No rant, just photos
Some shots from a few days ago, taken on a late afternoon walk in the woods nearby my house. All taken using the Olympus E-P3 and either the 45mm f/1.8 or 12mm f/2.0 lenses. Minimal processing, basically default Aperture conversions. And minimal technique too - noise, blur, whatever.
m.zuiko 45mm f/1.8
m.zuiko 45mm f/1.8
m.zuiko 12mm f/2.0
m.zuiko 12mm f/2.0
m.zuiko 12mm f/2.0
m.zuiko 45mm f/1.8
UPDATE: I went a bit overboard with this post, and I’m sorry as I sort of said here. However, once something’s bolted on the internet there’s little point in closing the gate, so I’ll leave this here. However, I have cut a few bits which went too far. Please note - nobody asked me to do this.
A couple of days ago I posted a review of the e-magazines “Photographer’s i” and “Photograph”. I now regret this - or rather, I regret that I implied that “Photograph” was in the same space as “Photographer’s i”. It isn’t. David duChemin, and his publishing company, Craft & Vision, have an unblemished reputation for integrity and quality. Ilex Press Ltd, the outfit behind “Photographer’s i”, have dropped the ball here though.
Let me explain:
Up until Issue 3, Photographer’s i (bit of a stupid name, by the way), was doing great. It featured high quality content, a range of interesting and sometimes renowned contributors, and great photography. Then Issue 4 went missing in action. The release schedule was supposed to be bi-monthly - which seemed very ambitious, but nobody forced it on them. Now Issue 4 has turned up. Let’s see what it’s got:
What’s gone:
The is a weak excuse that this is actually A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PUBLICATION, called, wait for it, “Photographer’s i Plus”, although this is not mentioned on their website, or in the App Store, or indeed anywhere in the Issue except the introduction by Who-The-Hell-Is Adam Juniper.
Clearly, “Photographer’s i” got tangled up in it’s own ambition, and/or Michael Freeman got bored / fell out with the publisher, or whatever, but basically imploded. And what we’re seeing now is a “contractual obligation album” to try to placate irate subscribers.
off the e-shelf
WARNING: since I wrote this post, Photographer’s i Issue 4 has been published, and it is quite different Issue 1 to 3. My conclusions on this publication here do not apply any more. See my (updated) rant on the matter for further details.
I’m an avid reader of photography magazines. These days I’ve got over the repetitive, shallow print titles that seem to be little more than dressed up advertising wrapped in either ghastly overblown epic landscapes or the perennial soft porn. I’m also increasingly getting bored with gear, and more and more realising how meaningless in real terms the vast majority of gear review sites are. But what I do still enjoy is reading about photography and photographers.
The publishing world has been turned on its head first by the internet, and then by the iPad and its copycats. A direct-to-consumer business model has emerged which allows viable publications to be run free, or almost free, of advertising or the more insidious product placement. Two particularly nice examples of this are “Photographer’s i”, edited by Michael Freeman, and “Photograph”, edited by David duChemin. I’ve subscribed to both.
Photographer’s i, which has reached Issue 3, is perhaps the most ambitious. Edited by the renowned author-photographer Michael Freeman, it uses a fully interactive format and is distributed as an iPad Bookshelf app through Apple’s App Store. The format allows for embedded video, for interactive tutorials, and for variable formatting. It is quite similar in approach to National Geographic’s electronic edition. It features an eclectic and impressive range of contributors, and each issue is pretty weighty. Production standards are immaculate. It does cover some technical topics, but completely avoids gear reviews. But mostly it’s about photography, in all shapes and sizes. It’s available by subscription, at £2.99 for 2 months, or by issue at £3.99. There are also free samplers. Issue 4, however, seems to be rather overdue, and I’m pretty sure my subscription auto-renewed already. There are several complaints about this on the App Store. I suspect it is due at least in part to Apple’s restrictive pricing models. Another downside, for some, is that so far it’s iPad only. But if you’ve got an iPad, and you’re into intelligent writing on photography, then it’s a no-brainer.
Photograph is brand new, with Issue 1 just out. Published through Canadian world & humanitarin photographer David duChemin’s Craft & Vision, this is a straightforward PDF title, so it’s more universally accessible. Going by Issue 1, and by the general quality of Craft & Vision titles, Photograph has little to envy Photographer’s i for. The list of authors is equally impressive - Photographer’s i may have Steve McCurry, but Photograph has Art Wolfe. Photograph also gives more space to, well, photographs, with generous portfolios from a series of photographers, ending with an interview. A classic, but effective, format. And although they’re at different points in their careers, duChemin is just as eloquent and readable as Freeman. Photograph also covers a wide range of styles and downplays gear - although, again, there is some technical content. Based on Issue 1, the balance is fine. Photograph Issue 1 costs $8. A subscription to 4 issues will cost $24 - and you can try Issue 1, then pay an extra $16 to subscribe if you like it. A pretty fair deal.
Both titles are well worth your money and your time. Of course, if you haven’t got an iPad, then Photographers i is out of bounds, which is a shame. Hopefully they will find a way to reach a broader market (although I’m sure the iPad market alone is perfectly viable). Long term, I do wonder if the less overhead-intensive production approach of Photograph might give it more staying power. I’m afraid that Photographer’s i may have bitten off more than it can chew. But the key, in both cases, will be maintaining the quality of content, and avoid repetitiveness. Time will tell, but so far they’re both doing a great job.
Boost is your enemy
I’ve recently gone through another of my periodic obsessions with testing RAW converters. My default choice remains Apple Aperture, partly because I’m committed it’s excellent organisation and management tools. However, there is no reason why I cannot use Aperture to manage my images while carrying out the RAW conversion in another application. Indeed, as I wrote a few weeks ago, I’ve recently started using Photo Ninja. I’ve also been using Iridient RAW Developer for many years, and indeed I’ve just paid what I think is the first ever upgrade fee they’ve requested. The new arrival of Capture One Pro 7 and DXO Optics Pro 8 also tempted me to give them a spin. Capture One was my first choice ages ago, when they were at version 3. They screwed up badly with version 4 and lost me - first to Iridient, then to Lightroom 1. And when, with version 2, Aperture became a realistic choice, I switched from Lightroom and I’ve stayed there ever since.
The thing is, whatever the interwebs and pundits proclaim, there isn’t really a best RAW converter (although there are some appalling products best not mentioned). They’re just different, a bit like film stocks were different. Even with all settings on zero, they give remarkably varying interpretations of white balance, colour and tone. And in fact it isn’t always that easy - or even possible - to get a basic, standard gamma conversion. Iridient seems to do it, and Aperture can be convinced to do so if you zero all the sliders in RAW Fine Tuning (especially Boost! Boost is - often - your enemy). It seems that DXO’s “neutral” setting does something reasonable. Photo Ninja really doesn’t do neutral, but that’s fine, it has a very different philosophy. CaptureOne, dunno, got bored trying, and I never touch Lightroom these days, for totally irrational reasons. And then there’s also the manufacturer’s software to consider, which we might assume is a good baseline. In my case, that’s Olympus Viewer, which is far from the worst out there, but I’m still glad I don’t depend on it.
Above is an example of Aperture’s default setting for the Olympus E-5 (right) and a “neutral” setting (left). In my experience the neutral setting is often the better starting point, especially when you want to work on shadows and highlights. Aperture’s default can easily blow perfectly good highlights. However the default is - initially - far more flattering and attractive. And sometimes it’s just fine, so long as you’re in control of the choices, not the software.
Here’s a screen shot from Aperture’s browser of a bunch of different interpretations of a RAW file, where I’ve tried, at least some extent, to get similar results, initially driven by Photo Ninja’s interpretation.
From left to right: Aperture, Photo Ninja, Olympus Viewer, Iridient
None of these are essentially good or bad. It all depends on what you’re trying to achieve, what your aesthetic is, and how many comments you’re trying to get on Flickbook. And probably some applications work better for certain cameras than others. But what is interesting is to examine some of the differences in rendering. Photo Ninja, for example does a remarkable job at tonal separation in shadows, and enhancing micro-contrast. DXO, when it’s co-operating, delivers fantastic sharpening. Aperture, remarkably enough, does a great job on noise reduction, an area where it is frequently maligned (actually it seems that what it is good at is not amplifying noise). Iridient can squeeze out ultimate detail, but it needs careful application of its 4 different sharpening algorithms. As for default looks, the scale ranges between Iridient’s subdued approach and Photo Ninja’s “all knobs on 11” blast. Both can be good.
It’s interesting how many people seem to want their RAW converter to replicate the in-camera JPG. Am I the only one who sees a bit of a logic breakdown there ?
But… the really interesting thing is that the more I look at all these different results, the more I learn about how to replicate them in my primary tool, Aperture. There are some things which Aperture is really not top-notch at, in particular sharpening. However, sharpening can be applied using a plug-in, or via Photoshop. Aperture has some truly fantastic tint and colour correction tools, and it’s overall mode-less, photo-centric workflow is, in my opinion, way ahead of anything else on the market. Nobody else comes close.
Perhaps Apple might now react to the deluge of new releases from its competitors. Aperture 3 is now really ancient in Internet Years, and it could do with a few improvements. Better lens correction, much better sharpening, print tools which are actually designed to support how photographers work (setting a fixed output resolution and size, and sharpening at that setting, for example). But really there’s not that much wrong with it. Anyway, we won’t know until an update is released, if ever. I don’t think Apple’s obsessive secrecy is doing it much good in this particular market.
What I do think is important is that you pick an application and really, really learn to make it do what you want. It’s amazing that people will agonise over expensive lenses, massive amounts of megapixels, etc, and then allow some anonymous computer programmer’s idea of a default setting to dictate the look of their photos.