Good Light Lightroom

Partially switching to Capture 1 was a forced change, as Lightroom could not support my new EM1x without a new operating system (i.e. computer), but it was and still is a revelation.

Lightroom was pushed aside in favour of the more powerful and system empowering C1, but there may a use for the old stager still.

In good light, with lower ISO settings, it may be I like the files from Lightroom more. Noise and high ISO sharpness/contrast are definitely better in C1 for a M43 user. No contest. Brilliance and that glow Lightroom can offer when the situation is more likeable is a different and fully valid interpretation of an image.

I processed the above files on their own merits as the programmes I used felt they warranted. C1 on the right with a little added saturation. Lightroom held more brilliance in the highlights in the starting file and after gentle editing. It had more colour snap and seemed more at home.

The C1 edits became more about reducing highlight blow-out without losing brilliance and colour warmth. I know a different editor or even me with more time with C1 would probably disagree, but as I see it now, Lightroom is still a real option when the image requires maximum “Hollywood”.

Interesting thing is I have obviously responded to different criteria with each processor, adding saturation in C1 and cropping differently.

ISO 3200 poor light indoor sports and it would be a different matter, but for these shots, images I have always gravitated towards when using Lightroom (for good reason?), the programme sings. One thing that did happen though is a glitch in the (slow) start up where none of my cursers worked in Lightroom until I shut down and re-started. I think a lot of my recent mouse issues may have been Lightroom’s fault, so another reason to have an option.

A Project For New Times

COVID stopped a lot of things from happening for most people around the world. For us, fortunate as we have otherwise been, the only major stoppage has been travel (mainly to Japan).

In a way, this has actually been well timed (only in this circumstance, no other horrors of the year considered), as we had started both become habitual in our travel, rather than fresh and excited.

Seven trips in five years to the point of feeling almost like sharing ourselves between two homes finished with COVID, which coincided with the demise of my faithful EM5 mk1’s as reliable travel companions and changes for both of us in career and life style. Things already felt like they were coming to some kind of end point, COVID aside.

When we go again in the near or more distant future, things will be photographically (technically), possibly environmentally and certainly psychologically different.

“Sunset Men”

The distinctive look of the EM5 files, the open, intrusive naivety of our first trips and the softness of Japan and it’s people pre-COVID may all change.

Now is the time for me to look at my Japan work as a book project (tentatively titled “Japan; ### days”) with a print project used for “proofs” and a separate body of work.

This has been too long coming, but it needed an end point, as a starting point. The book will be the best I can afford, aiming to be a portfolio work in itself with a low number run and will be a turning point for me in how I see my images and how I want others to see them.

Content aside, the physical book will need to sit confidently in my collection.

Step 1.

All files (200+gb) will be exported from my beleaguered computer onto two hard drives. The originals will be re-imported into C1 from scratch. I know my favourites, but I am also aware I have been looking at them in their original processed form for too long. I need consistency and a fresh eye, applying what I have learned over the last few years. Nothing much has changed over those years except my processing, so that inconsistency needs to go and I am excited to see how C1 interprets some of the more troublesome images.

Step 2.

Get all of the contender into files organised by….not sure of the criteria yet, but that will come. It may be as simple as a chronological journey, subject or location based or more of a story form.

Step 3.

Reduce down to the absolute winners, the “best in class” and more powerful files, those that mix well with others, emphasising the images with the strongest emotional connection.

By far the toughest part, I will rely on the editing skills of others at many points of the process.

Step 4.

Print them as a body of work and as proof that my processing is print friendly and again consistent. This will also underline the emergence of a printer’s lifestyle choice I have been avoiding, helping to justify my ownership of two good printers.

Step 5.

The book.

Step 6.

Start again next trip with new gear, a new agenda and new dynamic.

Shooting For The Moon

I tend to avoid cliched shots. Maybe too many articles or customers trying the latest fad, but for me I tend to have an allergic reaction to what is on trend at the moment.

So anyway, here is a moon shot/300mm experiment from today.

“Bokeh Moon”.

Always suspicious of a new lens, especially one that cost as much as the 300mm F4, I find myself taking “reassurance” shots when the whim takes me. The shot above way taken after a few standard roof and chimney detail images on a perfect Autumn day.

Curious to see how much difference the higher res image would make, I gave it a go, with limited success until I realised the shutter speed limitation had been exceeded (the images were still ok, just not fully formed composites).

Hand held HHHR jpeg with 300mm with 1.4 tc (840mm eq). The Teleconverter has really impressed, being used on the 40-150 with little thought at all. On the 300, the performance seems fine also, but to be honest it is too long for most applications.

Cropped with a little post. Like anything, you get better the more you do it, but I am happy enough with that for my first try, keeping in mind I am hand holding an 800mm+ at 1/125th, (polariser may have helped as the atmosphere is a little wintry). Maybe a night time image next time.

Not a field I will be trying to conquer, but the more you try the better everything gets.

The Mathematical Advantages Of Micro Four Thirds

I must admit to being a little sick of the funny looks I get or uneducated comments I hear or read about when M43 is the subject. Most come to the format’s defence citing things like size, cost and weight with an almost apologetic feel, but realistically, there is more to it than that.

Here are some things to keep in mind when comparing.

Comment; “M43 can’t blur out the background enough”

Answer; M43 lenses have exactly the same depth of field as full frame lenses with the same actual focal length, which is to say my 45mm f1.8 is near enough to identical to a FF 50mm f1.8 (and optically better wide open). Do you use f1.8 much? It is a risky aperture to use for paid work* and 50mm on a FF is a mediocre portrait lens focal length. In M43, that 45mm is a true portrait lens. The trick is to remember that even thought it is technically equivalent to a 90mm f2.8 in FF format it is still actually a 45mm f1.8, so you need to be mindful of just how shallow that depth is.

The same (shallow) depth of field from a 300 f4 M43 as on a full frame camera, but the catch is, this is actually a 600mm in M43. If a full frame 600mm f4 was used, hand holding, snap shooting from the hip and enough depth of field to guarantee focus over the whole head would likely not be possible, not to mention the impracticability of taking it in the first place.

An even wider aperture than f1.8 is really falling into the realms of risky business, reserved mostly for special effects shots and slightly distant shallow depth images, and guess what? The M43 2x focal length modifier gives you the reach to use this way more often, where these are highly specialised lenses in FF. My 45 and 75mm lenses are used regularly wide open for portrait or detail images and both are usable wide open, which is the widest aperture I find to be practical. Both fit into a bag without thought, one even in a pocket and they draw little attention. In other words, these are lenses you will have with you always that do the job of specialised glass in full frame kits. If I had more speed/shallower depth of field I would rarely use or need it professionally, which is one reason I have not bothered with the f1.2 lenses (and the 75mm still has the best at Bokeh and compression of the top four).

*Keeping in mind though Olympus first (12 years ago!) and now most mirrorless cameras can focus “eye sharp” so much of the risk of wide aperture focus is mitigated.

Comment; “The tiny sensor can’t handle low light”

Answer: Because you can use wide open apertures with shorter lenses that act like effectively longer lenses, you can often use up to 2 stops more light gathering than a full frame camera user at the same distance. Just look at the math; The M43 user is using ISO800 with a 75mm f1.8 vs the FF user who is using ISO3200 at f2.8 (70-200 zoom assumed). Very rare FF lenses can match the 75mm’s effective reach and speed (Sigma 135 ART), but these cost/weight 2-3x as much. Assuming the two cameras are pushing 20mp, the FF will still have a slight advantage, but at higher pixel densities, sensors even out pretty quickly.

Artificial light users have also effectively gained two stops of actual power. Many do their math based on a range of F2.8 to 5.6, but f1.8 to 2.8 is the equivalent with M43. I use a set of 5 Yongnuo and 2 Godox speedlites, that act much like a couple of mono blocs for me.

Olympus in particular can also offer ridiculously low hand held shutter speeds (the smaller sensor actually helps here), so you have effectively gained two more stops in many situations although the FF gang are catching up here.

My 17mm used wide open can easily handle low street light shooting at ISO 400. The added depth and camera stabiliser of the format/brand guarantee good images most often. The designers of that lens even added in long throw Bokeh for good measure. When it comes to available light to no light shooting, I have never felt freer.

Another recent development is the pixel shift hand held high res mode, which can shoot at 50mp and reduce noise to next to nothing at ISO 1600. It is mapped out during the high res stitch and I assume this will improve both aspects in the near future.

Any other complaints about the format are simply opinion and often clouded by mis-information, so I won’t even bother addressing them here, but the two above are the main culprits and the least understood.

Most photographers go out intending to take the best images they can. Few image makers are genuinely limited by their environment, as most do not shoot in bad light deliberately. If you are forced to, then all cameras will compromise image quality to some extent for “just getting the shot”. If you have control of your environment, then most quality issues are addressed by that control, so M43 is as good as any other format, often better dollar for dollar.

The reality is for me, I recently had a reasonable amount of money to spend, enough to add a whole system to my existing outfit and I chose to add more to my M43 kit. When I asked myself what I really needed, only M43 gave me the reach, sharpness, speed, durability, features, with the versatility and depth I needed for my reasonable budget, and I have never felt I compromised. My current job offers a little of everything, from winter and indoor sports, to studio grade portraits and my little kit can handle it all. I shudder to think how much an equivalently capable FF kit* would cost (or weigh).

The format’s advantages are currently being eroded in the normal world at the moment as others catch up or surpass Olympus and Panasonic, applying their tech to larger sensor cameras, but ironically, they will come back again as the tech being perfected will make the bigger sensor a hindrance rather than a boon. Noise, depth of field control, and resolution are all partly controllable with existing tech now. As this improves, the bigger sensors actual reason for being will be eroded by smaller sensor options, just look at the phone industry. I can see a time when super clever 1” cameras rule.

*Pro 16 f2.8 to 600 f4 equivalent’s with several fast primes from 35 to 150 equivalent, multiple pro and several pro-am bodies, 60fps, 16 to 80mp resolution, best available hand holding performance, AF speed, good video, weatherproofing through most and small and light enough to carry everything needed all day at the ready. The 600mm along would pay for most of my kit.

Is There Room For Both Lightroom And Capture 1

I have been immersed in the delights of Capture 1 for a while now. A couple of months of school images of all types, a wedding and some personal stuff have given me a task of what it offers and what it does not. All of my observations are based on those of a a new user with Olympus M43 cameras and lenses, so they may not apply to everyone.

The other day I was asked to do some images in strong midday light for the school. A perfect early Autumn day for any other purpose, produced harsh and hard to like files, so it was off to the processing bench we go.

Now I am the first to admit that, even though C1 has felt intuitive to me from day one, I have barely scratched the surface. In poor light, where noise and colour/contrast can be reduced, C1 has opened my eyes to a different and better way, giving me confidence in my cameras up to ISO 1600 basically issue free and even beyond that with a slight compromise in quality*.

The harsh sunlight I was dealing with was giving me some issues though. C1 has a hardness, that is a real boon when fighting poor light, but seems to be a little strong in intense light and with my 40-150 pro, that nasty Bokeh was really obvious. Highlight and shadow recovery are excellent, but a delicateness I am used to from LR was less obvious**.

On a hunch I gave LR a go and to my surprise, the files looked more natural and the Bokeh was less offensive. I could not push the files as far and on close inspection, slight noise was evident even at ISO 400, but as was, the files looked pleasant and most importantly, realistic.

So, where does that leave me?

C1 strengths;

• A better base image, especially with noise and image “snap”.

• More and generally stronger/better*** image making controls for almost everything from sharpening to dynamic range and colour control (don’t love the levelling options, but that is the only one).

• A one page interface, fully customisable.

• The built in layers tool with an on-off dynamic.

• Any feature pre-sets, even cropping and levelling.

• The ability to apply almost any control to any layer and tool.

• Import and export interface, that just feels more intuitive to me.

• It remembers what you last used, unless you make it a pre-set.

• A feeling in most situations of “there will be an answer, I just need to find it”.

EM1 mk2 and slow zoom at ISO 3200, in poor light taken as a test shot against a pro Fuji combo and processed with C1. This is fine for most applications and way better than some. This image swayed me away from the Fuji direction, because I and others actually liked this image more! The Em1x is even better, making indoor sports fun again.

C1 weaknesses;

• Control layout. The dialog boxes are all the same to look at and quite dense, making finding one amongst many tedious some times. Colour coding the text or box or similar would speed up things (it may have, but I have not found it). LR has less to worry about, but this helps with quick identification.

• The levelling tool (either option) is not as fast and easy as the LR mouse scroll option.

• It does not have as many options as LR once you get away from image processing (printing, books, GPS, stitching etc).

• Files can be a little hard, especially when the light is good.

• Lots to learn, if that can be considered a bad thing.

LR strengths;

• Batch processing can be a little quicker.

• Easy Photoshop linking (which covers some of the missing controls from C1).

• More non-processing specific options.

• Nicer files in good/bright light.

• More “Hollywood” in the images with a natural glow and juicy colour.

• Handles jpegs as well as C1.

• I personally seem to like the black and whites more, but I have not had a chance to compare.

This image of my friend Kate has a certain “glow” and delicate sharpness to it that LR seems better at.

LR weaknesses;

• Multi page interface.

• Base RAW image files at higher ISO’s range from not as good to just poor for some cameras (EM1 mk2 at 1600+).

• My LR does not support my newest camera on my older (but not that old) operating system.

• Lack of processing options both generally and in their fine controls. I was a big fan of their brush tool, but compared to C1 it is rudimentary at best.

• The tools remember a default that only changes if you change it before you use it, which after years of use, I still find annoying.

• Pre-sets are limited to only certain functions.

• Some tools are limited in strength or go to a bad place if pushed too hard.

I am sure to have missed something and will revisit here if needed and I have not even gone into the old Chestnut’s of renting over buying or industry support, but as things stand, this is the dynamic;

C1 is my primary, especially in tougher lighting situations, It is the more specialised Chef’s knife.

LR is my easy job, quick fix and my preferred option for bright light and better Bokeh with my twitchy 40-150 and 300mm’s. It is my Multi tool.

*M43 rarely needs more than 3200 with fast glass and it’s DOF/stabiliser advantage.

**Something I have noticed with C1 is the ability to push sliders further as the images hold together well. Doing the same in LR, coming from C1, reminded me that that is not always the case.

*** there are a few that LR is better at, such as softening backgrounds etc.

Old And New Muscles

With COVID, some habits like travel have become mostly memories or future plans with no hard guarantees. This has led, for me, to neglect of photographic habits that would get a run a couple of times a year, usually going from rough to smooth over a week or two of use.

Japan is my street destination. Little is done in that sphere without a plane ride to somewhere being made. Without travel, I have not touched my 17mm, nor used my older EM5’s or 45mm as much as I normally would. This weekend I was reminded what I am missing and to a certain degree, what I need to re-incorporate into my daily work thoughts as well.

Taken near instantly wide open, the 17mm shows again that rare and often overlooked ability to lend context and form to backgrounds, even when used at it’s widest aperture. A lens with a mixed review history, it is becoming a well loved classic.

Also of note is C1’s recovery of a poorly exposed grab shot. I can forget where some of these files start, accepting their otherwise fine nature from processing onwards.

The combination rarely misses (but does more than the later cameras). When there are misses, the lenses long throw Bokeh has the ability to hide many focus errors.

Sharp enough? This is technically the weakest combination I can put together for this type of close scrutiny (17mm wide open, oldest camera).

Stopped down a little, sharpness is sublime and that expanded Bokeh effect is even stronger. This 17 and the matching 45 are both warm toned compared to the 1.2 versions, which is fine, but I generally drop it back a little. Warmth has the effect of visually un-sharpening an image, even making it look muddy if too strong, so cooling off the tones (and adding blue channel saturation in Lightroom’s Camera Calibration option), tends to increase visual snap, even though the actual sharpness stays unchanged.

I will miss the simple, but brilliant image files of the EM5 mk1 when the last two (and my Pen mini) finally die. These ten year old cameras and their mid range lenses are a potent combo.

The 45mm has the opposite Bokeh effect producing pleasantly soft backgrounds wide open, balanced with high sharpness. This image, out of consideration to my wife after sticking the camera in her face, has been de-clarified slightly, but still shows high detail retention at F1.8. By mistake I used ISO 800, but Capture 1 treats that like ISO 2-400 in Lightroom. At lower ISO’s they are similar, maybe the Lightroom file is slightly “nicer”, but at higher ISO’s or if recovering under exposed parts of an image, C1 is the only real choice. I am starting to see Lightroom’s treatment of M43 (and Fuji) as the “kiddies” version and C1 the mature one.

Pixel level with C1, no added noise reduction, after raising the shadows slightly and with automatic lens corrections added (something Lightroom does not provide for many brands). Where is the noise? It is no exaggeration to say C1 makes me feel like I have “upgraded” to a larger sensor, while allowing me to enjoy all of the benefits of a smaller one.

Images like this one above taken with the EM5, have very natural tones and great highlight roll-off

Gorgeous, natural tones with a film-like colour palette.

It’s easy to forget the power of older gear and to let honed skills get rusty.

Capture 1 vs Lightroom High ISO Comparison

Capture 1 has changed my thinking, or more specifically, it has raised my expectations from my processing output.

The area that most vexed me in the past was high ISO image making, especially in weak light using the EM1 Mk2. I had felt from day one that images were more “normal” from these cameras, lacking the “X” factor I had learned to love and rely on from the older EM5’s.

The older sensor (lacking on sensor AF pixels) seemed to make snappier and tighter looking images. This showed out especially in high ISO work where the noise was no less evident, but sharpness or at least the perception of sharpness could be retained when noise reduction was applied or even when it was not.

This was borne out for me with the Pen F. This camera had the last and possibly greatest Olympus* non-AF modified chip, producing worse technical noise reduction than the EM1 sensors (DXO mark), but sharper and more contrasty images. Images that could take a little noise reduction to taste.

Resigned to this, I looked to other fixes (EM1x, f1.8 lenses, lighting).

The last avenue of improvement has proven to be the most exciting and was forced on me by my version of Lightroom, which lacked ongoing support for the EM1x Raw files (partly my computers age limiting Lightroom’s upgrade path). Looking for options other than the DNG converter, I narrowed down the choice to Capture 1 and DXO.

Capture 1 was the winner simply because I tried it first as it looked to be the best all-rounder and it was a smooth, even revelatory transition. At twice the monthly rental, it needs to be good, but it is. DXO has better noise reduction, but not an equivalent work flow.

The other day I had a crisis of confidence in the new work flow and questioned my results, so I compared an image I was struggling with to a Lightroom one (I cannot show it as it is a child from work). Very quickly I was thrown back into the “avoid ISO 1600+” Adobe doldrums I had been experiencing before. There was a little shadow noise in the C1 file, but not much and it cleared up nicely.

The file was pleasant to the eye. A nice, happy head and shoulders portrait. Peaking out from under a hat on a sunny day without fill flash, the child’s eye lashes were roughly as sharp in each file, but there was a “veil” of gritty noise over the LR file. Removing it removed the detail.

The Lightroom file would have been (and has been) fine at normal size, but this was a slightly under exposed area of a file taken outside in daylight at ISO 400. It should not have had bad noise issues. The M43 sensor is smaller than other SLR sizes granted, but the quality out of an older EM5 mk1 was giant killing compared to respected industry work horses like the 5D mk2, so why are we putting up with destructive and obvious noise on a low stress file from a newer, pro, 20mp sensors in any format ten years later.

This image was shot deliberately under by about 1.5 stops. The ISO is 1600, so my expectations of considerable noise and reduced clarity on an M43 sensor are realistically high.

I then processed the RAW and JPEG files “by eye”, using only the exposure and sharpness/clarity controls to see if i could get a satisfactory image.

Top left is the C1 RAW, then the C1 JPEG, then lower left the LR RAW, then LR JPEG.

The major difference seems to be in the core processing.

The LR files are mushy and noisy from the get-go, which leaves you in the unenviable position of living with the gritty noise or adding to the mush to remove it. The C1 RAW’s have room for a little push and pull. You can add sharpness if needed and reduce noise a little without running straight into a processing wall. The JPEG’s are interesting. The EM1 mk2 in question has the latest firmware and the benefit to JPEG’s (only) shows. I almost prefer the LR JPEG to the C1 version, except that I know I pushed that one a little harder.

The processing ease and responsiveness award, I would give to the C1 RAW over the C1 JPEG (Large Super Fine), then The LR JPEG over the RAW.

The RAW’s above, C1 on the left. I am putting the C1 ISO 1600 files on par with the LR 400-800 ones. The LR files, on the EM1 mk2 RAW files from ISO 1600 up just seem to take on a plasticky, artificial look or low clarity “gritty” at the other extreme. The LR file has had more sharpening and localised clarity applied, to the best of my discretion, but to no avail. The reality is, if I do not want noise, I can remove it from the C1 file without losing too much detail. Even if a superior noise reduction option was used, the LR file has already lost the detail, meaning you would have to go via a sidecar NR programme first to retain it.

Another file about 1 stop under.

C1 RAW, the LR RAW and C1 JPEG. The C1 JPEG is more brilliant, but also less subtle.

The bottom of the cup in the LR file looks softer (all the same file), which is actually lost detail. The file also lacks colour punch, contrast and bite, while showing more luminance noise in the background. It is a little lighter and brighter, that feels nice, but the added contrast in the C1 file can be backed off and again there is more headroom to do so. I have tried to match files with some success, but the reality is, this combination starts behind the eight ball, so anything that can be done can, it seems, be bettered by C1.

Comparisons I have a chance to do with the EM1x and Pen F show the same. LR is slightly better with those cameras as they have sharper resolution on sensor, but C1 is better again. I would say an EM1 mk2 file processed in C1 compared to an EM1x file in LR would be roughly similar. The temptation to shoot LSF JPEG’s with C1 is strong, but I still like a deeper RAW file as a backup.

Other comparisons after a week of bulk work;

I missed the LR work flow at first until I found nearly identical or better work arounds in C1. I now find LR, with only a few exceptions, less user friendly.

Things are pretty close to good enough with a gentle pre-set applied.

The layer tool is vastly more powerful than the LR brush. Again I missed the simple and immediate control of some features, but C1 has more options so it’s slightly less streamlined flow is a small price to pay for nearly total layer control.

The controls in C1 are more precise, powerful on the whole and usually deeper in options.

The layer control can be used with any editing feature, while the LR brush only has some features. I have never bothered with PS layers, which I see as a graphic design tool, but the layers control in C1 is just like using the brush in LR, but with more control and less fiddly localisation.

The spot tool, that I found really frustrating in LR, is more predictable.

Ed (new find). My lenses are supported, something LR did not offer for most.

The trash gets removed from the disc directly, without the double step of clearing the computers trash.

There is a free instruction manual. It is huge, but free. This is combined with free tutorial videos offered in the programme when you hover over a feature.

I could go on, but suffice to say, I have acclimatised surprisingly quickly. It looks like the C1 engineers have aimed at LR with a mind to bettering it in as many aspects as possible in both output and work flow. From where I am sitting, my gear and needs taken into account, they have succeeded.

As a M43 user and I am sure if I shot Fuji also, I cannot in good conscience advise you use LR (or Adobe generally) over C1 unless your personal workflow requires it. Other brands may be different, but I would bet not so much. This again highlights the inequality many review sites manifest simply by adhering to the “industry standard” for comparison processing. Choice of processor can be as important as choice of camera brand.

Usefully, C1 also seems faster on my older and quite full computer and it loads faster also. It only slows down when I am synching large numbers of files to Dropbox or I have Lightroom open also!

I have been using the Lightroom printer work flow up until now, but this is a chance for me to switch to the Canon support system, which is much improved on the Pro 10s printer I have with profiles built in.

*Panasonic sensors, using a different AF process have often slightly sharper output (and with slightly reduced noise). The arguments for and against each AF system will probably never stop, but the reality is, the Panasonic G9 produces sharper files than the EM1 mk2 (using Adobe processing) all things being equal. The stronger processors in the EM1x and Mk3 have evened up the field and given Olympus the edge in AF, but my C1 files feel like i have reduced the gap to negligible.

Sharpness And Perceptions

Sharpness obsessed as we are (I am enjoying a period of sharpness happiness with my re-processing of old files on Capture 1), it is easy to worship that one god at the expense of all others.

The reality is, only we (photographers) actually care. The perceptions of our viewers are generally more wholistic, responding with more emotional and memory conditioned responses than raw acceptance of technical supremacy.

The image above has strong shapes formed from the body and environment of an emotionally sympathetic subject. The file itself is not very sharp and worse, it is not sharp where it should be (it primarily falls on the front wing, but misses the eye, and the majority of the beak.

This is a classic example of a first impression being strong enough to head off any more hard boiled and immediate criticisms based on a minor (or major) technical short fall.

One of my greatest “bluffs” is a 4x6’ sign in a school I worked for a few years ago. The image has connection, immediacy, solid composition, good colour and subject empathy, but it is soft, when hard sharpness is perceived. Shot from the hip with an older EM5 mk1 and 75-300 tele, the image defies negative feelings, but on a technical level it is an also-ran at best.

The image above is also quite soft when viewed closely (noise and patchy technique). The contrast and structure it has in abundance has however created a feeling of biting crispness.

This file however, is actually very sharp and “on point” focus wise. Ironically, the lack of contrast, cool colour and scant detail separation gives it a softer look.

If we tackle our subjects with empathy and a desire to tell a story, the technical stuff tends to fall away.

Back In The Saddle

I have taken my summer holiday very literally this year. Usually tied to a fickle and at this time of the year frustrating retail roster, I am a free agent this month, enjoying a mild Tasmanian summer.

This has meant little or no photography, which is a little odd as my gear stocks have rarely been deeper or more exciting.

I took the 300 for a quick spin today after I realised that a couple of Rosellas were directly above me in our plum trees.

A 50% crop from an EM10 mk2 image, this 300mm lens is a winner and so is Capture 1 used to process the file. This is relatively heavily processed, but I got there easily and cleanly.

The original.

Still impressed by the strength and surety of the controls as well as their variety, but still a long way to go before I can call myself proficient.

The Un-opinionated Lens

If any photographer or artist looks back at their work, they will see patterns.

These patterns are often predictable, even cultured, but some are surprising and come from a conscious or un-conscious reaction to their environment or technique.

One pattern that has emerged in my work, that I have been semi aware of, but must admit to almost deliberately ignoring is to do with my little Olympus 25mm F1.8.

This lens gets used more than I recall choosing to and the keepers it produces are out of proportion to it’s use. Without any expectations or requirement to be anything more than a problem solving “filler” lens, it has crept into “top three” contention (25, 75, 300).

In my basic kit bag, it and the 75mm are now standard, even more so than the 45mm.

The secret may lie partly in the technical aspects of the lens, specifically it’s real focal length.

Many photographers, myself included prefer the true standard lens (mathematically and visually), the 40mm or thereabouts*. The 40mm is a more relaxed and non-specific focal length than the “nifty fifty”, easy to use, neutral, but hard to force a decisive look with, so the photographer is almost forced to make the content the entirety of the image, not fall back on any visual tricks like changed perspective or magnification.

The 50mm became the recognised standard partly because it made more descriptive sense and partly because we are all portraitist at heart, especially in the early days of photography. Documenting our travels and family generally meant placing people first, so the ever so slightly compressed and sensibly clean view through a 50mm lens just fit.

The 25mm Olympus f1.8, when compared to various other 50mm equivalents, looks to be closer to a 45mm full frame lens. This, for me is actually ideal. I loved the Panasonic 20mm, but the focussing (AF and MF) on earlier Olympus cameras made it frustrating and to be honest, 40mm eq. is still a little wide for me as it just adds in a little perspective creep. The 45mm takes some of the slight exaggeration of the 40 and compressed 50mm lenses out, hitting a genuinely “un-opinionated” focal length.

Sharpness of the lens falls into the lush-sharp not hard-sharp family. This has similar characteristics to the 12-40 Pro zoom or the 45mm F1.8, but seems a touch sharper than either and even more generous.

Bokeh is stable and maybe even more attractive than the 45mm, approaching the 75mm’s, but without the compression. The lens cuts-out subjects from their background very pleasantly and naturally, but allows for some context. The 12-40 does this also, but with the equivalent depth of field of a full frame f5.6 lens, the environment tends to be more intrusive.

I had the Pana/Leica 25mm for a while, and it is a true 50mm lens. It has an undeniable “snap” to the files, but I found the true 50 focal length not to my liking (I think I felt that if some compression was in order, then use the 45 and do it properly).

Is it perfect?

No lens is perfect, and this is no exception. In direct comparisons the the near perfect 25mm Pro, it is pretty much as sharp through the range, especially from f2 on, but there is a little CA wide open (so predictable I made a Lightroom pre-set for it) and a little distortion, but that rarely rears it’s head.

*The actual standard lens is the diagonal of the film/sensor plane of the camera which for 35mm or full frame cameras is roughly 42mm or 21mm on an M43 camera.

The Year Of The OX AND Realistic Expectations

The OX year approaches, slowly and methodically, even fatalistically. This year, according to Eastern culture, is a no-nonsense year of practicality, pragmatism and clarity, probably ideal for COVID recovery.

I am a child of the Sheep (or Goat depending on source), so I am directly opposed to this years guiding principals, but I have been here every 12 years and it ain’t so bad. As long as you stick to realistic goals, see them through and avoid “flights of fantasy”, then the no-nonsense Ox is a predictable friend.

Speaking of which….

I decided to build a studio. What I lacked outnumbered what I had. No room (a 14x9’ very basically converted garage), no clients as I have to go to my subjects (!), no projects except experimentation, but I did have too much gear on my side :). Thin premise, so off I went anyway.

As soon as I was finished, I took a few experimental images of my long suffering wife, then had a hard realisation that what I actually needed to do was perfect my “moveable feast”, not create a static one.

A pleasant enough shot, using a 24” gridded and baffled soft box, 8x36 soft box rim light and a reflector for fill. Easy enough in a controlled environment, but I need to take this show on the road and improve it!

The above shot is heartening, because it came out exactly how I pre-visualised, which was well short of the look I am going for (small mod, too far away). Already a bit over the black background “drama” look, which is easy enough to achieve, so it’s popping up everywhere, I am looking for a more timeless and friendly soft directional with controlled ambient feel, with a little localised brilliance.

Soft, soft, soft is the mantra, with brilliance as the elusive bonus prize.

So looking at it realistically, to suit Mr OX, I need to be able to handle the following;

• Make dull outdoor light interesting.

This will be common in winter. A bit of off-axis warmth and on axis brilliance, with a little ambient under exposure for context and drama. What I am looking for is a fake late afternoon summer light in the middle of winter. This is a job for my basic go anywhere Godox flash/Neewer LED kit.

• Handle Groups.

Indoors, this is a job for the “full noise” multiple Yongnuo outfit, heavy light stands and bigger/wider modifiers (Twin 40” shoot through Brollies or 4’ soft boxes or the 72” brolly). This has already proven itself, but is now literally twice as powerful. For outdoors, I will use the fill options above, but with wider spread (2 lights, one modified directional and one fill/master on camera). I have a wedding in February, so it will be good to have a few options.

• Do something creative with sports teams or award winners.

Matt Hernandez provides a wealth of inspiration here. His work uses a lot of off axis lighting, underexposing for dramatic backgrounds and dynamic team stances, so when able I will try to develop my own look or looks, rather than the usual, wooden two row block.

• Make very dull rooms interesting.

This is a big challenge and is responsible for this quest to control light. How to make a dull, pseudo-modern, very beige room look “Leibovitz”. To take a leaf out of Joel Grimes playbook, lots of soft side light, maybe a little colour in the background. This can be done either with flagged bounce flash or the “full noise” setup of a soft box through a scrim.

• Fix sunny day contrast.

High Speed Sync with the twin Godox units and/or some LED panels will do this so this is the core of my basic “go anywhere” kit.

• Deal with no lighting options at all.

The toughest control is surely no control. This has possibly fixed itself with the addition of the EM1x/Capture 1 combination. No more mushy high ISO work.

In a nutshell;

• Single source fill. LED’s, HSS speedlites, reflectors. Lots of options.

• Very soft directional light. Bounced, modified, scrim-med (or combo), off axis key light.

• Effects. Rim or background light and global background balance through shutter speed settings.

• See what my gear can do now with minimal light and no additions, turbo charged as it is with new capabilities.

These elements used singly or together make up the “to do” list.

All this has of course thrown my over organised lighting systems into disarray.

The go-anywhere kit is bigger, the little expansion kit is smaller, but is assumed, the bigger kit is amalgamated, with the superfluous elements removed.

Backgrounds are on the outer fringe, seldom needed, but there in case.

Next post on this subject, I will look at the best options in each of these categories.

Paths Of Light

Lighting is a real minefield.

There are good, better and rubbish ideas, but that comes mainly from the perspective of the user, as all lights seem to fit in with someone for something.

My journey has been a little patchy, so I thought I might share some thoughts and maybe help others from repeating some of my mistakes.

It started with a Yongnuo 560 III and 560 IV with the TX 560 (mk1) controller. I am not really sure what even prompted me to buy these a few years ago as I had bounced in and out of flash several times before with Canon, so predictably they sat around idly for most of the time. I must admit, after a good understanding of speedlite and studio gear in the film era, I became quite out of touch over the last 15 years or so, so buying the YN’s effectively blind was probably an odd decision (one of many when it comes to flash).

Earlier this year, I had a chance to shoot a senior’s students ball for the school who are my main employer.

Being a COVID year, what was going to be allowed was pretty much an unknown up until the day of the event. I had already started to think “assume the most rigorous” when dealing with the school and COVID restrictions, so assumed I may need to (1) shoot red carpet arrivals and (2) couples portraits, but probaly little more. This left me with a little dilemma. I had 2 untried flash units, and nothing else.

A hurried purchase of a second 560 IV, a couple of shoot through brollies (internet wisdom seemed to point to these as a safe bet) and a pair of small stands, then a late purchase of a TTL Godox 685, “tooled me up” but I still had only a vague idea it would work. As it happened on the night, over 600 images of couples and groups, all arrivals and some dancing images were needed, so my “expect the most” instincts were a life saver.

All went surprisingly well, except for some battery issues toward the end of the night , so I felt safe enough handling this or similar situations in the future.

Then it started. Too much thinking, reading and worrying started me on a course (wise I guess, but involved) of making sure I had depth and knowledge in my gear.

Two more YN560 IV’s were purchased, giving me more depth and power.

Yongnuo manual flash units have the following benefits;

• They are powerful for their size and cost (about $120au), especially compared to LED’s.

• They are small and portable.

• They have 2.4g radio controllers (no line of sight needed) and can control each other or you can use a separate unit.

• They can fit into almost any modifier, especially if S-type clamps are bought (these are also more stable).

• They can be mounted multiply (up to 3) with a $10 adapter, making them close to a basic mono-block such as an AD200 or SL60 Godox in grunt.

• They can fire very fast “blips” at lower power settings (speedlites always fire at the same intensity, cutting off excess output as needed, making the duration of these shorter/faster).

• They are versatile, being on camera, floor, stand, taped to the wall, hand holdable etc and head-flippable.

• They have a focussed and zoom-able beam which is good for reach in some situations.

• Gels are small and cheap, flagging is home made and some modifiers can go in a pocket.

• They are comfortable for the subject, firing fast and gently from dormant.

The down sides are;

• They do fire a focussed beam, which needs to be spread (wide fresnel setting) or diffused, which reduce power in some wide coverage modifiers*.

• They are battery hungry*.

• They are slow to recharge*.

• They are generally weaker than studio lights* .

• They can be over stressed*.

*problems all reduced if more units are used.

Making up a 5 flash kit means I have a 3 flash solution always with back-ups and options, which equals roughly 2 mono block lights.

Godox TTL flash units.

The only real issue with the above is a lack of TTL control. For studio or “measured and controlled” photography, manual is the way to go, but for “on the fly” shooting, TTL has it’s benefits.

In the scenario above, the 685 was employed for the red carpet arrivals, a situation that did not allow for more measured manual control.

The 685 seemed to be the most recommended unit around (so I did not look for a Yongnuo equivalent).

Recycling times were relatively poor, most attributable to battery choice, but other than that the unit works well.

*

The next phase is where research and careful thinking should have saved me some money and increased my capabilities, and for the most part it did.

Lots of stands, modifiers and ideas. I felt deep and robust in lighting options, but the more I read and used, the more I wanted to try.

The questions of “do I have enough light” started to become “can I do that look”, “how much light would I need to reach that” and “how was that achieved?”.

Recently three things specifically have been addressed;

Eneloop Batteries. I now pack 30+ Eneloop Pro rechargeable AA’s, which have fixed most of the battery issues. They will give about 500 full charges and recharge faster than the alkaline’s I was using, costing about 0.01c each over their life.

The Godox was still not capable of a three shot HSS burst of a small group, so I…….

got a Godox 860 with the lithium battery. This is effectively the same as the 685, except for the battery, which halves recycle times and doubles overall life. The two can work together in HSS and TTL, so my minimalist field kit is much more versatile and slightly more powerful especially for outdoor portraiture.

At the same time I looked into LED panels, also as a HSS fix, namely the well respected Neewer range. These punch well above their weight, matching many of the much dearer options in power, colour correctness and running time, at up to one quarter the price. So far I have a little 176 for fill, a 480 RGB for background and rim lighting and the 660 Bi-colour, used more as a gentle main light.

The strengths of these (176/216/480/530/660) panels are;

• They run cold, meaning you can drape diffusers over them and a bank of them won’t cook you and for video, no fan noise.

• What you see is what you get.

• They are small to medium sized and light.

• They take Sony NP batteries (their bigger cousins do not seem to).

• They are either Bi-colour (continuous) or RGB-any colour making gels etc redundant.

• They are powerful enough for cordless units (660’s are about 40w compared to basic AC only 60w studio lights and are still cheaper).

• They “sync” at any speed being continuous.

• They can last a long time in the field (up to 5-6 hrs continuous).

• They can be stand mounted or sit on the floor.

• They have special effects in the RGB’s, which may be fun.

• They have no “re-cycle” lag.

• They are tough and have plenty of life.

The down sides;

• They are harder to find mods for (any diffusion is ok, but focussing is limited to barn doors).

• They are not super strong compared to wall powered continuous lights.

• They can be bright for the subject to look directly at, but generally that is in proportion to how harsh the light is and where it is situated.

*

From here I am not sure. The options if more power is regularly needed would be;

Godox AD200 battery power mono blocks. These are well respected and allow for “bare bulb” firing which maximises light spread in diffuser type modifiers (flash units tend to need further diffusion and/or wide zooming, reducing their power).

If my main work style was strobe based location portraiture, I think these would become mandatory, but for more occasional use, probably not.

or

Godox SL60W mono blocks. Limited to wall power and needing strong diffusion, these lights are by far the best “bang for the buck”, but come with a few issues;

• They run a cooling fan, which can be heard during video.

• They and their modifiers can be big and heavy, needing space and heavy stands.

• They are limited to indoor use.

• They are continuous, so can be bright for your subject (even more so than the panels).

Ideal for a cheap, semi-permanent studio set-up, I think these would be too cumbersome, inconvenient and wholly un-necessary for my work.

More Neewer LED’s. This is likely the way I will go. Three 660’s are roughly the same power as two Godox SL60 mono-blocks (120w total) and come in at about 60% of the cost. They are portable, nice to work with and more video friendly (if needed). The option of colour accurate Bi-colour’s or versatile RGB’s is also nice.

More Neewer Lithium speedlites. Another possibility, the 850 is the manual version of the 860. A couple of these, some spare batteries and I would have similar power to my Yongnuo’s, faster re-cycling and HSS capability with my two TTL units. Maybe a single AD200 and some of these?

Likely a second 660 B-C and 660 RGB unit and I would be set, producing between the 4, about 150w continuous. These can slot into an existing flash set-up, adding power or reducing strain as needed.

Purchases And Winners

Lots bought lately in anticipation of a busy and productive year ahead.

Big winners;

Neewer Pro Backpack. The hope was to get a bag that could take a fully assembled sports rig into the field, with extra bits, including flash etc. This had not been possible with any bag I owned, but was not an issue until two new, large cameras and lenses came into the fold. After looking at the usual culprits in Lowe Pro etc, I stumbled over the Neewer Pro backpack for $80au. This bag is also found in other branding, often for much more, so getting the cheapest option feels good. Little extras like are the built in lock and light weight are also useful. It’s arrival has made the Pro Tactic 350 redundant except for travel maybe.

Result; Awesome. Had it configured how I wanted within minutes with room to spare.

EM1x + Capture 1. These two are for me, one in the same. Finding C1, thanks to an older computer not updating to EM1x RAW handling in Lightroom, both fixed that problem and re-opened my eyes to better processing paths. I had tried C1 in the past, but found the interface frustrating. This time it feels like a tailor made glove (even if I don’t understand some of it’s fingers yet).

Result; A new beginning and fresh perspective on processing with very much more power.

Lighting. Generally speaking I have gone from a solid lighting theorist, a pretty out of date one as it turns out, to a bit of a lighting junkie. Light is the core of any photo or video work and the amateur’s luxury of waiting for it to come to you is not reliable enough for pro work.

LED, speedlite, reflector, diffuser, TTL, HSS, CRI, RGB, temperature, butterfly, diffused, reflected, catch, rim, fill, key, bounce, cone, Rembrandt, short side/long side, feathered, flagged and more are all terms I live and breathe now. Oh what fun will be had.

Result; A total change in both my work processes, results and expectations.

Eneloop Pro Batteries. It may seem simple, but good batteries maketh the strobist. I have felt that because of battery concerns, the potential of my lighting kit and it’s reality were a fair way apart. The thought of chewing though dozens also did not appeal financially or environmentally. Now I have 30+ Eneloop Pro’s, which give me 5 fully charged unit’s with spares. The theory is, I can function perfectly well with 3 unit’s, so two extras either reduces the strain on all of them or gives me instant change-over options (3 units running through my 72” brolly at 1/64 will go all night). I handled my biggest job so far with 2 units and a pair of basic brollies (and little idea), so I feel relatively monstrous now.

Result; Confidence in my lighting rig and myself as an artificial light user.

EM10’s. These little “shutter savers”, both bought on clearance for silly money, have done really well. One had a slight sync issue with flash the other day, but that may have been me. Otherwise, they have already paid for themselves several times. One of them did the big strobe job mentioned above running hot to the touch by the end, but did not miss once.

Result; Every frame they give me, saves one from a bigger camera. All part of the five year plan.

Pana/Leica 8-18. Breaking the Olympus habit after a single minded approach, the 8-18 just made too much sense. The 8-25 f4 Oly would have been good to, but is not yet available and lacks f2.8 at the wider end. A practical filter option, good range (reinforcing my core lens range), great overall size and shape and performance that is very near the Olympus 7-14 pro (slightly weaker at one end, but slightly better at the other), combined to make an ideal lens in a range I have traditionally had little use for. Surprisingly, it is more friendly to use than I thought it would be. Like the Fuji 21mm which spoiled me for wide angles, the Leica does not feel crazy wide in use. I think it will get a lot more use than I assumed and seems razor sharp. A little bonus is the Panasonic colour palette, which is not nothing.

Result; A wider focal range for client requirements, some core lens cover and a new way of seeing for me.

Re-purchasing my 40-150 Pro from the friend who looked after it for me for a year or so. What was I thinking!

Big year coming, but I feel prepared and excited.

Professionalism

What does it take to be a professional photographer?

Here a few things I have picked up over the last few months, added to some “older” knowledge.

Communicate, communicate, communicate.

Just as it says. You can cross a line here, but few if any clients ever complain about too much information or clarity. They may question your ability to make decisions if you nag, but otherwise, more talk equals more clarity.

Have the right mind set.

Professionalism is not a given just because you have a self assigned title, a room full of gear or even a decent income. Professionalism is a state of mind. If you put doing better each time you go out ahead of “just getting the job done”, then you are half way there.

Client needs and perceptions can be a trap. Some will question everything you do, some will take nearly anything, so you have to be the final arbiter of your work and you need to be a critical, but fair judge. To be honest, if you like your job, then getting better comes with the territory, but getting better does not automatically being better than is needed.

Create a realistic, if never satisfied perspective and you may avoid the trap of complacency. Also try to culture a good client-photographer feed back cycle. Clients will forgive the odd failure, but will shy away from an intractable, inflexible image maker.

There is a reason most of the more successful image makers make excellent teachers.

Have the right gear (preparedness).

A no brainer it might seem, but the right gear, not necessarily the “best” gear will get the job done. The cheapest lens around can do a decent job of a controlled group photo with good lighting. The real test is how you handle the extremes. Low light and action equals fast lenses and/or a big sensor. High resolution, usually just needs good technique, but maybe that and some decent post processing or occasionally it genuinely needs a high pixel count camera.

Most photographers have the right gear for their passion. A pro may be able to define their gear quite tightly, but a client’s needs will often throw a spanner in their carefully laid plans.

Have replacements for everything (depth).

So you are geared up well enough, but what is your “plan B”.

This comes in two forms. Repeatability and accuracy are important, but also creativity.

If you need two cameras, take three. Depth is easier than any other fix.

Creatively, can you get what you need, then mix it up with an alternative technique/perspective/angle? If your gear or knowledge of it’s use are just enough, it will restrict your options.

When the shot is done, are you protected from permanent loss or immediate failure? Can you find your work and can you duplicate your results? I have had to say no to all of these in the past and the truth is, these failings were rarely necessary.

Know how to use it (practice).

Having the gear is fine, but are you practiced in it’s use.

The most mediocre, clapped out and aged kit is still a powerful tool in practiced hands. The latest top of the line rig is embarrassing to use if you do not know how. No matter how good your eye, if you cannot control your cameras without conscious thought then you are likely going to be too slow.

Be ready, be fast, be sure, keep it simple and practice, practice, practice.

As an example, it has taken me six months to get used to the menu/replay button placement on the EM1, which is different to previous models. If only that has taken that long, how long would it take for me to learn a similar, annoyingly small change in a newer camera or even worse a whole new brand!

Know when to use it (discrimination).

Not all situations are clearly spelled out so trust your instincts and adjust. I have been using silent shutter for most of my work with the school. My intention is always to stay under the radar, avoiding classroom disruption. I have discovered though that a guy in a corner of a room, watching silently and making absolutely no noise can be as off-putting to some as one making some obvious sounds.

You have to be able to read the room, adapting to what your instincts tell you is needed, and avoid falling into safe feeling habits based on past assumptions.

Something else I have become aware of when shooting for someone else, is the need to keep things fresh. Tried and true is good, because it gets the shot in the can, but what next? Same again over and over, or something different, something fresh. Again avoid falling into habits based on assumptions.

Simple, small, familiar gear, practiced technique and something different (colour and square).

Know your subject (empathy).

A thousand hours with your camera is less useful than one hour spend getting to know your subject. If you have the chance to hear or read about how a National Geographic image maker works, you will quickly notice that they do not talk about gear, nor technique or even post processing. What they first talk about first and foremost is their subject. Some will even spend a few days around their potential subject without a camera, only producing one when they have a good understanding.

The best images come willingly, through understanding, empathy and awareness. Taking an image can be exactly that, theft. “Seeing” an image in the right context and timing it’s best moment comes from a deeper understanding than simply looking and taking.

Be prompt and consistent (reliability).

Exceed client needs with fast turn around. treat a job as one continuous process, not a shoot done, then take your time processing and presenting.

Clients are usually equally stressed and excited about pending work. Make a difference to their day by turning work around within an “immediate memory” time frame. If needed give them a small taster, then take feed back and re-submit. This gives the client some feeling of control and input and opens short and long term communication.

Once you have set an expectation, try to match it from then on. If you cannot, communicate.

I am sure I have missed something here, but I may revisit if it comes to me, otherwise, I hope this helps.

Flash Kits Organised

Looks like I have a problem.

I cannot stop buying flash gear. Mods, strobes, backdrops, little widgets and gadgets, they just keep arriving at my door ;().

This over abundance has though allowed me to be really organised, which is great, because this year, organised is what I need to be.

My resources have developed into two independent kits on three levels, which can be supportive of each other, but really do not need to be.

*

My immediate flash needs, for the basic function getting a workable shot in poor light, can be satisfied by this little rig, but it offers a limited choice (fill, bounce and a little off camera glow).

The “minimum field kit”, which is my take anywhere, location portrait or problem light solving set-up is based around 1x Godox 860, 1x Godox 685 some flagging foams, mini tripod rig, a small 176 LED with gels, a small 5-in-1 reflector and a 16” circular soft box. The flashes can operate in TTL and HSS with my cameras which is ideal for daylight fill, side key light, backlight or the can bounce with the flagging as a giant soft box, using the little 16” diffuser as a reflector if needed.

The LED can go on or off camera as a rim or fill light or light up the background as needed.

The 860’s monster Lithium battery will hopefully provide enough grunt to handle multiple (usually a burst of three) fast shots in HSS. This set-up will fit into my Domke F802 bag with my basic camera kit.

The 685 becomes the master, because it’s slower recharge is ok* for weaker fill or triggering of the main 860 flash.

Missing from the image are some home made gels (plastic folders cut to size), and a spare battery for the 860 and the freshly ordered 20” 5-in-1..

*

For bigger outside jobs, have a second kit bag with 2 small stands, a reflector/diffuser clamp, an umbrella clamp, three 33” umbrellas (silver, white shoot through and gold), a 43” umbrella soft box for when I have time especially useful with the LED panels.

This can be supplemented by my Neewer 480 RGB and/or 660 Bi-colour LED panels and any of my reflectors or diffusers.

This has the makings for a truly versatile and quite powerful 4-5 light rig, which if I remember rightly was my desired kit in it’s entirety only a few months ago!

Not pictured are a second LED (not arrived yet), a gold brolly (forgot), 12x5’ diffusion cloth and stand, tools, tape etc and the little kit bag it fits in. The tent pegs at the bottom replace duct tape to hold down the stands on grass. All pictures shot with a mix of tungsten artificial and window light!

Likely additions are maybe another 1 or 2 176/216 LED’s, so the bigger one can be left at home.

All of this fits into my basic camera bag and a small lighting kit bag except for the larger reflectors and LED’s.

*

The “portable studio” kit, which is now well out of hand, but also reassuringly competent, consists of 4 Yongnuo 560 mkIV’s and a MKIII all controlled by a TX 560. These seem to recycle faster than the 685 Godox** and being manual only are ideal for studio use. Powered by Eneloop pro batteries, I can see this outfit handling some serious work.

The LED’s can fix any balance problems, provide effects or fill for the above and the 2 Godox can be slotted in as dumb slaves as well, making potentially a 9 light kit!

Modifiers are many, probably too many, but I am learning and cannot resist a bargain. I think the dearest single modifier, a 72” shoot through brolly, was $60 Australian, making this entire kit (20 odd modifiers, 7 flash units, 3 LED’s, 2 big and 2 small stands and various bits and a 3x6’ stand for my 12x5’ diffuser cloth, which may be single, double or triple layered as needed), a total investment of about $2000au (lost exact count a few orders ago).

The mods cover the full range from tight (7” reflector dishes with 10-60 degree grids) through to very broad/soft (72” shoot-through brolly).

There are better/dearer modifier options out there, but in this case depth can genuinely make up for quality and light is, at the end of the day just light. The only areas these mods fall short are durability and “name”, but they do come with the added benefits of often being smaller, lighter and more easily bought/replaced. Interestingly, a few reviewers have taken the “Parabolic” craze apart, finding it makes little difference, but it sure is hiking up the prices of a lot of mods.

For backdrops, which I have pretty much put on the back burner as I am favouring location control instead, I have a 9’ wide Black and 7’ Grey muslin and a Kate mottled grey 5x7’ microfibre that looks nice (not tried yet). These are held in place by two $10 Smallrig Super Clamps on two of my bigger stands, with a $20 collapsible 9’ K-Mart curtain rail (cheap as chips and is a little sturdier than many backdrop poles).

There are now plans afoot to make a 14x9’ studio space in the old garage/store room downstairs. Not a perfect solution, but plenty for experimenting etc.

The reality is, I may need to do some “school portrait” style images, so this will likely get some use.

Not pictured, a second LED (and maybe many more), several lighting mods (need a whole other photo), two more heavy and two regular light stands, a backdrop cross-bar and 3 backdrops, the big bag it fits in and various tools, clamps, batteries etc.

If this turns in to something more serious, I may look at either a couple of the best selling AD200 Godox units, some Godox SL60 mono blocks, more 660 LED’s or maybe I won’t bother.

*

*Eneloops have made the 685 more consistent, but it still has just not quite fast enough recycling to handle my 3x HSS bursts, although it can now help reduce the strain on it’s more efficient partner.

** If I were to start from scratch, I would buy 1 860 Godox and 3 850’s. These all run on lithium batteries, which are better and way less fiddly than AA’s. The 860 offers all of the TTL goodness I would need, the 850’s fit with it seamlessly in manual (but also with HSS etc.).

The Olympus "Hump"

A few weeks ago I was at an historic low point with my gear situation.

Much of the problem was me and nothing more, but a perfect storm of mediocre results at a time when I had money at hand to potentially go full frame Canon or Fuji again, left me stressed and uncertain.

What a difference a few weeks can make.

Choosing the path well trod (again), I found myself putting a decent amount of money into Olympus and a little into Panasonic gear again, really cementing my commitment to that path and effectively cutting out any others. This is my five year plan, which I feel will likely see me out photographically and if it does not, then we will see when we get there.

What changed my mind?

Testing, reality checks and looking back at previous work, plus the discovery (even after the fact) of a superior processing option.

Comparing Fuji and Olympus surprised me with a solid win to Olympus in Fuji’s home playground (low light and jpeg). The Fuji had an ISO, pixel count and lens advantage (2.8 vs variable), but I still responded much more positively to my Olympus quick test images.. Both cameras were shooting jpeg’s, so a fair playing field.

The 300mm revelation, which came in the form of an honest exploration and a reality of my needs while out walking the dogs, allowed this lens, literally right under my nose all these years in the shop where I worked, to float to the top. I have not been in a “what do I really need” situation with the means to follow through for a while now, so it took a shift in thinking processes. Spending that much on a lens is always a tough period for me (and my wife), especially when my first results were poor, but I worked it through.

Mother and Baby Tawny Frog Mouth (the habit is to add “Owl”, but apparently they are not). This is the result of a new lens and processing path, and a little to do with camera and I feel is an unlikely shot for me to pull off only a month ago. The shadow and highlight recovery are excellent, noise well controlled (not mushy) and high, natural sharpness a given.

EM1 mk2, firmware 3.0 (then EM1x) jpeg handling of higher ISO’s gave me great heart at a time when I felt that the EM1 mk2’s mushy high ISO quality was a backward step from my previous Olympus cameras.

The EM1x High Res, high ISO performance, showed me that there are more ways to skin a cat…

Finally Capture 1 allowed a similar handling of RAW files, sealing the already done to deal.

Have I been rewarded for my loyalty, or is it more a matter of having been down this road enough times to subconsciously ignore the false signs and battle through?

Either way, I have never felt more powerful photographically.

Two new cameras, two solid new lenses, an improved processing workflow are exciting and reassuring.

Capture One + EM1x = Happy Times

My explorations of C1 (when I have time) are going extremely well.

The Programme just seems more powerful, but at the same time more controlled than Lightroom. My workflow is a little rubbish at the moment (have not read the 766 page manual), but otherwise everything seems intuitive and easy to find.

It seems there is always an answer.

I find I am less concerned with shadow and highlight retrieval, noise and even ISO settings in general. The results seem finished on import, only needing very slight fixes and these are often global, which is a bit of a shame as the fixes available are so clean and powerful, but good news for large jobs.

I wish all M43 users would give it a go, as I feel judging the format on Adobe’s processing is a little like running a high performance car on standard gas. I have been happy enough with their results over the years, but wish that in hind sight I could re-do so many jobs, just to see if C1 would have made a difference.

This is Sid (as you can see). This image was taken “on the fly” with my EM1x and 300 f4, while trying to get a pair of Tawny Frogmouth’s* with their eyes open down at the local dog park. This is tough as staying dead still and blending in is their main skill. It is an exercise of grey on grey until bright yellow eyes appear. Sid on the other hand is just a great, relaxed guy. He is a Greyhound-Alsatian cross, originally bred as a companion dog, but his matched companion was too rough on him.

* like an Owl, but not actually one.

The file above has very little done to it after import. I lightened the shadows, pulled back the highlights and used the layer tool to brush in some sharpness and lighten his eye. Not much at all.

Oh and yeah, loving the lens.

The Ongoing Problem Of Daylight Fill.

Portraiture in bright light is a little problematic.

You want to use your nice fast portrait lens wide open to blur the background. Check.

You want to shoot with the sun in your eyes for subject comfort and pleasant back/rim light. Check.

Need a little sparkle in the eye to literally catch the eye. Check.

So want to use flash to fill the shadows and add that sparkle, but with the above in mind….err, problem.

Wide open lenses in bright light, need fast shutter speeds. Flash generally does not want high shutter speeds unless you use the power in-efficient high speed sync option (fine with powerful strobes, but a real drain on portable flash units), which often limits your output and spontaneity.

There are a few fixes.

The first and cheapest option is a well placed reflector or diffuser. This is often a workable solution, but may need an assistant or complicated rig. Staying where you want to be, while making subtle changes to reflector angle can be problematic, again effecting output and spontaneity.

A better solution and one I have been putting off for too long, is to introduce a constant or fixed light. These lights, usually LED’s have a couple of advantages.

Not a great example, but cute none the less. This image above needed 1/1000 at ISO 100 for an f2 aperture i.e. shallow depth of field. Tricky if not impossible for many flash set-ups. The contrast range is at the extreme end of fixable, so LED’s could help bring out that left hand eye.

LED or video lights have been around for a while, but have really come into their own lately for both stills and video use.

The main advantage of constant LED lights for stills shooters is they do not need to “sync” with the camera. You simply turn them on and let them do their thing, while you do yours. In other words, you can set the Aperture and Shutter Speed you want, treating the LED like natural light (that you can control).

Other advantages such as light temperature and power controls build in, running cold, allowing a piece of paper or cloth to be a diffuser or taped on cellophane for colour changes and cordless operation are juts bonuses. Some can even be run from a remote or phone app.

I have been pondering the value of a decent sized LED as a better option to a reflector. They are not direction sensitive nor do they even require any actual sunlight (which they can replace!). They can be placed anywhere more easily than even a smallish reflector and can produce any number of warm through cool tones without gels etc.

Need a background, fill, chin or rim light? Not only do they do this well, but you get a free preview. I have struggled for a while deciding on what expensive and cumbersome clamp arm or similar I would get for a reflector to do these jobs, so a decent LED at the same price seems a bargain.

I have just purchased the Neewer 660 Bead and smaller 176 Bead lights. The smaller one will do the job as the much needed fill light, being camera mounted or hand holdable. The smaller one also comes with two batteries, which will cover both, or they can be run off AC. Once I see them in action I may buy another two 660’s as 2000 beads seems to be critical mass for this type of lighting.

The bigger, probably excessive one, will be a welcome addition to my existing lighting kit and help fight strong sunlight. When shooting groups, the light can provide fill and if I add another one or two, even take some strain off my strobes.

They are not perfect.

They are weaker than flashes by weight and considerably weaker than strobes, but can provide lovely, nearly invisible fill, with more control and that all important preview. If you want to cover large groups, LED’s are probably not practical, so stick to strobes.

A great resource for this lighting is Kirk Tuck’s book “LED Lighting” with a guest chapter by Neil Van Niekerk.

Reviews, Why They Suck.

I will say straight up, I spend way too much time looking at other peoples reviews on subjects close to my heart and not enough forming my own opinions.

Guess what happens when I do form my own thoughts? I form an opinion that is relevant to me.

Camera and lens reviews are often flawed, and many reviewers will spell out their own limitations of process up front and in detail, but we still slog through their findings and accept them on face value.

Lets look at one of the most trusted camera reviewers, DPreview.

They use a well tested and industry relevant process when testing camera sensors, Adobe Photoshop.

I have recently been reminded that there are other choices out there. If you shoot M43 for example, then Adobe is no friend to their slightly higher noise. If you shoot Fuji, there have been years of documented issues with Adobe>Fuji Raw file processing. I have spent way too long poring over minute differences between A and B sensor, when a simple trial out of a new software suite has shifted things seismically for me.

Each brand of camera manufacturer has a “best case” software suite available and it is rarely Adobe as the number one above all, so by using this one (admittedly market leading) programme, people are being forced to accept a hierarchy that is not necessarily accurate.

Lens tests are another area of confusion.

Many of the better testers will show you wall chart resolution tests. Field curvature is present in most lenses, making a flat test prone to revealing flaws that are not always real world relevant. To make things worse, some manufacturers will correct this simply to satisfy testing regimes, not actual field results. Fuji made an 18mm that I really liked, but testers had a problem with it. The lens was really sharp across the (curved) frame, losing some edge sharpness after the camera artificially flattened the capture.

If I was photographing walls close up at F2 with a wide angle lens, then sure, that is relevant (as relevant as a review of my mental well being), but for most subjects the lens was designed for, there would never be an issue worthy of note.

Noise, CA and many other factors are stringently pulled apart, when the reality is a large print will rarely show these issues on paper. Maybe sitting too close to a high res screen will reveal all of the images dirty secrets, but why do that to it or your self?

Consistently the lenses I keep coming back to are the ones that are poor tests candidates*.

Why is that? It is because lab tests rarely show a lens and camera’s image making character. Liken it to a thorough medical examination, ignoring the subjects personality, poise and natural grace.

I have no idea where I took this, but meta data can provide when what and how. Still like it even if it was a mistake.

DXO for example rarely gives Canon good marks over Sony or any other camera sporting a Sony sensor (not to mention their inability to even measure Fuji). So how do they explain either brand’s market share and loyal following?

Images are never measured by the camera that takes them, only the viewers response to the end result.

My little secret and one I like to remind myself of regularly, is that my largest reproduced images have all been made on my least expensive lenses and are often technically flawed in some way!

*Olympus 17mm f1.8, Canon 28 f1.8, Olympus 75-300 and 40-150 kit.

Some Thoughts On Capture 1 After 100 Images.

Capture 1 is working well. Some things I would like to share straight up;

It loads a lot faster than Lightroom, but this may be partly due to the library size disparity, or maybe not. C1 seems to load within a few seconds and the library loads as a separate entity. Lightroom has been taking a minute or so to load from off for a while now.

The standard files are cleaner, more finished and more mature looking.

The tools are more numerous, seem stronger and more predictable.

The above two result in a faster work flow because I don’t have to do as much.

It is highly customisable.

It has a brilliant masking/layering tool that is infinitely more versatile than my favourite LR tool, the brush.

Every time I ask a question of the programme, it seems to have an answer.

The answers are easy to find through linked tutorials, a free manual and simple intuition.

It is not an exaggeration to say, I feel like I not only have another arrow in my quiver, but an upgraded bow also. M43 has satisfied me on the whole for the last ten years, but it has gone from giant killing in the early days (EM5 mk1 vs D700 Nikon and 5D2), but has slowly lost it’s main advantages to the bigger guns. For me cleverness is the answer, I am just not sure they will not eventually be swallowed anyway.

I have so far found the wealth of easy to apply options mind blowing. It really is like Lightroom with skates on. The image above responded to C1 with a better, cleaner base file, showing me what it wanted (some clarity around the eyes). This is especially evident in under exposed files. I honestly cannot remember the last time I was this excited about a foundation function of photography since (searching memory banks…), maybe the first time a saw a startlingly clear file from an EM5 compared to my earlier Canon “smooth and soft” images.

C1 has given me effectively a sensor upgrade in comparison to what I have been seeing. I have liked the Olympus-Lightroom dynamic mostly, but mushy noise at higher ISO settings, especially from my workhorse EM1 mk2’s has been an issue. C1 has driven away those demons.

The same file developed in Lightroom a few weeks ago. Nice enough, but I can already feel I am responding differently to my files. Notice the way the Bokeh is rendered more smoothly around the books in the background. Nothing was done specifically to either file here, only localised clarity “brushing” over the eye and lightening globally. The limited options in Lightroom’s tools had not bothered me before, but the potential and logical application in C1 is eye opening.

The EM1x, the camera that forced me to look elsewhere when Lightroom and my older computer refused to catch up, has really impressed, but it has taken C1, both technically and functionally to see that.