Budget Tools For The Budding Film Maker

I have done a lot of research lately.

This is usually fun for me, but only when my interest is piqued or focussed on the subject at hand, which is videography. Because it is new to me technically and inspirationally it has never felt like hard work. I am far too excited for that, but it has felt pretty full on, so clear wins are grabbed with both hands.

The tools I have discovered in my research have been accumulating slowly but surely and I feel it is time now to look at what the part time or beginner film maker needs to look at and some ways of addressing them.

Video (obviously).

Picture or footage is obviously important. It is not the only element, but without video you have no….video, so we don’t have any reason to be here.

First up, you need at least one decent video camera (DSLR/mirrorless, or 4K video camera etc) and preferably another option as backup or for other angles (phone, older camera). If these match in colour and settings, life will be easier, but use what you have.

My tools of choice are an Olympus EM1 mk2 (I have one specifically allocated to video), and the Osmo Pocket mk1, which allows me to always have a video camera with me. The EM1x and my other EM1 mk2 are also set up for video (back thumb dial to 2) while shooting stills as the hand held option for secondary angles etc. These are going to be used in 4K at 24 frames (and 1/48th) or 60fps for the Osmo, even though my client/employer rarely needs anything more than 720 U-Tube quality for social media.

Paying attention to some basic rules is important.

Video and composition;

• Use the 180 degree rule (shutter speed set at 2x frame rate) to give you the best quality footage.

• Use All-i compression over IPB for quality. It is less necessary if there is not much movement in a shot, but if you can and have the space, use it for file quality.

• Shoot in LOG or Flat colour profile if you intend to post process/colour grade your work.

• 24fps is the most natural looking and the industry standard, but 60fps allows for natural slow motion, helps in brighter light and smooths out fast action.

• Be aware of the rule of thirds to use it either correctly or creatively and know why you are breaking the rules.

• Keep movements to a minimum and make them as smooth and deliberate as possible. Buy the right accessories for the right job.

• Natural movements are; Panning, tilting, pushing in, pulling out , tracking/trucking, camera rolls, static camera, arcing and booming. These will all feel and look right.

• Unnatural movements are; zooming, focus racking, hand holding without stabilisers. These all add a feeling of tension, but are less natural looking and show the process, so use them deliberately for effect only.

• Plan and justify (make sense of) movements, be they at the camera end or the subjects.

I have a decent tripod with a smooth video head for pan and tllt, a 120cm rail for sideways and angled tracking/trucking and push in-pull out moves, a gimbal for hand holding the Olympus, but also the Osmo for proper gimbal work, because the Neewer-Oly rig takes some practice and is heavy.

Lighting;

• Always shoot towards the shadow side of a face.

• Control light whenever possible. Use cool blue/green backgrounds contrasted with warm main or rim lights for best effect.

• Always “justify” your light (make it make sense) and balance it, making it look natural.

• Lean towards less light not more.

I have a basic 3 light kit. The 660 bi-colour Neewer LED is my main or key light, often diffused behind a screen or through a diffuser cloth. The 480 RGB light adds colour contrast to backgrounds (usually cooler) and the little 176 LED is my hair or warm balance light. They all run off the same batteries or ac power. More small lights would help make backgrounds interesting.

Sound:

Sound is more important to get right than video. Poor sound kills good video, but mediocre video can survive with good sound.

• Employ the right mic for the job. It is not necessary to get a handle on the cardioid patterns of various mics, just apply the right mic to the job. Shotgun mics are good for aiming at single people from a camera or even better a boom. LAV mics are best for distances or multiple people mic-ed up separately, wide area stereo mics are best for performances etc.

• Control your environment. Echoes need to be avoided or mitigated which is often as easy as a soft blanket hung off a stand or placed on the floor. Avoid large indoor spaces like gyms for best sound.

• Get you mic as close to the subject as possible, especially if the environment is poor.

My gear consists of the Zoom H1n for area capture and as a pre amp between another mic and camera (which makes all other mics better) and allows for separate sound recording to camera, the Rode Video Micro, Boya MM1 (same as the Mono version) and Neewer CM-14 shotguns (they each sound and act slightly different and are cheap enough to collect for depth), a Boya BY-M1 LAV, which can run through or from the Zoom (I intend to add another LAV and a splitter).

The core of my kit (aside from the EM1) and a good basic video kit for anyone. The Osmo offers pro level 4k 60p with a real gimbal (and a big screen with a phone attached). The Zoom is a hugely versatile device as either a pro level area/interview/boom mic or a pre-amp for other mics (because camera pre-amps generally suck) and the Neewer is the best mini shotgun mic for the money (or possibly any money). The three (and the Boya BY-M1 LAV, Boya MM1 mics not pictured cost me under $600 au. This is a serious little Vloger or indie film makers kit.

These are not the writings of a long term veteran in this field, rather the result of a pretty intense six months of transition from long time stills to part time video shooter. Still photography is a good platform for any videographer, but I have actually found that learning video has helped my still shooting as much if not more.

I hope my time spent researching and my very basic summation of what I have learned is of help.

Neewer and DJI, The Video Problem Solvers

I have written before about my brand selections and the reasons for, but here is a recap.

Olympus is my camera brand of choice. I like the M43 format and will give Panasonic their due, but in the end, Olympus has an edge for me and my way of working. Lenses are less set in stone, but I still have a majority of Oly glass.

Random image with nowhere else to be. Plovers really are odd looking birds.

Domke wins overall with bags, but the collection is pretty diverse and lately my Filsons have been getting a good go.

I use Macs.

Capture 1 with ON1 No Noise have replaced Adobe for processing.

I have a brace of Yong Nuo flash units for my portable studio, but also use Godox as my TTL units. I could easily use either exclusively and get great results from both. YN’s tend to be cheaper and are very tough, Godox though are slightly ahead with “smarts”, but there is really not much between them. If I need heavier duty flash I will get a YN 200 or Godox AD200 open bulb strobe.

Neewer however has become my go-to for all things accessory as they seem to be, time and again, the best and most consistent cheaper option in areas where cheap is not always guaranteed. I am in no way sponsored by them or any other brand mentioned here.

I just purchased a 120cm slider (aluminium), to add to my video options. This goes with my non-motorised Gimbal, video pan head, ball head, numerous light stands, a C-Stand, light mods, a wheeled tripod dolly, mini shotgun mic and several LED lights.

It is hard to state how good these all are for the cost. I have rarely paid more than a quarter of the cost a different (better/dearer) brand item and sticking to Neewer seems to guarantee a base level of quality that avoids the rubbish end. Nothing I have bought so far has fallen short of my realistic, but serious users expectations.

This means in real terms I can try things that may work for me or not, take my wins and consign my losses to the experience bin without much pain. Either way, the trip has been fun.

The 2.6m steel light stands, 3m+ C-Stand, 660 and 480 LED panels, CN-14 mic, heads and various modifiers have all been winners.

The Gimbal is still a work in progress, but I have not given up as I have not really given it a fair go until recently, where it performed as well as could be expected given my lack of practice. Even if it does not work as I need, the plate is universal and worth a third of the unit’s value and it can be used as a decent stabilising monopod for stills. The Osmo (see below) will add much to my options, but there will be times when the Gimbal will be the other option.

The slider is probably a fringe item in reality, but at $70 au, I am sure I can find a use for it, even if it is just as a large and versatile table tripod. The reality is, if you have access to something, it gets used and expands your creative thinking which is generally considered to be better than useless speculation.

In total, my capabilities have extend to a dolly mounted tripod with a fluid head, a Gimbal and a Slider along with the Olympus legendary near-Gimbal like stabiliser capabilities and as of today an Osmo Pocket for even better Gimbal shooting. I want to avoid MS-1 (sensor and digital stabilising) as it crops and I feel drops quality slightly. MS-2 (sensor shift only) is the go and looks like it plays nicely with other stabilisers.

To be honest, I am still learning here, but a recent event showed me a huge difference in quality between some tripod mounted footage I shot and a colleagues hand held footage with identical kit. There may have been other elements at work such as careful manual exposure, a static spot avoiding flare, to adhering to the 180 rule etc, but I feel the tripod and generally less going at the camera end may have been the difference.

Like most things, old and well tested methods, mixed with the best of new tech are where the true balance lies. Tripods, a tool I always push for still shooting, even though I have a tendency lately to not take my own advice, are really the first and often best call for video users.

Sliders and dollies add to a tripods versatility, expanding their usefulness exponentially. Gimbals are all the rage at the moment, but they cannot do everything as well as these other tools. They are just one option. The main thing with any tool is, if you are going to use one, do it well and keep it proportionate and relevant.

One of the best ways of ruining footage when starting out (and stills for the matter) is to make it too busy and loose. A Tripod makes a stills shooter take their time and think before shooting and has exactly the same effect for video. It does not matter what techniques you use, a little thought and planning makes a huge difference and consistency or repeatability comes from control.

I have been asked to do some footage and stills of the school art exam exhibition as an introductory video for the end of year celebration. The common go-to and what was done previously, is to simply do a Gimbal walk through which is great for context, but not enough on its own. I intend to explore anything I can to up that so I started working on ways of making static subjects less static.

A walk through will still be used as an establishment shot, but I will also use a tripod and dolly for these rather than going totally free hand. This will be supplemented by, focus and zoom shifts and panning, mixed with stills as stepped zoom-ins some with rolling twists (edgy!), more stills then some footage with focus and zoom transitions etc. So far after some quick research I have over 20 options to look in to. Fun. The slider will not come in time, but this job is the catalyst for its purchase and will pay for it.

*

ed. After the job a review has revealed the following;

Some things need to be done repeatedly to get them right, even by the pros.

The Gimbal, when balanced well is fine for what I need. A DJI Osmo Pocket is an option to this that I have just bought, as gimbals in general have many considerations that need to be looked at, like weight, size and practicality. You may technically be able to run with a heavy, gimballed camera, but should you?

Follow an idea through, or drop it if its not a goer. Don’t be precious, try lots of techniques, keep what works and keep exploring forward.

Speed is all. Practice and experiment. Some movements are better slow (60 fps or higher allows for slow-motion also which looks great and smooths out movement “jitters”), while some are better fast or time lapsed.

As a side note, I am still a little amazed how much good information there is out there for budding photographers, videographers and sound techs. Seriously, there is just so much and it is often very good and free. I first noticed this with studio lighting, then video settings, mics and now cinematography and story boarding.

I cannot claim to be adding much more than opinion as I share my journey, but I intent to contribute as much as possible, because sharing is learning.

*

*The OSMO Pocket has been ordered, because, even if I get quite good at using the Neewer Gimbal, I cannot just “pop” it in to my bag just in case. I have to have a clutch of reasons for buying new gear at the moment and the Osmo (1) has provided a solution to enough to justify its purchase.

• It provides a Gimbal of no small ability, fully integrated with its camera.

• It provides a dedicated video camera with no recoding limit (2hrs of 4k approximately with a full batt).

• It is small and compact allowing me to pack it in my day bag (with the Zoom 1 mic) “just in case”. Using an OMD as my video camera is problematic as changing from one to the other is not seamless and accessories (Gimbal, rail, tripod, dedicated camera) are prohibitively cumbersome without an emphasis on video as the job. This effectively deepens both my stills and video kits.

  I went with the older Pocket 1 over the 2 because of price, a better general purpose lens (26mm not 20mm), a better case design and overall stability of functionality (the 2 has some firmware releases needed to be perfected, improving tracking and wi-fi performance). I have ordered a cheap silicon outer case for better weather sealing and storage.

Birding Proficiency Surprise

I am not a birder, as stated before, but like a lot of photographers with a big lens at hand, birding calls as the occasion arises.

On a recent school camp, I had a lot of time on the beach waiting for things to happen out on the water, so birds became my distraction. I did not set any special settings (I have a 1x4 and 5x1 config set in the EM1x, but this was the EM1 mk 2), just pointed and shot.

I started off well enough. This shot was the best framed of several in a sequence.

My first subjects were seagulls floating on the fairly strong breeze, so not too hard.

These guys were a different story, very fast and low, making the background messy enough to increase the likelihood of back focus misses, but on the whole I had few problems.

I had plenty of time to practice as the kids paddled against a strong current to a small island off shore and back again. I was pretty happy with the results and with a little confidence and luck I started to assume rather than hope.

This is slightly cropped, but only slightly and this one was going with the breeze. The 300 f4 and (any) EM1 have surprised again. Hand holding a 600mm equivalent for long periods is unrealistic with a full frame rig, but I managed this for over an hour comfortably.

One thing I really enjoy with my current job is the variety it offers and there is no doubt I am more confident trying almost any type of imaging. My day may comprise of a quick student portrait, then a group, maybe studio ID shot, class sit in, sport (any type), promo image for an event and then a ball that evening (and has). This requires not only a lot of gear and familiarity with it, but the ability to don a different creative hat and wear it confidently.

Success at a little impromptu birding is a happy side effect of becoming a generally more capable photographer who is growing into various roles.

Feeling The Power Or A Year In Retrospect

So a working year is coming to it’s head with the TCE students leaving for exams last week. There is more to the year, but the TCE’s leaving really sets the tone for the end of year countdown. The count for submitted images so far this year is about 15-20,000 with 3-4 times as many taken overall.

What has changed, what has gone out and what has grown?

I gave video a go.

Not claiming to have any skills with processing (yet), my focus has been on video and sound capture only. Things have been going ok, but sometimes the “two hats” needed for stills and video are a stretch. It is genuinely hard to think differently at the same time and Olympus cameras are not ideally set-up for video-stills changes on the fly. I may address that with a dedicated camera or simply carry an extra model as needed (my issue here is a lack of microphone supporting models outside the EM1’s).

I have enjoyed learning the ins and outs of sound/mics, the formats and benefits of my chosen brand over others (awesome stabilisers and AF), but do need to shoot more for my own processing, when I get the hang of a programme that is.

For mics, the Neewer CN-14 mic wins best bang by a mile, edging out the more expensive Rode video-mic micro as a boom mic and the Zoom H1n best overall sound and versatility (awesome pre amp), but I will admit to grudging respect for the little Rode video-mic, the one I did not intend to buy (and it has the best accessories).

High ISO processing and processing in general.

Well Adobe is gone. Never thought I would say that, much less actually do it, but no regrets on any level. Never much of a Photoshop user, Lightroom seemed rudimentary in the extreme compared to Capture 1 on so many levels. Anytime I got the jitters, a quick trip back to Adobe reassured me I had done the right thing.

ON1 RAW, DXO and a few others were contenders for a while also, but for base image quality, ease of processing for bulk jobs and features, Capture 1 won out with a little help from ON1 No Noise for more useable ISO 6400-12800 (!) files. I am being unkind here really. For “useable” read frikkin’ awesome, game-changing files.

Seriously, clean and sharp ISO 12,800 from M43 at decent sizes! After Adobe, I sometimes feel like I “upgraded” to full frame and forgot to tell myself.

Cameras and Lenses.

The EM1x continues to impress. I feel an almost empathic connection to this camera, but to their credit, the older EM1 mk2’s, especially with the firmware update are a hair behind. I always use these for long lenses and focus tracking. For shorter lenses I find flip-up touch screen focus more useful so the EM10/5’s are better.

My EM10’s, or my “shutter savers” are doing more work than you would expect. They have their limitations professionally, but when used with wider lenses and touch focus, they never miss a beat. For some reason, the silver EM10 seems to thrive as a studio camera, so it is always the first one asked “to the ball”.

The old EM5 mk1’s are flagging, two having fallen away (banding and shutter issues), but the other two are still trust-worthy and the original batteries are still good after 7-10 years each! If a job requires a second or third camera, especially one that may get damaged, I will always take one along. You will often find the “filler” 25mm on this.

The Pen F and Pen Mini are kept just for my own use.

For video, I am tempted to get a Panasonic (G100, G95 or G9 on clearance). This will give me more depth, better AF on the 8-18 and a video specialist (mostly set-up, not results). Optionally, another Oly with mic jack (EM5 mk3 or EM1 mk2 on clearance) or to replace the EM1 mk2 I have set up now as a stills camera (EM10 mk4, EM1 mk3).

The 300mm Pro leaves me speechless regularly. Anything I point it at takes on that premium tele look, usually reserved for lenses many times it’s price. I am not as impressed with the AF using the 1.4 TC, but IQ is still optimal. A recent shoot at a yr6 beach/water camp sometimes felt like a high end commercial shoot.

The 25, 45 and 75 primes are my go to portrait lenses. Each has it’s own qualities, making the actual focal length less important than the individual lens’s character. The 25 gets the most use as the “filler” between the 8-18 and 40-150 with lovely smooth separation at a practical focal length, the 45 is my bigger Bokeh lens with more crunchy character and the 75 adds a bit of that big lens feel, like the 300mm.

The 40-150 Pro seems brighter than it says on the barrel with excellent micro contrast, making it the poor light king even though I have faster glass. The Bokeh is iffy with busy backgrounds, but being aware of that, I use another lens when that is important (75). This lens loves the tele-converter. So much so, sometimes I forget it’s on for long periods.

The 12-40 is still a consistent giver and my favourite video lens unless cropping is an issue (the stronger stabiliser option crops heavily). I am switching more and more to tripod+dolly or gimbal for transitions to reduce stabiliser issues.

The 8-18 Leica has that special something and is a joy to use. It also turns out it is tough, surviving a drop the other day (saving the EM10 mk2 it was mounted on). I am surprised how often I use the wider end, but I try not to over do it as super wide distortion is no friend to people, just places. It also crops to a nice range in highly stabilised video.

The 17mm has become a capable close quarters shooter. A favourite combo is mounted to the little Pen mini on a long cross-body strap. It’s fire engine red and at a good height for kids so acts as both a distraction and capable snap shooter. This lens is ear marked for video also as its Bokeh and MF application are ideal.

Bags.

I am still struggling to find the perfect bag, but most of the time the Domke F802 wins out. It holds everything and does it with integrity after two plus years of solid use. The optional pockets are rarely needed, but the capacity they add is immense (and potentially back breaking).

Attempts to use a “nicer” looking bag have had mixed results. The Filson Camera Field Bag has a very annoying tendency to sag when over loaded, the regular Field Bag has poor external pockets for photography and the flap is a little big, but I still prefer it to the CFB. The CFB is now relegated to personal use or very light jobs. The CFB may benefit from a semi rigid insert like the Domke has.

The new little $50 au Crumpler is a winner, if small, carrying as much as the CFB in practical terms.

The big Neewer backpack is great at it’s designed purpose (massed haulage) and is now my video bag, the love-hate relationship I have with the Lowe Pro Pro Tactic 350 goes on. It never ceases to surprise me how often I use the PT 350. Recently I discovered how much better it is with the inserts from the Neewer!

The Think Tank Turnstyle 10 is the best long day sports bag as long as it holds everything needed.

Lighting.

One day I will find out just what these are capable of. So far, no job has needed more than 2-3 at most.

My Yongnuo mini studio has not yet been pushed to capacity. For a recent board of directors portrait I used three into a 72” brolly for a group of 12 (roughly 8-12 foot distance to subjects), but still ended up at ISO 400, f2.8 and 1/128th, so near bottomless grunt to tap there (one of the benefits of M43 depth of field). Eneloop pro batts have totally changed the way I look at my flash units. I cannot remember the last time I charged any.

The lithium powered Godox 860 has been my day bag work horse and has been a boon for bright light fill (high speed sync). The 685 is nearly as grunty with Eneloop batts, but is rarely needed. TTL is handy when moving fast.

Still struggling to come up with an ideal way to transport my studio rig in a single trip (long stands being the main issue). Golf bag trollies, tool chests on wheels and a few other ideas have been floated, but at this point a long Neewer bag strapped onto a utility trolly is working well enough. The reality is, portable and studio are not perfectly compatible ideas.

The LED lights have come into their own with video in the picture, although I am yet to use them regularly. They still get a go as rim lights. The reality is, strobes kill them for grunt, but they have their uses. Earlier this year I used one at the yr10 ball to help with warm fill and focus. A single flash and brolly did the main job, but the LED made it sooo much easier.

*

The low light safety/Bokeh king 75mm has dropped away lately, allowing me to mount the 25 on a body, but I sometimes throw in a 45mm just for the Bokeh. The sunglasses case is my emergency kit of cards, batteries etc. I have also dropped the optional end pocket off lately.

My daily working kit has evolved into the 8-18 on a “lesser” camera like an EM10, the 40-150 Pro on an EM1 and 25mm on another camera (EM5) or ready at hand. The switch to the 8-18 has freed up the 12-40 for video.

There is usually a flash or two (860/685 Godox or Oly kit), but these are being used less and less thanks to C1/No Noise, ironically just as I am getting the hang of them.

If shooting smaller kids, a little orange “pumpkin-cat“ from Electric Town in Japan called Shi Shi comes along. There are many long faces when I forget it.

Other bag fillers are my Rode video-mic micro, the 1.4 TC, a 60cm 5-in-1 diffuser/reflector panel and an off camera TTL controller for the Godox. Less often the little 176 LED for video or stills fill (yet to be used for video). This all goes in the F802.

My sports kit is the EM1x and an EM1 mk2 with the 300 and 40-150 Pro’s respectively, backed up by my third EM1 or something else with the 12-40 or 8-18 mounted. If the 300 is not needed, I will throw in the TC or for more sedate sunny day shoots, the 75-300 is more than enough. For very low light, the fast primes go in instead of the 300. If possible I only take the Turnstyle 10 or a small backpack if working from one spot.

For really light jobs I will sling an EM1 over my shoulder and a second camera and lens in the little Crumpler. I like those jobs.

What is rarely used professionally is the 75-300, 40-150 kit and 14-42 EZ (video contender, maybe Gimbal specialist). If I travel in the near future, these will get a go I am sure (travel/street kit 14-42 kit, 17, 45, 40-150 kit).

*

Overall, my processes have become more streamlined and practical, my self belief strengthened and my ability to function with any gear available has improved. I do however intend to continue to work on my shooting style/processes. I want to improve my image relevance for the school and avoid getting stale, while improving consistency, a tricky balance.

I know that setting up shots is still my weak area, being a life long candid shooter, so much ongoing effort will be focussed there, but I am happy to say, my employer is open to my style also, as long as I get the job done.

Another Good Combo, Or Perfect Bokeh?

Bokeh has been written about quite a bit, plenty on this site alone, but what is “perfect” Bokeh?

For me, from a working perspective, perfect Bokeh is a look that has the following characteristics;

• It has to have clean separation of a sharp subject and soft background.

• The background needs to be unobtrusive, but needs some definition for story telling.

• The useable depth of field, and working distance need to be useable.

I have found lately, that all of these are easily achieved with my Olympus 25mm f1.8 (on any camera, but the Pen F or EM10 mk2 work well). For social events, I have been falling back heavily on the unassuming little EM10 and 25mm combo lately for portraits and other cameras and zooms for general shots.

Let’s look at the math of this combo.

In full frame terms you have the depth of field of a 24mm wide angle at f1.8,

but also,

in full frame terms, you have the perspective and magnification of a 50mm lens (closer to a 45 in this case, but near enough). The result is perceived of of two stops smaller for the magnification.

So you have in real terms a 50mm f2.8 equivalent. This is not often seen as shallow enough depth of field for most in this “Bokeh mad” time, but from a practical and more importantly, relevant way, it is ideal. I remember the 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor being a favourite back in the day. Also, a friend has a habit of shooting full frame 24mm f1.4 Bokeh portraits, using much the same math.

Practicality? Any shallower and groups of 2 or more people risk a face drifting out of best focus. F2.8 zooms are the work horse lenses for most full frame shooters, so f1.8 in M43 is no different.

Relevance? Shallower depth of field can create beautiful soft backgrounds, but also tend to blur out any environmental context. Context is important, otherwise you might as well take all of your shots in a hallway or studio.

Two of the adults (staff) attending a recent school event, they are nicely “cut” out of their background, both in good focus (and sharp), but their softer background is also coherent enough to tell a story (what, when, where). There were better examples, but they featured children and parents, so I will not use them. Processing was limited to a little colour balancing in C1 and are mostly in response to the slightly warm nature of the EM10’s sensor. The important elements here are a sense of place, with clearly defined main subjects.

If I had a f1.2 lens would I use it at f1.2? Likely not (after a short period of Bokeh love/lust that is). F1.2 is too shallow to trust in a working environment (studio’s aside) and would likely rob a shot of a feeling of being part of something.

The end result of this, is that I can set the lens to f1.8 for great light gathering, assured that I will always get a row of people sharp, but still soften the background nicely. The balance of elements is easily achieved and reassuring.

Colour vs Mono, Or The Need For Accuracy vs Creativity

My mono re-birth has started slowly, but relentlessly.

This has started a few conversations both with others and in m own head.

One such conversation about the processing of colour vs mono bought to light the reality of the two mediums and it goes something like this;

With colour imaging, accuracy of the colour is vitally important unless it is being deliberately, creatively modified to control mood or deliberately buck reality.

Mono imaging needs to be tackled with maximum creative effort to be valid always. Unlike colour, it requires pushing, not accuracy (which is basically irrelevant).

Bold statements?

Totally off pace even?

Look at it this way and see if you agree.

A colour image has a point that is crossed only if the intention is to bend or deny reality. This would be done with mood in mind as the main trigger, because colour controls mood, but not much else. Colour can be stunning, bland, low or high impact, cool, warm or neither and is almost always the pivotal value to be controlled. In other words, when working with colour you have to choose to be either accurate or creative, but seldom both and often that choice is out if your hands.

This makes working with colour highly particular, but also very powerful. Get accuracy wrong when it is needed and you have a technically poor image. Creatively you can engender a variety of responses from emotionally compelling to outright revulsion. This is a sharp sword with two sharp edges.

Neither of the images above are close to accurate, but both elicit an immediate mood response.

To be honest, working professionally, colour is the bane of my life. Almost always shooting in mixed indoor light, I have to process for beauty and accuracy more often than any other consideration. Some of the rooms I shoot in (when flash is out of the question), are bland, dull, poorly lit and “beige” in the extreme, with messy backgrounds and usually a limited working area and time frame. Whole concerts have been shot under lighting that is less than pleasant. Nothing that cannot be fixed, but the fixing tends to be all consuming.

Black and White or Mono imaging has a totally different set of processing needs.

Mono removes the dual elements of emotion impact and depth perception provided by colour alone. Colour images automatically trigger emotional responses by their very nature (show someone the same image with warm and cool white balance set and see what I mean). The same can be said for mono images with tones applied.

In the set above, the first image has no immediate emotional impact due to having no inherent colour, only subject, composition and the viewers own take on mono images in general will have an effect. Much could be done to the image, but without a colour bias, it lacks an immediate statement, standing on it’s own two legs. The other two do make an up-front statement (a heavy handed one), setting their mood as the first thing perceived, subject and composition coming after.

Rule one; Only pure mono has no colour “opinion”.

Colour also helps us perceive depth, by “placing” colours more powerfully than tones alone can do.

This image to me is simply a yellow foreground contrasting with a harmonious, supporting red background, all other compositional elements are largely irrelevant.

In mono, the tones, textures and sharp-soft transitions are all important, but these do less to impart a feeling of depth and mood. They effectively flatten the image. The out of focus rio wire fence has become as strong a compositional element as the rear car, something largely ignored in the colour shot. The shot also looks flat, which brings us to the next bit.

Mono needs to be treated differently.

Something I find I do every time I purposefully re-enter the world of mono (deliberately, not when inspired by a specific image), is to treat it like colour. This is the first barrier to good mono imaging.

Just like in the film era, converting a colour image to mono rarely produces a good file. Why? It is because the world tends to be just shades of grey when the colour is removed. An image made up of mostly grey tones is dull and muddy. Green, red, blue, grey, orange, dark yellow are all basically a similar shade of grey when straight converted from colour. Mono film was designed to be sensitive to different colours differently, so that it would separate tones and coloured filters can also be employed for more control/power.

Grey tones are needed in a mono image, but they are weak on their own, they tend to need contrast, both micro (mid tone) and more globally (the extremes). If you do not do some serious prodding, straight conversions are as a rule pretty poor. Think of taking a Bell curve and turning it upside down. You want less convergence in the middle, more on the extremes and a steeper, sharper curve towards them.

First rule; make the changes your gut tells you to, don’t settle for the computers version, ever.

With a little tweaking, the flat jpeg file from above has come to life. The key word here is separation. You need to increase separation of the tonal elements in a mono image. It is not strictly necessary to always have a paper white or ink black in an image, but they are a good place to start. More importantly, the mid tones need to be separated well. In the above file, the yellow channel was lightened, the red one darkened and overall contrast slightly increased.

Tones, texture and brilliance.

After separation has been successfully applied, the three elements above are your next tools to apply.

Tones are part in parcel of the separation issue above, but they are also important to the greater image. Texture and tone share much the same space, allowing good contrast control

Not A Great Combo, But Hey!

My Pen F has become the no work only play camera.

Several reasons, but it mostly comes down to practicality. The Pen has a great vibe as a personal, immersive camera, but a poor handling dynamic for on the go, working for someone else, pro work.

It has in it’s corner;

• Possibly the best base IQ of any of my cameras at lower ISO’s (100-800).

• Very usable JPEG’s, but I only use them as a preview (especially the mono ones)

• Great weight and solidity.

• An off-set view finder and a rear screen that just begs to be turn inward (looks nice, feels right).

• Nice looks that don’t scream “pro at work”, more enthusiast at play.

• Great manual focus handling.

What it does not offer:

• Great high ISO performance (on par with EM10 mk2). Like the EM5 mk1 the noise is tight, like good film grain, but at higher ISO’s the images just lose something.

• Tracking AF. None to be had. AF is snappy, but useless for sports.

• High ISO silent shutter (regularly bands at 1600).

• Any similarity to any other camera I use, so switching mid job can be troublesome.

• A separate battery and card slot.

• Any consistency with batteries or accessories to my work horse cameras.

• Nice shutter sound. In vertical mode it sounds “flappy”.

The little kit I tend to carry around with it consists of my spare 45 F1.8, the under used 17 f1.8 and my “just in case” 40-150 kit/junk tele.

The tele gets used more than I would have predicted, but the handling combination of the heavy, all metal Pen and super light plastic zoom is far from re-assuring. I see visible wobble, something I am not accustomed to. It is effectively the opposite dynamic to my 300 on the EM1x, which feels (and is) solid as a rock.

Looks though, can be deceptive.

This (Pardelotte), came from….

…..this. Plenty of light, but a flighty subject, blustery wind and my least steady feeling combo.

I expect great results from my 17 and 45. Both seem perfectly designed for (or the other way around) the Pen. The kit lens just feels like a wind cup up front, but the results I get are consistently good.

Capture One Ascendant

So far, and I feel with little likelihood of changing at this stage, Capture 1 with ON1 No Noise as a very high ISO support element are my work flow foundations.

The other contestants in my “Love Island” of processing choices fell away for a variety of reasons;

Lightroom is just not good enough at the base level. Micro four thirds images can suffer from relatively more noise and LR’s “gritty” base processing only makes things worse. I feel it is a shame that so many reviews of M43 are done using Adobe processing, because it does the format no favours. To put this into perspective, I processed all my images up to last Christmas using Adobe and managed well enough (I still prefer the colours when all is going well), but avoided ISO 3200 or higher and sometimes could only resort to mono for a workable mage.

DXO was good, with possibly the best base image processing of all, but the high ISO work was sloooow and the overall workflow was not to my liking for high volume work. I dabbled with the idea of the “quick fix” version for pre-processing and stick with LR for further post, but again, the core image processing is not that much different to C1, with ON1 processing high ISO files much quicker.

ON1 RAW 2021 is not up to standard. The workflow is potentially ideal, but processing is a pain with a small operating panel, less than premium results (compared directly to C1) and the noise reduction is poor, unless you send the files into No Noise, which I already do from C1. The files are a little better than LR, so if it was a LR vs ON1 thing, then I would go with the cheaper and slightly better option, ON1 RAW. I have the 2022 version, but it does not at this stage to be any better (more work to be done).

These are the options so far, but I am keeping an open mind. If things change with some of the others, especially the work flow, I would possibly add them in or switch, but at this point, right now, C1 and just works and works well.

C1 has the ability to sharpen the slightly out of focus (which fell slightly backward of the desired point here), can add natural punch and three dimensionality and rarely does it look over done if you are careful. I also appreciate the comprehensive lens corrections, which may not be as good as DXO’s (not sure), but are a lot better than the LR ones, that don’t exist(in my dated version anyway (ironically the reason I switch to C1 in the first place).

A New Process To My Processing?

Uncharacteristically, I responded to one of those “limited time” offers in my emails recently. Not sure what triggered my curiosity, but the company responsible (ON1 software) have impressed lately with their ON1 No Noise, so maybe that was the catalyst?

The deal was for ON1 Raw 2021 at a reduced rate, until the pending 2022 version is released. It was a steal (about 1 1/2 cups of coffee a month-C1 is about 6x that) so I jumped at the rental version.

The hope was to find a single programme that can do my work and personal images to a high level and quickly.

I have that to some extend now.

Capture 1 and ON1 No Noise work well and quickly enough (although NN does not link from C1 on my older desk top), but there are a few considerations worth exploring;

• C1 is expensive. Rental is more than any two other programmes combined and purchase is on the steep end.

• C1 has too much of some things I do not want (cataloging etc) and not as much of some of the things that I would like (easy pro level preset layers and filters)

• The interface is comprehensive and flexible but bland and (when I am fatigued) the many windows are very dense and too much alike. Some colour coding would be nice.

• C1 needs No Noise for the “pointy end” of high ISO control (3200-6400+), which is a reasonably painless right click away, but can be tedious en masse.

• C1 and NN do not work on my old computer (it loaded, but files do not link across).

• Did I mention C1 is expensive?

ONR rental, with a code from a reviewer is less than half my Adobe Cloud’s and the programme looks to have everything I need, I just need to work out if it is in a workable form and up to the quality I want. I have the 2021 version, that does not yet have No Noise integrated (but I have it separately). The 2022 version that is pending will have NN and some other features integrated so it is too soon to commit one way or the other.

I hope also that the things ONR seems to do well, presets and portrait features are refined in the next version.

First impressions are;

• Everything I may need is at hand, but the options are deep and the interface takes a little getting used to.

• The first level of controls (the quick option) look to be solid enough. The base file is not as good, by almost as much as the Lightroom difference, but that is the 2021 not the 2022 version.

• The import/export system is ideal, reading straight from the parent folder, then exporting as needed. I keep nothing in my catalogue (for work everything is either in a submitted folder in Dropbox or filed away on a separate hard drive), so this looks cleaner than running a catalogue, just to keep it empty.

• My continuing issues with Dropbox, may be replaced by the free 200gb storage that comes with the subscription. I have to look into this better, but free storage is good and it offers a compressed ON RAW file format that seems to hold an enormous amount.

• The base processing is good, maybe a little under C1 and DXO, but better than Adobe and with the 2022 version, it may even be better.

• It is quick enough, which some reviewers said was a potential issue.

• The tutorial videos are good (but they are needed).

• C1 files look better on screen and process easily, but on closer examination the ON files look as good, just different.

• It feels more like I have a bit of Photoshop power at hand than C1 offers. Never a PS user, some would be handy in a less dense form than PS.

Things I may miss from C1* are the amazing De-haze slider (ON1 seems to have a better contrast slider, but the haze slider is doing more of the Clarity slider’s job in C1/LR, one I use a lot less) and the easy layer brush tool (again ON1 seems to offer something possibly stronger and more versatile, I just don’t know yet if it is added complication for little real benefit). One option I am not really interested in is running both. Defeats the purpose. C1 > NN works well enough. Adding ONR to that dynamic is pointless. If not I will still be dumping Adobe though, so at half the rental price it is still possibly worth having as an option on the older computer.

*Always the same issue. I miss Adobe colour, the direct blue channel control and the levelling feature, but I adapted to C1. The reality is, like cars, each has things it does well and less well. Give and take with a dose of adapt or die.

How Long Is Too Long?

Had a little spring fun with my 300 and 1.4x TC this morning.

840mm equivalent. Powerful weapon, but surprisingly easy to use.

An uncropped file taken hand held, and sitting in the open, of a breed of bird that does not tend to sit around.

This is a crop from the file after a quick in-out with No Noise. NN was not strictly necessary with an ISO 800 file, but the shadow area was a little under (a tiny bit noisy), so the very slightly cleaner file is pretty impressive, although I slightly over sharpened it (an ON1 thing with me).

Even with the limiter set there was a clear drop off in focus speed (EM1 mk2 with latest firmware, lens not), but not accuracy.

Not even close to minimum focus distance (1.4m), this shot shows the power of a lens this long at about 3m.

Talk about lazy ass photography. Taken from the same spot in a different direction at about 4-5m, again not cropped. This one was No Noise’d also as it was little under exposed.

Same again same tree a little lower than the bee. Bokeh is a little twitchy, common with high res Olympus tele’s, but still plenty sharp, in a pleasant way.

All the images above were processed with C1 and in some cases ON1 No Noise, just to see and in each case I compared the image to an ON1 RAW 2021 version that did not compare well (both less sharp and noisier, but possibly still better than LR). I am going to wait and see how the 2022 version goes, considering the obvious benefit of ON1 No Noise, but so far C1 is still the one to beat because the base image is just better.

More Black and White Resolve

It keeps calling and discussing with my wife have steeled my resolve.

Black and white is the polar opposite of my work processes, so hopefully it will re-kindle my creative side.

It is different in every tangible way and really, it needs to be;

• Subject matter. Criteria will change and subject relevance also.

• Processes. This includes gear, chosen specifically to be different. Software will be the key.

• Pre-visualisation. It is different and will need a different creative outlook.

• Expectations. My own only, no boss, no mainstream destination, no specific requirements.

• Audience. Unknown and largely irrelevant. Me shooting for me.

• Obstacles. Making a subject mono relevant, without colour or context to support it.

• Advantages. No colour to fight with only tones and textures.

• Promise. The difference mattering more creatively and the growth resulting from it.

• Relevance. As above, mono is timeless and largely free of the need for gross technical power.

Being different is of course not enough, it has need to be, all on its own and of late it has. It may be spring, it may me missing travel, or a little of both, but I feel inspired to shoot for me. That has been missing for a while.

Possibly the main difference is a lack of any distractions. I get my fill of colour, warts and all, all day every day. Something that always provided an insurmountable creative tension previously is now in chalk and cheese contrast.

In colour, images like this tend to just blend together for me. They are, if anything too easy, relying on the colours inherent to their nature, which is often the attention grabber that got it taken, but reducing their overall impact. If they “take” in mono, they are all the more powerful. This image could have been taken in 1930 on a large format film camera, in the 50’s on medium format in the 90’s in 35mm or yesterday on the Pen F, but was actually taken with a IDs mk2 Canon, a camera that was already old at the time of taking the image (about ten years ago). Images from this camera still hold up in colour, but are showing their age a little like a built in time stamp. Mono does not care about the technical elements, only how you use them.

Some more favourites below, all hopefully highlighting the timelessness of mono (mixed cameras and lenses, taken over the last ten plus years).

Another Good Combo

My last post like this (sorry the one before, got out of sequence), talked about a very affordable, but powerful lens, flash combination and was pretty camera irrelevant.

This one is one f those rare times when you spend a lot, you take a punt on something that has a lot to live up to and it does. It really does.

The EM1x and 300 f4 (with optional 1.4 tc) is, I feel the best value, genuine true pro combination available. For about $4500 au, you get a camera that has performance and specs similar to a 1Dx and 600 f4 Canon (about $20,000au +).

For real?

Performance in real terms is comparable.

The lens is luxuriously sharp, mature and gentle with it, with that top end contrasty punch. Files are eminently crop-able and stable, especially in strong light. The files love being pushed, but rarely need it.

Plenty of reach for large field sports.

The camera produces excellent 20mp files, matching the 1Dx or D5 pixel for pixel, with the only real differences being depth of field rendering and maximum high ISO performance. Putting these in perspective, yes the Canon and Nikon can out perform the Olympus at higher ISO settings, but at 3-4 times the price (before lens), the gamins are not world changing.

The level of detail this lens is capable of, makes it feel more like a long macro rather than a long brute.

Lens for lens, the Olympus can double the full frame lenses for reach at the same F stop meaning otherwise crazy glass is reasonably achievable. A $2500 dollar lens doing what you need to spend $12,000 on from the big guys. Examples in FF equivalents are a 150 f1.8 for $900 au and an 80-300 F2.8 for $1500. The 300 is a premium bit of glass, made all the more so, by its cropping advantage.

Even fine detail can be cropped into as needed.

Anywho, the above combination is incredibly powerful. A hand holdable 600mm with small but substantial form factor, great close focus, razor sharp at micro detail with incredibly fast, AI focussing and shooting, not to mention spot on focus and exposure accuracy thanks to being on a mirrorless.

Taken within days of getting the lens and the EM1x, shot in jpeg (Lightroom update issues), but still acceptable.

I find myself expecting results I would not have dreamt of previously.

Good Combo Number Three

Another example of a great lens and camera combo is the 75 f1.8 and an EM1.

Which EM1? Does not really matter. The benefit of an EM1 with this lens is it is really fast, accurate and smooth to focus. My 75 has been a little twitchy on most of my older or lesser cameras. Almost perfect performance is very occasionally disappointing with mild hunting or locking onto an out of focus point and refusing to shift. Very occasional, but not ignorable. On an EM1, performance is faultless.

The advantage of focus accuracy with this lens comes from its wide open performance. At f1.8 it is basically as sharpas a lens needs to be, but this is wasted of course if you have to trust to luck focussing wise.

A quick grab shot of a musician I stumbled across at the school auditorium.

EM1 mk2 ISO 800 with 75mm at f1.8

With a grip-less EM1 the combo is also very small and comfortable, considering its relative strength.

A Good Combo

When you use a tool or group of tools for your living, winning combinations tend to be golden.

My go to lately for low light, flash based (or not), candid shooting in a fluid environment, is the 17mm f1.8 (at f1.8-2.8), paired sometimes with a bounced Godox 860V flash on an EM1 mk2, used in touch screen shooting mode.

This gives me a fast, accurate, adaptable and powerful weapon to grab movement, fight poor light and tricky environments.

I first noticed this at the last wedding I shot, especially on the dance floor and it gets reinforced time and again in similar circumstances

Touch focus is a massive benefit when the action may occur anywhere in the screen area. It almost never misses and is effectively instant (on any current Olympus anyway). This is the only focussing system that comes close to manual focus for freedom of composition, but is so very fast. The other advantage is shooting from the screen when flipped out tends to get me down to a child’s eye level and even when they look at me, they are not looking at the camera.

The 17mm (34mm eq) is wide enough so you never feel cramped, but tight and well corrected enough to be easy to use without fear of distortions and other oddness.

The lens is sharp wide open, better stopped down a little, but it is the long transition Bokeh that really makes this setup work. It is genuinely tough to see where the transition from in to out of focus is, so at f1-8 to 2.8, you have an un-naturally deep seeming area of good focus acceptance.

The Godox, bounced off an uneven 30’ ceiling (!) at the school hall, can pop and pop and pop, especially with the wide aperture and a very usable ISO 800-1600 (thanks C1 and ON1 if needed). I used it today at 1/16 to 1/8th power bounced off said ceiling with a black foamy thing. This gave me a slightly over exposed file full of brightness and devoid of noise. It fired 600 times today in about 60 minutes without even warming up (literally) or running the battery down to half. At the wedding it went for longer.

Warm, colourful and even, shot after shot without issue.

The EM1 is good, but I have had similar success with an EM10 mk2 and even an EM5 mk1, so it seems the camera is the least important element.

No flash needed, but a similar busy environment the 17mm excels at.

Black And White As A Differentiator

I work now as a photographer.

This is great, but comes at some cost.

I am starting to lose myself as the photographer I was, morphing into something else. Something more pragmatic and predictable.

The complete lack of travel opportunities, combined with the processed nature of my work have both conspired to blunt my personal creative “burn”.

Like an episode of House, one where the patient has to be taken off all medicines to allow the real issue to show its face, I have been looking for what really calls to me when I have no other influence.

A surprise to me and to my wife, is black and white is calling.

I think it is the purity of the medium. I have to shoot colour as part and parcel of my job and to be honest, when working solely in colour, it is often more of a chore than a creative benefit. Artistic interpretation only goes so far, so when I do offer a mono version for work I have to back it up with a colour one, fully expecting that only the colour one will be used. Occasionally I am surprised.

In contrast to my work images that need to be on point, even documentary style accurate, I have the other side to think of. I need to pay attention it seems, to the opposite side of the equation, the purely instinctive and artistic side.

This brings me to the elephant in the room, my stalled book on Japan. My natural instinct is to do a full colour coffee table box, but now I am thinking of two books. One as before, the other as a more edgy black and white travel diary, filled with the files that won’t make the main book, but have their own place in the story.

Mono has the ability to promote an image up the artistic chain..

So, black and white.

The plan is to set up the Pen F, my only top tier camera not used for work as my personal camera. It has several draws here.

The sensor is different to the EM1’s, less noise taming, but crisper and grittier, ideal for mono.

The single shot AF is great, but poor for tracking, so for work it is no more reliable than an old EM5. It is also well suited to manual focus, especially with the forgiving 17mm, so again, a point of functional difference.

It also has the best jpeg settings for mono. So good in fact, many use them as is, but I will set them as a suggestion, both in the view finder and for a guide in post. Although the cameras jpeg lean is towards a soft S-Curve Tri-X tonal palette, a film I championed back in the day, my own tastes have drifted more towards a “hotter” FP4 film look (crisper blacks and whites), likely thanks to digital freedoms, so having both to draw from is creatively responsible.

The camera also has a dynamic, both in handling and cosmetically, that helps separate it from my work cameras, allowing me to think differently the instant I pick it up. The reality is, this camera is as neglected as my whole creative side, because it is just not a practical for a regular working environment. It is really the poster child of what is missing, so it is fitting that it be used as the catalyst of future growth in that area.

It is also relatively new (well, hardly used), so a long term relationship with it is possible. Beautifully built, but not “work hardy”, care must be taken with it. Considered care, just like the mindset of the image making it will be used for.

For lenses, I will turn to the ones that get neglected for work, and the ones that offer the most consistency and predictable character, my primes. The 17/45 combo with 25/75 as options.

We will see.

The $200 Dollar Spider

Well, thats something you don’t see every day.

Scared the Cr%@$ out of me, but he (assumed by the size of the abdomen) is on the inside. He seems to happily living between the rear eye piece and magnification prism. If I adjust the prism, he reacts and changes size.

I always knew Olympus cameras had a special sauce, but I did not realise it was Internal engineering support!

My guy is a little lost. My fear is he will wander off, language barriers aside, he has no visa, is not COVID tested and has no idea where he is, not to mention the mess he would make of the local eco system.

Seriously though, how do you explain an image or some footage was ruined by internal saboteurs!

Googling EM1 mk2 break down has produced nothing and the housing seems impervious to my meddling.

What to do?

Call the embassy?

I will sit it under a plastic box with the battery door and front cap off and hope that he wanders off on his own (the box will contain him so I know). My hope is he is a jumping spider (looks like), so wandering comes naturally. If not I will have to deal with possible webs and other issues. Not much room in there.

Many years ago, I had a Canon F1 with “shutter bugs”, on the finder (small mites). This was as a result of vegetable based adhesive or lubricant used at the time spawning them in humid weather, but in a modern camera I doubt there is much to eat.

If not, then I guess the $200 disassembly bill will become a reality.

ed. Gone, don’t know where and don’t care.

Bits And Pieces

Some quick little things.

The little Zoom H1n mic, has so far gotten me out of trouble twice. Running it separately, it has recorded sound for main and B roll footage, that replaces the main footage sound I did not manage to get! Still getting my act together here, I had some issues with pressing the shutter button and stopping, not starting recording (already was, didn’t see it). Sound is good enough to fool many.

At the school singing comps, the H1n managed to be the only continuously recorded sound of the whole event. Live streaming failed to be consistent, no other sound was recorded and my camera mics/Rode shotgun were well out of comfortable range. The H1n on a little stand up front handled it all. The limiter in particular is very efficient. Apparently the recorder is best used higher than “5.5” on the dial to avoid increased floor noise and the limiter is very good at natural clipping control (thanks Julian Kraus).

I got the Neewer CM-14 today ($24au) and I swear, the thing is better to my ear than the Rode Videomic mini (3 times the price). It seems to have more resonance, crisper high end, less handling noise and a cleaner sound floor, where the Rode is a decent mid range mic (both plugged into my H1n). If the two had a love child (one can only hope*), it would have the perfect range. It also came with several accessories and fits the Rode ones as needed.

The Neewer picks up a little more peripheral sound than the Rode, making the Rode better as a longer range, directional shotgun mic and the Neewer a better boom or interview mic, especially if I place it between two people or a small group.

The Neewer’s only short coming, the semi soft shock bracket, is eliminated by the cheap Smallrig boom bracket, which the Neewer mic is ideally long and symmetrical enough to fit in. The Neewer seemed less handling sensitive when I tested them together (Neewer best>Rode>H1n), so maybe that bracket is ok.

Every decent mic has it’s uses. The Rode would be better for a woman’s voice, avoiding too much high end and unnatural resonance, where the Neewer sounds great with a male voice. Neither is objectively “right”, although the Neewer impresses most, especially for the price. The H1n is in a different class, with different strengths. I feel now that I have several options available, which is cool. Ironically, If I had bought the Movo as intended, I would have two deeper sounding mics, which would be less versatile.

The whole rig. The Rode goes in the day bag, the Neewer in the full kit as the boom/backup option to the H1n. There are 1, 3 and 10ft cables, spare AAA Eneloop batteries for the H1n and various other bits. The dead cats are segregated to avoid shedding (breeding?). If needed the Smallrig bracket (above) comes along attached to a small boom pole.

Using the AEL flip switch function three on the EM1’s (thanks Robin Wong) to toggle between video and stills is brilliant. First day I found out about it, I adapted immediately and it made life so much easier.

Finding out I should only be using mechanical shutter for higher ISO shooting to reduce noise and get rid of the green caste is also a revelation. I had put it down to the funky light at the respective venues, but apparently it is part of the electronic shutter process. Again thanks, Robin Wong. ed. I do not see this issue with any of the EM1’s.

Tried to set up some specific AF patterns on the EM1 and they seem to be really making a difference. A double line would be great, but I went with a 1x5 line (for birds), 4x1 tall line (for things in tree lines or crowds), 3x7 wide rectangle (cars etc) and a 7x3 tall rectangle (football players). Always jealous of the G9’s options and now I have them with Olympus AF.

The Neewer mechanical Gimbal is good. It took a few minutes to balance (mostly involving reducing the weights to match the camera), but the MS-1 setting on the EM1x is probably even better and easier to control.

*although I would like to avoid a tribble like multiplication of the dead cat’s I have accumulated.

Close, But No Cigar

DXO ProLab 4 has been given a shot. A more detailed analysis would be great, but time is pressing.

The advantage of ProLab is the one stop shop programme. This has turned out to be a bit of a double edged sword.

Not as intuitive as C1, but not horrible, it has lots to like and I am in the mood for a change.

The tools are deeper again than C1, each has their own “page” and some are much nicer to work with (the horizon tool is a favourite). Files imported with auto processing are good, almost perfect and the ability to off-set the processing time for Deep Prime or Prime noise reduction until export seems like a time saver, but I am struggling with Dropbox at the moment (very slow and consistently keeps doing things I have asked it not to, like “do not sync” if I miss a short window before it starts to).

Add slow processing to slow uploading and I might as well walk the files over to my employer (about 500m).

The reality is, C1 with a right click out to ON1 as needed, is faster to work with and fits my processes perfectly.

Results were interesting. Deep Prime seems to sometimes create slightly unnatural looking edges and textures, that ON1 either avoids naturally or the slightly less aggressive processing mitigates. Several times, hard pushed files showed nasty, artificial looking shadow to highlight transitions, that ON1 smoothed quite well, with similar noise and sharpness control. ON1 also has more fine controls at the NR level and allows C1 edits to be made before or after noise reduction.

Now here is an odd thing. I have recently switched from long term Lightroom use to C1 and had to adjust my eye to different colour and slider responses, but I feel my tastes have not altered drastically. See how the DXO files (right side) are all darker? Can’t explain that. They were processed at the same time, in the same place with the same screen. Maybe Deep Prime darkens the files?

The top one looks like a win to DP, but that is contrast. The issues show on closer inspection. The DXO file, when viewed way too close, is visibly more contrasty but “crunchier”, especially in the slightly out of focus areas. I can push the ON1 file a little and the files seem to respond, but I don’t see the need. The DXO files seem to need some backing off from even their own auto processing setttings to avoid this.

Shame really, as DXO promised a lot of benefits at the best overall price.

Japan POTD #12

Our favourite platform in Kyoto station, located on ground floor “around the back” on the Arashyama line.

Far from being a daily thing these are still coming.

White Noise

I have new computer.

Breaking with tradition I went lap top, likely due to he time of year (winter), for comfort and practicality.

The Mac book Air has the new M1 chip. This looks able to handle enormous loads, so, using cloud storage and asking less than Scorsese level movie needs, I went with the base model and so far everything is going great.

The double edged sword is, now I can load up all those better versions of the programmes I want.

I started with Da Vinci Resolve for movies, then Classic Lightroom, C1 and trial versions of DXO Pure RAW and Prolab 4. Last, but it turns out, not least, I loaded in ON1 NoNoise.

The last one came from a desire to tackle noise in a work flow friendly way.

Lets re-wind to the beginning.

I shot some night hockey in some of the worst Light I have encountered. ISO 6400+, f2.8, 1/250th with a hideous yellow-green caste kind of stuff. M43 is very capable, but that was stressing everything beyond my comfort level. I switched to my 75mm f1.8 for half the game, just to feel like I had something decent to show.

Not satisfied with the files, I decided to try DXO Pure RAW. This is a pre-processing programme, designed to tackle noise, lens and camera corrections all at once. The Deep Prime NR is amazing, but it took 5 hours to load up and process 600 images. I did it wrong, doing my vetting after processing not before, but that in itself is problematic. I want to select and process using C1, not by eye before and the difference is enough, that images I may normally dismiss can be usable after DXO.

Sure I am missing something obvious, but the time is still an issue.

Several comparisons included a new-comer to the fold. The usual DXO vs Topaz fight now includes ON1 NoNoise. No Noise, did not seem as powerful at first, but I think I missed the subtlety it offered and I failed to do direct comparisons.

What makes it more powerful to me is, it is a right click “edit with..”, a few seconds to render a single image (or proportionately more if you want several), then you can usually just hit done and save. The results are astounding, realistic and controllable (as are those from DXO and Topaz), but they are fast and easily intertwined into my standard processing work flow.

After trying LR and C1 as the test bed, the processed images look similar, but the unprocessed ones are a different story. I had forgotten the “marbling” noise in LR, especially with sharpening and NR applied at higher ISO’s.

A set of ISO 6400 and 12800 (!) test images later and I have a decent, reasonably bullet proof work flow set up. Import to C1, select candidates that need some help (most images at ISO 3200 or more), export to ON1 as TIFFs (tried DNG, but see little difference and the TIFFs seem clean and powerful), save back to C1, usually after little or no change to the auto settings applied, then complete my C1 editing. I then export the original RAW and TIFF into storage and the processed jpeg’s to the client.

Why C1 over LR?

Several reasons, some I needed to be re-acquainted with to really appreciate.

1. Better base file processing, meaning many images do not need any more work and those that do, don’t contrast obviously with the untouched ones. A few ISO 6400 files were good enough straight out of C1, but were clearly too noisy in LR.

2. The file sent to ON1 is better. The end product from both work flows looks similar, but why not start with a better file (surely the ON1 processing is gentler if the parent programme has done a better job). If I was using Pure RAW as a pre processor, I would likely stick with LR as the rental is significantly cheaper and I like the Adobe colours, but the genuine pain of pre-processing is a deal breaker.

3. More choices when exporting to ON1 and saving back to C1. LR only seemed to offer .psd export files, C1 had several options. I settled on TIFF’s for universal convenience and I read somewhere that C1 does not love (Adobe) DNG’s.

4. Much faster work flow generally (for me). The right click>select colour tagging is embedded now, much faster than LR’s left click>scroll>select.

The other concern that always lurks in the mind as much as speed, is cost. ON1 is $77 au at the moment, DXO PR $180au, PL4 $270au.

The first set of images below are ISO 6400 shots taken wide open with my 25mm f1.8.

So, a pleasant enough portrait at normal sizes of Lucy, my reluctant muse.

Clean, sharp, relatively noise free at high enlargement size.

Another, this time at 12800, an ISO I would not even contemplate using previously.

Still sharp, clean and vibrant. The Lightroom file was very mushy and unsharp at this level, but looked ok at normal size (often noise/grain can add to the perception of sharpness at distance, but detract from it closer in).

Another at ISO 12800.

Notice the detail on the nose (point of best focus-the eye is slightly out) and the lack of noise behind. These have not been extensively processed in C1, just exposure and contrast levels, with a little sharpening just to see what would happen. I have found the files are pretty robust, but little is needed to be done.

A little dark (noticing a difference between the screens on my 8 yr old iMac and the new Air).

lightened a little. Another ISO 6400 image. I would be more than happy to print this to the same size as a ISO 400 image. To it’s credit, C1 did an ok job of this one, but the fine detail was a little mushy.

A final one at 6400

Nice to be able to do fine art grade work at higher ISO settings.

DXOPR ISO 6400 file. Lots of colour correction needed and applied (one end of the ground was yellow, the other blue-green and the middle an unholy mix of the two). Something I found problematic with DXO Pure RAW was the lack of fine controls. Some files just looked a little “plasticky”. Still, impressive results, but any better than ON1 or worth the extra time? I also have DXO ProLab 4 to try out. This would be to replace all of the above with possibly one clean work flow, except my old iMac cannot load the current version, so not sure what to do there and the time issue is still real.

Further refining and testing is likely, for example, I am not sure if exposure/contrast adjustments should be done before export or after or if ON1 is best for these (It does more than just cleaning up noise).

So, how useful?

I can now handle ISO 100-1600 files natively in C1, handing off ISO 6400+ (!) files to ON1 as needed. The slightly slower flow is more than made up for by the vastly more pleasant files on offer.

This has the same effective high ISO benefit of shooting full frame and processing with C1, but keeps the benefits of M43 in all other respects. Sure a full frame camera could even go further, but no practical need. I can now use my 300 F4 in poor indoor or outdoor night lighting at ISO 6400+, 1/500th, which tops out my needs. More impressively, I can set auto ISO to 6400 without fear, instead of a very conservative 1600.