclosure, I did some digital cleanup of this week’s public-domain images by running them through Lightroom. I increased contrast and better separated the black and white tones so that these photos would reproduce more effectively on low-resolution newsprint.

Plugged In: Little gadgets can make big impacts

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

There’s something new and cool on the horizon for everyone, even iPad photographers, among the unexpected bonanza of recently announced photo gear, but some dark clouds, as well.

Perhaps most unusually, specialist vendor Photojojo sells a variety of optical zoom lenses that clip in front of an iPad’s camera feature, providing optical zoom functions for both iPad and iPad Mini devices. iPad users need no longer suffer from zoom envy. For $25, yes, $25, your iPad can optically zoom up to 10 times normal magnification, while iPad Mini users have a 12-times magnification option. Of course, image quality using these cheap clip-on zoom lenses in front of your iPad will be further degraded, but on the other hand, iPad image quality has never been in the first rank in any event. Photojojo’s solution is certainly an improvement, and an affordable one, compared to the iPad’s notorious “digital zoom” function.

At least two smartphone makers, Nokia and Sony, are ramping up pressure on Apple. While an iPhone 4 or 5 does include secondary photo functions that are quite adequate for making images posted to social media sites, Nokia and Sony are emphasizing the photographic functions of their new smartphones to an unprecedented degree. If you’re serious about using a smartphone for digital photography, then keep an eye on Nokia’s new 928 and Lumia models, along with Sony’s forthcoming Xperia models. Nokia’s prior 808 combined a decent Zeiss lens and high-resolution sensor to produce photos superior to those taken with any other smartphone. More recent models should prove even better.

As smartphones gradually dominate the low-end photography segment, vendors are increasingly turning to more expensive and profitable premium-compact cameras whose image quality and feature sets are clearly superior. There’s a lot of market pressure, though, on camera markers to cram that image quality and those features into the smallest possible package. That typically requires balancing smaller size against using the larger sensors needed for better image quality and against including useful traditional features, like eye-level viewfinders and lenses with an extended zoom magnification range.

Plugged In: Newest not always best buy in equipment

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote that, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” So, if this week’s discussion seems somewhat inconsistent with other recent musings, then let’s charitably chalk it up to avoiding “foolish” consistency.

In recent articles, I’ve noted that recent, upper-tier cameras all have image quality that’s usually good enough for almost everyone’s needs except, possibly, working professional photographers. Even then, top models are closer in quality to each other than you might realize, depending on an individual camera’s design, features and usage.

A stark example of functional equality is to compare one of the top, full-frame cameras on the market, Nikon’s 36-megapixel D800e, with one of the best smaller compact-system cameras now offered, Olympus’ 16-megapixel OM-D. The full-frame D800e has a sensor that’s four times larger than the OM-D, and so one would expect that D800e to perform significantly better in normal use. That’s not necessarily true. Here’s why.

Unlike the OM-D’s state-of-the-art image-stabilization hardware, Nikon’s D800e does not include in-body image-stabilization, yet many of the sharpest lenses for the Nikon mount are not themselves image stabilized. Moreover, in order to get equivalent depth of field, you’ll need to stop down by an additional two aperture stops compared to Micro Four-Thirds, using an f/11 lens aperture, rather than f/5.6, as an example. That means the D800e usually requires a higher ISO setting, on the order of ISO 800, in order to obtain the fast shutter speeds needed to achieve its full potential sharpness and to get depth-of-field equivalent to the OM-D at f/5.6 at its ISO 200 base sensitivity.

I compared identical RAW format images made with a full-frame Nikon D800e set to ISO 800 against images made with a Micro Four-Thirds OM-D at its ISO 200 base sensitivity. Rather to my surprise, the OM-D’s ISO 200 image quality was virtually identical, if not a bit better, than the D800’s ISO 800 image file.

The moral? Under the right circumstances, virtually any top-tier camera produces comparably good results.

Plugged In: Weigh trends before snapping up new gear

Figure 1: XKCD.com

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

Several readers have recently requested some general recommendations about camera purchases. They’ve come to the right place, because we’ve got opinions — lots of them, even a few that are well-considered.

By and large, point-and-shoot consumer cameras are fading away, beset by cellphones on the low end and increasingly sophisticated users on the upper end. There’s also a general sense that current model upper-tier cameras are already more than good enough for most requirements.

There’s little reason to trade up regularly to the newest model unless your existing photo equipment shows some obvious limitations in routine use. Except for entirely new product lines, such as Olympus’ OM-D introduced in early 2012, yearly model changes tend to be incremental at best, mere marketing at worst. With that in mind, let’s consider some trends that might affect purchasing decisions over the next several months.

It’s worth remembering at the onset that virtually every current premium compact camera is capable of making exhibition-quality photographs when used carefully in optimum conditions — often at their ISO 80 or ISO 100 base sensitivity in good light, with properly exposed subjects that are relatively nearby and static. If that’s the sort of photo that appeals to you, if you don’t plan on making 24-by-36-inch exhibition-grade prints and don’t need high telephoto magnifications, then there’s no objective reason to upgrade at this time.

Only if your existing camera gear doesn’t have acceptable image quality or if it’s missing some fundamental capability is there any objective reason to upgrade. “Must-have” capabilities might include the ability to make good images under very low-light conditions or to use superfast shutter speeds at sporting events. Landscape photographers who frequently make wide panoramic photos might consider Sony’s “sweep-panorama” feature a must-have capability.

One of the most logical reasons to buy a larger-sensor camera is that they’re better at high sensitivities, like ISO 1600 or ISO 3200. Each increase in sensor size generally provides about one “stop” improvement in image quality. As a general rule, you’ll get acceptable, though not exhibition-quality, results using a decent, 1/2.3-inch, small-sensor consumer camera up to about ISO 200, while 1/1.7-inch, medium-sensor, premium-compact cameras show excellent quality through at least ISO 400.

Pluged In: Flash from the past —cameras go retro

Figure 1: “Wall Street” by Paul Strand.

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

The photo industry has thrown some curveballs over the past several months, introducing quite a number of expensive, retro-inspired cameras.

Some cameras are merely styled to appear retro but are cutting-edge digital products underneath the chrome. Olympus’ OM-D and E-Pen series are good examples. The OM-D looks like a miniaturized version of Olympus’ OM-series film SLR cameras, popular with professional photographers in the 1970s and 1980s. Olympus’ E-Pen digital cameras were among the first retro-appearing, top-tier digital cameras.

The Pen series consciously mimics the size and appearance of Olympus’ tiny Pen-F from the 1960s. Fujifilm’s X-Pro1 and X-E1 clearly evoke the classic Leica M series film cameras used by 1960s photojournalists as they famously dashed around the world from one hot spot to another. These Olympus and Fujifilm models are the foundation of high-quality camera and interchangeable-lens systems and hence are quite versatile.

Other models are not only retro in appearance but also in reduced functionality and versatility. These cameras use a fixed, single-magnification prime lens permanently attached to the camera body. My sense is that they’re intentionally designed to be “prestige” models, as differentiated as possible from shiny, consumer, point-and-shoot cameras and cellphone cameras. To me, such cameras seem to be conspicuous-consumption throwbacks to the fixed-lens film cameras of the 1940s and 1950s. They’re the digital equivalent of buying an expensive Swiss-made mechanical watch in an era when inexpensive digital watches are usually more accurate.

Plugged In: Sharpening the focus on image quality

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

Making photos that are sharp and crisp ultimately requires good-enough lenses used correctly, and that’s our topic this week.

Your camera body and your lens both affect image quality. Last week, we considered how your camera body impacts image quality. You can review that article from our web edition at http://www.redoubtreporter.wordpress.com. It’s obviously helpful to choose a camera body with the right imaging sensor and effective image-stabilization hardware.

Once you’ve chosen your camera system, though, it’s time to use your lenses effectively. Being able to achieve sharp focus when desired is critical. Most users, though, simply rely on a digital camera’s inevitable autofocus mechanism and hope for the best. That’s not always optimum because preprogrammed autofocus hardware may not correctly determine the main subject that should be in critically sharp focus.

As a result, your camera may not autofocus where you want it to focus, and may not focus as accurately. One solution is to manually set the autofocus for a particular focus point by using the camera’s autofocus lock, by using a centered autofocus point and half depressing the shutter, by manually selecting the best focus point setting using your camera’s control buttons, or by using a touch-focus-shoot screen, like those found in some Olympus compact-system cameras. With a bit of practice, any of these four common methods of ensuring the best autofocus point becomes fast and easy.

Contrast detection autofocus hardware, used in virtually all point-and-shoot and mirrorless compact-system cameras, is inherently more accurate but often slower than the phase-detection autofocus hardware built into digital SLR cameras. Because dSLR cameras tend to focus faster while providing a brighter, clearer optical viewfinder, they’re still preferred for fast-moving subjects, such as sporting events. With photographing fast-moving subjects, like sports and wildlife, it’s usually better to use only the central autofocus points.

In order to be reliably effective, autofocus hardware requires some basic knowledge and careful usage. You’ll find an extended discussion about effectively using both manual and automatic focus in our Jan. 18, 2012, Feb. 1, 2012, and Feb. 8, 2012, issues. The direct links to those earlier articles can be found in the web version of this week’s article.

Keep depth of field in mind when composing your photo and setting your focus. You can think of depth of field as the front-to-rear portion of a subject that’s in acceptably sharp focus. If the area that must be rendered sharply is fairly deep from front to back, then focus upon the most important part of the subject and stop the lens down to a smaller aperture like f/8 or, in a pinch, f/11. Generally, there’s about twice as much depth of field behind the point of focus as in front of it, so choose your focus point accordingly.

Plugged In: Focus on stabilization to avoid photo fuzziness

By Jenny Neyman

Redoubt Reporter

Image sharpness is always a legitimate concern for photographers. It’s our basic starting point when making pictures.

Not every photograph needs to be tack sharp. Some images work best when they’re not sharp everywhere. Consistently making effective photographs requires the ability to achieve sharpness or lack of sharpness when and as desired, rather than casually relying on unpredictable results. Generally, though, even apparently abstract images look better when at least some areas of the image are crisply sharp. With that in mind, this week we’ll look at two of the most important factors affecting sharpness and overall image quality.

Foremost among sharpness-killers is blurring due to camera shake or a subject’s fast motion. Camera shake is best controlled using image stabilization hardware, a sufficiently fast shutter speed, or a steady support, like a tripod, depending on the particular circumstance.

Previously, the usual rule of thumb when handholding a 35-mm film camera was that a shutter speed equal to one focal length was sufficient. As an example, when using a standard, 50-mm normal lens, a shutter speed of 1/60 second or faster was considered to be adequate for handheld use. That rule of thumb assumed that chemical prints no larger than 8-by-10 or 11-by-14 would be made from the relatively large, 35-mm film negative.

This assumption is no longer true for sub-35-mm digital sensors. Images made with these are frequently enlarged to far greater sizes and magnifications. That also magnifies the blurring effect of camera shake that would have been inconsequential during the film era, to the point that previously imperceptible blurring becomes objectionable.

Blurring depends on the effective focal length of the lens. Higher-magnification telephoto lenses show more obvious shake and blur. Because lenses have a higher effective magnification when used with sub-35-mm sensors, the old one focal length rule needs to be modified to take that higher magnification into account. Now, a 1/2x shutter speed is generally recommended when handholding unstabilized, sub-35-mm camera/lens combinations. That means you’ll want to use a 1/100 second or faster shutter speed when handholding a 50-mm lens mounted on an unstabilized APS-C or Micro Four-Thirds camera.

Plugged In: Tips, technology for better photography

By Joe Kashi for the Redoubt Reporter

Our discussion this week is a collection of practical tips intended to help you protect your family’s photo memories and to make the most of photo opportunities.

• I would not trust important family memories solely to the memory cards found in virtually all cameras. It’s not uncommon to find people continuing to take pictures until the memory card is completely filled, to the point that their camera refuses to store even one more image file. Memory cards are not really intended as long-term storage in the same fashion as a computer’s hard disks. Nonvolatile, solid-state memory tends to be unreliable in the medium to long term.

Rather than using memory cards as your primary photo data storage, I suggest that you regularly copy all images from your memory cards to your computer’s hard disk. This can be done by manually copying files to appropriate folders or with a program like Adobe Lightroom, which automatically starts in “import” mode when you insert a memory card or connect a USB device like a flash drive or cellphone. Regular data transfer to your computer’s hard disk is particularly important for cellphone camera users. These seem to be more likely than dedicated cameras to act erratically and lose data. Where possible, copy data files in their original RAW file format.

Computer hard disks can also lose data, although not quite as often as cellphones or memory cards. Regularly back up all of your hard disk data, including your photos, to another storage device that you can remove from your premises to avoid data loss in the event of fire, theft or other casualty. DVD and CD disks are not particularly reliable backup media. Not only are optical disks slow to read and write, but they have a very low storage capacity and tend to be unreliable over five to 10 years. I’ve found that the most effective and least costly backup device is an external SATA hard disk USB docking station. These use standard SATA hard disks, mounted as plug-in USB devices that easily attach an inexpensive hard disk to your computer, just like plugging in a flash drive.

I only consider data to be safely backed up when there are at least two complete copies, including one off-premises. Where possible, install a second, physically separate hard disk on your computer and use that hard disk to store all of your data. Storing data on the boot hard disk that contains the operating system is unsafe because, of all computer components, the boot drive is among the most likely to fail in a manner that requires reformatting the drive and reinstalling the operating system. Unless done by a competent technician, that process is likely to result in the loss of all data on the boot drive.

Plugged In: Straight photos vs. abstract are point of fact

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

The obvious purpose of taking photo gear on a trip is taking photos, preferably good photos of memorable trips and places. That’s our first topic this week.

Generally, most of us take vacation photos as memories of our trip. So it makes sense to first capture photos of ourselves and those with whom we are traveling. Too often, people tend to just take photos of impressive buildings, art works and landscapes, whose identities and locations fast fade from memory. Take photos of those impressive buildings and landscapes, of course, but be sure that you humanize them and make them real memories by including your family and, if possible, yourself. Also take some wide-angle photos to show the overall area.

Face-recognition focusing can be very useful in these situations, but be sure to reset the camera to your normal focus mode after you’ve made those people pictures. To include yourself, you’ll need either some stable spot to place your camera, set to the “Drive” feature self-time, or a helpful passer-by.

As we discussed last week, a large digital SLR-style camera may not be the best choice when traveling, even though it’s likely to have the best image quality. Hulking black cameras tend to attract unwanted attention and cause people to freeze up compared to smaller, less-obtrusive cameras, like premium compact or compact-system cameras. Digital SLR cameras are also rather cumbersome to carry around for days on end. However, regardless of which camera you take, be sure that you definitely know how to use it before departing.

Generally, using on-camera flash usually doesn’t work very well for many travel photos. The flash built into digital cameras is typically quite weak, not effective much beyond 6 or so feet, overexposing closer details, like faces, while underexposing anything in the background. To make matters worse, when you use flash, the camera closes the lens aperture more, resulting in photos that are even more underexposed and, hence, darker. Available light photography usually works better in most dim-light situations so long as you are careful.

The best available light approach for the average traveler is to turn off the flash unit and set your camera to “Auto ISO” and to the “P” Program mode. Turn on image-stabilization, brace yourself to reduce blurring from camera shake and then take your photos. If possible, set your camera use an RAW plus JPEG file format because that will give you many more correction options later if you post-process images on your computer using Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture or similar programs.

Also, set your camera to “bracket” exposures, taking three or more shots each time you press the shutter-release button, with the first photo set to the camera’s calculated exposure and the two or more additional exposures set to brighter and darker exposures. One of these exposures should work well. When not doing critical work, I’ll set my bracketing exposure variation to .7EV and a total of three shots. If I need a more finely tuned exposure, then I’ll use a five-shot bracket with exposure intervals set to .3EV.

Photos courtesy of Joe Kashi. Figure 1 is the Notre Dame Cathedral.

Figure 1 shows an early evening available light shot of the interior of the famed Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. This photo would not be possible with flash for many reasons. On-camera flash units do not have enough power to light up this grand space and, in any event, would overexpose nearby objects while underexposing more distant ones. We’ve posted this photo only on the Redoubt Reporter’s website because newsprint, as a low-definitional medium, simply cannot reproduce the subtle colors and shadows present even in a web resolution version of this photo.

Plugged In: Travel light, don’t slight photos with wrong gear

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

Over the past 30 years, I’ve developed a strong preference for traveling well prepared but as light as possible, a lesson learned on winter hunting trips flown in a two-seat Taylorcraft.

When traveling to more hospitable locales, I’ll pack only a single carry-on bag, even on extended trips. That preference for traveling light carries over to photo gear. We’ve just returned from a fast-paced trip to five European countries in eight days, where my wife, Teri, and I helped chaperone a high school band tour. Before leaving, I gave a lot of thought to the right camera gear for the trip, small enough to be stowed along with my clothes in my carry-on bag, but sufficiently versatile to handle any probable situation.

Here’s what I ultimately packed: an Olympus E-P3 and its slide-on, eye-level electronic viewfinder, an Olympus 14- to 42-mm kit zoom lens, very compact Panasonic 20-mm f/1.7 and Sigma 30-mm f/2.8 fast prime lenses, and Olympus’ small, light 40- to 150-mm telephoto zoom. These lenses fit in a very small and light bag, one of the principal benefits of using a Micro Four-Thirds compact-system camera. I also took a pocketable Canon S100 premium compact camera.

That choice of camera gear worked reasonably well, but in retrospect, I could have done better. So, here are my own travel photography lessons learned:

Plugged In: Want quality? Don’t skimp when you print

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

It’s been awhile since we’ve discussed making fine photographic prints for exhibition and display at your home or at any number of businesses throughout the area, not to mention the Redoubt Reporter’s annual exhibition of photo contest winners.

Although most digital photos now end up solely on Facebook and other electronic media, most people feel a real sense of pride and accomplishment about printing and displaying an attractive photographic exhibition. However, there’s a critical intermediate step between your computer screen and an exhibit wall.

High-quality photo printing is a serious craft, balancing colors and getting from black to white as elegantly as possible. This week, let’s look at one possible method of zeroing in on the best possible print from a digital image. It’s much easier with modern digital photography tools and far more controllable than in film and chemical days.

I’ve seen many people spend thousands upon thousands of dollars to buy top cameras and lenses yet try to scrape by with cheap printers and monitors. This makes little sense. When posting images at the coarse, 72-dot-per-inch resolution of most computer monitors, even a three- to five-megapixel camera has more resolution than most computer monitors can display. Any additional resolution is basically discarded by the computer system displaying the images.

Plugged In: Return to quality: Don’t settle for poor lenses

By Joe Kashi, for the Redoubt Reporter

Affordable interchangeable-lens cameras now eclipse less sophisticated point-and-shoot digital cameras and are the only type of dedicated digital camera whose sales and market share increase year by year.

That increasing popularity is largely due to the higher image quality and greater versatility possible when you purchase quality lenses that best fit your needs and budget. There’s a dark side to affordable optics, though, and that’s poor quality control. New lenses often show mis-assembly that seriously degrades sharpness. A poorly made lens used with a top-end camera will still result in lousy images that look like they were taken with the bottom of a Coke bottle.

Premium cameras with fixed-zoom lenses, such as the Canon G15 or Panasonic LX7, may show the same optical problems. In that case, though, you’ll need to return the entire camera, not just a lens, should your tests reveal unacceptable optical problems. I wouldn’t bother testing inexpensive point-and-shoot cameras. There’s no realistic expectation of decent optics on a cheap camera.

Unfortunately, mis-assembly isn’t confined to inexpensive, machine-assembled, consumer-grade lenses. Over the years, I’ve had to return a few lenses from both Pentax and Olympus, yet these vendors are among the most highly regarded lens makers, at least in their premium product lines. Published tests by major lens rental businesses even show significant variations between different samples of quite expensive prograde lenses from Nikon and Canon.