Exposure Bracketing With Canon Cameras

This post is going to be a bit on the technical side and specific to Canon cameras, which I am sure will interest some readers but give others a big yawn. Nonetheless, here we go.

In a past post, I reviewed the Promote Control device which can be used for HDR exposure bracketing since Canon cameras are (seemingly purposefully) hindered by the limitation of only being able to do a three exposure auto-bracket. In addition, if one is bracketing by 1 EV then the most you can auto-bracket is up to +/- 3 EV. In order to bracket to +/- 4 EV you must bracket in 2 EV increments. All in all, it makes HDR bracketing inordinately and unnecessarily complex. In my review, I mentioned that the Promote Control simply did not fit very well into my workflow and for that reason I had returned my unit.

Another partial solution for Canon users has been to use 'Custom Settings', of which three are able to be pre-programmed into the camera. When using these, you could, for example, pre-program +/- 4EV bracketing into the camera and save the setting so that by simply turning a knob on top of the camera the +/- 4EV autobracket is set.

By setting one Custom setting like this and another at o,-1, -2 EV one could conceivably take an autobracket at +1, +2, +3 then switch the custom setting knob to do 0, -1, -2, then switch again to do -4, 0, +4 and then take one image at -3.....well, you get the point. If one wants a series of 1 EV bracketed images to +/- 4 it gets far too complicated.

It gets a bit easier if you want to go with 2EV units and shoot -2, 0 +2 and then 0, +4, -4 but even then you have to use at least one Custom Setting or go back into the menu. In experimenting with the Custom Settings, I have found that the white balance, ISO, aperture etc that the Custom Setting installs are the ones that were there when the Custom Setting was saved, as opposed to drawing these values from the otherwise current camera settings. For someone like me, who not infrequently screws up a setting by not being careful, this is a recipe for disaster. I am sure that I would inevitably end up with a useless autobracketed series with different apertures, ISO etc than my original bracket settings.

All in all, despite the fact that I really enjoy using my Canon gear, I feel that Canon has really left those of us that use many of their models with a mess when it comes to HDR imaging. And the mess, I would think, is easily fixable in firmware if Canon did not want to cripple their non-1 series dSLRs in this way. With Nikon making so many gains and competing with Canon so well, I really am surprised that they have not fixed this. Were I currently purchasing a digital system, I would have to seriously consider going with Nikon for this reason alone.

Promote Control: Doesn't Fit My Workflow

In my last post, I discussed my discovery of the Promote Control for taking bracketed HDR exposures . It was with great enthusiasm that I awaited the arrival of the device. However, despite its apparent utility and the glowing reviews it received in the links I provided in my original post, I have found that the device simply doesn't fit into my photographic process very well.

That is not to say that it doesn't work or do what it says it will.....just that it doesn't work the way I do. It might mesh quite well with the way you photograph and so I don't mean to dissuade anyone from giving it a try. But, let me describe why it doesn't fit my workflow and perhaps that will provide some incite as to whether it will fit yours.

I tend to shoot using Live View with the camera in Aperture priority mode. However, in order to use the Promote Control, the camera must be set to Manual mode. There is a setting on the device that allows it to set the camera to Manual mode if the operator forgets to, though the manual states that this won't work on all cameras and it didn't seem to work properly on mine. However, if I accidentally left the camera in Aperture Priority mode, the Promote Control would shoot off a ton of images before stopping. So, accidentally leaving the camera in Aperture mode can get the Promote Control to do some pretty unusual stuff.

In addition, the manufacturers website FAQ states that the device can be used in Live View mode. Nonetheless, using the device in Live View, even with the camera set to Manual mode, gave me very inconsistent results, with not all the bracketed exposures being taken. By doing nothing else to the camera but turning off Live View, all the exposures were taken properly. I am not the only person to find this as an issue, as one of the reviews linked to in my initial post also notes this as a problem.

Finally, even when the camera is properly set to Manual mode the metered shutter speed needs to be entered into the Promote Control manually, or at least it wouldn't pick it up from my 5D MKII

For me, though the device could potentially solve a significant problem, it just requires too much 'futzing around' with. If it was tough for me to get it to work properly in my home, I suspect it would generate a good deal of frustration out in the field and I might potentially miss photo opportunities simply trying to get things set up properly. I thought about just getting used to always using the device as a trigger, as it can also be used as a single shot cable release. However, the need to connect it to the camera with two cables (to get the fastest response time) and its bulk (small, but still much larger than a regular cable release) just makes it inconvenient to use routinely.

I suspect that using the device would take away some of the joy of photographing and thus it is simply not something that I want to use. I have returned it and will go with my usual routine of simply resetting the auto-bracketing in camera....a pain that requires touching the camera before the full set of exposures are taken, but one that still requires far less 'futzing' than the Promote Control.

So there you have it.....a very different opinion from the ones that I was able to find on the internet. Just to reiterate.....the issue for me was the way the device failed to fit into my workflow. Your workflow might well be different.

I would be interested to find out if any readers have had experience with this device and if their experience was similar to or different from mine.

Promote Control

When it comes to bracketed exposures utilized for HDR, us Canon users definitely take a back seat to those with Nikon cameras. Most Canon (? all....I don't keep up with every model) cameras are only able to auto-bracket three exposures, which is less than ideal for many situations. Nikon cameras are much more functional in this regard and, depending on the model, are able to auto bracket more exposures. In the past this difference might have been relatively unimportant, but in the HDR era it really is of significance and, frankly, it seems inexcusable to me that Canon has hampered their cameras in this way. It would at least appear on the surface that this could likely be fixed with a firmware update. (The other situation in which Canon lags is in the ability to make in-camera multiple exposures......but that is another discussion).

Whenever there is a void and a need, someone will fill it! Enter a device called "Promote Control". This device connects to the camera (including Canon models) via USB and a shutter release and takes over the control of exposure sequences, overriding the ability to take only 3 bracketed exposures. There are some caveats, the main one of which is that the camera must be set in manual mode and the midpoint exposure's shutter speed needs to be set manually on the Promote Control device.

Rather than write in detail about it before I receive the one I ordered, let me refer anyone interested in this to the following reviews:

Review #1 by Brian Matiash

Another review here

And a review on youtube located here.

Finally, the manufacturer's website.

And so I will report back on my experience with the device once it arrives.

Digital Indecision

Generally speaking, the advantages of digital capture are now obvious to most people. Once you have memory cards you can shoot all day, every day, for free (well, lets not count the camera upgrades, computer upgrades, storage drives, software etc.). You can check your exposure via histogram and your composition via LCD and gain immediate feedback. You can work on images, molding them into your vision, without the wet darkroom 'mess'. Once the image has been processed it is easy to output as many identical copies as you want.

But what about the downside? There is one downside that seems to always haunt me, and that is that there can be too many possibilities!

What do I mean by that? Because it is easy to make so many digital photographs, I think I actually make too many of them. When I am out shooting, I now tend to take many more frames of an image than I did when using film. I find myself altering the composition ever so slightly and reshooting, making images where the point of focus is a bit different, shooting with different apertures, and refocusing manually just to make sure I get the sharpest focus possible. At the end of the day I might have so many frames of essentially the same composition that it makes picking the 'best' one to process frustratingly difficult. And the 'fear' of not picking the 'best' frame may well lead to not picking a frame at all, leaving the endeavor to 'later'.

This isn't to say that I don't have a specific vision when making a photograph.....I do. It is just that with digital it can sometimes be too easy to doubt whether that vision might be 'optimal' and to try to examine every possibility. In speaking to some of my photography friends, it turns out that I am not alone with this issue. Maybe I need to trust myself to the original vision I had when first approaching the shot or, alternatively, being happy when I find a frame I took that expresses that vision, as opposed to feeling obligated to examine each and every frame and comparing them to each other in order to find the perfect one to use.

The Camera With You

One more post about my new Droid smartphone. I had mentioned in the past that while many people are able to have a camera with them at all times, I have found working in that way to be very difficult. I have also previously written about Chase Jarvis's The Best Camera Is The One That's With You: iPhone Photography by Chase Jarvis (Voices That Matter) and his website about the same subject called The Best Camera.

Well, I can now attest to the fact that it is fun to have a camera with you all the time....now that it is light and not something that I wouldn't otherwise be carrying. And I find it useful, not so much for trying to make a serious photo, but, rather, to exercise one's vision and to keep in practice.

So I might, from time to time, post some of these spontaneous photographic exercises that I do on the Droid X phone. This one involved trying to make a few creative images from the window of my office, something I never would have lugged my regular photo gear around to try.

"Triangles"
Copyright Howard Grill

"Floating Cloud"
Copyright Howard Grill

Way Off Topic: Smartphones

On some occasions I allow myself to go off topic on this blog.....and this is one of those occasions. I have never owned a 'smartphone' in the past....I never thought I needed one and, frankly, wasn't sure how I would use one. However, my cell phone contract was over last week and I thought I would give a smartphone a go. I was originally planning on an iPhone, but the ATT coverage where I live isn't all that good, at least all I hear is complaints from those that use ATT around where I live. In addition, the iPhone 4 has gotten some bad press and, finally, my family already has 4 cellphones on a Verizon plan. It was time to try out a Droid.

So, last week I got myself the most recent Droid incarnation, the Droid X. I have to say...I love it. After just a few days I can see that it will be very useful and is far more like a computer on which you can make phone calls than a phone on which you can do other things.

The apps are amazing. Sure, a good many of them are just cool or for fun, but many are extremely useful as well. I have to say, I am very pleased with the purchase. My only concern is that it does use up the battery much faster than a regular cellphone. However, my iPhone friends say that the same is true of their device as well.

So how can I make this somewhat relevant to a photography blog? Well, it doss have an 8 megapixel camera...and one that will always be with you and ready to take a picture (see my older post The Best Camera). And there are some very interesting photo apps as well. Here are my four favorite photography apps so far:

Photo Tools :A great set of tools for multiple types of photographic calculations. This app is really a favorite because it can be helpful for photography in general and not just allow you to be creative with the phone's built-in camera like the next three. This app allows you to calculate reciprocal exposure values, tells you sunrise/sunset time based on your GPS coordinates, lets you calculate hyperfocal distance etc.

Vignette: Add all sorts of film and border effects to photos taken with the cameraphone.

FX: More camera effects.

And of course...Photoshop.com Mobile

EOS Documentation Project

I recently lost the instruction manual for my Canon TC-80N3 Tiner/Remote Controller and could not recall how to use some of the functions. I might have been looking in the wrong place on the Canon USA website, but I could not find a copy of the instruction manual there either. After some Googling, however, I found the EOS Documentation Project, a website that makes available instruction manuals for all things related to Canon EOS. Well, maybe not all things, as the site seems not to have been updated in a while. For instance, there is no information on the 5D MKII, thought the 5D is there. The 1Ds MKIII and 1D MKIII is listed, but not the 1D MKIV.

However, the manuals for newer Canon items can be downloaded from the Canon website. The EOS Documentation Project, on the other hand, seems to be a good resource for older Canon items. It helped me and perhaps it might come in handy for you too. Check it out here.

As to why this post is written in bold text.....blogger seems to have an issue and I can't get it to come out any other way.

Photoshop Optimized Computer: Epilogue

Several weeks back, I wrote a series of three posts about a "Photoshop Optimized Computer". Those posts can be read here, here, and here. Just this last weekend I received a comment from photographer Mike Mundy (see his blog and website....great stuff) who said....

"It is probably time for a follow-up report on the computer . . . what worked, what didn't. And why didn't you get an Apple product, as everyone else seems to be doing? I have a feeling that Photoshop CS5 is going to be too much for my aging low-end PC to handle . . ."

So here is the follow up on what worked and what didn't.

1) Puget Systems Computers - This is the company that I decided to purchase a custom computer from, as I had discussed in Part 1. I couldn't be happier with that decision. When they say technical support responses within 24 hours, they mean it! I had several occasions to contact them and each and every time I got a thoughtful response in less than 24 hours from folks that obviously knew their stuff .

The computer came exceedingly well packaged with supplemental information provided by Puget Systems, including benchmark testing results, as well as all the spare parts and instructions from each of the individual components that were used for the build. In addition, they included the original Windows 7 OS disc as well as a system image/restore disc for the system as it was configured at the time of shipping.

There was absolutely no unasked for bloatware as you get with Dell. They made good on their offer to include certain free downloads and have them pre-installed. The only one that I had chosen was Microsoft Security Essentials, given the reviews stating that it was an excellent piece of software (from Microsoft????)....elegant in its simplicity and not a drag on the system (from Microsoft????). Not only was it installed, but the computer came with all current Windows updates as well as security essentials updates already applied, so the system was totally up to date and ready to go. I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending Puget Systems!

2) Windows 7 OS - I like it. I like the way things are organized in libraries, I like the Windows system imaging, and I like the Windows search. Coming from Windows XP it took a little getting used to, but I now prefer it. The only part of the OS that I don't like is the portion that controls tablet functions. More on that in a second. I have had no problems finding drivers for my hardware and they all seem to function normally, save one.

That one, unfortunately, is my Wacom Intuos 2 graphics tablet. There is a Windows 7 driver for it...so, given the age of the Intuos 2, kudos to Wacom for that. The tablet initially started functioning normally, but soon started malfunctioning even with a system image restore to a point in time when it had worked. What do I mean by malfunctioning? When you boot up and try to use the pen, the cursor moves about a mm and then freezes. If you go to the tablet software by right clicking on the Wacom icon in the control panel, remove user presets, and then load the presets again it functions normally until you reboot. It has to be done again with each fresh boot. The whole maneuver literally takes about 20 seconds to do and you just have to do it once when you boot, but, nonetheless, I wish it worked correctly.

That said, I'm not quite sure where the fault lies. It could be the OS but could also be the motherboard USB controllers or the driver itself. Searching the internet, I'm not the only one with this problem. The workaround I describe is the result of Googling the problem. I did contact Wacom and they claim it has to do with a motherboard USB problem, but I am not convinced.

As I mentioned, the tablet functions of Windows 7 are also a bit odd. When you use a pen you get a distracting ripple effect as well as a small Windows Tablet interface. You can turn these off (and I did), but you have to do a bit of research to find out how....it isn't intuitively apparent.

Overall, I think that if one is going to venture into a new OS as an 'early adapter' there are always going to be some issues. I think I encountered a number of these issues (including the fact that I can't get Firewire or e-SATA drivers/drives to function correctly and, again, I'm not sure if this is related to the OS or motherboard) but overall I am quite pleased with Windows 7. I have the 64 bit version to prepare for the future!

3) Internal Components - All seems in order. Did I need the RAID 0 system for the scratch disk and files being worked on that I described here? I am not at all convinced that I did. The system seems so fast that even large files approaching 500 to 750 MB load into and save from Photoshop very quickly.......much, much faster than in my old system. In that system I could open the file and walk away for a minute or two. Not so anymore. I honestly don't see a huge difference between opening or saving the files from the standard Western Digital 1 TB Caviar Black hard disk compared to the RAID 0 system. I haven't timed it and there may well be a difference, it just doesn't seem all that significant in 'real life usage'.

A volume of the Raid 0 array is also being used as the primary scratch disk, as described here. I have not compared the speed of the RAID 0 array used as the primary scratch disk to the regular hard drive used as such, but perhaps it is of some benefit. These benefits might be further magnified if the RAID array consisted of more than 2 disks, but that would start to get even more expensive. Overall, however, if I were designing the system again, I might well pass on the RAID 0 array, which would have saved some cash and kept more internal SATA drive bays open.

I outfitted the computer with 12GB of RAM....it is quite fast. Had I not included as much RAM perhaps the effect of the RAID 0 array might be more apparent.

As you can see, I have not tested these issues in a quantitative fashion but am just commenting on my 'real world' usage experience. If anyone has more quantitative experience and wants to chime in on these issues I would be most appreciative!

4) Monitor - I sprung for a 'lower end' wide gamut Eizo monitor . Not at all cheap, but after using it am really amazed at the increased sharpness, saturation, and soft proofing ability that it offers once calibrated. The difference is dramatic and I wasn't using a bad monitor before (it was a LaCie CRT). I think it was a worthwhile investment. An alternative monitor which has gotten excellent reviews, can be obtained for significantly less, and which I considered is the NEC with integrated calibration.

5) Photoshop / Lightroom - I have the 64 bit versions of these running as well as the 32 bit version of Photoshop installed and have not run into any problems even though CS4 is not officially supported on the Windows 7 platform. I do wish that Nik Software would make all their plug-ins available in 64 bit versions. Viveza 2 is available in a 64 bit version, but Color Efex and Silver Efex are not, and it is a bit of a pain to use two versions of Photoshop. My PixelGenius, OnOne, Topaz, and Neat Image plug ins are all available in 64 bit versions and I have not had any difficulty with any of them.

6) Why didn't I purchase an Apple? I strongly considered it. I ended up with a PC because the price for a machine with similar 'power' seemed significantly lower to me and I already had multiple programs that were Windows 7 compatible that I did not want to repurchase in Mac versions. Also, despite the fact that Apples 'just work', I have read on various forums about problems that people are also having with the Snow Leopard OS.

So, that is the update on the new system.

Thoughts On Canon 1 Series Pricing

My primary camera is a Canon 5D MKII. At this point in time, I believe that the only significant difference between the 5D MKII and the far more expensive 1Ds MKIII is the robustness and weather sealing of the body as well as the accuracy/speed of the camera's autofocus mechanism. As one who mostly does landscape and macro work, the autofocus is not an issue for me as I tend to focus manually (using Live View with 10x mag) most of the time. Because of this I decided that, for my use, the price differential is simply far too great to merit ever again purchasing a 1 series camera for my use (assuming that the differences remain similar). Of course, I can only speak for myself. These differences may be significant enough to others that are traveling in far harsher conditions than I do or are doing people/action/event photography to merit the extra expense.

What exactly is the price differential? Currently the 5D MKII comes in at $2499 while the 1Ds MKIII costs $6114 (pricing from B&H). While the 5D MKII was a few hundred dollars more expensive earlier in it's life cycle, the 1Ds MKIII had been, as I recall, $7999 early on (and, I believe, at the $6999 level even when the 5D MKII became available).

I have always wondered about this price differential. Back when I was shooting film, I had worked my way up to a Canon 1V, which was their 'flagship film model', and the one on which the digital 1 series is based. A brand new 1V can still be had for $1650 (though I can't imagine that they sell many).

This is where, in my mind, the pricing issue comes in....and I would be glad to have someone more knowledgeable about the diffrences between cameras correct me if I am wrong here. My sense is that if you took the 'innards', which is to say the sensor and processor, of the 5D MKII and put it into the 1V body you would essentially have a 1Ds MKIII. Let's first assume that the sensor and electronics of the 5D MKII cost $2500 and the body has absolutely no value. Put that $2500 worth of electronic equipment into the $1650 body and you have a total of $4150. Since, in fact, the 5d MKII body does have some cost, if we were to get a rebate for not using it the price of a 1Ds MKIII should be significantly less than $4150, even if you add back in some cost for the development of a more advanced autofocus system.

Am I missing something here? Is my logic out of whack? I am quite happy with my 5D MKII, though I still wonder, more out of curiosity than anything else, how Canon justifies the cost of up to $6000 t0 $8000 for its flagship digital 1 series cameras? Obviously, Canon can charge whatever it wants to without worrying about me, and presumably the next 1 series iteration will have features and options not available on the 5D MKII, but still.......

iPhone Photography Revisited

Back in December, I had written a post about photographing with an iPhone (which I don't personally own). That post revolved around an iPhone app for sharing images and a live feed of iPhone images submitted from folks around the world to Chase Jarvis' website called "The Best Camera" (as in the one you have with you).

Now iPhone photography has been taken one step further. I am talking about fine art iPhone photography! Seriously. Turns out you can do some pretty amazing stuff with the iPhone in conjunction with some image editing apps without ever having the photo leave the phone.

Think I'm kidding or exagerating? Check out this area of Dan Burkholder's website. The images are pretty amazing! He even has iPhone photography workshops and has an article about his iPhone photographs in this month's PhotoTechnique.

Tree And Pond In Fall
Copyright Dan Burkholder
iPhone Image With Post-Processing

I had always thought that cell phone photography was for 'the masses' and could not be used for 'serious art'. However, I have to say that with the changes in technology it is quite possible that this is no longer the case (not that I am about to go out and sell off my Canon 5D MK II). Though I have never seen any of Dan's iPhone prints myself, I do have a friend who has seen them and she was quite impressed with their quality (as a separate issue from their 'artistry' which, in my mind and hers, is clearly superb). But then again, what else would one expect from Dan Burkholder?

As an aside, some may have noticed that there has been a lack of images on the blog recently. That is because it has been taking me some time to set up my new computer system, load software, deal with driver bugs etc. But I hope to be back to making images in the very near future. Thanks for joining me here.

Photoshop Optimized Computer III

With the background of Parts I and II of this series behind us, I thought it might be useful to discuss what components I personally picked for my "Photoshop Optimized Computer".

In the 'digital age', all of our processing is done on a computer and, for many, prints are made at home on an inkjet printer. For as much time as we spend out in the field, we likely spend as much time, or more, working on our images in the digital darkroom. For this reason I feel it would be foolish to spend money on cameras and lenses and not put forward the investment in a computer system that makes finishing the job efficient and pleasant. In short, I don't think it is wise to buy expensive equipment and mate that equipment with a computer that is underpowered and which makes the processing portion of image making an unpleasant experience. If you have waited and waited for a file to open in Photoshop or had your system crash while using a memory intensive plug-in, you know exactly what I mean. If one can afford to make the investment, a good computer system will make post-processing a much more pleasant and productive experience.

I don't mean to insinuate that one needs to go on a wild spending spree for a computer. In fact, as we shall see, some high end components are well worth buying but there are others, such as the graphics card, where pouring more money into a higher end card is not going to significantly enhance the Photoshop experience.

So, lets get down to particulars. What components did I choose for my new computer? Again, some of these choices are personal and I don't mean to imply that this is the best or only worthwhile configuration.....I just thought I would share my decisions and why I made them.

RAM: I'm starting here because I knew how much I wanted (12 GB) and the way to get to this amount at a reasonable price was to have 6 memory slots on the motherboard so that I could purchase 6 x 2GB as opposed to 3 x 4GB. RAM comes in several varieties and speed. I bought Kigston ValueRAM (DDR3-1333). While one can pay more for 'faster' RAM etc, I am not convinced it will make much difference for still image editing. It may well make a difference for gaming and video, but I am not planning to use the computer for much of either. Therefore, it seemed to me that this RAM would do the trick. Obviously, once one is over 4GB it makes no sense not to get a 64 bit OS in order to utilize it.

Motherboard: There were some limitations here, as any builder is only going to carry a limited number of makes and models. In order to get a 6 memory slot board I went with the Asus P6TD DDR3 motherboard.

Processor: I was originally planning for an Intel i5 750, which sits at a nice price/performance point. The i5's don't have hyperthreading but, to the best of my knowledge, Photoshop doesn't utilize hyperthreading at this point in time. Nonetheless, because of the motherboard choice, an i5 was not an option and I went for the arguably more powerful (and a bit more expensive) i7 920 (which is actually due to be replaced by the 930 soon) which does have hyperthreading. Perhaps in the future (I expect to use this system for at least 5 years) Photoshop will utilize hyperthreading.

Graphics Card: This is one component where, if one were building a computer for the express purpose of gaming, you could go hog wild and really drop a bundle on a high end video card. However, while one wants a reasonable video card, the best of the best is really a wasted resource if it is to be used for Photoshop alone (as opposed to gaming or video editing). For this reason I went mid-range with a Gigabyte GeForce 9600GT with 512 MB of video RAM.

Sound Card: This machine is for Photoshop and Lightroom primarily....I went with no dedicated sound card, just the motherboard sound processing.

RAID: A discussion of all the varieties of RAID is far beyond the scope of this blog. However, for the scratch disk, I did go with RAID 0 (as I had discussed in Part II of this series) using 7200 RPM disks. One worthwhile issue to touch on is the use of on-board RAID controlled by the motherboard vs a dedicated RAID controller card. Again, this goes beyond the scope of this blog, but suffice it to say that, based on what I was able to learn, having a separate RAID controller card is well worth the investment in order to remove the RAID function from the motherboard. I went with a two disk RAID 0 array and a RAID card. I had the two disk array partitioned into a smaller first volume for the scratch disk. This volume resides on the outer, faster portion of the disk while the remaining volume will be used to store files on which I am still working in order to allow rapid opening and saving of the file. When the processing of these images is completed, they will be moved to storage on a non-RAID hard drive given the increased risk of data loss if either of the disks in the array were to fail.

Hard Drives: As I mentioned, I went with two 7200 RPM disks for the RAID array. I also wanted a fast boot drive so that the computer would boot quickly and applications would also launch very fast. Though this was clearly a 'luxury item', I decided to go with a solid state disk (SSD) for the boot disk to hold the OS and applications. In addition, a Western Digital 1TB Caviar Black hard drive is to be used for storage. The motherboard and case will allow for the addition of 2 more disks, should the need arise.

OS: Windows 7 Home Premium

Monitor: Discussing this component of the system is really opening a can of worms. A quality monitor can be expensive, but is also a mission critical part of the digital imaging system. It is used to assess the image, process the image, soft proof the image etc. Clearly, a low quality monitor that is poorly calibrated and profiled can make producing high quality images and prints a nightmare. If one's budget allows, a high quality monitor together with a hardware calibration system is optimal. Some names to look into (and I don't mean to imply that these are the only worthwhile monitors) include Eizo, NEC, Apple, and Lacie.

Well, I hope that this series of three posts will be helpful to others that might be interested in putting together their own 'Photoshop Optimized Computer'.

Photoshop Optimized Computer II

For Part I of this series click here.

Let me begin Part II by explaining what I view as a 'Photoshop Optimized Computer'. Obviously that means a computer whose hardware/software is set up in a way which allows Photoshop to run in the most efficient and fastest way possible. But what special hardware or software is needed to allow this efficiency to occur? How is a 'Photoshop Optimized Computer' (I think maybe I should try to trademark that little phrase before someone else does) different from the standard computer you might pick up anywhere?

In order to answer this, we need to know a bit about how Photoshop itself works. More specifically, we need to know about the software's data handling strategy. Now, I need to point out that my 'day job' has nothing to do with computer programing.....so, if I make a mistake in any of these posts I would be more than happy to have someone out there correct me.

When one opens a file using Photoshop, the program puts the data into RAM. If there is not enough RAM to handle the file, or if in the process of editing the file by adding layers etc the file becomes so large that it doesn't fit into the available RAM, then Photoshop writes that data to a physical hard drive that it has set aside for itself known as the 'scratch disk'. The specific drive or drive volume that Photoshop uses for the scratch disk can be chosen in the Photoshop Preferences. It should be recognized that:

1) Not all the RAM in the computer can be devoted to Photoshop use, as some of it is needed for use by the OS (and 32 bit programs limit the amount of usable RAM to 4 GB).

2) Once the data file gets large enough to require Photoshop to write its data to a physical hard drive things move much slower since the speed at which data can be written to a physical drive is much, much slower than the speed at which it can be stored in RAM.

So what conclusions can be drawn from this information? Knowing that things move much faster when Photoshop has enough RAM to write to tells us that the more RAM the better. And then more! And to allow Photoshop to utilize all that RAM, it would be optimal to use a 64 bit OS in order to remove the 4 GB RAM limit that is imposed by a 32 bit OS.

However, no matter how much RAM is in the system, Photoshop still needs to use the scratch disk to some small degree, even if the file itself fits fully into RAM. For this reason the scratch disk should be optimized, even in systems with a good deal of RAM. How does one achieve this optimization? It can be done in two ways.

The first and most important way is to put the scratch disk on a separate physical drive from the OS (the Photoshop application itself can be installed on the OS boot drive...some say it is optimal to install it there, as opposed to on another drive). That way the drive head can read and write to the scratch disk without having to do anything else. If the scratch disk were on the same physical drive as the OS, that disk's read/write heads would be slowed down by having to perform both the scratch disk duty as well as the reading and writing that the OS requires, such as writing to the page file and other required duties (don't move your page file to the scratch disk....if you don't know what that means just forget about it, as it's not there unless you put it there yourself).

The second way to optimize the scratch disk is to not only put it on a separate physical disk from the OS, but also to make this separate disk as fast a disk as possible. Options thus include, going from slowest (worst) to fastest (best): 5400 RPM drive, 7200 RPM drive, fast 7200RPM drive (no, not a separate type but 'better' because of increased cache, number of microprocessors etc), 10,000 RPM Western Digital VelociRaptor (though many would argue that there are some 7200 RPM drives out there that function faster than the 10000 RPM VelociRaptor) and, finally, a RAID 0 array.

A RAID 0 array is simply using two disks that appear to the OS as a single larger disk. Data is written to the array by splitting it and having half of it go to one disk and half to the other. Therefore each physical disk has to write only half as much and they can both do it simultaneously since each disk has its own read/write head. If one of those two disks fail all the data from the file is lost and can't be reconstructed....but since the scratch disk data is used only temporarily while the file is being worked on.....who cares?

Notice I didn't include a solid state drive (SSD) in the list of options. Though an SSD would be superb for data storage, the OS, or use in a RAID array, the current feeling is that as a stand alone disk it is not optimal (in addition to its being very expensive) for use as the scratch disk. The reason for this is that, while SSDs have blazing fast read speeds, the current write speeds (except perhaps for the super premium Intel E series SSDs) are no faster, and possibly slower, than a fast hard drive. The important fact to recognize here is that, for a scratch disk, the write speeds are much more important than the read speeds. This, then, is what makes the SSD, at the current level of technology, perhaps a sub-optimal scratch disk....or at least a scratch disk that is no better than the current breed of hard drives but costing far more.

So, to sum up:

1) OS and Photoshop on the same drive

2) RAM and more RAM

3) 64 bit OS so that RAM constraints are removed

4) Scratch disk on a second physical disk that is separate from the OS boot disk and

5) Make that separate physical scratch disk a fast one, with a RAID 0 array being optimal.

Want to dig a little deeper? Try this article from the Adobe Knowledge Base or this one, which is exceptional, from Lloyd Chambers. Though the second one discusses performance on a Mac, the information it contains, for the most part, can be applied to a PC as well.

I should mention one caveat, and that is that in this discussion I am assuming that large files are going to be worked on. If you are just working with very small files all of this might not be necessary. But if you are starting with large files (I shoot in RAW format with a Canon 5D MKII) that you then edit with many layers, use smart objects etc....then this info is for you.

Photoshop Optimized Computer I

The time has come for a new computer. I built my current computer myself about 6 or more years ago, and it is showing its age. It crashes when I generate Photoshop files with more than one smart object layer and, when I work on large files, it is frequently unable to utilize certain plug-ins that are begging for more memory. Disk space is also quite low. When I built it, if I recall correctly, I was photographing with a Canon 10D. Equipment and file sizes have certainly changed quite a bit.

The process of building that computer was fun and very educational, as it really taught me about how computer systems work and how components interact with each other in terms of compatibility. However, as much as I enjoyed it, I decided that this time I would not build it myself, simply because of free time issues. After learning the things I did during my last build, one thing was quite clear to me: I wasn't going to buy a prefab, 'mass produced' computer from Dell etc. Having seen the importance of individual components, I wanted to be able to choose exactly what goes into the box and not simply get the hard drive du jour!

I thought it might be worthwhile to write a few posts about the process of thinking through the construction of what will be my new system. I believe that this will be quite apropos to this blog since the computer is being designed specifically with the main goal of being optimized for Photoshop, with other uses being secondary.

So lets begin. First, since this time I wasn't going to be doing the building myself, I had to find a custom computer builder. I was looking for an outfit that received outstanding reviews and referrals, had great customer service, and had components that I 'believed in'. Obviously, not every custom build company will carry every component out there and, while some components had to be chosen from what the builder stocked, I wanted to make sure that they stocked what I would have used myself for the most important components.

So, what company did I come up with that filled these criteria? These guys.....Puget Custom Computers. Though I have not yet put the final order in for the computer, I can say the following: they have great reviews and a very helpful website. And when they say they try to answer inquiries within 24 hours they aren't kidding. Once you save a potential configuration you can have it reviewed by someone at Puget and begin talking about it with them. I have been having a daily 'e-mail' conversation with the person helping me out and they couldn't be more helpful or responsive. I am actually going to be giving him a call tonight for some final help in ironing out the particulars.

Like anything else in life though, it helps for you to have some background knowledge before jumping into things. For that reason, before even starting this journey, I had to do some background research on the state of computer components today.....something I have not otherwise been following very carefully. What's cutting edge, what's mainstream, what's around the corner?

Finally, I had to see if anything had changed in regards to optimizing one's computer configuration for Photoshop and Lightroom use. As it turns out, not much really has changed in that regard since I last built my own computer. Nonetheless, I thought it might also be worthwhile to provide that information in one location, as it might be a useful resource for people thinking about this issue.

I think I will close here with probable plans for two or three more posts on this subject to cover, components, Photoshop optimization, and how I put it all together. Along the way, I will provide links to some really excellent websites that provided me with a good deal of my information.

Digital Blue 'N Gold

When I switched over from film to digital, I retired my Singh-Ray Blue 'N Gold Polarizer. The results I was getting were just horrendous. I had read Darwin Wigget's article in Nature Photographers Online Magazine where he talks about the differences using the Blue 'N Gold Polarizer with digital, as opposed to film, capture and discusses shooting in RAW format while dropping the color temperature to the 2500 to 3200 K range during processing. I tried it but have to admit that I wasn't happy with the results. The filter stayed in retirement.

Recently, I came across Darwin's article reposted on the Singh-Ray blog here. It was a post with excerpts from the original article. But what got me interested was this "Editors Note" that appeared at the end of the blog post that was not contained in the original article:

Editor's note: By setting a "Custom White Balance" in the field with the Gold-N-Blue in place on the lens, virtually all digital SLR cameras can compensate for the magenta tint and display a correct image on the LCD. The color temperature and tint settings on the RAW file will be similar to what Darwin describes here, and should require minimal correction. Refer to your camera's manual for specific instructions on setting a Custom White Balance.

I decided it might just be worth a try. I took the filter with me on a local outing and used my Color-Right white balance tool.....but you can use Expo Disc or whatever custom white balance tool you have.....and took a shot with the tool in place. I was amazed to see just how intensely blue the light from the image was, and, when I used a custom white balance to make that image neutral, the subsequent shots with the filter in place came out just like in the old film days. So I guess the Blue 'N Gold will have to come out of retirement.

If you have a Blue 'N Gold filter that you have retired you might want to get it out and give this technique a try....it really works.

Anti-Aliasing And Its Effect On HD Video

I have not personally been particularly interested in video production and thus have not even used the video capability of my Canon 5D MKII as of yet. However, I read a very interesting article that was referenced on the Outback Photo website about the effect of anti-aliasing filters on HD video obtained via the current generation of dSLRs.

The article, entitled "Aliasing" is by Barry Green and can be found here. I found two aspects of the article quite interesting. The first was the detailed general discussion about aliasing and the artifacts it can introduce and the second was the discussion related to the fact that the type of anti-aliasing filters appropriate for high resolution digital still images and video are quite different. When both types of imaging are combined in a single camera body a compromise must be made with regards to the anti-aliasing filter (and the compromise has rightly been made to sacrifice the optimum video anti-aliasing filter in order to have the appropriate anti-aliasing for still images).

Besides being a well-written and extremely interesting article, it is also chock-full of real life video examples. It makes for some fascinating and enlightening reading.

Epson 7900 - Epilogue

Several weeks ago, I wrote a series of posts (starting here) about my new Epson 7900.....my review was not particularly glowing because of a number of difficulties I was having with the machine. I suspect that I may well have left people with the opinion that I was not pleased with the printer and that I was sorry that I had purchased it. In fact, I received several e-mails from folks who were considering buying one. I thought I should write one final post to 'clear the air' about the machine and my personal experience.

It is true that I was quite dissatisfied with the printer as it originally functioned. I fully documented that in my original series. What I would like to make clear is that once I had the printhead changed (by an extremely knowledgeable and easy to deal with technician) and turned off the automatic nozzle check the machine has functioned perfectly.

Specifically:

I have always had difficulty in the warmer months with ink clogs. While I still do get them on occasion, I can say that I am getting fewer of them than I did with my 7600 and they seem to clear easily with just a single cleaning from the front panel. My problem with persistent clogs with green ink has totally resolved.

Since keeping the platen gap setting at normal, I am no longer getting the "zebra striping" that I described in my first series of posts. Why opening the platen gap wider seems to make things worse is not at all clear to me.

The output is absolutely lovely.

I really enjoy making prints on papers using the photo black ink. I also find soft proofing with these papers much easier than with matte papers.

I should mention that it does seem 'easier' to get 'mild' head strikes on the 7900 as compared to the 7600. I have to make sure that the paper is as flat as possible. With sheets I will gently bend them as needed before printing to get them to lie flat, and with rolls I will gently curl them in the opposite direction around a tube (a home made D-Roller) prior to printing. This may be because with the 7600 I kept the palten gap set to 'wide', which seems to cause problems with my 7900 and the papers I am currently using.

At this point I am very pleased with the printer and very glad to have bought it. In fact, I am thinking about selling the 7600. Do I wish that I hadn't had all my initial difficulty which necessitated two visits from a tech and replacement of the printhead? Sure. But I don't think that one can extrapolate from this single printer that there is a generalized problem. When it comes to technology I guess there will always be the occasional device that comes off the assembly line a bit out of whack.

One thing though, in several years, when the technology has jumped forward yet again, it is going to be very difficult to upgrade if Epson makes this beast any bigger or heavier!

IR

After planning for quite some time to have a camera converted to infrared, I finally got it done. I had my old Canon 1Ds converted for IR photography by LifePixel. They did a great job.

There are three IR filters that are offered by LifePixel: Standard Color IR, Enhanced Color IR, and Deep Black And White IR. Examples of the types of results that can be obtained with each of the three filters can be found on their sample image page. I personally do not enjoy the aesthetic of color IR, but do very much like the 'look' of black and white infrared imaging.....so I went with the Deep Black And White IR filter, which blocks most visible light. In addition, the camera's auto-focus is adjusted to the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens in the process.

So, I got the opportunity to take the camera out a few days ago. Of course, once an hour away from home, I discovered that I hadn't reattached the camera's "L Plate" used to mount it to my tripod. I had removed it prior to sending the camera in for conversion. I therefore had to experiment and play around with the camera hand-held. I wasn't trying to do 'serious' photography but, rather, just wanted to get a feel for what the results might look like.

Here is an example of what I am getting out of camera. The image was shot in RAW format with just a few quick adjustments in Lightroom to improve contrast.

Waterfall
Copyright Howard Grill

Chuck Westfall Answers Canon Users Questions

I guess this is a bit of old news, but I still found it quite interesting and hadn't seen this blog/website before.

Chuck Westfall has been an executive with Canon for some time, both in the Consumer Imaging Group as well as with Canon USA’s Professional Products Marketing Division. Last November he agreed to field questions from folks like you and I. This blog has the questions asked as well as his repsonses. If you are a Canon user it makes interesting reading. Check it out here.

Pixel Peeping

I recently had the opportunity to learn firsthand how difficult meaningful pixel peeping can be. A friend let me use his Canon 5D MKII and I was interested in finding out how the native file sharpness compared to my 1Ds MKII. So I decided to get out my tripod and take the same shots with the two cameras and see how the RAW files compared. I knew there would be some difficulty in comparing the two images based purely on the difference in the number of pixels (16 vs 21 MP), but what I hadn't considered is what other issues might effect the comparison.

I learned a lesson as to just how difficult it can be to make such comparisons in a meaningful way, as each time I looked at a pair of images on the computer screen I thought of another confounding variable that might be affecting the results. The exercise pointed out to me how careful one needs to be when reading comments and evaluations on various internet forums, where perhaps everyone does not take all these factors into consideration when making such comparisons.

What follows are some of the confounding variables that I was able to recognize:

1) Metering: As it turns out, the two cameras gave different exposures despite having no exposure compensation dialed in for either. I hadn't considered the fact that different exposures meant different appearances to the highlights and shadows. Thus, the photo need to be taken in manual mode with the exact same aperture and shutter speed and not simply taken on aperture priority.

2)White Balance: Yes, the color balance of the two cameras was somewhat different and this can lead to different amounts of apparent contrast which appears to make sharpness differ. To make a fair comparison I had to do a custom white balance for each.

3)Focus: By far the biggest issue of all is the factor of how well the camera is focused. I don't have the greatest eyes in the world. I was very surprised at how different (at 100% viewing on the computer) several different manual focus shots were in terms of sharpness (I was shooting at a distant object at 200mm focal length to try to 'stress' the camera's resolving power). Many images were similar but some demonstrated quite a difference in sharpness despite coming from the same camera with repeat manual focusing. So one would have to take several shots and pick the sharpest one for comparison.

What about auto-focus? Despite using the center focusing point I was surprised to see that on the 5D MKII the sharpest area was not what was directly focused on. There was a bit of front-focus. We are not talking about a lot here...perhaps a few inches and I was using a Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS at 200mm focal length and f2.8. So one could not compare sharpness across two images if the exact same point is not optimally in focus in each image.

Not ever having used Live View before I really hadn't thought it would be that useful to me. However, it turns out that it is an amazing manual focusing aid. With live view, one can magnify the image 10x on the LCD and manually focus, watching the sharpness change right on the screen....amazing. It really is the ultimate focusing aid.

So I used Live View manual focusing on the 5D MKII and auto-focus (which seemed more accurate than my manual focusing without Live View) on the 1Ds MKII. Is this 'fair'? What if the 1Ds MKII had Live View? Would manual focusing using Live View provide better results than auto-focus? I don't know, and it is a theoretic question that was unable to be answered.

4)RAW Processing: I soon learned that to be fair about the comparison one should not process the RAW file in any way in Camera RAW or Lightroom as this will alter apparent contrast and sharpness. Likewise, sharpening in the RAW processor needs to be disabled.

5)Different File Sizes: As I mentioned, I expected differences based on the 16 vs 21 MP count. I found myself wondering if the two images might be more directly compared by upsizing the 1Ds MKII or downsizing the 5D MKII images? But wait....that would require interpolation, which would affect apparent sharpness, potentially making the downsized image appear sharper or the upsized image appear less sharp.

So what was my conclusion? The two cameras seemed pretty comparable, but I was amazed that the 5D MKII images looked at least as sharp out of the camera as the 1Ds MKII images despite the larger number of pixels. In fact, as one might have expected, the amount of detail seen in the 5D MKII images was greater with no apparent loss of edge definition (definition might have even been a tad better) given the higher megapixel count.

However, that was not the major conclusion that I arrived at from this exercise. What struck home the most is how difficult it can be to make these types of comparisons in an accurate and meaningful way. So beware the next time someone you don't know says that camera x produces images that are more (or less) anything than camera y. At least ask how the comparison was made and whether these issues were taken into consideration. For all I know, I might well have forgotten something obvious in the way I made my comparison.....believe me, I didn't figure out these variables that could affect results all at once!

Epson 7900 Experience - Repair Scheduled

I hadn't really planned to write so many blog posts about my Epson 7900.....but then again, I also hadn't planned on having problems printing on third party media with it either. I do hope that anyone else who might be having this problem will be helped by reading about what is going on with my printer. "Aldberg", in response to this post from a few days ago also reports a fairly similar problem with his 9900, and he has gone through three of them thus far.

To briefly continue the story, I received a package from Epson with a new printhead and capping station as well as a sub-assembly board in the mail even though they hadn't mentioned that they were going to be sending me any parts. The Epson tech is coming from a fair distance away on Wednesday. I spoke with him on the phone and he seemed genuinely concerned. I was heartened by his comment that one should be able to print on any third party media with these printers...which is not the response I was getting from Epson Central.

I will report back on Wednesday as to what happens.