In the days of film, UV (ultraviolet) filters were often used, whether to reduce haze in shots that included long-distance detail, or to reduce the bluish tinge that UV light could impart in long exposures or certain conditions.
In modern times, with new glass coatings and advanced sensor filters, UV light is often mostly filtered out by the lens glass itself, and most of the IR (infrared) light by the sensor filter itself.
So why do people still use UV filters?
Some still use them because they've been used to them from the days of film, but most people use them as a 'protection' filter. This means, they hope that the filter will take the brunt of damage in case of conditions that would be adverse to lens elements. The debate on whether or not to use UV filters in this fashion is widespread and opinions differ on both sides of the fence.
As always in cases like these, both sides have their points.
Consider that the UV filter is essentially a piece of glass. If this piece of glass is not of good quality, or manufactured correctly, you will get all sorts of aberrations and image degradation, including softness, loss of clarity, loss of contrast, colour desaturation or shifting, all of which seriously impact the final image. Putting on a UV filter essentially adds another element to the front of the lens, reducing transmissivity of light, especially in cheap filters.
Using a better UV filter, say a B+W, will cost alot, often up to 100-150 euros depending on the size of filter. These filters have much less negative impact on the final image, although in sunny conditions they can increase the chances of glare, and at night, may cause or increase the chance of ghosting (reflections of lights on the filter).
Also, for general protection against catastrophic accidents like dropping a lens, the cost of homeowners insurance that covers all your equipment, or even the cost of replacing the lens front element, can often be about the same as that of buying a good UV filter.
Thus it could be argued that exposing the front element in order to maintain image quality is a good tradeoff. Additionally, in many cases, the filter itself can cause more damage to the lens, as when it shatters, pieces of glass can scratch the lens badly, or the filter ring can bend and be very difficult to remove.
But what about situations such as the beach where there is flying sand?
Well, the lens coatings on most modern lenses are surprisingly tough. I have subjected my 17-55 to many different conditions, including very windy beaches, and the front element looks just as when I first bought it new. Unless there is an actual sandstorm, most conditions will not harm your lens.
That said, I do use filters for protection, for example when covering speedball matches. When there is a small projectile travelling at 300 feet per second, hopefully the filter will absorb the brunt of the impact before the lens itself.
But just in case? I don't want to lose my lens just because I get a scratch?
It's always understandable that one wants to protect one's investment, especially those who are not professional photographers. There is nothing worse than saving for months and months, and not being able to use a lens because of accidental damage, or wear and tear.
However, the true impact of a damaged front element on image quality is negligible, even in significantly damaged lenses. A damaged back element would be much worse. Even deep scratches on the front element can be painted in black (to reduce sunlight reflecting off these scratches) with very little image degradation.
For proof:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.10.30/front-element-scratches
http://kurtmunger.com/dirty_lens_articleid35.html
SPOILER ALERT: These two articles test a lens that has had its front element literally shattered, and show the images that it produces. You might be surprised (if you haven't already read them) what a lens you'd think was only fit for the bin can do!
So there is no point using a UV filter?
I wouldn't say so. UV or protecting filters have their time and place, where the risk of damage to your lens element is high due to airborne projectiles, or areas with chemical corrosives in the air.
Additionally, if you are deciding to sell your lens in future, being able to say that you always always used a UV filter can increase your sale price.
Also, some people prefer using a good UV filter for peace of mind, and removing it when they notice ghosting or other effects.
Personally, I would use a lens hood. A lens hood portrudes far out from the front element, and if dropped, will take the brunt of the impact, shattering and dispersing the kinetic energy, or merely bending and flexing. Additionally, it protects from light rain, reduces glare and thus can actually improve image quality!
In any case of lens trauma, there is also possible shifting of the elements out of alignment, which would be far more noticeable.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
D5000 vs D90 : Which Camera to Choose
I have seen dozens and dozens of these posts in forums all around the web : "Which should I get, the D5000 or the D90" asked in myriad different forms. The exasperation level of frequent forum trawlers shoots through the roof whenever one of these threads comes about again, familiarity breeding contempt. The conundrum stems from the extreme similarity of these two arguably entry level models, as they share many features, just as they don't many others.
One of the reasons people refuse to give an answer to these questions is that only you yourself as a photographer can say what camera is good for you. If you want a little camera that fits in your pocket for walking about and image quality is not as important to you as being able to capture the moment, then it's a compact camera for you! Want super-zoom lenses you don't have to change? Then a bridge camera, or an entry level DSLR with an 18-200 or similar. But whatever it is, one has to know what one wants, and this involves researching, something many first-time buyers contrarily refuse to do, which is strange considering the investment one puts into something like a DSLR travel kit.
Back to the D90 vs D5000. Image quality from these two cameras are essentially identical. There are some rumours going around that the D5000 does better green reproduction, but for all intents and purposes, and especially after post-processing, the results are exactly the same. Both these cameras share the exact same 12.3 MP sensor as the D300, which is considered the first pro or semipro camera in the current Nikon lineup (Now replaced by the D300s, which performs almost the same as the original).
The processing engines on both are essentially the same as well, so when it comes down to image quality, the two cameras will produce ndistinguishable outputs when using the same settings, and at the same ISO. There are rumours that when using matrix metering the D5000 has a tendency to underexpose, whereas the D90 is the opposite, but with the same lens, shutter speed, aperture and ISO, they are similar.
So what's the big argument?
Well, lets start from when you open the box. The D5000's kit lens is the 18-55mm VR, whereas on the D90 it is the 18-105mm VR. The 18-55 is smaller, both are equipped with VR, and both are very good lenses for the price. Stopped down to around f6.3 to f8, both lenses can stand up to much more expensive lenses in terms of resolving power. Therefore, the 18-105 is usually the better choice due to its larger zoom range, which is more useful for travel photography.
Right?
Well, the 18-55 has another trick up its sleeve - its minimum focusing distance. The 18-55 can focus as close as 0.28m/0.9ft. Remember that this is the distance from the point in focus to the sensor. This means the 18-55 can focus on a point only inches away from its front element. The 18-105 on the other hand has a minimum focusing distance of 0.45 m/1.48 ft. Not too shabby, but for close up shots in areas with no room to back up, the 18-55 wins. Mind you, this is a bit clutching at straws here, usually I would advocate the 18-105 unequivocally.
However, most 'serious' users, or prosumers, or advanced enthusiasts, whatever you kids are calling it these days, go off and get better lenses. I have a 17-55mm f2.8 mounted to my D5000 most of the time. It costs almost three times what I paid for the D5000, but this is one thing you'll hear alot: Lenses are much more important than the body. In these days of digital, where the camera and film are the one, the camera body is much more important than in the days of film, but lenses still do the job of getting the light to the sensor, and the way they do that is extremely important.
So lets say they both have the same lens. What differences now?
Ergonomics, Viewfinder and Screen
The D90 is a slightly bigger body, and slightly heavier, making the D5000 more suitable for smaller hands, and slightly better at being discreet, and the D90 more suited for larger hands. The difference in size and weight is not very noticeable, though.
The viewfinder on the D5000 is a major source of complaints. Without the battery in, the D5000's viewfinder is very very dark. Even with it in, the viewfinder is still smaller than the D90's, and it covers 95% of the image area, compared to 96%. Size is not very different, at least to me, compared to a full-frame camera, but brightness-wise, the D90's pentaprism transmits more light (6-12% more) for a brighter viewfinder than the D5000's pentamirror.
The LCD screen is also another major area of contention. The D5000 has a swivel LCD for shooting above crowds, around corners, etc. This is very useful for video, and awkwardly angled shots. I personally could not live without it, as some of the macro and low angle shots I take would be much more difficult. I have also heard of it being used to look down on as the lens is manually focused, to take street pictures without people noticing, much like a 90degree viewfinder.
On the other hand, the D90's screen is larger, and of much higher resolution, 3inches and 920,000 dots compared to the D5000's 2.7 inches and measly 230,000 dots, almost three times less. Depending on how much you use your LCD, this could be an issue.
CLS
This is one thing often thrown about in strobist pools. The D90 is able to function as a commander with its built-in flash. This means, that if you use Nikon speedlights, you can control groups of them, and control their power and even use TTL functionalily (essentially an auto mode) from within your camera, using your popup flash as the 'master' flash controlling the other 'slave' flashes. The D5000, while compatible with CLS, cannot use its popup flash as the master, requiring a separate flash to be the master (an SB800 or SB900 or Nissin Di866)
Again, at first glance, this seems an obvious win for the D90. However, consider that the popup flash is not very powerful, and in strong sunlight this can cause misfires. Additionally, it is directional, having only a fixed angle at which the other flashes can receive it. Also, when working indoors, it is difficult to prevent the popup flash contributing to the exposure if it is not wanted, as it is so directional.
The pro bodies, D3, D3s and D3x, all do not even have a popup flash. Photographers working with CLS on these bodies often use an SB800 or SB900 with a Stofen diffuser, as the diffuser softens the light, reducing its impact on the subject, as well as spreading the light for a wider angle that they can use to activate the slave flashes. Alternatively they use an SU800 to trigger the slave flashes using infrared signals only. This is a pretty expensive method, however, as the SU800 cannot be used as anything else, like a speedlight can. Both the D5000 and D90 can use these options, as well as a flash commander mounted on a TTL cord.
The flash contribution on the D90 can be lessened using the SG3IR, which blocks out the visible light signal, and allows the infrared transmission signal to pass. This can reduce range, however, and you are still left with the problem ot the angle at which you can trigger the slave flashes.
Inbuilt Lens Motor
The D90s inbuilt motor is a great advantage for photographers with a collection of old lenses. It's also good for using a couple of gems that can be got for very cheap, like the old AF-D 50mm f1.8 and the AF-D 85mm f1.8, which will only work on bodies with a motor. The D5000 will only autofocus with AF-S lenses.
For someone starting out however, this isn't so bad. Nikon is expected to offer an AF-S 85mm soon, and Sigma already has one out with an inbuilt HSM motor. The 50mm has an AF-S and Sigma equivalent too. Most other lenses used for event photography have been updated to AF-S, like the workhorses used in the DX world, the 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, and the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VRII. Arguably, with the 17-55, the 70-200 and a teleconverter, you do not need any other lenses for work use!
AF-S also allows manual focus tweaking without having to switch on and off a manual switch. (with the exception of the kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200, which are the first lenses to be upgraded anyway. Currently there are no other AF-S lenses without manual override that I know of.)
Dedicated Buttons, DOF preview, Top LCD and Quiet Shutter
The D90 has dedicated buttons for more of its options, like autofocus mode or shooting mode, etc. For a main camera for someone who is constantly trying out different options and combinations of settings, this is very useful. The D5000 however, is my backup and travel camera. I want it to be at the settings I set it for the last time, with no chance of it having had a button bumped while it was hanging by my side or in my bag, as can happen easily with a D90. That said, the only real change that usually can happen is a flicking of the MF/AF switch, when the D90 is stored in a bag.
The inbuilt menu on the D5000 is easy and quick to access, and when you map the Fn button to ISO, you can control everything you should need without taking your eye off the viewfinder.
DOF preview is almost never used by most people, and the top LCD while nice, is unnecessary, as you get information from the LCD screen and viewfinder on a D5000.
One thing the D5000 has that the D90 doesn't is the Quiet shutter mode. In this mode, the mirror up and down is delayed by slowing down the mechanism. The mirror does not flip back up until you release the shutter button, allowing you to delay the sound. I've found that in quiet locations, e.g. a wedding in church, this is an extremely handy feature. The Quiet Shutter mode on the D5000 is one of the quietest shutter sounds on a DSLR.
Conclusion
I've attempted to show the differences between the two models without being too biased. As you can see, there are definite pros and cons with each other. The important thing is to decide which is best for a user. Another thing to consider is the price. Depending on where one obtains them, the D90 can cost more than a D5000 AND an additional 35mm f1.8. Starter bodies are replaced often, but lenses are not as they can be used on multiple different bodies. If the D90 feature set is not critical for your use, and if it is much more expensive, a D5000 with a lens upgrade can be a better option.
At the end of the day, both will enable you to take great photos, so go do that :)
One of the reasons people refuse to give an answer to these questions is that only you yourself as a photographer can say what camera is good for you. If you want a little camera that fits in your pocket for walking about and image quality is not as important to you as being able to capture the moment, then it's a compact camera for you! Want super-zoom lenses you don't have to change? Then a bridge camera, or an entry level DSLR with an 18-200 or similar. But whatever it is, one has to know what one wants, and this involves researching, something many first-time buyers contrarily refuse to do, which is strange considering the investment one puts into something like a DSLR travel kit.
Back to the D90 vs D5000. Image quality from these two cameras are essentially identical. There are some rumours going around that the D5000 does better green reproduction, but for all intents and purposes, and especially after post-processing, the results are exactly the same. Both these cameras share the exact same 12.3 MP sensor as the D300, which is considered the first pro or semipro camera in the current Nikon lineup (Now replaced by the D300s, which performs almost the same as the original).
The processing engines on both are essentially the same as well, so when it comes down to image quality, the two cameras will produce ndistinguishable outputs when using the same settings, and at the same ISO. There are rumours that when using matrix metering the D5000 has a tendency to underexpose, whereas the D90 is the opposite, but with the same lens, shutter speed, aperture and ISO, they are similar.
So what's the big argument?
Well, lets start from when you open the box. The D5000's kit lens is the 18-55mm VR, whereas on the D90 it is the 18-105mm VR. The 18-55 is smaller, both are equipped with VR, and both are very good lenses for the price. Stopped down to around f6.3 to f8, both lenses can stand up to much more expensive lenses in terms of resolving power. Therefore, the 18-105 is usually the better choice due to its larger zoom range, which is more useful for travel photography.
Right?
Well, the 18-55 has another trick up its sleeve - its minimum focusing distance. The 18-55 can focus as close as 0.28m/0.9ft. Remember that this is the distance from the point in focus to the sensor. This means the 18-55 can focus on a point only inches away from its front element. The 18-105 on the other hand has a minimum focusing distance of 0.45 m/1.48 ft. Not too shabby, but for close up shots in areas with no room to back up, the 18-55 wins. Mind you, this is a bit clutching at straws here, usually I would advocate the 18-105 unequivocally.
However, most 'serious' users, or prosumers, or advanced enthusiasts, whatever you kids are calling it these days, go off and get better lenses. I have a 17-55mm f2.8 mounted to my D5000 most of the time. It costs almost three times what I paid for the D5000, but this is one thing you'll hear alot: Lenses are much more important than the body. In these days of digital, where the camera and film are the one, the camera body is much more important than in the days of film, but lenses still do the job of getting the light to the sensor, and the way they do that is extremely important.
So lets say they both have the same lens. What differences now?
Ergonomics, Viewfinder and Screen
The D90 is a slightly bigger body, and slightly heavier, making the D5000 more suitable for smaller hands, and slightly better at being discreet, and the D90 more suited for larger hands. The difference in size and weight is not very noticeable, though.
The viewfinder on the D5000 is a major source of complaints. Without the battery in, the D5000's viewfinder is very very dark. Even with it in, the viewfinder is still smaller than the D90's, and it covers 95% of the image area, compared to 96%. Size is not very different, at least to me, compared to a full-frame camera, but brightness-wise, the D90's pentaprism transmits more light (6-12% more) for a brighter viewfinder than the D5000's pentamirror.
The LCD screen is also another major area of contention. The D5000 has a swivel LCD for shooting above crowds, around corners, etc. This is very useful for video, and awkwardly angled shots. I personally could not live without it, as some of the macro and low angle shots I take would be much more difficult. I have also heard of it being used to look down on as the lens is manually focused, to take street pictures without people noticing, much like a 90degree viewfinder.
On the other hand, the D90's screen is larger, and of much higher resolution, 3inches and 920,000 dots compared to the D5000's 2.7 inches and measly 230,000 dots, almost three times less. Depending on how much you use your LCD, this could be an issue.
CLS
This is one thing often thrown about in strobist pools. The D90 is able to function as a commander with its built-in flash. This means, that if you use Nikon speedlights, you can control groups of them, and control their power and even use TTL functionalily (essentially an auto mode) from within your camera, using your popup flash as the 'master' flash controlling the other 'slave' flashes. The D5000, while compatible with CLS, cannot use its popup flash as the master, requiring a separate flash to be the master (an SB800 or SB900 or Nissin Di866)
Again, at first glance, this seems an obvious win for the D90. However, consider that the popup flash is not very powerful, and in strong sunlight this can cause misfires. Additionally, it is directional, having only a fixed angle at which the other flashes can receive it. Also, when working indoors, it is difficult to prevent the popup flash contributing to the exposure if it is not wanted, as it is so directional.
The pro bodies, D3, D3s and D3x, all do not even have a popup flash. Photographers working with CLS on these bodies often use an SB800 or SB900 with a Stofen diffuser, as the diffuser softens the light, reducing its impact on the subject, as well as spreading the light for a wider angle that they can use to activate the slave flashes. Alternatively they use an SU800 to trigger the slave flashes using infrared signals only. This is a pretty expensive method, however, as the SU800 cannot be used as anything else, like a speedlight can. Both the D5000 and D90 can use these options, as well as a flash commander mounted on a TTL cord.
The flash contribution on the D90 can be lessened using the SG3IR, which blocks out the visible light signal, and allows the infrared transmission signal to pass. This can reduce range, however, and you are still left with the problem ot the angle at which you can trigger the slave flashes.
Inbuilt Lens Motor
The D90s inbuilt motor is a great advantage for photographers with a collection of old lenses. It's also good for using a couple of gems that can be got for very cheap, like the old AF-D 50mm f1.8 and the AF-D 85mm f1.8, which will only work on bodies with a motor. The D5000 will only autofocus with AF-S lenses.
For someone starting out however, this isn't so bad. Nikon is expected to offer an AF-S 85mm soon, and Sigma already has one out with an inbuilt HSM motor. The 50mm has an AF-S and Sigma equivalent too. Most other lenses used for event photography have been updated to AF-S, like the workhorses used in the DX world, the 17-55mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8 VR, and the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VRII. Arguably, with the 17-55, the 70-200 and a teleconverter, you do not need any other lenses for work use!
AF-S also allows manual focus tweaking without having to switch on and off a manual switch. (with the exception of the kit lenses, 18-55 and 55-200, which are the first lenses to be upgraded anyway. Currently there are no other AF-S lenses without manual override that I know of.)
Dedicated Buttons, DOF preview, Top LCD and Quiet Shutter
The D90 has dedicated buttons for more of its options, like autofocus mode or shooting mode, etc. For a main camera for someone who is constantly trying out different options and combinations of settings, this is very useful. The D5000 however, is my backup and travel camera. I want it to be at the settings I set it for the last time, with no chance of it having had a button bumped while it was hanging by my side or in my bag, as can happen easily with a D90. That said, the only real change that usually can happen is a flicking of the MF/AF switch, when the D90 is stored in a bag.
The inbuilt menu on the D5000 is easy and quick to access, and when you map the Fn button to ISO, you can control everything you should need without taking your eye off the viewfinder.
DOF preview is almost never used by most people, and the top LCD while nice, is unnecessary, as you get information from the LCD screen and viewfinder on a D5000.
One thing the D5000 has that the D90 doesn't is the Quiet shutter mode. In this mode, the mirror up and down is delayed by slowing down the mechanism. The mirror does not flip back up until you release the shutter button, allowing you to delay the sound. I've found that in quiet locations, e.g. a wedding in church, this is an extremely handy feature. The Quiet Shutter mode on the D5000 is one of the quietest shutter sounds on a DSLR.
Conclusion
I've attempted to show the differences between the two models without being too biased. As you can see, there are definite pros and cons with each other. The important thing is to decide which is best for a user. Another thing to consider is the price. Depending on where one obtains them, the D90 can cost more than a D5000 AND an additional 35mm f1.8. Starter bodies are replaced often, but lenses are not as they can be used on multiple different bodies. If the D90 feature set is not critical for your use, and if it is much more expensive, a D5000 with a lens upgrade can be a better option.
At the end of the day, both will enable you to take great photos, so go do that :)
Sunday, June 13, 2010
In Camera RAW Editing
The day my main workstation died, I was without a backup for some time. Although I had a 6 year old dusty, clunky laptop whose internal memory capacity I could have filled in a couple of photoshoots, I was pretty much unable to work on photographs for awhile, as Photoshop CS4 Extended would have been the proverbial last straw on the poor old thing's creaking back.
Instead I was stuck for a short while with no way of editing raw files. Shooting in jpeg was one option, but I really did not want to give away the dynamic range, white balance adjustability and general flexibility of RAW files.
However, the home page of my soon-to-be launched website was looking very dejectedly blank on the welcome page, and I decided a placeholder should be placed on it, at the very least.
Turns out that the RAW editor in your camera can be quite a useful tool. Sports and journalist photographers have long known this - in the time-limited world of headlines and deadlines, lengthy processing and tweaking is simply not an option. Jpeg is always an option, of course, but there is very little leeway comparitively when it comes to post-processing in case it's required.
So I set up the camera, SB800 ringflash on camera, and an SB600 camera right, illuminating a little deck of cards I built (Insulating tape played a crucial role, if you must know - three attempts at going it the 'proper' way resulting in a mess of cards and an infuriated photographer)
Not the most detailed or groundbreaking of images, but I thought it might convey the fact that the site was underway, and nearly completed.
The shot was at night, on a wooden table in a tungsten-illuminated room. Even with the tungsten white balance selected, the colours were not quite right, still overly warm. Instead of switching to manual WB, I decided to test out the RAW editor in-camera.
The RAW editor is surprisingly powerful even in lower-end cameras. The camera I was using was only a lowly Nikon D5000 (chosen over a D90 or a D300s for reasons many people would love to dispute :) )
With this, I had the option to use distortion correction, correct for exposure and WB, select picture control, straighten the picture and even apply a fisheye effect and correct for perspective! For most pictures, this is more than enough processing ability to produce acceptable images.
There is also a quick retouch option, similar to Auto-Levels in Photoshop, with an option of High, Normal or Low, with a preview to show what's happening at each setting.
Although for accurate colour reproduction, I would not trust the uncalibrated LCD screen (for example, deep purples often appear a rich blue) I thought a black and white look would suit the image, which was easily applied in the in-camera RAW editor using the MC or monochrome picture control. The 'UNDER CONSTRUCTION' was added later. Very simple, and not too bad.
On a side note, slightly busy bokeh (out of focus rendition, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) from the AF-S 35mm f1.8G in the lower corner. A bit of an issue sometimes, although I'm not sure if it's my copy or usual for this lens.
Please visit www.basilphotography.com for more information on Basil Lim Photography.
To view Basil Lim's latest pictures, see his Flickr site at www.flickr.com/photos/basil_lim
To contact Basil Lim, please email contact@basilphotography.com
Instead I was stuck for a short while with no way of editing raw files. Shooting in jpeg was one option, but I really did not want to give away the dynamic range, white balance adjustability and general flexibility of RAW files.
However, the home page of my soon-to-be launched website was looking very dejectedly blank on the welcome page, and I decided a placeholder should be placed on it, at the very least.
Turns out that the RAW editor in your camera can be quite a useful tool. Sports and journalist photographers have long known this - in the time-limited world of headlines and deadlines, lengthy processing and tweaking is simply not an option. Jpeg is always an option, of course, but there is very little leeway comparitively when it comes to post-processing in case it's required.
So I set up the camera, SB800 ringflash on camera, and an SB600 camera right, illuminating a little deck of cards I built (Insulating tape played a crucial role, if you must know - three attempts at going it the 'proper' way resulting in a mess of cards and an infuriated photographer)Not the most detailed or groundbreaking of images, but I thought it might convey the fact that the site was underway, and nearly completed.
The shot was at night, on a wooden table in a tungsten-illuminated room. Even with the tungsten white balance selected, the colours were not quite right, still overly warm. Instead of switching to manual WB, I decided to test out the RAW editor in-camera.
The RAW editor is surprisingly powerful even in lower-end cameras. The camera I was using was only a lowly Nikon D5000 (chosen over a D90 or a D300s for reasons many people would love to dispute :) )
With this, I had the option to use distortion correction, correct for exposure and WB, select picture control, straighten the picture and even apply a fisheye effect and correct for perspective! For most pictures, this is more than enough processing ability to produce acceptable images.
There is also a quick retouch option, similar to Auto-Levels in Photoshop, with an option of High, Normal or Low, with a preview to show what's happening at each setting.
Although for accurate colour reproduction, I would not trust the uncalibrated LCD screen (for example, deep purples often appear a rich blue) I thought a black and white look would suit the image, which was easily applied in the in-camera RAW editor using the MC or monochrome picture control. The 'UNDER CONSTRUCTION' was added later. Very simple, and not too bad.
On a side note, slightly busy bokeh (out of focus rendition, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh ) from the AF-S 35mm f1.8G in the lower corner. A bit of an issue sometimes, although I'm not sure if it's my copy or usual for this lens.
Please visit www.basilphotography.com for more information on Basil Lim Photography.
To view Basil Lim's latest pictures, see his Flickr site at www.flickr.com/photos/basil_lim
To contact Basil Lim, please email contact@basilphotography.com
Digital Photo Archiving
Basil Lim Photography is launching soon, the website is currently under construction at www.basilphotography.com. There's nothing there at the moment, until photos can be sorted out to display as portfolio, and I'm building a preview introduction/welcome on the front-page slideshow.
Work is piling up fast, 6 shoots all clamoring for photos to be worked on, although the slower backup computer I've been relegated to is not the best. Main work computer is still away for fixing, with Dell - 5 days left under warranty when it kicked the bucket!
Events like this make me shudder at the thought of the loss of all those photographs over the 2 week period I've been without my main workstation (over 3000 shots).
Backup is necessary in this age of digital files, and compared to the cost of losing hard work, coupled with the very cheap per-photograph cost, it's crazy not contemplating it!
Take a typical 12-bit Nikon NEF RAW file, about 12-14 MB in size. A 1 Terabyte external hard drive goes for around 100 euros, or about 120 USD at current currency rates. That will hold over 70,000 RAW files.
Even assuming that half the file space on the hard drive is taken up by Photoshop files or generated jpegs (again assuming you don't work on every single file), thats 0.003 euros or 0.3 cents per file.
Even with larger 14 bit files, you can see the costs are minimal, compared to losing all the time that went into the files.
I use twin Buffalo Drivestation external hard-drives, one of which is a portable, shock-resistant drive, and will soon be adding a third. They've served me well so far, and every shoot is immediately backed up on the two drives, and on my computer, and each physically stored in different locations. Paranoid much - No. They represent too much investment in terms of money and time. Digital photography's work output can be summarised entirely in 1's and 0's..
Here's a link to one of the Buffalo hard drives:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buffalo-DriveStation-External-Automatic-Encryption/dp/B002W7TT3S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276457859&sr=8-3
Visit www.basilphotography.com for more information on Basil Lim Photography
View photos at www.flickr.com/photos/basil_lim/
Contact me at contact@basilphotography.com
Work is piling up fast, 6 shoots all clamoring for photos to be worked on, although the slower backup computer I've been relegated to is not the best. Main work computer is still away for fixing, with Dell - 5 days left under warranty when it kicked the bucket!
Events like this make me shudder at the thought of the loss of all those photographs over the 2 week period I've been without my main workstation (over 3000 shots).
Backup is necessary in this age of digital files, and compared to the cost of losing hard work, coupled with the very cheap per-photograph cost, it's crazy not contemplating it!
Take a typical 12-bit Nikon NEF RAW file, about 12-14 MB in size. A 1 Terabyte external hard drive goes for around 100 euros, or about 120 USD at current currency rates. That will hold over 70,000 RAW files.
Even assuming that half the file space on the hard drive is taken up by Photoshop files or generated jpegs (again assuming you don't work on every single file), thats 0.003 euros or 0.3 cents per file.
Even with larger 14 bit files, you can see the costs are minimal, compared to losing all the time that went into the files.
I use twin Buffalo Drivestation external hard-drives, one of which is a portable, shock-resistant drive, and will soon be adding a third. They've served me well so far, and every shoot is immediately backed up on the two drives, and on my computer, and each physically stored in different locations. Paranoid much - No. They represent too much investment in terms of money and time. Digital photography's work output can be summarised entirely in 1's and 0's..
Here's a link to one of the Buffalo hard drives:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Buffalo-DriveStation-External-Automatic-Encryption/dp/B002W7TT3S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1276457859&sr=8-3
Visit www.basilphotography.com for more information on Basil Lim Photography
View photos at www.flickr.com/photos/basil_lim/
Contact me at contact@basilphotography.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)