Professional Photography : workflow

Color Management in Windows Vista vs. Mac OS X

Eileen Fritsch — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:01:00 GMT

I am a cross-platform kind of guy. I have my wonderful black MacBook as well a Dell desktop running Windows Vista Professional. When I teach a class on color-management or other aspects of photography, I always like to know which platform each photographer is using.

In most cases, the photographer’s operating system of choice has to do with experiential history—whichever platform the photographer first started using is what they have continued to use. Sometimes I hear about photographers who have switched from OS X to Windows and vice versa.

One reason I use both operating systems is because I frequently get questions about how Windows integrates color-management differently than Mac OS X. Different versions of Windows handle color management differently, So let’s focus first on Windows Vista.

Storing Profiles in Windows Vista: In Vista, the ICC profiles for your displays, scanners, cameras, and printer/media combinations are stored in the Windows/System32/Spool/Drivers/Color directory. If you haven’t done so yet, you might want to make a shortcut on your desktop to the contents of the directory.

One of my favorite color-management features of Windows is that if you acquire a profile from an outside source (either by downloading one from a website or having one sent to you via e-mail), you can easily copy the profile into the proper directory.

Simply right-click on the profile and select Install Profile. This simple process will copy the profile into the Windows/System32/Spool/Drivers/Color directory where it will be available for ICC-aware applications such as Photoshop and Lightroom. Mac OS X does not have this feature. If you are wondering where profiles reside in OS X they are located in you Library/ColorSync/Profiles directory for either the root or user level.

Display Calibration: When you calibrate and profile your display for color-accurate editing, you should know that one of the trickier things about Windows is that the video card driver must support a software rewrite of the default gamma tables in the video card LUT (Look Up Table).

X-Rite has a tool to test this. Click here to check it out.

If your video card does not support modifiable video LUT's then you may have to upgrade or downgrade your video card driver, or even possibly purchase a new video card. This is common on many older laptop PCs.

Mac OS X works on a totally different premise and ColorSync can use a table in the display profile to load the calibration data to the video card.

Windows Color Systems: One of the biggest changes in Microsoft color management was the introduction of WCS or Windows Color System for Vista. This was introduced during the development of Vista. This initiative was a collaboration with Canon, and uses Kyuanos technology developed by Canon. WCS is very powerful and has a host of totally new features designed to evolve color in the OS.

We’ll talk about some of these improvements in more detail in a separate post, but some of the benefits of the Windows Color System include a completely revamped color infrastructure and translation engine called CITE, an enhanced color-processing pipeline that supports greater bit depths and multiple color channels, and support for scRGB (a wide gamut RGB space developed by Microsoft and HP). Most notably, Windows Color System provides an improved user experience through a centralized color control panel.

Where Vista Still Lags Behind Mac OS X: The biggest issue with color management in Windows Vista is the lack of integration of the display profile into every application.

One of the beauties of Mac OS X is that every application uses the display profile to render color. This means that if an image has an embedded profile, OS X will convert the color data and give you the correct appearance on your screen. Your images will look the same whether you are viewing them in Photoshop, Preview, Safari, and Mail.

This is not true for Windows Vista. In Vista, applications need to be ICC aware to accurately display color images that have been created and saved in color spaces other than sRGB.

This means that images that you have edited and stored in the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto color spaces will look different in Internet Explorer, Outlook, or Microsoft Picture Viewer than when you edited them in Photoshop or Lightroom.

For more information on photography and color at Microsoft visit www.microsoft.com/prophoto and www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/color/WCS.mspx

Marc Aguilera is a part-time professional photographer and Photography and Digital Workflow instructor for University of California San Diego Extension. He is also an Apple Certified Professional in Color Management and Apple Certified Pro Trainer. He is a color expert for X-Rite's Color Services division and speaks on behalf of the creative community at AIGA's HOW Conference and at the PIA/GATF Color Conference each year. He has a BA degree in Visual Arts from Univeristy of California-San Diego. You can reach him through his blog at http://www.colorcritical.com.

An iPhone Assistant

Eileen Fritsch — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:18:00 GMT

By Wayne Cosshall

Professional photographers often have one or more assistants. And for very good reason: They are a real help. But not all of us can either afford one or do the sort of photography where an assistant is billable to the client. Now there is a substitute for an assistant—an iPhone.

Having avoided the smart phone trend for some years I finally gave in and obtained an iPhone 3Gs in the 16GB version. The result has been pure joy and bliss, especially now that I have discovered that the iPhone can make a great photography assistant.

The flexible thing about the iPhone (and I suspect other smart phones, such as the new Google OS models) is the ability to add applications to the device. There are already a fair number of apps related specifically to photography plus a number of others that are very applicable to photographers. So let’s have a look at what I am using and how.

First, the iPhone comes with some highly effective standard apps. The email and web browser work well and allow me to function efficiently when in the field. A built-in Google Maps app has been very helpful. I am primarily a landscape photographer for my own personal work. Google Maps provides much of the functionality of Google Earth, which means I now can easily find exactly where I am when I wander off the beaten track. The ability to just follow roads and tracks that look promising without worrying about tracking my location on a map has made for more spontaneous exploration. Furthermore, the ability to overlap satellite views on the maps is wonderful for scouting out possible shooting locations. I made sure I connected to a network that offered great rural cell coverage. A bit of fiddling and using Google Calendar allows me to keep my appointment calendars updated on my phone and office computer. The built-in Notes and Voice Notes apps are good for capturing ideas when on location.

The first photography app I bought was Simple DOF. This handy little app will calculate the hyperfocal distance for you for any lens and camera body combination at any aperture you like. It also calculates the exact depth of field limits for a given point of focus and aperture. I tend to use this little app in two ways. For landscape work I often use the hyperfocal distance calculation, while with interiors, tabletop and macro I use the exact DOF calculation.

Another simple app, Phases, gives me the moon phase plus the moonrise and sunrise/sunset times locked to my GPS determined location.

myPantone is a stunning application. Basically it links in with the Pantone color system and can suggest harmonious color schemes from chosen color patches or by extracting colors from a photograph. I’ve already used this tool on one client website design. The app quickly allowed me to pull together a color palette my client liked from a picture of some of their favorite things.

Trails is a GPS app that will track your location and save it to a file. This location data can then be transferred to your computer and (with other software), matched to your images to GPS tag them. Again, this is absolutely brilliant for a landscape photographer who does not have GPS built into his cameras. The only downside of this app is that since the iPhone cannot multi-task, you have to have this app running as the main app while it is tracking. Thankfully the iPod and phone functions still work while it is active.

Evernote is a fantastic note making application that keeps your notes on a central server so they are easily synced to various devices. I use this all the time for shot lists, ideas, etc.

The last non-specifically photographic app is Things, a fantastic to-do list app that will sync with the Mac version of Things. Windows users can just use it on the iPhone, or find one of the similar applications for Windows and iPhone. Things allows for complex, multi-step to-do lists, with due dates, alarms and much more.

I’ve just skimmed the surface of apps for the iPhone, but these all meet my present needs. I do also run StarMapPro to help me predict night sky shots and identify what I can see in the sky.

Assistants are great, but an iPhone assistant can provide convenient and cost effective assistance for those of us without a human one. Give it a try.

Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

Eileen Fritsch — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:58:00 GMT

By David Saffir

One of the most under-appreciated features of newer-model DSLRs is their ability to capture images with greater bit depth. Bit depth is a way of quantifying the amount of color information in each recorded pixel. It is also a key component of high-level image quality. In this post, we’ll look first at the numbers. Then, we’ll talk about what these numbers mean in terms of dynamic range, color fidelity, and highlight/shadow detail. These are key attributes that influence the quality of the final print.

Not long ago, most cameras functioned in 8-bit mode. Then the higher-end DSLRs became capable of using 12-bit capture. Now they are up to 14-bit, which is a huge benefit to photographers. If you don’t understand bit depth, these may sound like incremental improvements. But they are actually exponential improvements.

To see what I mean, let’s start with a brief review of the numbers. It is simple but non-intuitive:

· There are three primary colors (or color channels) in each captured digital image: red, green, and blue.

· Bit depth describes the number of tone gradations (or intensities of color) provided in each pixel. Most digital images are captured and/or stored in 8-bit, 12-bit, 14-bit, or 16-bit mode.

§ An 8-bit image has 256 tone gradations in each of the three color channels;

§ A 12-bit image has 4,096 tone gradations in each color channel;

§ A 14-bit image has 16,384 tone gradations in each color channel; and

§ A 16-bit image has 65,536 tone gradation in each color channel.

Another way to look at the depth of an image file: A 16-bit image file is twice as big as an 8-bit file.

The major benefit of working with high-bit images is increased dynamic range— the range of tones and detail that the camera can record from the darkest dark to lightest light.

One software company, DXO, now provides public access to its database on camera performance. Here are some examples of the differences between 12-bit, 14-bit, and 16-bit capture:

· The Nikon D2X captures images in 12-bit mode when shooting in RAW format; its dynamic range is rated at 10.9.

· The Nikon D3 captures in 14-bit mode; its dynamic range is rated at 12.2.

Dynamic range is measured like f/stops: an increase of one step is a doubling of dynamic range. That’s a big, big difference.

There is also a noticeable upside in image editing, and in the appearance of the final print.

Figure 1 above is a screen shot of a 16-bit image being edited. Note that the histogram is smooth and even, and shows no breaks or lines.

Figure 2 above shows a screen shot of an 8-bit version of the same image. Note the white lines running vertically in this histogram. These are sometimes called drop-outs, and they show information that is lost when the image is edited . These losses can result in color distortions, posterization, color aliasing, and more.

We lose information every time we edit or manipulate an image. So, the more image information we have to start with, the more information that is available to us as we progress in our workflow.

It pays to set up your workflow to protect as much image information as you can for as long in the process as possible. Most printer drivers can handle high-bit images without difficulty. In my own workflow, I only use 8-bit images for web publishing, e-mail, and the like.

Image-editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop Lightroom are now set up to use high-bit images. And Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop provide pretty much the same editing tools for 8-bit images and high-bit images, making workflow choices easier for the photographer. This is all good news for those of us who love creating the most detailed and beautiful prints possible.

What’s re-complicating printing workflows right now is the fact that Adobe Photoshop Lightroom uses a bigger color space—ProPhoto RGB instead of Adobe RGB. But we’ll leave a discussion of printing through Lightroom to a future post.

If you have any specific questions about bit depth, I would welcome your comments.

Creating a Digital Darkroom for A Color-Managed Workflow

Eileen Fritsch — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:22:00 GMT

By Marc Aguilera

Creating a digital darkroom is one of the final tasks in implementing a precision color-managed workflow. It’s one of the often overlooked aspects of most digital photographic setups, however when taken seriously, a properly controlled “darkroom” and use of ICC profiles for your devices will yield the closest possible screen-to- print match.

First let’s talk about viewing conditions in the digital darkroom. Note that if you really want to go deep into this subject then I recommend you purchase the ISO Standard 3664:2000 entitled Viewing Conditions – Graphic Technology and Photography. If you would simply prefer the ‘just-tell-me-what-I-need-to-know’ version, then continue reading.

ISO 3664 basically states the obvious: (1) Light affects color; and (2) Your individual experience of color ultimately is subjective. It also states that while color measurement plays an important role in color control, color measurement will never replace the human observer for final assessment of quality. Furthermore, without question the best viewing condition is one which the final print will be seen, Nevertheless, ISO 3664 aims to provide a standardized specification for illumination and viewing conditions that when properly implemented ”...will reduce errors and misunderstandings caused by such deficiencies and inconsistencies.”

In other words, adhering to certain standards for viewing conditions within a digital darkroom makes it possible to achieve the best possible environment for making critical comparisons between transparencies, reflective photographic or photochemical prints, as well as overall appraisal of images on color displays which are not viewed in comparison to a hard copy.

Viewing apparatus.
When creating your digital darkroom, pick a light source that has the spectral power distribution of D50 - Daylight – 5000 Kelvin. You can get these types of lights from a variety of sources, including Solux, Just Normlicht, GTI, and X-Rite. The light source is crucial if you want images on your display and prints to come close to matching. The most economical way to go is to go with a Solux Task Lamp, although I prefer a well designed light booth. If you decide to build your own light booth be sure to minimize specular reflectivity and be sure the color of the booth is neutral. The color rendering index of the light source shall be 90 or higher and the illumination shall be 2000 lux +/- 500. The most important things to remember are that: (1) Light can greatly affect how your experience color; and (2) The best light source for viewing is D50 with minimal reflectivity, neutral colors for the apparatus, and 2000 lux of light.

Shown here is the digital darkroom of Harvest Productions in Yorba Linda, CA, an encompus color services account for which I provide training and consultation in the integration of ISO 3664:2000. It is a non-manipulated image of a typical workday. The original paintings and inkjet-printed reproductions are compared under a D50-balanced fluorescent light from GTI. However, the light source is reflected at an angle to reduce specular reflectivity. This was a custom design by Harvest.

This image is on location at the Color Control Freak Seminar sponsored by X-Rite and PANTONE. To demonstrate ISO 3664 principles, I brought along my Just Normlicht mini 5000 light.

Surroundings
ISO 3664 states that the area immediately surrounding the displayed image shall be neutral, preferably dark gray. Also, the display should be situated so there are no strongly colored areas (including clothing) directly in the field of view because these may cause reflections in the display screen. Ideally all walls, floors, and furniture in the field of view should be grey and free of any posters, notices, pictures, wording or any other object which may affect the vision of the viewer.

As far as any interior paint is concerned ISO 3664 does not mention a particular paint or even Lab* value as long as it is neutral gray. My personal preference is the equivalent to Munsell N5 Gray, which in a PANTONE interior paint translates to 17-4402 TPX Neutral Gray and sells for $135 with Key Primer. If you’d rather go for a less expensive but equally good paint try Dunn Edwards Galax-z DE 1087 Dash of Ebony for around $45 per gallon.

I should also stress that the level of ambient light (the light in the environment surrounding your display) should be quite low. In fact, ISO 3664 states that ambient light should be under 64 lux and preferably under 32 lux of light. You can use an instrument such as X-Rite’s i1 Display and i1 Pro with free software called i1 Share to measure the amount of ambient light and its color temperature.The more ambient light there is in the room the more your display will have to compete with it, making the the likelihood of screen-to-print match that much more difficult. Do what is necessary to lock out the ambient light, even if this means shielding windows or turning off the surrounding lights.

Display Calibration and Profiling
It goes without saying that when creating a color-managed digital darkroom the display must be calibrated and profiled. The question really becomes what set of criteria do we calibrate to?

Essentially when you calibrate, you should choose a particular white point. ISO 3664 uses D65 as a white point and luminance must be over 75 cd/m2 (candela’s per meter squared) and should be over 100 cd/m2. I prefer 110-130 cd/m2. Also gamma should be set to 2.2. You may prefer a white point of D50 and gamma 1.8 if you send most of your work to publication but this is a choice you must make.

I learned years ago from one of my teachers in color that your viewing white point must match your display white point in order for the colors to really match. This advice has been important. Sometimes a display white point needs a bit of tweaking in order to get the best screen-to-print match. At encompus, we all have our displays calibrated to D65, 120 cd/m2, gamma 2.2. I get a decent screen to print match with my Just Normlicht mini 5000 light box.

Final Considerations
The major advantage of creating a digital darkroom is that you will gain efficiency in precision editing, especially when viewing color on screen compared to color on your print. Your viewing environment greatly affects how the eyes perceives color. A neutral environment with the correct lighting and positioning combined with a calibrated and profiled display and ICC workflow are the key elements in creating a color-managed digital darkroom.

Photokina Report 2: The HP Artist System

Eileen Fritsch — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:43:00 GMT

By David Saffir

The HP Artist System for Digital Fine Art Reproduction is truly something new under the sun. First demonstrated with the Designjet Z3200 at Photokina 2008, this system incorporates end-to-end production tools and workflow for very high-quality fine-art reproduction. What used to be a tedious, time-consuming, and expensive task is now much more streamlined, consistent, and less costly. In fact, my preliminary analysis shows that the cost of reproducing one piece of artwork can now be reduced by as much as 70 to 80%. This does not include any savings which may be realized through reduction in wasted materials or unneeded proofs.

In the past, photographer/printmakers such as myself typically used some type of flat-copy setup to photograph artwork. Supported by an easel, the artwork was illuminated by two lights at opposing 45-degree angles. With the camera centered on and parallel to the artwork, I photographed the artwork then printed it.

This method involves several problems. First, the lighting setup described above makes it difficult to render finer details of textures and brushstrokes in the reproduced print. Given the uniformity of the lighting, the final image often looked “flat.” While advanced lighting and Photoshop techniques can mitigate this, it requires additional time and expense to do so.

Controlling the color temperature of lighting can also be problematic, as can ensuring that illumination is perfectly even (i.e., +/- 1/10 stop). Some lighting types can be inconsistent and reflectance and density vary from painting to painting, as does color. In the past, managing these variables has required painstaking attention to detail at every stage of production. In order to succeed in the fine-art reproduction business, a photographer needed experience and specialized training.

The new HP Artist Solution streamlines the workflow, provides critical support in key areas of production and quality control, ensures consistent results, and saves time and money. The HP Artist solution is embedded in Ergosoft’s StudioPrint RIP, a specialized print-management program for wide-format photo printers. From the main menu, choose Tools>HP Artist. This dialogue box will appear:


There are ten basic, easy-to-follow steps:

Step 1: Set the artwork up on a flat background, preferably black in color.

Step 2: Ensure that your workroom doesn’t allow ambient light to interfere.

Step 3: Set up your lights, continuous or strobe. They can be arranged in a copy-style setup, or on only one side of the artwork to emphasize textures.

Step 4:     Place a clean white board (such as a matt board) on the easel. Illuminate the white board as you would the artwork.

Step 5: Set up your lighting. It isn’t necessary to create even illumination on the target. The computer program will correct any variations in luminance, even in the corners. Allow your lighting to warm up for 30 minutes, or fire strobes several times.

Step 6: Set up the camera on a tripod or studio stand square to the white board, and photograph it at a proper exposure (check your histogram!) The Nikon D3 using the 105mm Macro VR lens is recommended.

Step 7: Without changing the placement or geometry of the setup, place the artwork on the easel and photograph it. Once work has begun, you can photograph as many additional pieces as necessary.

Step 8: Save these files to a folder on the same computer where you keep the HP Artist software.

Step 9: Follow the provided instructions. You will now take simple measurements of the lighting striking the target, the white board, and the artwork. The artwork measurements involve sampling colors from the piece itself using an X-Rite i1 spectrophotometer. With a bit of practice, I can do this for a 20 x 30 piece in about five minutes.

Step 10: Load your measurements and images into HP Artist software. Click “Process.” In less than a minute, you’ll have your adjusted image file, ready for final editing in Photoshop

How does this system compare to older methods?

In my view, HP Artist provides a greatly improved adjusted image file, ready for final tweaking in Photoshop and printing. Time to completion is significantly less.

The chart below is based on my own experience over the past few years. It compares the amount of time it typically took me to set up and shoot artwork using my previous steps to the time it now takes me to do the same job with the HP Artist software in the Ergosoft RIP.

Note that a job that once took more than five hours (315 minutes) can now be done in slightly more than a hour (67 minutes).

The cost savings are substantial. Assuming labor and overhead costs of $150/hr., a job that once cost $800 to complete can now be done for about $165.This savings of $630 doesn’t even take into account any additional materials costs that might have been incurred making multiple proof prints. Even if my HP Artist cost estimates are off by 50%, the cost reduction is still quite significant.

In my next post, I’ll present a pro-forma Profit and Loss statement that can help you evaluate what type of impact this kind of investment can have on your business.

PREVIOUS METHOD	Minutes
Set up lighting	15
Meter and adjust lighting on artwork	25
Photograph color chart or gray card	5
Photograph artwork, review result	15
Adjust camera/lighting. Photograph again	15
Import image into Photoshop. Edit color, luminance, contrast, etc.	90
Calibrate printer	30
Profile media	120
TOTAL TIME	315

HP ARTIST SOFTWARE IN ERGOSOFT STUDIOPRINT
Measure artwork	10
Photograph reference backing board	1
Set up lighting	5
Measure lighting incrementally by hand w/ incident lightmeter	1
Photograph color chart or gray card	5
Photograph artwork, review result	15
Adjust camera/lighting. Photograph again	0
Import measurement data and images into HP Artist/StudioPrint and process	10
Calibrate printer using automated system on StudioPrint and Designjet Z3200	10
Profile media using automated systems on StudioPrint and Designjet Z3200	20
TOTAL TIME	67

Understand Your Imaging Software Needs

Eileen Fritsch — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:22:00 GMT

By Wayne Cosshall

The general assumption is that photographers need to use Photoshop as their primary image-editing and workflow software. But this may not be the best option. Just as we use the right lens for the right job, so it is with software.

While Photoshop is the most high-profile piece of software, it wasn’t designed primarily for photographers. In fact, many of its features have little to do with photography and more to do with prepress, graphic design, and web design.

So what are the alternatives for photographers? In the designed-for-photographers category are Adobe’s Lightroom (which has just announced Version 2) and Apple’s Aperture. Lightroom is for Mac and Windows; Aperture is for Mac only. Both programs enable you to organize your images not only so you can find recent work, but also so you can more efficiently manage specific tasks or projects. Both offer great overall image adjustments that are enough for most images.

The programs go beyond Photoshop in other ways too. Both can serve as a platform from which to print images. Although I haven’t yet had a chance to try Version 2 of Lightroom, I have been exploring the facilities in Aperture for using Apple’s printing service to print photography books.

A recent trip into Photoshop Elements caused a surprise. Since the last version I had a good look at, Photoshop Elements has evolved to include most of the Photoshop features that a photographer would ever need, including layers. This means it should be quite possible for a serious hobbyist or professional photographer to use Photoshop Elements as their main imaging software and avoid the extra cost and memory needs of Photoshop itself. Photoshop Elements is also quite responsive, making fast work in the field easier.

Beyond the AA (Adobe and Apple) products, are other products for handling RAW workflows, such as Capture One from Phase One (a new Pro version is expected before the end of the year), Bibble (which is expected to go to version 5 soon) and others. Each has various strengths and will appeal to some photographers, allowing all or most of the imaging work to be done without Photoshop. Of course, many photographers are also perfectly happy with Paint Shop Pro or other software.

There are now so many options, that your challenge is to figure out which software is worth spending the time on to give it a proper trial. Just like cameras, some software will feel better in some hands than others. And even though all software companies offer 30-day trials, it can be a hassle to take them up on the offer. Each product is sufficiently involved and uses quite different approaches that there is a fairly impressive learning curve. So you probably won’t have time to try all of the products yourself. That is where published reviews can come in handy. Better yet, now you can watch the increasing number of videos of the software being used so you see which seem to resonate with the way you like to work. All software requires changes in the way you work but you want to minimize how large the change will be.

Nothing is a given anymore in photography and Photoshop may not be necessary for you, or even the best solution to your needs. See if there is something that works better for you.

Streamlining Your Workflow

Eileen Fritsch — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:07:00 GMT

By Jon Canfield

If you’re anything like me, you are probably spending more time on the road and doing more of your initial image processing on a laptop in an effort to stay on top of the hundreds of images a typical shooting session generates. I used to just copy my images to something like the Epson P-5000, but now I always travel with a laptop and prefer to upload to that every evening. I travel with a Western Digital 320GB external drive that all my images are uploaded to.

My workflow tool of choice is Adobe Lightroom, which lets me import images directly to a location I specify, in this case the external drive, and assign keywords and other metadata to the images. After importing, I do a quick pass to delete the obvious bad shots (which I always seem to have plenty of).This works great for my field work, and saves me hours of time when I get back home. But, at home I work on a desktop computer, not a laptop. This is one of the reasons I settled on Lightroom. I can easily export all of my images as a catalog, including folders, keywords, and collections, from the external drive and then import them into my master catalog on the server. So, none of my field work is wasted, and I’m able to immediately start processing images for submission or web use.

There are plenty of other options out there, such as Aperture (Mac only), Microsoft Expression Media, even Adobe Bridge which is included with Photoshop, just to name a few. The key is to find a tool that you’re comfortable with and use it regularly, making it second nature to process your images every time you shoot. It’s more useful when you work on multiple computers, but even with a single computer, you’ll find that you are spending more time on shooting and image editing and less time on sorting and organizing them.

Where Does All the Technology Lead?

BlogArchive — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 16:44:00 GMT

By Wayne Cosshall

Photography is a technological discipline. It always has been. Indeed there is nothing new about the current rapid pace of change in the technology of photography. It has happened many times before in the history of photography. What is also not new is the cry of people convinced that the latest technological change is the end of photography. I’ve been in photography long enough to remember when similar calls of alarm were expressed about 35mm, auto-exposure cameras, auto-focus cameras, the drop in availability of large-format films, motor drives and now digital cameras.

Exactly the same thing happened on the print end of the photographic process. In my photographic lifetime I’ve seen rapid change in BW papers, C-41 color papers for printing from negatives, Cibachrome for printing from slides, and various other processes. I’ve also witnessed the emergence of digital technologies, including inkjet, toner-based systems (electrophotographic printing), and laser-based imaging paired with chemical photoprocessing (Durst, Lightjet, etc.). Plus, I’ve seen all of the old processes come back into fashion.

In photography, nothing seems to ever really go away. Any decent camera has manual focus and exposure options should you want to use them (as I do a lot). Likewise, digital cameras have not made film disappear and inkjet has not eradicated chemical photographic papers. The old printing processes are around and doing well. Indeed these have evolved to mix the old and the new. For example, some people print digital negatives on their inkjet printers from Photoshop and then contact print onto gum bichromate coated paper. A few processes virtually disappear because of their danger or impracticality (who wants to boil mercury to process metal plates?), but only a few.

Great scanners are now available at amazingly low prices compared to five or ten years ago. This makes a mixed analog/digital workflow very practical, especially if you want to continue to use your archives of photos you shot in the past. Or, you can choose to shoot film, get it processed (or do it yourself) and then use a digital process from that point on--scanning the negatives (or slides) on either a dedicated film scanner or one of the great flatbed scanners with film capability.

Although the number of available film stocks has dropped, a number have also recently resurfaced and new ones continue to crop up occasionally, giving us confidence that film isn’t going away anytime soon. I recently dusted off my remaining medium-format gear and am using it for some very long exposure photography.

There is no need to fear that technological change will dilute your hard-earned photography skills. Good knowledge of lighting and exposure didn’t become useless with the arrival of auto-exposure cameras, and the same is true across the whole range of photographic skills. Many skills can still be directly applied to each new development in photography technology (exposure is exposure, after all). Other skills can serve as a starting point for new direction. For example, you can apply your experience with coating art papers for cyanotype to laying inkjet-receptive layers on aluminum sheet or applying a UV-resistant coating to an inkjet print. And, whether you are viewing an analog or digital print, you will still judge its quality by examining its tonality, color and sharpness.

Photography offers so many options and choices—far more today than yesterday. You can choose a fully digital or fully analog workflow or combine elements of both. Or, you can mix very old processes with the very latest techniques.

All this offers you a huge opportunity to find the process (or processes) that work best for the type(s) of photography you do and your personal vision of how it should look. Enjoy, explore and create.

The Importance of Keywording

BlogArchive — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:33:00 GMT

By Jon Canfield

As professional (or aspiring professional) photographers, we produce hundreds of images at a time. It’s not uncommon for me to return from a shoot with 1,000 or more photos. I’m sure many of you are in the same boat.

One of the greatest challenges in working with large numbers of images is determining how to catalog your photographs in a way that not only makes sense to you, but also to anyone else who may be searching for specific content.

If you maintain all your own images you have more freedom in how to go about tagging these photos for future reference. However, if you submit to stock agencies, it’s critical to tag your images in such a way that potential clients will find them sooner than they find similar images that may be available. If stock photo buyers are under tight deadlines, they may never bother browsing through the hundreds of choices that may be returned to them. They are more likely to choose from the batches of images they see first.

Keywording is supported by every DAM (Digital Asset Manager) application in one form or another. If you use Adobe Bridge, Adobe Lightroom, or Apple Aperture, you can add keywords and other metadata to your images when you import them. (From experience, I know that images tagged on import are more likely to have more accurate and relevant tags than those images I put off tagging until later.)

One problem that arises is knowing which specific keywords to use. For example, the photo shown here is from Nyhavn Harbor in Copenhagen Denmark. Logical keywords would include Nyhavn Harbor, Copenhagen, Denmark, boats, tourism. But, let’s assume that the potential buyer doesn’t use boats in his search and can’t recall the name of the area. If he searches for ships, Denmark, he will see a number of images before finding this one and this image will be lumped with every other image tagged with Denmark, regardless of the subject matter.

Luckily, there’s a great tool to help standardize keyword selection. The Controlled Vocabulary is a project started by David Riecks. The full catalog contains about 11,000 terms organized by hierarchical structure, making it easy to select the best possible set of keywords for your images.

The catalog is available in various formats to support popular DAMs. You’ll also find enough information on metalogging and IPTC standards to either make your head spin or put you to sleep depending on your interest level. What The Controlled Vocabulary will do for you though is help you maximize how often your image is viewed by prospective buyers and increase the number of sales.

After all, if clients aren’t finding your images, they aren’t buying them!

JPEG or RAW: Which Should You Choose?

BlogArchive — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:06:00 GMT

By David Saffir

Decisions made during image capture can have a significant impact on post-production costs and the quality of the finished prints. Two of the most important decisions we make during image capture are which file format and color space to use. Many cameras, particularly DSLRs, allow us to capture images either as JPEG, TIFF, or RAW files. They also allow us to choose to work in the sRGB, the Adobe 98 RGB, or a custom color space.

In terms of cost and quality, the Great Divide lies between JPEG and RAW file capture. It’s easy to understand why many photographers would naturally gravitate toward JPEGs. JPEGs are a compressed file format that reduces file size and increases rate of capture. JPEGs are fast, and in some ways more convenient in terms of storage and computing power. With modern in-camera automatic exposure and color correction, JPEGs can deliver good image quality.

But JPEGs have some important limitations. For example, in a recent article in Photo Techniques magazine, Timothy Edberg noted that the cameras he tested produced images with at least one f-stop less dynamic range in a JPEG file compared to a RAW capture. This makes sense, as an 8-bit JPEG digital capture uses lossy compression. A RAW file typically uses no compression, or lossless compression.

Additionally, an 8-bit JPEG file contains about 256 tones per color channel and a RAW file shot in 14-bit contains just over 16,000 tones. A 16-bit file RAW file has over 65,000 tones per channel. In color editing and in the final print, this can make a huge difference in the appearance of intense colors, such as open skies.

Not only that, but the default setting for JPEG capture is the sRGB color space. This color space is fine for digital images that will only be viewed on a computer display, but sRGB is not ideal for printing. The Adobe 98 RGB color space is significantly larger.

JPEGs also aren’t as versatile as RAW files. RAW files are very flexible, while JPEGs are pretty much locked in. With RAW files, it is much easier to correct color casts or make adjustments in certain colors or the overall color temperature, color balance, exposure, and contrast/levels.

Color artifacts and distortion in details will also be visible much sooner in a JPEG file than in the RAW. The distortions may show up in high-contrast transitions first, but can appear anywhere in the image.

Some photographers object to using RAW capture because it produces “big files” and slows the computer. Given the improvements in computer hardware and falling costs of memory and hard drives, it just doesn’t make sense to accept the limitations of JPEG capture for most uses.

Conclusion: JPEGs are fine if you plan to go straight from the camera to publication. You’ll probably want to use RAW if you plan to edit your images post-shoot.

You can find more details on the basics of RAW file processing in my book Mastering Digital Color published by Thomson Publishing.

Are You an In-Camera or Post-Camera Photographer?

BlogArchive — Fri, 25 May 2007 13:26:00 GMT

By Wayne Cosshall

The discussion that followed the Lensbaby review I posted on my site (The Digital Imagemaker) got me thinking about the different ways photographers approach their work. Photographers fall into two main camps: in camera and post camera.

In-camera photographers get their buzz from doing as much as possible at the time of shooting. These photographers love their filters, including things like graduated neutral density filters, unusual lenses, like the Lensbaby. Or, they might smear Vaseline on a skylight filter.

Post-camera photographers like to sit at their computers (or in the darkrooms) and manipulate to their heart’s content. With their bum in a comfortable chair, they work on a nice, big screen, sip a great cup of tea or coffee, and have their favorite music playing in the background. When shooting, they want a clean, optimal image that they can work on later.

The in-camera photographer has no fear of commitment, of trying something and missing the shot. They will risk all for the thrill of the chase at the time of shooting. They seek virtuosity in the moment. This is the thinking of the painter, who must risk destroying a painting by pushing it too far in the quest for an outstanding result. The thinking goes that if you do not risk it all, you will not excel.

Some in-camera photographers may also have a philosophical belief in the ‘purity’ of the image created in camera, the magic of capturing a moment, or a belief that a real photograph is made in the camera. In the analog world such photographers would be willing to scratch their negatives or bubble an SX70 instant print over a candle flame to get the effects they want.

The post-camera photographer craves a straight image they can shape at their leisure into the perfect photograph. They fear committing the image to something that may not work. Their quest is for a more careful virtuosity. The negative is sacred and must not be violated or damaged in any way. The image can be repurposed and massaged as many times as they want. Nothing is committed in a permanent way. In the digital world such photographers will crave information on how to extract that last piece of power out of Photoshop.

Of course the two descriptions above are obviously exaggerations. In reality, most photographers fall somewhere between these two extremes. Many of us grew up on Adams’ The Negative and somehow do feel that the negative is sacred. We regard our RAW digital negatives the same way.

Yet most of us will also make some commitment at the time of shooting that we can’t readily correct, such as a shallow depth of field or some another choice that can limit what we may later do with the image. Perhaps we will compensate for this by shooting many variations.

The way we shoot probably says a lot about our personalities. At one point, I had become fairly cautious about doing things to an image that I could not fix. I broke out of this pattern by taking up watercolor painting, one of the most uncorrectable forms of art practice there is. In a watercolor paining, you must risk all the work you have done every step of the way. One false move can ruin it, yet one bold stroke can make it. Watercolor painting proved to be immensely beneficial to my approach to photography, because it loosened me up to push my photography much further, both in camera and in Photoshop.

This shot was made completely in camera by using a Lensbaby 3G on my infrared converted Canon 350D.

Road to Elysium: This composite image is made from 20 to 30 images taken at different times and locations.

Orange Roses and Green Skin

BlogArchive — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:53:00 GMT

By Jon Canfield

I’m always surprised when a pro photographer gives me a blank look when I ask about their color management practices. This usually comes up when they’ve sent an image or group of images to me to print for an exhibition or limited edition and the colors are obviously off in tone.

The conversation often goes something like this:

Me: “The color balance on these images is off. When was the last time you calibrated your display?”

Client: “What’s that?”

Me: “Have you ever run a utility to make your monitor more accurate?”

Client: “No, I just adjust the monitor until it matches the print”

And there is the problem – they’ve done a calibration of sorts, but it’s exactly the wrong kind. The only time colors will ever match is on their printer and monitor combination. When viewing other images, or when sending images out, it’s a crap shoot on what things will look like.

Color management used to be considered black magic by many of us. The software methods were unreliable and the hardware was expensive and hard to use. That’s all changed, and for the better (except for the software method which is still unreliable).

With hardware devices starting at $60 or so, there is no reason your monitor shouldn’t be displaying accurate color. Yes, you can spend more for an advanced calibration that provides more control over the process. But unless you plan to create printer profiles, you’ll only be investing less than $250.

If you’re a working pro, that investment is quickly repaid in reduced editing and correcting time at the computer. If you’re an amateur, you’re still going to reap the benefits of color correctness, and save time and money when you print.

As a sign of just how mainstream color management is becoming, the HP Designjet Z2100 and Z3100 printers now include built-in color calibration and profiling hardware to ensure accurate color reproduction. The time and cost savings of this feature is tremendous, and the improved accuracy of prints is obvious. For even more control, and adding the ability to calibrate your monitor, the HP Advanced Profiling Solution also includes hardware to calibrate your display.

Regardless of your skill level, if you enjoy printing, editing or even just viewing images, a calibrated display should be considered mandatory. Why not try it and see?

Integrating New Workflow Tools

Eileen Fritsch — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:14:00 GMT

By Michael Frye

It was one of those moments when you think, “Of course. Why didn’t someone think of this before?” I was at Photo Plus Expo in New York in 2005, watching a demonstration of Apple’s new Aperture™ program. I’d been shooting digitally for two years, and I was seeing a tool designed to solve one of my biggest problems: how to sort, edit, and organize the vast number of digital image files I was producing. Aperture was designed to work with Raw files, and featured tools like “stacks” that could quickly sort similar images into groups for comparison, and a “loupe” for zooming in and checking sharpness. It had basic image processing tools, including a way to retouch dust spots.

Photoshop has long been the image-processing gold standard, but here was an application that might allow me to do everything from editing to printing or building a web page without ever touching Photoshop. I was anxious to try it, but initial reports of slow performance made me hesitate, especially since Apple didn’t offer free trials. Then in February 2006 Adobe announced a public beta release of its competing product, Lightroom™.

I’ve since tested each update of Lightroom, and finally broke down and purchased Aperture (just before they began offering a 30-day free trial!). Here are a few thoughts:

User Interface
To me, Lightroom is much easier to learn. With Aperture I’ve often delved deeply into the manual or online help to learn things that should be obvious. Lightroom doesn’t have a manual (it’s still in beta) but I haven’t needed it.

Features
Both have many good features, but Aperture clearly has more of them, including the stacks, loupe, and retouching tools. The Light Table is also a great idea, allowing you to make and print completely custom pages. Maybe the final version of Lightroom will add similar functions, but we won’t know until that day comes. Of course, these extra features add complexity and account for some, but not all, of Aperture’s steeper learning curve.

Speed
Owing to the difficulty of working directly with Raw images, neither program is zippy, but the latest (beta 4) version of Lightroom renders changes a bit faster than Aperture 1.5 on my Intel-powered Macbook Pro.

Image Processing Tools
Lightroom is more sophisticated here, offering Curves where Aperture only has Levels, camera calibration, and corrections for color fringing and vignetting (if you’re familiar with Adobe Camera Raw, the tools are similar in Lightroom).

Compatibility
Aperture only works with Macs, and only the latest and most powerful ones at that, so Windows users are out of luck, and many Mac users will have to upgrade their hardware.

Neither program is a clear winner. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If you want to avoid using Photoshop and don’t need the most sophisticated processing controls, Aperture is probably the best choice, as it just does more. The lack of any way to way to retouch dust spots in Lightroom (at least so far) limits its use as a standalone program. If you intend to bring most images into Photoshop anyway, and want more sophisticated raw conversion tools, Lightroom might be a better choice. For now, I’m using Lightroom to edit and do Raw conversions, but finish the processing in Photoshop. I use Lightroom’s color fringing correction on about half of my images, so that feature alone makes Lightroom a better choice for me. And I’m not ready to delete Photoshop’s muscle from my workflow.

Lightroom, Aperture, and Photoshop will continue to evolve and add new features. And other tools will emerge as well. Maybe we’ll have another collective moment where we go, “Why didn’t someone think of that before?” As more choices become available, we will all face decisions about whether to adopt these new tools as part of our workflow, or stick with what’s worked in the past. These will never be easy choices.

It helps to get other people’s opinions. But what works for me might not work for you. Free software trials are great, but nothing is really free: you still must spend time learning the program.

The whole process of researching and trying new tools has simply become part of our job description. No one likes spending hours learning new software, and you certainly can’t try everything. But if a new program offers the real possibility of improving your productivity or the quality of your output, you can’t afford not to try it.What do you think about Aperture or Lightroom? And what about learning and adapting new tools into your workflow? I’d really love to hear your thoughts.

Resolve to Take Full Control

Eileen Fritsch — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:52:00 GMT

By Michael Frye

According to a recent article by Hal Stucker in PDN (Photo District News), most commercial photographers now require that their assistants have extensive digital skills. The article, entitled “Assisting 2.0,” quotes a digital tech who estimates that only about a third of these photographers know anything about digital technology. “The other two-thirds don’t want to know and hire guys like me...”

But not everyone can afford to hire assistants or digital techs to take care of all this digital stuff. And even if you can, that means you’re ceding control of a vital part of the photographic process to someone else. Sooner or later every photographer must face the onrushing digital tidal wave and decide whether to run for high ground or jump in and swim. For those who try to run, dry land is becoming scarce!

I decided to plunge into the digital world around 1998. Digital printing had suddenly become a viable option, and I was excited about the possibilities. As a color photographer, I had found the darkroom constricting. But I couldn’t afford to pay others to do the Photoshop work for me, and I wanted the absolute control of doing it myself.

Even back then it didn’t take a genius to realize that this was the future of photography. I was going to have to learn this digital stuff eventually, and the sooner I got started, the better.

I was lucky, because I had connections. My friend Rich Seiling (now the owner of West Coast Imaging, a premier digital service bureau) gave me some basic instruction, and put me in touch with the former Apple software genius turned digital imaging guru Bill Atkinson. Bill, being incredibly generous, invited me to spend the weekend at his house and use his $60,000 drum scanner. (The image shown below is one of the first I scanned on his scanner.)

He also gave me an invaluable private lesson in digital printing. I still use the basic principles and workflow he taught me. (Maybe I’ll discuss this workflow in a future blog.)

Looking back, the decision to dive in and tackle the Photoshop learning curve was a great career move. I was soon making my best prints ever. Selling prints went from being a labor of love--something I just hoped to break even with--to a real source of income. Better yet, I became expert enough to teach workshops and write articles (and blogs) about digital printing.

But enough about me! I’d love to hear about your experiences.

When did you take the digital plunge? Or are you still standing on the diving board?

If you did dive in, did it turn out to be a good career move for you? Or just a necessary evil? If you can afford to hire people to be your digital experts, do you feel that you’re sacrificing control?