52 photos in 52 weeks, this should not be too easy. But 52 photos according to pre-set constraints ; this could be a serious personal challenge.

I believe that the rule of the Dogwood 52 week photography challenge is to take these photos during said week. But I will allow myself to re-use existing photos from my archives to fulfill the specification (within the professional constraints, I’ll also try and privilege shooting new pictures, though).

We’ll see if I can take it.

The specification appears in the following table:

1. Shot the scene in a correct exposure according to our usual workflow;
2. Repeat the shot now reducing shutter speed by 4 f-stops that will be corrected in the RAW development (this grossly over-exposed shot will keep shadow details without digital noise);
3. Blend in some way both images obtaining a free of noise final image.

Guillermo Luijk had published his software application and I did not mention it. So, let me correct this error and give you Zero Noise.

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.

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

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:

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:

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):

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).