Wednesday, December 17, 2014

On pixel-peeping vs. image resolution

Good photographers don't pixel-peep. They check for sharpness, and know how far is too far.

I'm not a good photographer. Certainly not as good as I'd like to be. Given a good opportunity I will pixel-peep. I realized this recently and I think this is one of the reasons I don't enjoy photography as much as I'd like to.

I have a 24 MP camera. I have intentionally downsized to a kit lens and I refuse to use other lenses unless absolutely necessary. The sensor resolution is overkill for this lens so I use the camera at 13 or 6 MP (yes, I prefer JPEG). I've covered my typical scenes at all resolutions. What I've discovered is that on average I like the photos taken at 6 MP significantly more than the ones at higher resolutions.

Can't See the Forest for the Trees
Taken at 6 MP and cropped a little. Could you tell?

My theory is that I like 6 MP because there's no room for pixel peeping. Seen at 100% the image isn't much bigger than my monitor so even when zoomed in I'm still basically analyzing the whole photo.

I decided to stay at 6 MP for now but it is a crutch. This will bite me when 4k monitors become mainstream; sometimes it is a problem even now when I have to crop and/or rotate a photo. I'm looking for better ways to stay on course when judging my own photos.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

A new life for photo prints?

One of the topics that frequently come up in photographic forums is ensuring that your photos survive in an accessible form. Computer crash, house fire, account owner's death, cloud-based company going out of business. There are many ways you, your relatives or your friends could lose access to the photos you'd want them to have.

A number of solutions are mentioned every time:

  • print, print, print;
  • backup, backup, backup;
  • store multiple copies in many places;
  • give your family the credentials to your cloud account.

Each of the above has its pros and cons so you should probably apply more than one solution at the same time. Of all the options prints are the best and the worst at the same time:

  • they can be viewed directly without power or special devices;
  • they are analog and thus copies will be degraded.

Here's a thought:


What if prints could double as digital backups?


Just think of it. Every time you order a print, some kind of NFC tag with the full copy of the original image file is embedded in the paper. Every time you give a print to your friend or relative they also get the file they can print again, read into their smartphone, etc.

You essentially get:

  • an analog, easy to view hardcopy,
  • an easy to retrieve copy of the image file,
  • a way for others to order more prints without asking you for the file; these new prints could even be bigger and have more resolution!
  • gratuitous distributed backup of the most valuable photos; after all people are most likely to want prints of the photos they care the most about.

These are just the most basic, originally intended uses. Off the top of my head I can think of these use cases:

  • Photo-capable home printers often accept memory cards and/or USB connection from camera. If they had NFC photo readers you could just touch the print to the printer and get another one (although probably without a chip).
  • Cameras could expose this NFC interface. You get into play mode and the photo that is currently displayed can be read off the camera by any reader. No fooling around with PictBridge or DPOF.
  • If you can print a photo with the NFC tag, you should be able to print a photo index with all the photos stored in the tag.

We already have some technologies that could lead to this. Flash memory, writable optical storage, RFID, NFC, probably more. The tech may not be ready yet but so wasn't digital photography twenty years ago.

There may be some technical considerations:

  • The NFC technology should be something that also has other uses. The more ubiquitous it is the easier it is to incorporate the functionality in devices and the bigger the chance this gets adopted.
  • Data storage and transmission must have enough capacity to handle typical photos. 4 MB and larger JPEG files are not unusual today. There is the option of resizing the files to something more manageable but still acceptable for enlargements.
  • The electronics embedded in the photo paper must be durable and provide some redundancy. It wouldn't do to discover that the faded print from your honeymoon trip cannot be re-printed fresh from the one you took out of the frame on the mantlepiece.

It's one of those things Kodak should have been working on rather than heading straight for bankruptcy. Oh well.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

What is a "perfect camera"?

There is no such thing as a perfect camera. Not in real life, not in theory. You can only tell what you need and what you don't care about.

A lot of lip service is being paid to how the camera doesn't really matter. Pros have repeatedly shown that you can get results with anything. Heck, I sometimes feel nostalgia for the times when I had less gear and took photos I liked more.

Now here comes the kicker:
"The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs."
-- Ken Rockwell
It's ironic that I found this right in the middle of an article about how gear doesn't matter. It does - just not the stuff some people worry about. And not necessarily the same stuff for everybody. The fewer things you have to learn to compensate for with your gear, the better. If what is left is irrelevant to your purpose, you end up with a "perfect camera".

Here's my take for the moment:
  • Accurate viewfinder. I don't mean 100% vs. 95% field of view. I mean the same frame format as my target images. I'm a snapshooter. I don't have the patience to learn how to frame for 3:2 prints with a 4:3 camera so I want a camera that can do (and display) 3:2 natively.
  • Reliable autofocus. The last time I was able trust visual feedback for everyday use was in a manual SLR with a large viewfinder with split screen and microprism. I want to know that when it blinks "focused", it is.
  • Reliable auto white balance. Slightly too cold or too warm is livable but it shouldn't stray into magenta or green tint unless explicitly told so. Not the case with some cameras.
  • Good JPEG engine. Raw is fun, no doubt about it. I should know, I've been shooting it a lot recently. The problem is that with my latest camera raw turned out to be nearly a must. I'd rather take "good enough" JPEGs out of the box and only post-process select ones for an extra touch.
It's actually pretty hard to come up with a list like that. You may listen to advice but you won't know what matters to you before you experience it. It's one of those "learn from your own mistakes" things. It took me almost 10 years of using digital cameras to get a clue.

I wonder how this list will change when I buy another camera. :)

Completely random

There was once a poor server from Tulsa
That would give its maintainer an ulcer.
                       With a version of Ruby
                       Only good for a newbie
But regardless he had to make do, sir.