Clean Your Gear!

I make that statement because I went shooting yesterday morning and came back with a memory card full of photos with odd blurs in three spots. When I looked at my lens it was obvious why. The UV filter I usually keep on front of my wide angle lens had heavy smudges, obviously made by someone with tiny hands. I won't name names. The smudges translated into fuzzy areas that no amount of photoshopping will remove. Some of the images may still be usable, but this is an important reminder to me to always check my gear before going out.

Lens cleaning is one of the most important things we can do to ensure we have clean, sharp captures and glass with a long life. My online search found plenty of articles on the subject, which all recommended using a soft, lint free glass cleaning cloth in conjunction with lens cleaning fluid. Make sure to spray the fluid on the cloth and not the lens and wipe with circular motions. I would add that before using a cloth and cleaner, you blow the lens with a bulb--never use canned air--and then brush it with a soft brush. This will remove most large particles that could scratch the lens. Make sure to do both front and back of the lens. Also, clean all of your filters while you are at it.

The other key component to clean is the digital sensor--assuming you are using a digital camera. Sensor cleaning is tricky; if not done correctly it can scratch the filter over your camera's sensor, which would then require expensive repairs. I have personally never cleaned my own sensor, but I know a lot of folks who do. There are plenty of sensor cleaning kits on the market which I am sure do a great job. I found two useful articles here and here on how to clean your own sensor. I think next time my camera needs cleaning I will try doing it myself, if only to save a few bucks and a few days without the camera.

It is also wise to have the camera checked and cleaned professionally every few years. I have done this a few times and been happy with the results. Repair pros will open up the body and clean out any dust and dirt and make sure all of the screws are tightened and so forth. The really thorough ones will clean your mirror and prism as well, so you don't see dust in the viewfinder any more.

So, before you go shooting next time, take a look at your gear and at the very least, take a few minutes to clean your optics.

(Here is another useful article on general camera cleaning.)

Adobe Camera Raw

Check out this article. Proof that we should always shoot RAW and use ACR.

PhotoFizz

PhotoFizz is a site that looks like the mutant child of delicious and digg, with a focus specifically on the photography industry. I stumbled across it a few days ago and have been following links ever since. The links aren't terribly well organized, but that is half the fun--finding something cool that you wouldn't have seen had you been looking specifically for something.

website: http://photofizz.info/

HDR Tools

Awhile back I posted on creating HDR images and concerns I had with overusing the technique. Putting those aside, I decided to try several of the software tools out there for creating HDR images and see how well they work. I had heard of a few different tools and rounded them up to give them a try. For this experiment I used Photomatix, FDR Tools, Qtpfsgui (Luminance HDR), and Adobe Photoshop CS4's merge to HDR function. A more exhaustive list of HDR software is available here.

Two of the packages--FDR Tools and Qtpfsgui--were free, though their creators do ask for donations to support their work. FDR Tools also has an advanced option that costs $52 that looks like it has useful additional functionality. Photomatix costs $99 for a license; I used the demo version which is identical, but leaves a watermark on the final image. Photoshop CS4 costs around $650, depending on where you get it; it is worth the price without the HDR function.

After running a particularly troublesome set of images through each of these tools, the clear winner is Photomatix. It output an image with the greatest dynamic range and best preservation of color, tone, and contrast.















Here is the original image, the middle exposure of a bracketed set of 3.

















Here is the Photomatix output. The differences are subtle, but you can clearly see the foreground is much brighter than in the image above. The additional range gives the image a more balanced appearance. A little tweaking in PS will create a much improved final product.

FDR Tools and Qtpfsgui both had somewhat similar output. If I had to choose I would put Qtpfsgui just a little ahead of FDR Tools. Both created an image with greater dynamic range, but also one that had fewer highlights and shadows and was much too heavy in the midtones. Both outputs looked somewhat flat and will require a lot more work in PS to get them to where the Photomatix image is, if they can get there at all. Additionally, Photomatix' interface was more user friendly, using sliders to make adjustments instead of curves and histograms. FDR Tools had perhaps the most challenging interface and the fewest options for adjusting the tonal map after the creation of the HDR image.

I save Photoshop's tool for last because it was a bummer. You have little control how the images are merged. And once they are merged you have only one slider to adjust the tonal values. The output was by far the worst of the four. I read recently that Adobe didn't put much work into the tool and that it is a tack on that should see more development in the future. Let's hope so.

Ultimately, these are tools to help us make our images more like reality, and help overcome the limitations of cameras. I liked what I saw and you can bet I will be investing in Photomatix' full program in the future.

Photography and the iPad

Like anyone who writes a blog, I feel I have to weigh in on the new iPad. Specifically, I am interested in how it affects photographers and how it can be a tool for them. After an exhaustive five minute search of the web I found these two articles on the topic by people who had not at the time of their writing actually touched an iPad. See below.

The Apple iPad-Luminous Landscape

Is the Apple iPad a tool for serious photographers?-photo.net

Both articles are actually very good. They speculate on possible uses of the iPad for photographers and discuss its pros and cons. Both avoid drawing conclusions on how it will affect the future of computers, which is refreshing.

I have little interest in speculating on how it will affect computers, how it will sell, its pros and cons, etc. I have played with it a few times in the store and have to say whether you love or hate Apple, love or hate the concept, it is a very fun device. Especially pertinent for photographers is the gorgeous display. Photos are displayed big and bright and are very easy to manage.

I would agree with both authors that one of its best uses for photographers is as a tool to display a portfolio. Wedding and portrait photographers will benefit especially from the ability to show clients images almost immediately. Truthfully, though, the sharpness and rich colors of the display will make anyone want to use it to show off their photos.

As beautifully as it displays photos, this probably isn't reason enough for most amateur photographers to buy it. Hopefully the future will see a more robust image editing app make it into the app store so that photographers can work on it as well.

Photo Sharing Websites

Ever since moving from film to digital I have been looking for ways to display my photos online. I have tried maybe three or four sites and have not found one that does everything I want it to, but many of them do have some pretty neat features.

The more I have used these sites, the more it has become clear to me that each site has attributes that make it best for specific uses. Some sites are very general and offer casual photographers a place to upload photos for sharing with friends and family, and maybe make some prints as well. Over time I have gravitated away from these types of sites and more towards ones that offer more robust features and customization. Like many enthusiastic amateurs, I am interested in a place to display my photos that will help me to build an audience and provide useful feedback and comments. The sites I have liked the most are those that allow me to become part of a community of like minded photographers and give as well as get feedback. They also have a clean and simple look when displaying photos and an interface that is not overly complicated.

What follows is a short list I have made of sites with some hopefully useful information. Among this group, some things are taken for granted, such as keyword tagging of photos and variable privacy settings.


















I included Summit Post not so much for their capabilities as a photo hosting site, but because they showcase some pretty impressive shots from outdoor enthusiasts and are a unique way to show photos.

There are dozens of other sites out there for sharing photos, many of them geared to a more casual user. Sites like Shutterfly, Kodak Gallery, Webshots, Snapfish, and Fotki are all capable sites, but many of them pressure users to purchase prints or don't have a lot of flexibility.

Regardless of what type of photographer you are, there are several things to think about when choosing a site:

• cost: is it free? What do you get for what you are paying?
  
• contests: are there opportunities to submit your photos for contests?
  
• sharing abilities: can you share photos with other? Limit who can see what?
  
• storage space and limits: how much space do you get? Over what period of time?
• availability and quality of non-professional feedback: are there mechanisms for feedback and comments?
  
• availability of professional feedback
• audience: who visits this site? Who posts on this site? Will you be reaching the people you want to?

Finally, make sure to read the terms and conditions. You don't want to unknowingly give permission to the site or its users to use your photos however they see fit.

Link to spreadsheet