Two images, both similar of the same subject in the same location.
Panasonic 20mm at f1.7 OMD RAW image with basic processing for exposure.
XE-1 Fuji 27mm at f2.8 jpeg image set to Velvia.
The Fuji cameras can produce some lovely images, but if using jpeg, you must remember to set the right film simulation. My father in law was never that pink!
It is almost crunch time. My investment in the PenF and two pro zooms is about to be put to the test in the high season of landscape in Tasmania, autumn.
Last year, I effectively missed autumn, worrying about other things. The above images were taken while testing my hopeful landscape kit the XA-1 and two basic zooms. The results were good, but the jpeg only idea did not sit well with me and RAW landscape with Fuji, even the XA with the traditional sensor (avoiding the issues with the water colour sharpening effect in processing), produced nice, but slightly fake colours. I have nothing but praise for a kit, made up of a base model camera and lenses. Especially stopped down, these lenses were a match for the dearer Fuji glass and superior in my opinion to any other "kit" lenses. All of the images were taken at Hollybank reserve in the states north. It was once a Tennis racket factory, hence the slightly plantation look to the landscape. It all felt a bit rushed on the day and the images support this. I really hate breaking in new gear or techniques. It distracts from the process.
So. Lots of claims by me of sports being photographed with a combination of single shot AF without AF tracking and manual focus. How did I go when the rubber met the road?
Some basketball yesterday. The usual poor light and fast pace. The actual assignment was to document one of the referees involved, but in his down time, when the other referee was officiating, I grabbed some quick action shots.
All of the images were captured with an EM5 at ISO 1600-3200 and the 40-150 f2.8. All of the longer shots, including two dozen of the main subject (the referee) running down the court* were captured sharply with single shot AF on centre point only with timing and minimal hesitation (a second shot of a converging or receding will always be out of focus due to the lack of tracking), For the close action under the net, I used S-AF with a wider capture area of the middle nine points and the camera at waist level. Manual trap focus would have been better, but the lens was a little long (40=80mm) and the F2.8 aperture too shallow for zone focussing. Except for my miss cues, there were no AF fails. A wider lens like a 25mm would have been better, but I was not at the event for these shots. I missed the ball in the action a lot, but that was me out of practice, not the camera.
The mono conversion is my standard pre set, Mono 1 (I have 6 mono ones, all designed to create a remembered contrast look from my film era memory). The look is much like my memory of pushed TriX in Rodinal 1:50, but without the excessive grain. Not much noise reduction is used to allow a slight "grainy" look to come out and it is tight looking grain, as Rodinal would render it, but not at the expense of clarity.
*I can't show these as they belong to the client.
The other day I posted under "thoughts", a little bit of the enormous capabilities of Adobe Lightroom as I understand them at this point. In the post I commented that I am "not an expert" and "I am always learning", but hoping that someone would gain something from my own habits and understanding. Little did I know that my own learning curve would take a spike. It goes to show, talking to other people with the same interests is always a benefit as long as you have a "growth mind set". A kind and knowledgeable readers comment (you should read the comment to as it makes some very good points) would not only teach me a trick, pointing out that some of the brush work I had done was visible (ouch) and also remind me of something I had forgotten.
I will admit, I pushed the processing of the image chosen for the example beyond my comfort zone. Doing that much brush work is probably beyond my skill at this point and I was caught out fair and square. In the past, when this much work was needed, I would either take more time, working on each area with a magnified view or re evaluate the value of the image.
Basically, when using the brush, graduated filter or any other manipulative feature in Lightroom, always make sure the playing field is in your favour. The two errors I did in my posted image were editing from the original view and NOT CLEANING MY SCREEN. If (assuming the screen is clean) you lighten the image or in some cases deliberately over do the brush work to make it more visible in relation to the rest of the image, you can always push it back later.
One of the beauties of Lightroom is that it is non destructive editing. You can push, pull, reset and start again. Nothing is actually real and final until it is exported. For example, of you are sharpening an edge or adding noise reduction selectively, you could reduce exposure to see the area darken as you work, making sure you have not missed anywhere, then double click on the exposure slider when done to reset the exposure to normal. If you click on one of the brush starting point dots, even months after your edit, the area previously worked on will show up as a red cloud. To re do the image, I (after I cleaned my screen) lightened the whole image to see it better, then re applied the brushing).
The above image on the left is an already edited mono conversion, taken at Perth Zoo a couple of years ago. As is, it is ok, but showing the clumsiness of my early brush use. The second image has been lightened (thank you Olympus Hopeful), showing the areas that have not been fully removed and areas that have heavier brush work applied. Mostly invisible, but not great. The last image has the poor areas touched up by applying -30 exposure and then a new brush edit applied around the edges and the main body of the Zebra with +35 contrast, +30 clarity, +20 sharpness and +10 dehaze. Remember, that these settings will not darken light areas, only dark areas, so they intensify the edge.
Notice the glow on the main body. There is no extra exposure added, this is all from contrast, clarity and dehaze control. Another point of note is these manipulations were done to a re imported jpeg, as the original eludes me (I will not be doing a post on organising and filing for a while!).
The trick I was reminded of, that I read once before in an interview with one of the official UN photographers, John Isaac is to use the brush on weaker settings, but with more passes. He felt that multiple passes on a gentle setting is less destructive than hitting it hard in one go.
I often go on about the Canon (or Fuji) look and how I have needed on some level to mimmic to some extent that look in my images. Digital Canon followed Fuji Velvia (shot with Canon), forming in me a taste for rich colours, strong contrast, a cool base palette with strong but cooler warm tones. Olympus cameras take beautiful images, but they are more like Kodachrome than Velvia. The neutral base and emphasis on skin tones and warmer colours matched with (in the EM5's especially) strong and deep blacks, looks very Kodachrome to me.
Olympus OMD and 75-300 lens at 75mm.
Why do I need the look of one brand in another camera brand?
Because I love the size and lens consistency of the Olympus cameras, I do like their images, but I miss the Canon/Fuji look sometimes, especially when the light is poor and (in my mind) I feel another brand would handle dull and uninspiring light better. This is a Fuji jpeg strength. The Sony made, Olympus sensors are better performing than the current Canon crop frame cameras at the moment in a lot of areas as well, like dynamic range (highlight recovery) and noise (Olympus black speck noise is sharp noise, not mushy noise).
An Olympus image (OMD 25mm), with reduced sharpness, clarity and increased contrast.
A Canon full frame image (5D mk2 35L), with increased sharpness and clarity, and no change to contrast.
This is one of the "haunting" images. There is nothing here Olympus cannot provide and it turns out that the original Canon file did not look this way anyway.
The good news for me, is I think I can now easily and consistently get Canon colours out of my Olympus cameras when I need. The "Hollywood" glow is actually a result of noise reduction, un sharpening and/or reducing clarity. The black and white sliders in Lightroom give an image a more contrasty and brilliant look, toning the shadows and highlights to give more colour depth and the blue slider in camera calibrations cools shadows while giving warm tones more "pop". I also need to correct my own colour memory, because on investigation, the Canon files that make me so unsettled often required a lot of work. There was a reason I switched and I have to remember that.
I followed my own advice and re read out some old reviews on the EM5 mk1 (Ctein and others), then wrote a bit about things that have been on my mind lately. Itch scratched (a bit easier than this guy).
While looking at my future needs for possible sports photography, I analysed the actual needs of each type of sport and the techniques required.
Field sports.
Longer lenses allow for better focus as the subject moves less in relation to you. If shooting length ways down the ground, with decent depth of field, the single shot or continuous AF of even the EM5 mk1 will get the job done. If trying to follow action from the side, manual zone focus and timing will get good results.
Swimming and distant athletics.
This is the one I did recently that started the madness. Manual zone focus will get diving in, the lanes guarantee the same plane of focus from the side and focussing on the "bow wave" of the subject will work for single or continuous AF for converging targets.
OMD 40-150 pro at about 100mm f2.8
Short distance sprinting.
This is the tough one. How I used to do it was to focus on the runner about to leave the blocks (from the finishing end), shift focus once or twice down the track getting the subject with a short burst as they pass through the focus point and then settle focus on the finish line, usually zoomed right back (this can be achieved by memorising finger placement at each of the focus points). Using the most depth of field possible and with a bit of practice, a set of 10 or so good images out of 15-20 is the norm, including zooming. If shooting from the side, practice panning with good depth and a slowish shutter speed, the longer the lens, the longer the focus sweet spot holds. The long lens trick I learned photographing dragonflies in flight (remember to keep one eye on the action and the other on the eye piece).
IDs mk2 and 400 f5.6L. With the long lens, the 2-3 meter "hops" the dragonfly made were relatively small adjustments. Closer would have meant greater shifts.
Tennis and Netball.
I used to shoot a lot of Netball and found that the field sport techniques worked (shooting long down the length or zone focus from the side), but you also have the opportunity to do some high or low wide angle and short lens work around the goals or base line in tennis.
The trick is to be smooth and gentle with focus, no jerky movements and trust to depth of field if available. Single shot AF is ok as long as the total process of focus and fire is not slower than the subjects movement. Practice on moving cars is good to. Shoot wider than needed as 16-20mp has plenty of cropping power for web work.
This an example of a 2-3mp crop of a failed "trap focus" composition. One of the reasons good corner sharpness is handy.
I have a slight case of GAS (gear acquisition syndrome).
I decided I should look at the merits of tracking autofocus in the M43 world as I shot some sport and may have some more on the horizon.
Even though I have rationalised the benefits away for the level I will be working at (high school), the lure of the new will not go. Even old new, the EM1 mk1 is calling to me. I am fighting false promises, shunning the reliable and well known for the new and exciting. I need to count my blessings, take stock of what is good, what is working and move on.
One of the best things to do is get my gear out, clean and check it as I find the intangible tends to over shadow the real when my imagination takes hold. I learned this trick with Canon gear. I had more of a problem settling on it, even stressing over the physical look of some of my lenses.
Yep, take a breath.
I often wonder (don't regret really, just ponder) what it would be like to have just the best custom kit for each job*. A specialised landscape, sport and street/travel kit.
One lens/camera combo that I would have kept for that thinking, if that was how I chose to go would have been the Canon 1Ds mk2 and the 400 f5.6L. The lens, like my other favourites from Canon, the 70-200 F4L and 135L, was not stabilised, but it hand held well, easily lower than it's reciprocal focal length/shutter speed equation.
1Ds mk2 with 400 f5.6L with 1.4 teleconverter wide open at 1/125th, cropped to 1400x1700 from the image below.
The OMD sensor has similar properties and the same pixel count, but the quality out of those old Canons was way better than anything I had seen before and the colour more natural than the lush colour of the current crop (much like the Olympus look). I remember showing a friend, a 5d mk2 user, an 8x10 of the above and telling him the long list of compromises made to get it. I don't think he believed me until I showed him the "full monkey".
The full file.
Ahwww, cute. 5d Mk2 and the same lens.
The lens was a giver. I remember trying to convince a customer to buy it over the 100-400L, but he went with the versatility. He later regretted the decision after we compared identical images from similar cameras. To top it off, after selling it and the 135L to a shop in a neighbouring city, I found out from my wife, that a friend from her work bought them both and has them back here. Haunted still.
The Olympus glass is the equal of the Canon I had (the 45 is nearly identical to the 85 f1.8 in look and performance, but less than half the size, the 75 matches or beats the 135L, 40-150 is better/faster/longer than the 70-200 f4L and the 75-300 surprisingly close in end result to and easier to use than the 400 and a little longer), but if I had held onto those lenses they would have been (were) the nucleus of a good SLR sports kit.
*Fuji for landscape (14, 18-55, 60 and 90 macro), Olympus for street and portrait (17, 25, 45, 75) and Canon for sport (24, 40, 135, 400). Selling and buying gear for me has been a bit of a merry-go-round and I don't regret most transactions, but some clear thinking in hind sight would have spared me from selling off a couple of camera and lens combo's that just worked.
The ideal is one kit that works (that I have), but it is sometimes fun to remember past successes, just not dwell too much on the ones that got away.
I did a little shoot today, launching a school production season with local talent done well, Matthew Garwood as the speaker.
EM5 mk1 ISO 3200 40-150 at 150 f2.8. Not bad for a "tiny" and "old" sensor.
Amazing ink. Very Asian inspired and very well done.
Glad I bought the big lens. It allows close shots, with very a good success rate.
Hope there are more of these types of shoot.
Thunder storm brewing, we can hear it rolling in. Pizza guy just tried to deliver a paid for Pizza to us (right address, wrong name), but too honest. Madness abounds.
OMD 40-150 at 40mm. Editing consisted of darkening the "black's" slider, reducing noise for smoothness, adding clarity to separate the cloud details and a bit of contrast added.
I just found a bunch of images from my first trip away to Melbourne with the new EM5. They are processed (as possible) jpeg's as RAW was not available at the time.
The first five are with the older 20mm Panasonic, the next two are the 45mm Olympus and the last one was with the 14mm Panasonic. When I worked in the shop we used some of these to sell a lot of OMD/Pen cameras. I was blown away with the ease that images were achieved at night (exposure peeking, stabiliser, lens sharpness wide open etc.) and that enthusiasm rubbed off. My comparison was to Canon "L" glass and crop frame SLR's used in Italy the year before.
Another pairing off. This one comes and goes with me. The mono image is cleaner and better balanced, but the cool colours show the late time of day and inclement weather better.
The mans shoulder is balanced well with the umbrella and the background lights are effectively invisible in the mono image. In the colour one, the umbrella colour, the pink lights and the mans neck and collar become much stronger. The colour image shows a strong contrast between the cold light of the time of day and the artificially lit elements.
OMD 17mm f1.8
Another look at the contrast between mono and colour processing. No superior choice here to my mind. I honestly cannot choose a "winner". The vibrant colour vs the restful tones. Both work but differently.
Pen F 75mm f2
A trait of some converted images is they can look "dirtier". The mono image needed a lot of spotting out of a dozen or so tiny, but noticeable black spots on the front column. They are in the colour image, but the strength of colour hides them. When reduced to tones and textures only (with an increase of contrast to make the mono image stronger), they stand out a lot more.
Both taken from the same spot, with different subjects and different treatment.
The first image screams opulence, youth, maybe arrogance, but definitely status or the attempt to display it.
The mono version of this looses the critical gold of the phone and the complimenting background colours, but the Apple logo stands out more.
Pen F 75mm f2
The second image has a much more humble feel. Someone, not necessarily worried, but with something on their mind, distracting them from presentation as they fall into habit.
The colour version of this image has a mish-mash of badly coordinated hues, cold and drab, but the mono version strips them away.
Pen F 75mm f2
Two days spent in Melbourne last year doing street photography and some shopping. Day 1, finding my rhythm, using a wide angle, pre focussed and shooting at waist level. The images have that tell tale "up from under" look (that I like) as it makes the subject look bigger, more interesting and with that lens, it adds a sense of drama. EPM-2 and 17mm
The next day, a little later in the morning, I went with the 45mm on my OMD as the corner I had found myself was bigger and the light more dramatic.
Odd thing. Both sets were processed using my mono preset with a little exposure balancing, but have a quite different look (granted the light was also a little different). The colour and contrast of the two lenses is different, so maybe the mono pre set affects their images differently. I love the "organic" nature of the 17mm images, but prefer the clean brilliance of the 45mm images. The 75mm and 17mm look to have a similar colour palette, the 45mm is deeper/darker and richer, a bit like the 75-300 and the two f2.8 zooms are a close match to each other also.
Just love watching people being people. Images turning the constant flow, the organised chaos into frozen moments to be savoured, giving more each viewing. Each face has the thoughts of the day ahead or of things left behind. Reminds me that we are all the same in the end.
I don't usually muck around with my images with overt colour filtering, but on this occasion, a Cyanotype look fit better than a straight mono image.
OMD 25mm
My wife has collected some cool things over the years.
Heard of Ansel Adams? If you have an interest in photography and are over 30 you most likely have and if not, but still aware of photographic history, then you probably have as well.
Every one who knows of Adams has a favourite image that comes to mind when his name is mentioned. It's part of our photo memory bank, from which inspiration is drawn. Mine is less usual than most. 4 of my top 6 Adams faves including the top one, are colour.
Not everyone is aware he shot colour and Adams himself was no great fan, but Kodak insisted and he obliged. A portfolio of his images was launched in book form in 1993. An interesting time as the digital colour flood was still a long way off and landscape was equally strong in both mono and colour large format (or smaller) film.
Not Adams. 1Ds mk2 100mm macro
The thing that hit me was the subtlety of the colour. I was using Fuji Velvia at the time, as were most and the gentleness of the early Kodachrome images came as a pleasant surprise. Several images (Caladium Leaves, Honolulu 1948, Tree, Barn, Hills Livermore 1950, Green Hills, Gilmore 1945 and Aspens, North Rim 1947) are still what I aim for in quality (and "quality") when shooting landscape. These are 60+ years old and still cutting edge! The lime greens, soft pinks and openness of the lighting and colour are natural and realistic, transporting you there timelessly. They are a testament to the power of subtlety and Adams' skill with a medium he actively disliked.
Recently I discovered a smaller reprinting of the book (A4 with A5 prints, the first had A4 prints with large page borders) and grabbed it, intending to add it to the collection as a "reader" with the older tome safely shelved. Then I opened it.
Who ever decided that the images needed to be Photoshopped to within an inch of their life has obviously never seen the originals or has little idea about photography. My poor attempt above is gaudy and crude when compared to the Adams images, but is weakly postulated when compared to the over saturation, over sharpening and sometimes added graduated neutral density filtering, not present in the originals. They may as well have hand coloured his mono work. It was also a reminder that high end book printing in the late 20th century looses nothing to more recent reproductions.
If anyone was unsure of Adam's health, this book would have been proof enough of his passing.
I should have purchased it as an example of what not to do, but unfortunately there are plenty of examples of blatantly manipulated or just poorly reproduced classic work on the web. If you google any of the above images, you will find huge variation in rendering. How can this be so blatant when the originals are in a form that inherently denies change or misinterpretation. The problem is getting so bad that it is hard sometimes to be sure you are looking at the "real" version. Adams, Sam Abell, Willian Allard, Alex Webb, McCurry (with his blessing?), the list goes on and on of photographers past and present who are represented by both the true, original reproduction, that may well change slightly over time as technology changes and their Frankensteins' monsters of poorly conceived "modernised" copies. The problem with messing with colour film images is, they were shot with the film chosen to give the desired result, or the choice was limited, marking a point in time when all images of their type looked the same way. Bringing them into the now with heavy handed techniques, often only based on trends, nullifies their value.
Things you do not see much in Japanese cities, that are quite common in other parts of the world are graffiti and the homeless. Not sure the guy in the background is homeless or just travelling, but the graffiti is real.
Pen F 17mm
This exposure was taken close to dark, processed lighter to reveal the interplay between the characters.
Another example of the colour, mono shape change. First the colour image.
Pen F 45mm f5.6
The colour image has only two strong colour elements. The mans warm skin tone, matching in with the woods and rusty metal and the contrasting blue in the tub and his overalls. In this case I really like the play of the two complimenting colour groups.
The mono image arguably has more texture/character, but the impact is lessened in direct comparison to the colour version. I also think the man blends into the background too much, but a bit more processing could help that.
Again, you may disagree. I find when I am in a strongly colour or black and white only mood, I tend to be intolerant of the other.
