The default noise reduction implementation in Adobe Lightroom has dramatically changed with the Adobe Lightroom 3 beta. High ISO rendering in the Lightroom 3 beta now resembles that of Raw Developer or Capture One more than it resembles that of Lightroom 2.

Here's an example using two 100% crops from an ISO 1600, 1/4s, f/5.5, 48mm image I took this weekend with the Panasonic GH1 and kit zoom in low light. On the left is the default LR2 conversion, on the right the default LR3 beta conversion:





The change is, to my eye, a significant improvement. For the first time, I am considering Adobe Lightroom as a first line RAW processing application.

Read More......

Seriously cool iPhone app created by Chase Jarvis:

Read More......

by Mayank Bhatnagar

As a graphic designer, I often design for organizations including non-governmental organizations working in the development sector and frequently receive images from clients for use in communication material as varied as brochures, websites, flyers, annual reports, newsletters, fact sheets and technical documents. I am fond of the imagery the development sector uses and often find it more interesting and natural than the slick, perfect and utopian imagery used by the marketing (fast moving consumer goods) and now information technology sectors.

In the past couple of years, for dozens of design assignments undertaken for development sector clients, I have rarely received 'technically perfect' images shot by professional photographers using high end equipment such as dSLRs. Most images I receive have been shot by clients / volunteers / students using compact cameras. And by compact cameras here I mean the most basic or budget compact cameras running on 'auto' mode. Noise, highlight clipping, channel clipping, colored fringing, blooming of highlights, poor dynamic range, excessive use of flash (and therefore harsh shadows) and color cast are just some of the technical issues I frequently encounter while shortlisting and processing the images for print and/or web publishing.

For a large design assignment, I typically receive an assortment of images (usually about two dozen or more) which are then categorized to match with text / report chapters / sections. Unless the technical quality of a particular image is unacceptable, I am forced to make do with what I have and each relevant image is then optimized for print. Thanks to powerful image processing software, each selected image usually goes through the following process:
- Resizing (usually downsizing), size of technically bad or blurred but important photos is usually reduced greatly, sometimes as small as 2x1 inches, to make them useable and hide some of the flaws. I prefer to convert images to 240 ppi resolution for print purposes.
- Noise reduction (usually applied to full-size images which are later downsized).
- Shadow and highlight recovery (using shadow-highlight sliders in Photoshop), adjustment of levels. Sometimes HDR techniques are used to process different parts of the image separately.
- Correction of color cast.
- Correction of horizontal plane, also barrel distortion and perspective in some cases.
- Correction of skin tones (often flashed faces come out reddish and are not easy to correct)
- Conversion to CMYK (for 4 color printing) or to Greyscale for one or two color printing.
Usually cropping decisions are taken at the page markup stage where I can see the image-text relationship accurately and crop images accordingly.

Images are almost always received as a part of the brief and for most development sector design assignments (with tight budgets), buying stock imagery or getting a professional shoot done is not an option. I think most reasonable :-) graphic designers learn to work under constraints and make do with what they are given.

As someone also doing serious and fine art photography with compacts for the past couple of years, this is where I fall into a dilemma. While on one hand I strive to capture technically sound images and am always on the lookout for the next compact that would raise the bar on my images, on the other hand as a designer I make do with images that I would reject outright for technical flaws if taken by me.  Images used in important publications, which may be read and used by top national and international organizations, governmental agencies, funding agencies, think tanks and the like, taken with automatic point-and-shoot cameras I would not even look at! Thus I wonder if it is the image (the subject, the moment, the interrelationship of elements, the light, etc.) and the purpose for which it was taken that really matters and that the rest is essentially 'technical' and 'secondary', the bit photographers tend to worry too much about these days! Also, as someone who worked extensively with film / transparency scans uptill 3-4 years back, it feels great to receive compact digital camera images because they are far easier to process than traditional (drum or flatbed) scans and thankfully file sizes are much lighter!

One change I have noticed over the past couple of years with regard to imagery supplied by clients (for use in communication design) is that the 'number' of images coming in has increased dramatically and organizations that could earlier not afford expensive imagery or visual documentation of their projects now have enough 'workable' photos in their database. For this, a lot of credit should probably go to the recent boom in affordable, pocketable and easy-to-use compact cameras, which in my humble opinion, are making a big difference for organizations involved in development work and perhaps indirectly in the lives of people for whom they are working.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Mayank Bhatnagar is a Jaipur and New Delhi (India) based graphic designer, illustrator and photographer.

Read More......

Serious Compacts contributer Wouter Brandsma asks:

How come so many photographers are so obsessed with the newest camera, the latest feature? Why does it matter what camera was used for a photograph?

Read Wouter's thoughts and join the conversation at Wouter Brandsma Photography.

Read More......

Important note: An astute reader pointed out a significant mistake in the sample files used in this comparison. The S90 was shot at f/2.8, while the G1 and GH1 were at f/2. This means that the S90 sensor was given a stop less light, which invalidates the conclusions. I'll have a better, more controlled comparison up soon. Apologies for the error!

There has been quite a bit of hype about the Canon S90 high ISO noise performance. Some say it is right there with Micro Four Thirds in noise performance. Can it be true?

Reader's of this blog know that it is possible for any camera to have amazing noise performance. Simply pile on noise reduction, and noise will be very low. The real issue is how the detail and noise vary together at a particular shutter speed, f-stop, and ambient light level.

The S90 sensor is less than one fourth the size of a standard Four Thirds sensor as shown to scale below:

As such, we would expect a roughly two stop difference in high ISO detail versus noise between these two systems, similar to the two stop difference seen between Micro Four Thirds and 35mm full frame.

Before considering the Canon file, let's see how the Panasonic G1 and GH1 files differ. It is often said that the GH1 has significantly better noise performance than the G1. Some have put the difference at as much as a stop. Meanwhile, it is said that the GH1 suffers from shadow banding at high ISO, whereas the G1 and GF1 do not. I believe that most of the difference between the GH1 and G1 (and presumably GF1) comes down to the on-chip noise reduction.

There is no question that GH1 high ISO RAWs are "cooked", whereas G1 (and GF1 most likely) RAWs seem to be raw. As has been well documented on the DPReview forums, setting the GH1 film mode to -2 NR at ISO 1600 actually cooks more NR into the RAW file than does setting the film mode to +2 NR. I'm guessing that this on-chip NR makes the banding much more apparent, and that it actually is present but simply obscured by noise in the G1 and GF1 files.

In this example, I set the GH1 and Lumix 20 to ISO 1600, +2 NR (+2 is the least NR one can apply to GH1 high ISO RAW), 1/50s, f/2, and took a snap of my son Philip. The RAW file was processed in Iridient Software's Raw Developer, which adds no further NR or sharpening unless those settings are enabled. For the purposes of this comparison, those settings were disabled. Here's the resulting image (Click for larger version):


Now a snap with the same lens, same settings, same workflow, and G1 substituted for GH1 (bit of fooling with the white balance and black point in Raw Developer to get the picture looking more similar) (Click for larger version):


Here's a 100% crop from the GH1 shot:



Now the G1 crop:



If you look at the full-res version, you'll see banding in the GH1 file.

If you look carefully at the G1 full-res version, there's a bit of banding obscured by noise.

For comparison, I took the same snap with the Canon S90, also at ISO 1600, f/2 and 1/50s. I had to push the resulting RAW file in Digital Photo Professional (Canon's RAW processing app) to get it to the same apparent exposure as the Panasonic files. Like Iridient's Raw Developer, Canon's DPP seems to be an "honest" RAW converter in that it is possible to completely disable NR and sharpening. Here's the resulting resized image (Click for larger version):


The S90 crop:



The full-res S90 image is here.

Click here to download the RAW files used in this comparison.

Unlike the usual comparisons posted on this blog, these were done handheld without a tripod. I took enough snaps with each camera to know that handshake was not a significant factor in the selected representative images.

Read More......

It's now a familiar story: Very fast lens, very small package.  Where's the catch?

Here you go:

Read More......

I admit to having a slight bias against Canon. Maybe it's the New Yorker in me, but I tend to root for the underdog. Despite this slight bias, I've purchased a lot of Canon cameras. More than any other brand. Thing is, Canon knows how to build a serious compact.

I'm impressed with the S90 build quality:

- Battery/SD door is firm and heavy duty
- Dial around lens has a good, smooth resistance with satisfying clicks at each adjustment
- Body is metal with no creaking or play
- Parts are tapered and well fitted without gaps, similar to an Apple laptop
- Flash extends and retracts without any sense of wobble
- Mode dial has the right amount of resistance and feels sturdy
- Buttons are all firm with good action
- On/off button is nicely recessed unlike *many* other compacts
- Good crisp feel, travel, and responsiveness to the shutter release
- Rear dial lacks resistance, but that has not been problematic in any way


Two small issues:

- The dial around the lens is plastic and has a touch of play.
- The LCD on my brand new S90 had a couple extremely fine/subtle scratches on it straight out of the box. This makes me wonder whether it scratches easily. Time will tell!


Did I mention that this camera is very compact?  Here it is next to a GRD III.  Please excuse the poor picture quality.

Read More......

The new Canon Powershot S90 IS is beginning to show up in stock in some retailers. I was able to pick one up at Best Buy today. Apparently it was the only S90 left in any of the Boston area Best Buy locations. Preliminary impressions coming soon!

The S90 is currently listed as "In Stock" at Butterfly Photo via Amazon, whereas most other retailers are still showing status as "expecting delivery from Manufacturer..."

Link: Canon S90 at Butterfly Photo via Amazon

Read More......

I've gotten some emails expressing confusion regarding the difference between the multi-aspect ratio Four Thirds sensor in the Panasonic GH1 and the standard Four Thirds sensor found in all other Micro Four Thirds cameras. This illustration ought to clear it up.

On the left (first column), you can see the relative sizes of the GH multi-aspect ratio sensor (top) and the smaller standard Four Thirds sensor (bottom), each represented by white boxes.

In the second column, one can see that the portion of the GH1 sensor used for 4:3 aspect ratio (top) is the same size as the entire standard Four Thirds sensor (bottom). Thus the image captured will be the same when in 4:3 mode, regardless of whether one uses a standard Four Thirds or multi-aspect ratio sensor camera.

In the third and fourth columns, 3:2 and 16:9 respectively, the situation changes. Here, the GH1 uses the larger sensor to keep the lens diagonal angle of view unchanged regardless of aspect-ratio. In contrast, the standard Four Thirds sensor simply crops out a portion of the 4:3 capture to make the 3:2 or 16:9 image. As a result, the diagonal angle of view is less wide, and the megapixel count drops to a greater extent.

Read More......

There seems to be some confusion about the basic differences amongst the four currently available Micro Four Thirds cameras. I've tried to summarize the major points in the table below. Unique strengths and weaknesses are highlighted.

	Panasonic G1	Olympus E-P1	Panasonic GH1	Panasonic GF1
In-body image stabilization	No	Yes	No	No
Multi-aspect ratio sensor	No	No	Yes	No
Smallest size	No	Yes	No	Yes
Integrated EVF (best in class)	Yes	No	Yes	No
Available kit including OVF	No	Yes	No	No
Available add-on EVF	Not applicable	No	Not applicable	Yes
Autofocus with all standard 4/3 lenses via adapter	No	Yes	No	No
Faster autofocus	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Articulated LCD	Yes	No	Yes	No
On-board flash	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
High res LCD	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Video	No	720p Stereo	1080i Stereo	720p Mono
Kit zoom comments	-14-45mm -Larger than Olympus -Stabilized	-14-42mm -Collapsible (small) -Susceptible to blur at medium shutter speeds per Imaging-Resource	-14-140mm -Video optimized -Stabilized	-14-45mm -Larger than Olympus -Stabilized
Kit prime comments	Not available	17mm f/2.8 kit comes with OVF	Not available	20mm f/1.7 lens has strong early reviews
Anti-aliasing filter	Slightly weaker (more aliasing, better resolution)	Slightly stronger (less aliasing, lower resolution)	Slightly weaker (more aliasing, better resolution)	Slightly weaker (more aliasing, better resolution)
Control dials	One	Two	One	One
Art filters	No	Yes	No	No
Price	14-45 kit: $714	-14-42 kit: $800 -17mm kit: $900 (includes OVF)	14-140 kit: $1500	-14-45 kit: $900 -20mm kit: $900

Read More......