For RAW processing of Canon DSLR files, Phase One's Capture One (C1) software is unmatched in my opinion. In particular, using the Etcetera color profiles developed by Magne Nilsen, C1 does the nicest job with color rendering and also seems to do a better job capturing fine detail without excess noise. Unfortunately, C1 does not support all cameras which offer RAW, whereas Adobe's Lightroom (LR) basically does. With the Leica Digilux 2 (D2), I find that ACR 4.0/LR 1.0 does an excellent job. In fact, I keep Photoshop non-updated on one of my Macs for the sole purpose of maintaining the 4.0 version of ACR. LR 1.1 made a mess of my D2 files, and I haven't yet had a chance to try LR 1.2 with them. With the Olympus E-410 and Ricoh GX100, I'm finding that, unlike LR 1.1, LR 1.2 does a nice job with low ISO files. However, for higher ISO files I turn to the buggy C1 beta for reasons mentioned here. If anyone has found a RAW processor for Olympus and Ricoh that can match the low ISO performance of Lightroom and the high ISO performance of C1, I would love to hear about it.

Recently I purchased an Olympus E-410 kit, which is currently the most compact and light DSLR kit on the market. It's a nice solution for the days when the Canon 5D is too large and heavy but I want something more than a compact digital camera. Here they are, side-by-side, with a Zuiko OM 50mm f/1.2 lens on the E-410 and a Vivitar 135mm f/2.3 lens on the 5D:



In most respects, I'm very happy with the E-410. However, high ISO performance has been a bit disappointing. It's not that I expected the E-410, which has a sensor 1/4th the size of a 35mm sensor, to match the 5D in this respect. However, I had hoped that it would fare a bit better than it does. To be fair, a significant portion of my E-410 high ISO woes derive from the fact that I shoot only in RAW format. The default E-410 in-camera JPEGs seem to handle noise pretty well depending on the settings one chooses. However, the results I was getting using Adobe Camera RAW were marginal at ISO 800 and downright poor at ISO 1600. The main problem was blotchy color noise, distributed in coarse patches. I should note that the version of ACR I was using did not officially support the E-410. I was thus happy to learn yesterday that the new version of ACR and Lightroom (same RAW conversion engine in these Adobe products) officially support the E-510, which has the same sensor as the E-410. Therefore, I gave LR 1.2 a try with some high ISO files. As a comparison, I also processed the same files using Phase One's Capture One Version 4 Beta. I should note that the E-410 is not yet supported by C1 v4 Beta. In fact, to get C1 to recognize the files, I had to first convert them to DNG using Lightroom. Nonetheless, the results were interesting, so I will share a representative example here.

This test was conducted as follows:
- The photo was taken at ISO 1600 and underexposed a bit. I did not push the exposure up during RAW processing.
- All RAW conversion settings were at default except as noted
- Both C1 and Lightroom 1.2 noise reduction parameters were set to 67 for color noise and zero for luminance noise
- RAW conversion sharpening settings were at default for both C1 and LR.
- Both C1 and LR were used to export 16-bit TIFF files (Adobe RGB color profile) to PS CS3 for further processing.
- TIFFs were processed using the Noise Ninja plugin for CS3 using auto profile. Noise Ninja settings were at default for both files except that I set the sharpening amount to 60% on the file processed from C1 and twice that for the file processed from LR. This was done to make the apparent level of sharpening/detail more similar between the two images.
- Levels were adjusted identically in both photos to correct for underexposure, and then rough color correction using the PS color balance tool was done on each image.

Obvious issues with this methodology:
- Setting the NR values to the same number in each RAW processing application certainly does not mean that the same amount of NR was being applied in each case. In fact, it was obvious that compared to C1, LR 1.2 is applying considerable luminance NR at the minimum/"zero" setting, though not nearly so much as in LR 1.1.
- Likewise, setting the sharpening values to the same number in each RAW processing application does not mean they are getting the same amount of sharpening.
- E-410 RAW files are not explicitly supported by C1 or LR, though I assume they are supported in LR since LR offically supports the E-510, which has the same sensor.
- Differences in Noise Ninja sharpening settings obviously affect the outcome image quality.
- Color balance adjustments in the end of the process also affected the outcome.

I have experimented with a number of different settings and chose these for this comparison. However, given the significant issues mentioned above and others I may not have consisered, I think that the best way for others to see for themselves is to do a similar comparison using the RAW file. Feel free to download my RAW file in DNG format for testing by going here.

My main findings were as follows:
- C1 4 Beta is buggy as can be. Crashes often. Hopefully the E-410 will be supported in C1 v3.7 soon.
- LR 1.2 is a major improvement on LR 1.1. Everything looked unnatural to me at the pixel level in LR 1.1, and this has been largely addressed.
- LR 1.2 continues to apply more luminance noise reduction than I would like at baseline.
- LR 1.2 color noise reduction does a nice job handling fine color noise but doesn't effectively handle patches of blotchy color.
- C1 color noise reduction effetively eliminates these patches almost completely.
- Noise Ninja's "coarse noise" setting is capable of reducing any residual blotchy color noise remaining after RAW conversion, but can't completely eliminate them from the files processed from LR.
- I prefer the character of the noise after C1 conversion to that of the noise after LR conversion, though neither is very "film-like."

Here are the examples. First, the image processed by LR 1.2 (resized):


Next, the resized C1 conversion:


Here's what I mean by the trouble with coarse color noise patches in LR conversions. Note the blotchy yellow patches in the LR conversion on the left, absent in the C1 conversion on the right (click image for intended viewing size):


Finally, note the character of the noise in these crops. Again, the LR conversion is on the left, and the C1 conversion is on the right. Some of the blotchy color noise is also apparent in this crop of the LR image.



For the time being, C1 v4 beta is my RAW editor of choice for high ISO E-410 images despite the frequent crashes and need to convert to DNG in LR prior to opening files in C1. LR offers a terrific workflow and supports two of my cameras that C1 doesn't, but the coarse color noise just doesn't work for me.

It's been a while since my last blog post. Work has been a killer. I am excited to see that Adobe has released an update to Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW, especially since users in the Adobe forums are reporting that the update addresses the issues some of us noted with the LR 1.1 version. I was impressed with Adobe's responsiveness to product criticism by users. Looking forward to trying this new version!

Impress Watch, a Japanese technology site, has shared a number of full-resolution ISO 100 samples from a pre-production FZ18. Their preview can be found here. With the exception of the three shots taken through a ton of atmospheric haze, the samples show excellent "per pixel detail" throughout the entire zoom range. In my opinion, a very impressive job by the lens considering the pixel pitch. The downsides to this camera are predictable (poor high ISO performance, poor dynamic range), but its good to see early indications that this camera will otherwise deliver the goods.

Direct links to full-resolution image samples:
4.6mm (full wide, 28mm equivalent) f/4
19.7mm f/7.1
31.3mm f/3.6
65.3mm f/3.6
82.8mm (full tele, 504mm equivalent) f/4, Sample 1
82.8mm f/4, Sample 2
82.8mm f/4, Sample 3

I'm really looking forward to this little camera.

My two-year-old son Philip took this photo of his four-year-old brother Oliver today:



Every time I take photos, my boys want to do so as well. As you might imagine, it makes me nervous to see Oliver holding my Canon 5D; and Philip, you can forget about it! After reading the reviews, I finally got around to buying each of them a Fisher Price Kid-Tough Camera. These have been recently updated, such that the awful LCD is slightly larger and the awful quality images can be larger than 640 x 480 using interpolation. The boys absolutely love the cameras. They are easy to use, easy to hold, seem rugged, have a very nice viewfinder (considering), work with PC or Mac, accept an SD card (512MB card holds a couple thousand images at the standard 640x480 size), and did I mention the boys love them?

Here are some samples of what my budding young photographers did the first day they got a camera to call their own:

Philip's first slideshow.
Oliver's first slideshow.

If you decide to buy the the KidTough camera and this user review has helped you, you can help me by purchasing from Amazon after going there via the links below (one for the pink version, the other for blue).



Visiting the Amazon page using that link doesn't change your price but makes it so that Amazon shares a bit of the profits with me. I can honestly recommend Amazon for photography gear. In addition to competitive prices, they have great customer service and one of the best return policies around (though if the item is being sold on Amazon by a third paty seller, then the return policy of that seller would apply).