Seeing in the dark - high ISO

Digital cameras are an amazing, and sometimes baffling, thing.

For a while it seemed like more megapixels where the thing to have. If a six megapixel sensor was good, then twelve must be better, right? Pixel density went up, image quality went down. It's just not that easy.

Then there's the sensor size debate. A bigger sensor, one even approaching the magic (and odd) 35mm format, must be better than a smaller sensor. This is true to some degree because the pixel density goes down. That's true now but I'm sure that will change. Pixel densities are starting to creep up there.

Now we're into ISO silliness with lofty numbers like 25,600. I'm not going to take the time to calculate exactly where you could use an ISO like that. In daylight you would need a ridiculously high shutter speed and a ridiculously small aperture. You would need to be in a hell of a dark place, shooting available light, without a tripod, to make this a viable number.

Most digital cameras shoot well between ISO 100 and 200, even cell phone cameras. Most cameras are good at 400, even 800. Above that you're into bragging rights. When you hit ISO's in four digits it gets hard to see what you're aiming at and even harder for the camera to auto-focus.

More of anything is not always better. There's a tipping point. What makes this interesting is that we should know better, or at least those with film experience should. Higher speed films had lower image quality. That's massively over-simplifying the science here, but true. Physics didn't change, just the recording medium. Image quality is what matters.

When I read a camera review I look for image quality up to ISO 800. Above that falls into "that's nice" territory. The majority of my images are for the web, not print. I can lose a little image quality since I'm not making large prints. However, if image quality is of ultimate importance, I'm heading for medium format cameras. It still comes down to resolving power. Not much as changed since film days: bigger film hold details better than smaller film.

The point is there is no one perfect camera for every possible purpose. It's pretty hard to find a bad camera these days. The reviews are very helpful - if you know what they are talking about and it applies to you. There's great images out there taken with not so great cameras.

So, don't get thrown off by all the numbers. Get a camera that's good for you and enjoy.

Adobe upgrades....

Let the cries of agony and cursing begin - information about Creative Suite 6 is out there. For good measure, Lightroom 4 is in beta. Let's not forget that the excellent and overlooked Elements have already been upgraded to Version 10.

Since I have a Mac I can only address this from a Mac perspective. Let me start with Creative Suite. If anyone thinks that there haven't been huge changes in CS from Version 4 and earlier to Version 5.5, they're very wrong. It may just appear that menus have changed and a few minor updates and tweaks have been added - but it's a whole other suite of programs. Version 5x for Mac is Intel only and it's 64bit. That alone ends the memory cap issues of earlier versions. It's a far faster, more efficient workflow across the board.

Personally, I don't have Creative Suite 5.5 - any version - on my home computer. I do at work. Before you go "aha!" let me explain. I don't need the horsepower for my personal work. Sure, I'd like it, much as I'd like a high powered motorcycle, but I don't need it here. I can't justify the expense and I'm a bit of a minimalist when it comes to my own "stuff". At work, it's a whole other issue. We exchange Adobe files and need to remain current.

Over to Lightroom. I always keep current with Lightroom. I'm a photographer. It's my RAW converter and primary editor. Consistently, each version is better than the last. Adobe has absolutely no obligation to add new RAW profiles to old RAW converters. Lightroom upgrades are also not expensive. If you're running an old version of Lightroom on a G5 the problem of not being able to convert new RAW formats is not Adobe's. It's time to upgrade the Mac. In fact, it's long overdue.

Few people realize how powerful the Elements programs are. Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements are the bargains of the Adobe catalog. They're inexpensive, but they're far from lightweight.  keep hoping Adobe adds to the Elements lineup. It's that good and it's what I use at home. You'll need to be on an Intel Mac to use Elements 10.

What this may all come down to is "future-proofing", a ridiculous concept at best. Many people laid out a ton of money early on thinking "this is all I'll ever need!" Maybe so - until you need to change one thing or need one feature. Then the domino effect starts and it all costs more than if you had upgraded all along. This is not an Adobe problem. If you need Adobe to make a living this is the cost of doing business. Factor upgrades into your budget and pricing.

If you wait too long you may fall out of the Adobe upgrade path. You may have already. That means a whole new purchase at full cost. Add up the cost of previous upgrades and you may find that had you stayed current it comes out to about the same cost. It was just spread out.

Adobe is "the" software for graphics professionals. There are alternatives, but none with the polish and precision of Adobe. I've tried them, and they're good, but they wasted my time. Let's not forget that there's a bit of a halo effect by saying "I use Adobe".

I have to ask these questions: If Adobe never upgraded their software and continued to provide free patches and support - how would they survive? If you had this business model, would you?

Computers and tablets...

The computer landscape has changed quite a bit in the last two years. Tablets, like those from Apple and Android have picked up a lot of momentum as their OS's have evolved.

I think two things happened here. The first is desktop OS's are still too wildly complicated for many people and most uses. Not the functionality, the interfaces. themselves. The second thing is that cloud computing moves a lot of the process onto the web.

I'm not saying that the days of the desktop and notebook and full blown OS's are over. I still need a full OS for editing images and web design - so far. I can't see "heavy" processes like audio and video editing, page layout and design, anything that would not tolerate bandwidth caps, latency and wonky connections going all web.

There's still a lot of "computer fear" out there. People buy a new computer with a new OS and are afraid to screw it up. Mac's OS X 10.7, Microsoft's Windows 7, even Ubuntu They barely felt in control before and now there's something all new to deal with. When someone asks "how do you connect a printer?" in this day and age there's something very wrong. Mac's OS X 10.7, Microsoft's Windows 7, even Ubuntu 11, have come a long way - but they're still complex. File/data management is complex and will become even more complex as the amount of data we can store on desktop and notebook computers grows. Correspondingly, desktop and notebook programs are getting more complex because these new computers have the horsepower to allow it. It may not be that anyone asked for these features or will ever need them. They exist because they can.

I think tablets in general are picking up momentum because people want something simpler, more portable, more direct. They had the "aha" moment. They can do a lot of what people would do with a desktop computer without the complexity. How much computer do you need to access and use the web, or send email? Not a lot. More mundane things like word processing and spreadsheets are in the cloud as well.

Before anyone thinks "yeah, but I need a computer to upload my pictures", the answer is not really. This isn't the case with a high-end cellphone. You can add an Eye-Fi card to most cameras and the pictures can upload to Eye-Fi's site or many other popular image hosting sites. The tablet doesn't need to store the images, just view, maybe do a little light editing. Of course, this is not for everyone. Some of us want to do our own post-processing of our RAW images. Adobe has already made a move to the tablet space with apps.

Web authoring has taken a dramatic turn. There are any number of ways to have a web presence these days and they all look pretty good. Weblogs are no longer just "diaries". They can be complete sites with traditional pages. The designs can be quite sophisticated. Then there are the social networks. At most, I use LinkedIn. I guess at some point I'll have to jump into Google+ since I already use their excellent Blogger. At some point I want to experiment with Adobe Muse - if they can make that a usable with a tablet. I'm sure Adobe will work that out.

The point is, the transition is happening. As people get their second or third device it will hit them: Wait a sec, I'm using this tablet more than my desktop and notebook more. A lot of my stuff is in the cloud. So why do I have these big, complicated, computers?

Kodak - thank you...

It's sad to see Kodak struggling right now. Kodak made photography accessible to everyone. They took the "alchemy" out of the equation. If you could get the film loaded and follow a simple set of instructions you were good to go.

I had a Kodak Brownie Holiday in my single digit years. I learned a lot about photography from it. It started with that simple sheet of paper that came with the roll of film. But, I wanted to know why it worked. How did something so simple make images so good? I spent a hell of a lot of time at the library. There's a heck of a lot of science behind that simple Bakelite box.

Simple, single element, meniscus lenses are not great for illuminating and focusing on a flat surface. The Brownie had a curved film plane to match the lens. The aperture and focus point was chosen so that pretty much everything from five feet to infinity would be reasonably sharp. The single shutter speed was set to match the film's sensitivity.  If you were outside, had the sun at your back, stood some five feet away from whatever, pressed the button and wound the film correctly, Kodak did the rest. In a few days you'd have a nice print. It's amazing that it takes so much technology to achieve the same thing these days.

I could go on about the film, paper and chemicals (black and white and color) for another several thousand words. I've used just about everything they've made. Two words sum it up: quality and consistency.

It's not that Kodak stumbled in the digital transition. They made some excellent cameras. I had one. What they didn't make was a "cool" camera, one that made the Internet buzz with excitement. Kodak cameras are the camera people bought because they had a Kodak camera before. Their last (film) Kodak was good so this one (digital) would be more of the same, and it is - to a point. There's no digital equivalent of a Brownie. Kodak did an excellent job making digital cameras easy but they're not Brownie easy. I think that's where they went off the rails. They spent a century plus making film photography approachable and switched tracks with digital. Now the "alchemy" was in your face, with lots of buttons, and on-screens of menus, most of which mean absolutely nothing to the casual snap shooter. Short of setting the date and time many casual photographers never dive into menus. Think of that the next time you grab a snap shot camera. Why would you want anything but the best quality image? Why wouldn't you want the flash to be automatic? Film didn't have scene modes so why does digital? It's all way too complicated.

I realize that I'm suggesting that a digital Brownie would be relevant and a grand idea. Somehow, I think it is. More and more people are using cell phones as their snap shot cameras Not all cell phones, primarily the expensive ones. These cell phones have decent cameras. There's no camera-only equivalent.


I'm not sure what Kodak is going to do next but I hope they don't vanish. Kodak has too much experience and history to not have something to offer the next generation. It's not that they have to compete with every camera out there. They have to do what they do best: make photography simple, accessible and affordable.

A few thoughts about the Panasonic G3

I've had the Panasonic G3 for a few weeks now. I haven't had much time to do much more than "play" with it. I am getting familiar enough with it's strengths and weaknesses so that I'm not stumbling around.

This is a small camera. That may seem like an obvious statement but it's amazingly small for the amount of technology and features it's packing. I had an Olympus E-510 and E-P1 before replacing them both with the Panasonic G3. The G3 handles better than the E-P1 and has the primary features of the E-510. That's a hell of a trick.

The EVF image on the G3 is far bigger than you'd expect from a SLR-like camera. I don't think you could make an OVF appear that big that easily. Yes, I prefer an OVF for clarity and speed, but I'll take an EVF for composition. An OVF can't "gain up" when the light gets low. When I see this EVF boost an image it's a quick visual clue that the ISO is climbing (when it's on automatic).

Yes, Panasonic's tend to drift to warm black as the ISO climbs and the ambient light levels drop. It's an interesting effect and easily adjusted in Lightroom. Every digital camera has it's own "palette of colors".

The kit lens is good, a bit more sensitive to flare than the Olympus kit lens, but good. (It just may be the Olympus cameras were cleaning this up electronically, even in RAW.) I have a nasty habit of shooting towards the sun sometimes. I'm not seeing internal reflections in the images (I did with the Olympus lens) but a general lowering of contrast. Again, it's an easy Lightroom fix. Its not easy to make a lens hood that covers 28mm to 84mm. I'd rather have the "effect" than not. It's a natural effect. I don't want the camera or software cleaning it up for me.

What we all overlook is how far Panasonic has come as a camera brand in a very short time. The first Lumix was in 2001. They had no film cameras. The did have video and (obviously) electronics experience before the first Lumix. But in a tick over a decade Panasonic has built up quite a solid reputation for good cameras. They've taken Micro Four Thirds farther than anyone else, even Olympus. Thinking back, I've probably owned more Panasonic digital cameras than any other brand. They work well. I currently own three and not one of them has me thinking "this camera would be better if..."

What the G3 reminds me of is my old Panasonic FZ8. Even when I bought my first digital SLR, more often than not, I grabbed the FZ8. It had an incredible lens, created great RAW files and it worked well. I considered getting the FZ150 before the G3 came out. The FZ's are that good.

In a few weeks I'll pick up the 45-200 lens. Right now I want to get more familiar with the camera and it's features, not load up on accessories and distractions. Overall, I think the G3 is a hell of a good camera. It stands out from the others (at this price point) with just the right amount of useful features and handling - and a minimum of electronic gimmicks.