I think it is going to support me when I go to Nepal (Bardia National Park) in next October. With Alain Pons and Amawanda.

You want an evidence? Open an image, save it in JPEG; Start over 600 times. The image deterioration will cumulate:

• An HP LaserJet 1005. The lowest B&W laser I could find at HP (I am faithful to this brand even if the last LaserJet 1022 failed suddenly far before the end of its normal useful life). It’s a Windows-based printer used on the local network, but it seems that printing over the LAN is nearly instantaneous. Magic!
• An Epson Stylus Photo R1900. Replacing an eon-old Stylus Photo 750, it should bring color photo printing in A3+. It’s amazingly silent.

Photoshop CS4

Newsrooms are full of weird coincidences. For example, we just learned that  two products often presented as direct competition were launched this Fall. To my right, here is Adobe with its boxing champion, Photoshop, loaded up to version CS4. To my left, Linux and its community of free developpers pushing the challenger on the ring, version 2.6 of The Gimp.

I am still convinced that this is not an even fight (and Photoshop is favored by bookmakers, for those still doubting it) but both announces are interesting and should be reviewed shortly.

Photoshop CS4 is a new step forward based on the award-winning user interface that made it a best seller and on top-level performance. To this market reference product, Adobe adds the following image-edition-oriented features:

• Accelerated computation using the modern graphic cards coprocessor and the Windows 64 features (when available, of course), and many tools needed to support a 3rd dimension in graphics design (painting on top of 3Dmodels, 3D compositing, etc.)
• Several new tools
• Adobe Camera Raw v5 is improved again to include complementary tools applicabel to RAW photo files (local editing, gradual correction filters, etc.)
• Bridge CS4 is notably accelerated

The Gimp 2.6

On the other side, The Gimp is now available as version 2.6. Here again, improvements are notable, even if a little smaller:

• A number of improvements to the user interface (but I still thing that this is the weak point of this software program; Recommendation: Look into GimpShop which is a hack to The Gimp in order to make it appear similar to Photoshop)
• Improvements to the selection tool
• Improvements to the drawing brush
• 32-bit GEGL data management (perfectly adapted to keep maximum quality in 12- and 14-bit RAW files)

All this will probably start again comment wars supporting one or the other solution. But remember that The Gimp is simply free. On the contrary, Photoshop CS4 (even if getting the upgrade license and despite the many available options) will still be very expensive (Master Collection at $2,499).

This is the photo of an elephant on the Musiara plains of the Masai Mara National Park in Kenya. Initially, I shot the horizontal photo below, in order to get a fairly good portrait of an elephant within a tight frame:

Elephant, portrait (Copyright 2008 Yves Roumazeilles)

It is a fairly correct image: A touch of colour in the background, enough information in both highlights and shadows, good focus plane, nice structure on the skin of the elephant, both eyes are visible and both tusks are inside the frame.

But after preparing/developping the trivial image (just minor levels correction, minimal unsharp mask), I thougt that it could be possible to try something else by re-framing the image:

Elephant, portrait (Copyright 2008 Yves Roumazeilles)

But while I was at it (and because of the nice work of light on the mud-covered skin of the animal), I also decided to try a black and white presentation (with desaturation by Photoshop and a little coloring of the image):

Elephant, portrait (Copyright 2008 Yves Roumazeilles)

What do you think about it? Which one is the best image?

• EOS 50D: Quick Control Screen
• EOS 50D: Peripheral Illumination Correction

And remember that Full Frame cameras are for the richest of the photographers. Most of us are still interested in more accessible real-world cameras like the Canon EOS 50D.

Images taken from the Paris metropolitan railway (le Métro) in a station under heavy repair. It brought images from the past (probably 20 years ago or more) through the remains of previous decors and acts of cultural vandalism that easily make me think of the slogans of the “Mai 68″ near-revolution in the streets of Paris.

Even shooting the photos seemed out-this-world: Silently and slowly walking the station with another photographer (we did not even exchange a word), while the people around us were waiting for their train trying not to notice the flash lights. It could not have been a more troubling experience, going from an unstuck paper to a poor paint job or a hasty writing between dirty white tiles.

The Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS II would no longer be a push-pull design but would have a second ring (like the recently presented Sony design). Better for managing the sealing and protection that are so important when used in difficult conditions like a photo-safari. It would also be equipped with an upgraded image stabilizer (the most critical issue with the existing zoom).

Expect a price of US$1700. If that one is true, it will be a very good price.

Announcement: Not sure, but you can bet there would be something about it on September 17th when Canon will present its new SLR body.

Via Canon Rumours.

The Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM is described in the PDF documentation of the Sony 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G SSM. Obviously, they were designed together. It is a twist-zoom. This will differentiate quite notably from the push-pull type of others like the Canon 100-400mm and it should protect it efficiently against dust entry (and we know that this is the bane of push-pulls.

The technical features can be read from this table. I can imediately notice that the diaphragm is staying between f/4 and f/5.6 (the golden standard of this type of zoom), that the weight is rather high (heavier than the Nikon and the Canon, nearly as much as the Sigma equivalnet) and that the minimum focus distance is very competitive.

Let’s wait for images and tests (and the price), but this could be the ideal lens to go and shoot in a wild-life safari.

Source: DPreview forums. See also my previous article about high-end tele-zooms.

This is right that many people feel obliged to use Photoshop to manage their photo images. But in most cases, nearly any other tool would be as good. I think first about the excellent IrfanView which is free and does a lot of digital photo management.

But it is also true that if you really want to use all of the xtensive feature set of Photoshop or if you appreaciate its rich interface (defintely well-thought with the user in mind), The Gimp will not be enough for your photographer needs. Here comes the a really surprising software program: Pixlr.

It essentially took the Photoshop interface ideas (really VERY similar to Photoshop), it is a software application written by Ola Sevandersson to be used online (but still in beta status). Nothing to download, free (as in free beer), legal, operating damn well.

What is also notable is that it is available with an interface customized in different languages (including English, of course, and 10 others).

Totally approved.

This afternoon, I decided to go to the Photowalk in Paris tomorrow morning (if I wake up early enough to be there by 10am).

I known this is a last-minute decision, but if you’re in Paris, why not join? It’s free.

• Natural looking flash. Right! It may be very difficult to get a nice looking lighting without burning everything with lights that cry “flash”.
• White Seamless Tutorial. A 5-part article of an exceptionnal quality/expertise but perfectly understandable by anybody willing to get a good studio lighting with a limited budget to have white backgrounds as well as black ones, grey ones, colored ones, with perfect mastering of the result. Really brillant!

For sure, we can find information of the highest quality on the Internet.

A quality lens

The first advice I should give it to choose a high-end lens. Even if the trans-standard zoom lens of the kit for most digital SLR cameras provide very good results in an exceptionnally compact form factor, that we all love to use. But these are also the result of so many compromises where image quality cannot be always the only factor.

Professionnal zoom lenses (the most expensive) are often capable of really impressive achievements, but prime lenses (with a fixed focal lenght) can reach quality levels that no zoom lens can reach. Some say that this is their unique (and only) selling point: Quality.

Thus, in the Minolta-Sony lens catalog, I rushed onto the white tele-lenses from the APO G pro family that, even today, produce exceptionnally good images (for a price no less astonishing if you don’t purchase them second-hand). But each serious camera/lens manufacturer has a few very nice lenses in its catalog.

Stop down your lens a little

Even the best lens is not perfect and its best is not reached at full aperture. Typically, you must stop down 2 or 3 stops to reach its best quality (check with the magazines quality analysis to know your glass top level).

Small ISO’s

In analog as in digital, it is difficult to avoid noise and loss of resolution when you pump the ISOs up. The rush for more sensitivity brings you defects that can go up to ugly. You must know your camera and the sensitivity range where images are the best (further than some values -400 ISO, 800 ISO, 1600 ISO- noise levels will become too annoying) and always stay under this limit whatever the temptation. Even better, try to use the basic core sensitivity of your camera (often 100 ISO, sometimes 200 ISO; check your user manual).

Say no! to vibrations

There are few things that can degrade sharpness as efficiently as vibrations while shooting. Vibrations of the camera, of the photographer, of the subject. If the latter allows it, use a tripod. It will allow you to stop down your lens, to keep a low ISO sensitivity and still be able to shoot.

If low speeds are impossible for the subject, choose a shutter speed as quick as necessary to stop the subject’s movements. For example, birds hardly accept less than 1/250s (many will prefer 1/1000s to freeze the attitudes).

No JPEG

In digital imaging, there is one common image format that degrades the local sharpness quite efficiently: JPEG file format. If the compression level is not too high (maximum quality) it can stay acceptable, but it will be best to work from a RAW format image. It’s richer and kept all the details available.

Perfect light exposure and careful image processing

But after shooting the image, it is still possible to crunch its quality down. First, be sure to perfectly expose the image. Some people will say that you can always correct later, but once you miss some information no post-processing will ever re-create it. If under- or over-exposure removes some information, it’s just lost).

Having a well exposed RAW image, be sure to limit processing to the strict minimum. Start withminor exposure and color processing. Don’t use any other tool (or minimally, and then…)

Touch up image size after pre-processing (in most case, you will also like to keep an original at full high-resolution before you proceed), then apply sharpening/accentuation (see below).

Save the image in a file format that will preserve all the details: Again, I recommend to forget JPEG and to prefer TIFF.

Sharpen/Unsharp

Nearly all digital images require some sharpening to bring some additional appearance of sharpness. But you must be very cautious here. So many good images have been lost by unwise sharpening.

Under Photoshop, use the Unsharp tool (USM).

To start with the USM filter, you can use the ones suggested by PhotographyJam, depending on the objective:

Light!

But in any case, to reach all the other aims, you will need light. Enough light. But also, as any photographer will tell, a nice light, lighting oriented to best serve your subject. Your first and last concern will be light to have not only a sharp image, but a beautiful photograph.

• Create Eye Catching Color Effects on Black-and-White Photos
• Create Photorealistic Reflections in Photoshop
• Reduce Redundancy by Creating Photoshop Actions

The first thing to know is that light diffraction is a very general phenomenon and quite natural. It’s been a long time already that scientists and engineers noticed that -on the one hand- light rays are slightly deflected while running through a very small orifice and -on the other hand- two light rays can interact with each other on the condition that they are have very paths nearly perfectly parallel. This is even one of the most significant and founding elements of quantum physics. When you combine both those phenomenons, you will notice that light going through a very small opening like camera lens diaphragm will produce not exactly the expected neat circle but a more irregular and circular shape that you can see in the illustrative figure that goes along this paragraph: Usually named an Airy disk or Airy disc.

As a matter of fact, the size of the Airy disc can be computed relatively easily and only depends on the opening of the diaphragm where light goes through.

As this is only happening at the microscopic scale, you could think that this has no importance. But there is an additional difficulty for the digital photographer: Silicon-based image sensors are really working at this scale. For example, here are the sizes of some of the common images sensors on the market:

• APS-C sensor (1:1.5 crop factor / Sony SLR) of 6 mega-pixels: 8 µm
• APS-C sensor (1:1.6 crop factor / Canon SLR) of 8 mega-pixels: 6.5 µm
• APS-C sensor (1:1.6 crop factor / Canon SLR) of 12 mega-pixels: 5.3 µm
• Full Frame sensor of 12 mega-pixels (Canon 5D): 8.5 µm
• Full Frame sensor of 24 mega-pixels (Sony Alpha 900): 6 µm
• 1/2,5″ sensor of 8.2 mega-pixels (HP Photosmart R937 point-and-shoot): 1.7 µm

As you can notice all cameras are not born equal from this point of view. For the same number of pixels, Full Frame sensors have notably larger pixels than APS-C cheaper SLR cameras. Point and shoot compact cameras are in a completely different range. And phone cameras are pushing the lower limit of technology for smaller sensors (and correspondingly small pixels).

When you compare the values from the table of Airy circle sizes and the size of the pixels of your photo camera, you easily understand that closing the diaphragm of your top-notch lens is not enough to produce super-crisp images out of your brand new 12-mega-pixel camera: a 12MP Canon SLR will hit the Airy disc size as soon as you close down to f/5.6/; The images do not immediately become bad, but your pixels are not used at their best. And, sometimes, you wonder why you don’t get better results than from the older camera still in your bag.

A good algorithm of image correction may compensate part of this problem (as this phenomenon is very predictable and easy to modelize with computers, it is relatively easy to counter-act with software), but there limits to what firmware can do in our cameras, too. The situation is simply desperate with the smallest sensors of small point-and-shoot cameras and phone cameras. More pixels bring them nothing except bigger images files on Flash cards.

On the contrary, camera manufacturers firmly aim at larger sensors (so-called Full Frame sensors) in order to compensate these issues. This is what is driving the current rush to Full Frame at Canon, Nikon, Sony and the others despite the still prohibitive cost of the huge chunks of silicon used at the heart of these photo cameras.

Of course, do not refrain from closing the diaphragm to improve the depth of field of your image, but keep in mind the magnitude order of the limit diaphragms of your camera in order not to be surprised by the appearance of some diffraction in some of your images.

Additional information:

• Diffraction & photography, at Cambridge in color,
• Airy disk, at Wikipedia.

• 50 Megapixel Hasselblad H3DII-50: 36x48mm CCD sensor.
• Kodak Unveils 50-Megapixel CCD

Again, those people are keeping pixel size around 6µm (a good target to keep diffraction low and manageable).

And it’s a good question to ask, but the answer goes with some of the comments about sensor resolution. About the same people who noticed that resolution is not all that counts (despite what is said or implied by some of the major brands on this market) also understand that going Full Frame is a possibly very important decision for the attentive digital photographer.

WTF is Full Frame?

First you’d like to understand what we are speaking about – precisely. Most Digital Single Lens Reflex (D-SLR) cameras use a sensor whose size is about half of the size of a usual (old?) 35mm film frame. We call them APS-C-sized sensors because it’s not far from the (younger but still old?) APS-C film frame size. Since so many photographers have been trained in the world of 35mm films, everything tends to be compared to it.

Those small sensors are used by camera manufacturers because the smaller the silicon chip, the cheaper it goes. This is the main reason why phone cameras use even smaller sensors (a few millimeters wide for some of them).

Full Frame sensors are those ones that are nearly exactly the same size as a 35mm film: 24mm by 36mm sensitive surface. By silicon manufacturing standards this has long been too big to be reasonably manufactured in large quantities but progress being what it is in this industry (Moore’s law, you know?) it is now becoming feasible. So why not?

The pros of FF

The first one is that if you stick to a fixed number of pixels (say 10 millions of them on one single sensor), the wider the sensors, the larger the individual pixel sensitive element. This has several enormously interesting advantages.

Being big, the pixel is also much more sensitive (it can collect more photons at the same time). So, there is less need to do mathematics and algorithmics to compensate for low light situations. The sensor collects directly enough light and the image is less impacted by noise. Like when you push the volume up on a radio to hide the background noise of a conversation. Those big pixels naturally “push the volume up”.

And noise is a real problem. On very high ISOs and/or on low quality cameras (read “small sensors” like we find them in camera phones or even compact point-and-shoot cameras), you keep shooting images that are dull, covered with little colored specks or lack in details because the camera manufacturer forced on “noise cleaning algorithm” and this removed most details.

Parallely, if you pixel is large and collecting a lot of light photons, it is easier for the electronics to cut it in small pieces: you get better dynamic range. It means that you will find easily more details in the dark areas of the image and you will mostly avoid the blown-out white zones of some light areas. This is a good thing for your photos.

But there are also some other even more subtle but important issues at hand. Many photographers migrating from analog to digital SLR cameras have noticed that the viewfinder now looks like a tiny little tunnel: everything seems to be small and dark. Since the sensor image is smaller, it is sent back to the eye in a smaller size too. It is uncomfortable unless you invest in a camera with a top of the line viewfinder. But if the sensor is Full Frame, it is easier for the camera manufacturer. They don’t have to enlarge the image, it’s already big.

A much more technically difficult argument is something that is now cropping up with large pixel numbers. When we had 6 million pixels on an APS-C sensor, nobody noticed it, but with 10, 12, 14 millions pixels people start to notice that the increase of resolution does not always go with improved image quality. One of the reasons is linked to light diffraction when you close the diaphragm. The pixels are getting so small that the slight diffraction from a lens closed at f/22 or f/16 is becoming larger than a pixel (or at least perceptible there).

Manufacturers (and intensely attentive photographers) now understand that if they want to keep getting more pixels, they -first- have to buy extra-high-quality lenses (at a price) and -second- they must get bigger pixels (and bigger sensors). 20 million pixels on an APS-C sensor will probably never be significantly better than 10-12 millions of them. You have to go to Full Frame if you want more pixels! It essentially gives you more real pixels and an extended diaphragm range: in most cases, it is understood that around 12 millions pixel on an APS-C sensor, closing to more than f/16 is just breaking down your picture.

As a side note, this also explains why so many small cameras and phone cameras are producing really ugly images out of an astonishing number of pixels…

Questionable advantages

Another bane of small sensors is that they have so much Depth of Field (DOF). Everything seems to be in focus. This is good for a digital photo notebook like your camera phone. But if you want to go a little more on the artsy side, you may want to ensure that the subject is neatly focused and leaving the background in a warm fuzzy light. This is more difficult with APS-C sensors than with full frame sensors. However, you have to admit that this is a mixed advantage. For example, macro photography is always lacking in depth of field. APS-C has been bringing a little advantage here.

Also, APS-C sensors being smaller, they tend to crop the image. So, the standard 50mm lens you used on the old analog camera looks like it is giving you the same image as your old 75mm or 80mm short tele lens when mounted on a Digital SLR camera. This is what is called the crop factor. Depending on your camera (or, more precisely, its sensor), it gives you a small conversion factor (1.6 for most Canon EOS, 1.5 for most Sony and Nikon). This is a nightmare for people in love with wide angle lenses and wide panoramas (it’s becoming more and more difficult to get a wide angle lens: super wide 16mm now looks like a wide 24mm). Many nature landscape photographers suffer from that change. However, being a wildlife photographer myself, I admit that this can be good too: My collection of tele-lenses got a boost going from Minolta analog to Sony digital; The latest addition, a 400mm f/4.5, is nearly exactly equivalent on my Sony Alpha 700 to a 600mm f/4.5 on the old Minolta Maxxum 9xi but it is about half the weight and half the price). Not everybody can be happy with that.

The dark side of the Full Frame

But there are also very bad aspects of these large Full Frame sensors. First, we already said that electronics manufacturing is utterly sensitive to surface. The larger a chip, the more expensive. And not only because of the added material. Defects on a silicon chip tend to be spread quite evenly on its surface. The larger it is, the more defects you have, the more difficult it becomes to manufacture, the more parts you have to scrap (if your chip is twice bigger, a single defect will kill it, but on a smaller one, you would get one good chip and one bad one). Price increase has long been so large that it is not mentionable. Now, things are a bit easier, but… it’s expensive.

Also to mention, bigger sensors mean bigger cameras (your phone camera is small because its photo sensor is small). Bigger means heavier. There is a definite difference between a 300g camera body and 800g camera body. Keep it for more than an hour while shooting! Some photographers may not really care (I often hold a camera behind a lens that is more than 2kg -I previously mentioned a 400mm lens of 2.9kg- and I’ve got used to it but many people would not even think about it. The first time I bought a second-hand Sigma 400mm/5.6 the previous owner was selling it because he had a back ache prohibiting to use it).

But you could also say that you don’t really care if the image is good. And here comes the size of the lens again. To cover the full surface of a Full Frame sensor you need a lens that is large enough for that. It must also be of perfect quality to the extreme corner of the image. But if you get the light in all corners you also have to ensure that the light rays are not suffering from too many angled paths through the lens. If you do not make sure of this during the design, it’s easy to get a correct lens for APS-C, but a pitifully bad one for Full Frame. Quite often, these are difficult goals to reach and you get vignetting (the corners of the image are a little darker than the center) and soft corners (zones that are not as crisp as the center of the image). The larger the sensor, the more difficult to make a good lens for it (again). You go to the pro-quality lenses. Again, there is a price hike and added weight on the scale.

So what?

In the end, the choice to go Full Frame is currently reserved to prosumers or top-flight amateurs or even pro photographers. But we have to keep in mind that the trend will be going there just to keep the quality while other factors are climbing. Don’t believe that electronics progress will remove all limits (diffraction is an optical phenomenon we have to live with). Not everybody will have to go there, but Full Frame is there to stay.

You may not want to invest in Full Frame, but you must take that into account when you buy a lens. Many cheap lenses are only able to serve APS-C sensors. While this was a sensible investment (pay less for the same service), remember that a good lens is supposed to live much longer than your camera (digital cameras have gone the way of computers: 2-year obsolescence is the standard). This is why so many Full Frame (even second-hand) lenses are keeping a high market price. This is why Sony and Carl Zeiss still only manufacture lenses able to work on both APS-C and FF.

When I buy a tele lens, I tend to pay a hefty price on second-hand hardware (more than 2000 Euros on the old second-hand Minolta APO G High-Speed 400mm f/4.5 I got from eBay). I intend to keep that much longer than the Sony Alpha 700 and the Konica-Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 7D I use as SLR bodies behind it. If (and I say if) I go and buy the future Sony Alpha 900 Full Frame camera which is supposed to be available some time this year, possibly at the end of the Summer 2008, all my lenses will still be compatible with this camera body.

So, even if you don’t care about the added quality, think about the rest of your investment in the context of Full Frame sensors.

Normally, there is a solution. You can modify slightly your website to ensure that if this happens, the image served is not the original one, but a modified one (either a big red X, or a message to the reader). But it is a little difficult to do by hand. A wbe site tool comes handy for this: HTMLbasix – Htaccess Disable Hotlinking Code Generator.