On July 31st, 2013 my longest running discount and partnership on my blog expired, so I decided I’d show my appreciation for all they have done for me by giving you a couple new videos that shows why I like the Nik Collection by Google.
Conclusion
This is one of many examples of what you can do, but this is often the secret sauce of many well respected photographers.
Goodbye Special Offers
If you didn’t read this in time, I’m sorry to say that you’ve missed the boat. The lowest price I was ever able to get for the best Photoshop plugins on the market has expired.
Other articles you may enjoy
If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
Home pages no longer require any coding and can be customized extensively
While most people were sleeping, I got my first look at the all-new Smugmug site. This was a LONG overdue overhaul of the previous site that I once loved, but left for Zenfolio due to the boring and inflexible user interface it once offered.
Goodbye boring folder views, Smugmug finally enters the year 2013!
In a nod to 500px, Smugmug now offers more interesting ways to show the tiles to your gallery in addition to the traditional styles. There’s also the welcome addition of being able to specify your favorite social media icons using a variety of styles with icons provided by Smugmug. Surprisingly 500px isn’t included, but nearly everything else is!
When you are in authoring mode as I was in the shot above, there’s also a much cleaner customization toolbar that feels more responsive than the outgoing design. This makes sense as I’m told the entire backend has been re-written from the ground up with performance and compatibility in mind.
Drag & drop customization objects allow you to get the behavior you want without custom code
Customization is also allowed at multiple levels including Galleries where we are no longer subjected to those boring squares or lame journal view (but they are still exist if you want it). Now more interesting styles like “Collage Landscape” are shown here using some very old pictures from my test site done years ago:
Goodbye square boxes! Galleries can be cool!
It should be noted that the author view here shows some things your users won’t see but there’s also a way to see what your legacy site looks like while you are experimenting before you make that commitment to complete your migration to the new design. This is important because sites like mine had a lot of custom CSS and HTML, so I didn’t want to break the old site while I experimented with the new site. The user facing view of the above page can be seen by clicking the image above.
For my test site I’ve used three different gallery styles for you to see what’s possible. It should also be noted that you can now create custom pages and drag objects on there like slideshows to create more customization than ever before. Custom HTML (including HTML 5) & CSS is still allowed too, but it is not required.
Finally Interesting Templates
Exciting templates are included by default for new users as well as those who are migrating
Right from the start there will be some really cool templates included, but the selection I show above might include some that are still under development or are offered by a third party. I didn’t get an exact list, but all are possible using the new customization features – ALL without writing any custom code!
Compatibility & Migration
As someone who has most of his photo content for this blog hosted on Smugmug, I was VERY concerned about compatibility. I was also worried about how painful it would be to migrate my highly customized site. Fortunately the answer to these concerns were exactly what I wanted to hear:
Migrate at your OWN pace – There’s no need to fear if you have a site you like right now as I’m told that nothing has been done that will break your links or old site. This was a huge relief for me, and from what I can tell this appears to be true.
Work on your NEW design without breaking the old – Fortunately you can do some radical changes in the new site design without impacting the front end design. Of course there’s logical limitations which you need to be mindful of. For example, you can’t hide, delete or move your photos to new galleries and not expect that to impact your legacy site. However, you can drastically change the pages, navigation, and high level design without any backwards compat issues that I could see based on my experimentation. Of course, you should consult the Smugmug help site before doing anything drastic to be sure.
Conclusion
I’ve been waiting for this for a long time as I was a loyal Smugmug fanboy from the early days, but my frustration with the boring design and lack of innovation forced me to move to Zenfolio. I didn’t get enough time with the new site to feel like it was worth moving my portfolio back to Smugmug, but I was happy enough with the improvements to consider it a recommended photo hosting site again.
Like anything new in software there’s a few quirks I ran into, but nothing that offered more than a minor irritation. These issues and some of the wishes I have for improvement will no doubt be possible with this new architecture, so I’m excited for the future of smugmug again.
For my loyal readers who joined Smugmug based on my recommendations, this is the update you’ve been waiting for! For those who have moved to Zenfolio, this site offers some customizations that Zenfolio doesn’t but it also lacks some critical features like self fulfillment and fine tuning of gallery thumbnail images. I also still prefer Zenfolio’s overall design for managing the site, but it now has some catch up to do on how galleries are presented.
I’ll be sharing my feedback with the Smugmug team who now has an infrastructure that can support building the features that I’d like to see in future updates. We’ll also see some exiting stuff coming from custom site providers who are willing to write a little code.
Zenfolio – An alternate place to store your photos online
Disclosure
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
Scott Kelby’s Kelby Media Group has partnered with Adobe to make an amazing offer for Photoshop World Attendees – Get FREE Adobe Creative Cloud (All 19 Adobe products) for 1 year!
Join Me at the Show
Kelby Media Group has invited me to the show this year, so I’ll be doing a meet and greet event with ronmartblog.com readers! If you are interested in joining me then Contact Me to get on the mailing list for more details when they are announced.
Registration Discount Offer
Click here to learn more learn more about Photoshop World. The full price of Creative Cloud cost $600/yr so this free gift for attending totally justifies the price! If you are a NAPP member (and click here for a NAPP discount) you can save $100!
So if you sign up before August 2nd (save $100), are a NAPP member (save $100) and you are a Photoshop World Alumni (save $50) then you can save up to $250 off the full conference registration price!
Other articles you may enjoy
If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:
I will be a guest of the Kelby Media Group for the conference. I DO NOT make a commission if you sign up for this event.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
Click here to save up to $200 via mail in rebates on Gitzo tripods! For more information on my tripod, monopod and ball head recommendations check out these articles:
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
Are you a photographer who has a day job in addition to your passion for photography? Have you noticed how horrible your photos, PowerPoint slides, Excel charts, etc… look on many business class projectors at work?
Colors like this should look vivid on all devices - including projectors
I’ve noticed and it was driving me crazy! The colors weren’t anything at all what they looked like on my computer, tablet or phone! Instead beautiful flowers like the ones above looked like they had been dead for weeks instead of having the vibrant pop that you should be seeing right now on your personal device.
Introducing Color Brightness
At the beginning of 2013 for CES I read about a measurement for projector color quality called Color Brightness. This was very different from the brightness figures that I had often seen advertised by projector companies because it didn’t measure the traditional white brightness but instead it looked at the brightness of color.
I then ran across this awesome video that finally quantified what I had been seeing in business conference rooms in terms that made logical sense:
To compare projectors or find out the color brightness for a projector you may be interested in purchasing, be sure to check out http://colorlightoutput.com/. All results were independently tested by Intertek and Lumita, so I feel confident in the results – especially since they mirror what I see with my own eyes!
Consider the following 4, XGA resolution business projectors with similar White Brightness:
Notice how if you just paid attention to what you normally see advertised, the "Brightness", which only references White Brightness, then you'd think that the InFocus and BenQ projectors outperform their Epson counterparts. However, if you view these projectors side by side – as I have done – then you are scratching your head as to why the Epson’s color blows away these other projectors which are “better” on paper. However, when the color brightness of these projectors were measured there finally became a figure that quantified what my eyes were seeing – the color brightness of the non-Epson projectors were not in the same league!
My Testing
My testing was very simple – I connected my laptop to four different projectors in a completely black room. The projectors were all placed and set to where they displayed an image of the same exact size on a piece of white foam core board. I then focused and distortion corrected the projectors to where the image seemed properly proportioned to my eyes. I then proceeded to look at a series of test images and made notes about what I thought about each of them. I then switched between the various preset modes and finished with doing a factory reset on each model to make sure I had an accurate understanding of the out of box experience with each model.
To try to keep myself from being influenced in advance, I did not research or know anything about the models that I tested. I was not aware which models had 3LCD or 1-Chip DLP, nor did I know the cost of any of the models other than they were the same resolution with similar White Brightness. My only bias was that the 3LCD group provided the projectors, so I figured they’d probably send me units that performed favorably against the competing models tested.
My Background
Prior to my obsession with photography, I was a home theater junkie. I was the type of guy who owned and used Digital Video Essentials, & Avia to calibrate my displays because I cared so much about color. When I could afford it, I’d also get ISF calibrator to use a Sencore calibration device to make my TV look it’s best. In short, I was obsessed with great color and would lust for the best Runco projector.
Fast forward to today and I’ve been named a member of the X-Rite Coloratti (web site update pending) so I understand color management very well. In fact, I became obsessed with color management during my Printing Series. I captured images using the ColorChecker Passport for accurate capture color, I edited photos using X-Rite calibrated displays from Eizo and NEC, to create prints using the best print technology from Canon and Epson, and I analyzed those results under a GTI light box in a studio with Solux lights.
Overall I feel like my eyes are very well trained to visualize the color accuracy of an image on all possible media types (both electronic and physical).
My Findings
At least with the four models I’ve tested, I have found the Color Brightness measurement to be an accurate reflection of color quality. While comparable models had similar levels of White Brightness, there did appear to be a significant difference in how they rendered color. It was possible for me to make improvements on every model with the user controls that would result in an image that I considered to be "useable", but only so in a completely dark room. In that completely dark room, my preference was still for the Epson models and their overall color rendition. In a room with moderate levels of ambient light found in typical office environments the 1-Chip DLP projectors I tested were significantly darker.
It should also be noted that these are all business class projectors, so their performance would be considered inferior to more expensive photography, home theater or medical class projectors. None of the models I tested would be suitable for accurate photo editing or color sensitive design work. However, the Color Brightness measurement could be used as a tool to know that a Epson PowerLite Pro Z8255NL (10,000 Color Lumens) or Sony VPLFX500L (7000 Color Lumens) display significantly better color than the Epson PowerLite 1880 (4000 Color Lumens) that I tested.
In the end it is safe to say that projectors whose Color Brightness most closely matches its White Brightness will outperform those units with a large delta between those two values. This is where 3LCD has a clear advantage over 1-Chip DLP. Click here to see the 3LCD buyers guide which highlights how many common projector models perform.
Epson has created this color brightness landing page to help consumers understand what they are doing to improve the color brightness of their products. They are also promoting their 3 LCD design over popular DLP projectors with color wheels that break up the color as you can see in this video:
Conclusion
While none of the projectors tested in this article are “photography class” projectors, the reality is that images are displayed on business class projectors every day around the world. While these business class projectors might not make our images look as great as they do on a NEC PA Series or Eizo display, I don’t think it’s necessary for our images to look completely lifeless either!
The goal of this article is to give business people a tool they can use to help quantify to their management the value of a projector with great color brightness over alternative brands that might have previously looked superior on paper. Be sure to check out http://colorlightoutput.com/ when doing research for your next projector, or for making a case to replace your existing unit so that the bean counters don’t force you to compromise color in your conference or class rooms.
My bottom line advice is to get the highest color brightness projector you can afford, and if at all possible try to get one where the Color Brightness is similar to its White Brightness. To get the best picture for photography, you’ll usually find that the sRGB mode in a completely darkened room is your best starting point (for all models, including DLP).
* = The image at the top of this article is for illustration purposes only. I wanted an image to reflect the difference level I saw with my own eyes during my testing. This image features distortion, blur, and color clipping that are not 100% representative of any model featured in this article, and these issues were introduced by photographing a projected image.
Where to order
Click here to order a Epson PowerLite projector at B&H, or click here to order on Amazon. Whether you buy Epson or other projectors, don’t forget to check out http://colorlightoutput.com/ to compare color brightness levels of models that you are considering to make an informed decision about the the color quality you’ll get for your investment. Not all models have color brightness values, so you can also research http://www.projectorcentral.com/ listings and its forums for more advice on any given model.
Other articles you may enjoy
If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:
I approached Epson (a respected partner of this blog) about this topic after hearing about Color Brightness at CES. Since I knew Epson sold projectors I was hoping that they could help me understand this topic. It turned out that they had done a lot of work to help promote this new measurement standard. As a result of this conversation, they offered to let me see with my own eyes what this measurement was about by having 3LCD sending me 4 projectors to review (which are being returned) to prove this wasn’t just marketing hype.
I was not paid to do this review – I chose to do it to help educate my readers who might have been as frustrated as me with the poor quality of color found in many business class projectors.
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
Recently I was interviewed by Topaz Labs, and during that process I was asked to list out my digital workflow. That’s not something I’ve shared anywhere in well over 5 years so I thought my readers here might like to read it!
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
Topaz Lens Effects is one of those products that you don’t hear much about, but it’s one that I think is pretty underrated. The reason why is that there’s not only some decent photo editing filters, but there are also some cool special effects like Fog, Motion (aka Streak), Tilt Shift, Bokeh, Polarization, Sharpening, Vignette, etc.... It makes it easy to experiment and add some extra wow to your images, especially if your budget doesn’t allow you to own a lot of more expensive products.
Click here to download a trial copy to experiment on your own images, and check out just a few that I’ve included here to illustrate a tiny bit of what this product can do.
Sample Image – Chicago Police
Here’s a real simple edit that shows off the fun to use streak filter (Filter Streak – Left to Right High used here) which I used to give more sense of motion to the shot:
After Lens Effects Streak and More Saturation filters
Here’s what the image looked like out of the camera:
Original Image out of camera (from RAW)
Here’s my Photoshop layers adjustments (easily doable in Photoshop Elements too):
The layer mask was just to selectively tone down the filter in some areas and use it more heavily in others to suite my taste and intention. Not all scenarios will require a layer mask.
Sample Image – Japan Hillside
Original Image - no edits
After Lens Effects Edits
After version with a little more saturation and Fog I lens effect Click for a larger version
To watch me edit this image, watch my Topaz Labs Webinar from early July that will be published to http://www.youtube.com/TopazLabs (coming soon). The filters used were:
xF Add Adjustment - More Contrast
xF Add Adjustment - More Saturation
Filter - Graduated Neutral Density - Quarter Half 1 Stop
Filter - Graduated Neutral Density - Top Half 1 Stop
Photoshop Photo Filter – Cooling Filter (82) – can be done without Photoshop
B&W Effects – Dynamic I Smooth with 40% Opacity Soft Light Blend Mode layer (to give more mid-tone punch)
Fog Effect – Fog I
Creative Blur
This is kind of a Lens Baby effect on a chosen region from your image using on of the included filters:
Lens - Creative Blur - Centered Upper Half Effect
It’s not my style, but lots of people who long for a Lens Baby’s might enjoy it.
Sample Image – Fall Pathway
Now to be fair, I’d probably do a little more with this image using Adjust before I’d call it done. However, I’m trying to show how far you can go with just Lens Effects.
Edited using only Lens Effects and one optional Photoshop Adjustment Layer
The layer names are the presets I used in Lens Effects (all default presets except where noted). Here’s the why behind my layers:
More Contrast – This is a preset that just does what it says.
Saturation Boost – I wanted to amp up the fall colors. This can be adjusted to taste, but I just accepted the default for time constraint reasons.
Photo Filter – This is an optional step that could have been done using White Balance in Adobe Camera Raw, in camera using the Shade White Balance or in your favorite RAW file editor (i.e., Aperture, Lightroom, Capture NX2, DPP, etc…). I just wanted the pathway to look warmer, so I chose the Photo Filter using Warming filter #85.
GND Top Half 2 Stops – This is a digital Graduated Neutral Density filter that darkens the sky slightly and brings out more details in the tree tops.
Warm II – I wanted to warm up the entire scene overall
Sharpening II – Because I don’t want to sharpen the next layer, I do this step to sharpen the base image.
Fog I – I use the Fog I preset to give the sense that the fog was rolling in. It was for fun and is clearly optional.
Conclusion
Yes, there is overlap with this product and similar products from Google (i.e., Color Efex in the Nik Collection), and onOne (i.e., Perfect Effects) so I’m not suggesting that this is a product that owners of either of those products needs. However, users who haven’t made an investment in post-processing software or plug-ins will find that they can do quite a bit with this product alone.
As an owner of pretty much all of the major plug-ins on the market, this is my go to plug-in for Fog or for a very fast Graduated Neutral Density filter effect on level horizons.
Watch my Topaz Webinars to see how I use it in Topaz only workflow.
For those who are wondering, YES it works with Lightroom 2 and up, as well as Adobe Photoshop CS3-CS6 (32-bit and 64-bit), Photoshop Elements 6-11, PaintShop Pro, Photo Impact and Serif Photo Plus. I used a little Photoshop for my demo, but some of these alternative products could have easily done the same thing.
Overall I find this to be a nice complement to the Topaz Collection, and a decent first plug-in for budget conscious buyers looking for more than what their basic RAW photo editor provides.
Webinar Video
Here’s the video from my last webinar where I demonstrate how I use Lens Effects:
Where to order
Click here to order your copy and use the coupon code RONMART to save 15% on just this product, the entire Topaz Collection or any other Topaz product. If you have any troubles with this code, check my discount coupon code page for the latest details, or contact me.
Other articles you may enjoy
If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these:
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
While I was out shooting with one of my private training clients this past weekend, we decided to do a simple real world test of his new Zeiss 50mm lens versus my Canon 24-70 f/2.8L II lens at 50mm. We were shooting this waterfall shot next to each other so we thought it would be fun to see if there was much advantage to the Zeiss prime over the new Canon zoom.
After my client took his picture with a 1D X using his lens, we repeated what we had done by using my lens in the same spot so I could get the same shot. Given the length of the two lenses we had to compromise on position which resulted in some slight differences in the image position. To resolve these differences I simply loaded the images into Photoshop as layers and let it align the images as shown here:
Guides were used to set the common overlap, then the excess was cropped
In both cases the camera was stabilized, manually focused using 10x Live View, and mirror lockup was on as was the 2 second timer. The test exposure was f/16 for 1.6 sec at ISO-50. While I recognize this introduces diffraction, the idea was to see which lens was sharper at f/16 – even with diffraction.
I toggled the layers back and forth and I used a layer mask to poke holes through to the other layer to examine the top two layers. The JL image was the Zeiss image and the other two were mine (more on the bottom layer later). What I found was that the detail in the back of the image was significantly sharper with the Zeiss (duh), so much so that if found myself having Zeiss envy – ha, ha!
The Results
Zeiss Top vs Canon Bottom
The image above represents a 100% crop taken from the CR2 (RAW) file of both images from Lightroom 4.4 with the default settings. There was no camera shake for the 1.6 sec exposure for either image and mirror lockup was used with the 2 second timer. As you can see the Zeiss was quite a bit sharper when focused at the same point in the center of the image.
As you can clearly see the Zeiss is significantly sharper, so I wondered if I took another shot with my manual focus optimized for the rear of the image if that would help. As you can see below the second Canon shot was much sharper than the first that had focused in the middle:
Canon Top (focus center) AND Bottom (focus on tree) – separate exposures*
The problem with the focus to the rear was that it increased the exposure to 3.2 seconds because the evaluate metering mode indicated that the scene was darker so a longer exposure was necessary. I had forgotten I was in Av mode when I was doing this test so I regretted not doing this in manual to avoid that difference. The result here was that the Canon was almost as sharp as the Zeiss, but still softer.
Did you compare it to the <insert some other 50mm lens here>
Why didn’t you do bookshelf shots?
Why didn’t you test other apertures and avoid diffraction?
The answer to these and other questions are quite simple – this was just an informal test done while we were out shooting. I wasn’t able to do testing in my studio, and I don’t own any Canon 50mm prime lenses anymore. This is what we had, so we simple compared with what we had on hand.
I knew the Zeiss would be sharper than the zoom, but I was curious to see if it would make much difference once diffraction kicked in. This is why I intentionally and only tested at f/16.
This was all just a fun exercise to informally see how much better the Zeiss prime lens was over the zoom. The differences are so subtle that sharpening would probably make it hard to tell the difference between the two unless they were viewed side by side as very large prints.
I wouldn’t give up my auto focus Canon zoom lens for the differences seen here, but if I was a landscape shooter I’d probably consider the Zeiss (after comparing it closely to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime).
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
This shot was taken back in 2011 with a Canon 5D Mark II at 1/100 sec at f/2.8, ISO 1600 at 70mm (70-200mm f/2.8L IS II) on a Manhattan rooftop. The model is also an incredible wedding photographer based out of New Mexico who happened to be in town at the conference we were both attending. She was kind enough to nearly freeze to death (this was late October) on the breezy rooftop while we rattled off a number of shots.
What I love about this shot is the expression of the model’s face along with the light that grabs your attention to her face and incredible stomach. This model has no major skin flaws and there’s no digital diet going on here, so editing was pretty simple. Here’s the before (from in-camera RAW) and after:
Here’s my layers that show what I did here:
Here’s each layer explained:
Noiseware Default – Noise reduction using Noiseware using the Default setting.
Hairs – Content aware healing of stray hairs
Portraiture – Skin Softening using the Medium Preset to help tone down the goose bumps
Brilliance / Warmth – Color Efex 4 effect to warm the skin tones and background lights
HPF Eyes and Teeth – An overlay layer with High Pass Filter set to 3 to make the eyes and teeth shine a bit more
Fix Background – Remove lines and spots from the railing
Darken Background – I used Viveza to darken the background and then selected the railing areas using the blue channel to create a a simple mask that only got the areas I wanted. I applied the mask to the image to avoid making my file overly large since I didn’t need that extra Viveza data. I also noticed that I missed a little underwear imprint on the belly so I removed that on that layer.
Only apply Tonal Contrast to the skin above the waist and the city lights. I could have applied the layer, but I was done so I just stopped there.
Not shown here, but I did output sharpening using Sharpener Pro on the image uploaded to the web.
Conclusion
This editing could have been done in Photoshop Elements, but I used CS6 just because that is what I’m used to. This is a pretty basic edit that took about an hour with most of the time spent on the Hairs layer.
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
One product that I use often, but don’t talk much about on the blog is onOne Software’s Perfect Resize. However, it’s funny when I talk to people about resizing images because they immediately wonder why I don’t just use Photoshop or Lightroom?
In this article, I’ll show you why. This was a recommendation in my Printing 101 eBook, and it still remains a product that I use regularly when printing.
For this test, I took an image that I had exported out of Lightroom at 1800x1200 pixels. I did some minor edits using Perfect Effects and then I resized it. The resize on the top was done in Photoshop CS6 with 16x24” @ 360 ppi (8640x5760) using Bicubic Automatic. For the naysayers, yes I did try Bicubic Sharper and Bicubic Smoother as well as the other modes. The best choice was Bicubic Smoother which seemed to match what Bicubic Automatic had done.
Photoshop CS6 (top) & Perfect Resize 7.5 (bottom) Click on the photo to view this at 100%
On the bottom was the Epson Resin Coated 16x24 preset with sharpening turned OFF. The reason why I turned off sharpening is because I knew that this would be used on the web so the extra sharpening required to make a print look its best makes online images look way over sharpened. It also provides an apples to apples comparison since Adobe doesn’t do any sharpening after resizing either.
Now you don’t really even need to click on the photo to tell that Perfect Resize won this battle hands down.
Lightroom (top) & Perfect Resize 7.5 (bottom) Click on the photo to view this at 100%
Lightroom was actually worse than Photoshop which really surprised me as I expected it would be the same as Bicubic Automatic. However, it appears that Lightroom uses the Bicubic Sharper algorithm which resulted in an even softer resized image.
Alien Skin Blow Up 3 (top) & Perfect Resize 7.5 (bottom) Click on the photo to view this at 100%
Long-time readers of my blog know that I used to be a huge fan of Alien Skin Blowup because it used to beat older versions of Genuine Fractals (the predecessor to Perfect Resize). However, in 2013 the latest version of both products – with sharpening and grain enhancements turned off – proves that Perfect Resize 7.5 is the king of resizing. When you look at the images above there’s no comparison – Perfect Resize is the hands down winner.
But wait, did you try…
Any time I do this type of article, I immediately get people who freak out and say but you didn’t do X that’s why you say the results that you did. For example, some Photoshop purists suggest that resizing must be done in increments rather than directly from one size to the next. However, my sources at Adobe have told me that is exactly what Photoshop does under the covers for the last several releases, so that won’t yield better results. Sure enough, when I tried that myself I didn’t notice any improvement.
With respect to Mac versus Windows – I did not observe any benefit to one operating system over the other.
I know I’ll get questions like “but you should try Lightroom 5, or Adobe Photoshop CC”. However, I encourage you to try your own images using the methodology I’ve applied and see if it makes a difference. To my eyes, Perfect Resize always comes out ahead when upscaling images. Downscaling sometimes favors Photoshop, but not always.
Don’t believe me? Download the free trial of any of the products mentioned and do your own comparisons on your own images. For the best results, downsize your image using Lightroom or Photoshop to something manageable (like 1920 x 1200) then upscale to something like 16x24” @ 360ppi. This gives you a better idea of how good the resizing algorithm really is!
Keep in mind that not all images are created equally so some easy to resize images might produce identical results, and some complex images may produce slightly different results. I chose the image I did for my testing because it’s pretty much as hard as it gets for resizing real-world photography images.
It should also be noted that I did use a variety of images in my testing and got similar results. For time reasons, I have only included one example image to illustrate the summary of my findings. If you would like the actual resized images then contact me and I’m happy to provide a link.
Conclusion
If you care about the quality of how your images are resized (and you should if you print), then Perfect Resize is the way to go. When scaling images down to web resolution it’s less important what you use because pixels are lost. However, when upscaling pixels have to be added so the quality of the software makes a huge difference, and Perfect Resize is still the king!
If I could only own one onOne Software product, this would have to be it. I highly recommend it!
For those coming from older versions you’ll find this version is significantly faster, more robust (i.e., I’ve had no crashes), and it scales up to 400% very nicely (i.e., usable in printing when images are viewed at appropriate viewing distance).
My only gripe about this product is that you have to pre-crop your image to the desired aspect ratio before using Perfect Resize because it will only remove pixels on cropping – it won’t add bars (excluding the Gallery Wrap feature which is pretty awesome if you do wraps).
More Information
Click here to learn more or order the latest version of Perfect Resize. This page provides more info on product features and versions available. This product can run stand alone, so Adobe products are not required.
I don’t have any special discounts for them anymore because onOne Software stopped doing that due to coupon abuse. However, I do have this special deal for those who decide they want to get the whole suite:
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
I’m researching for a future blog article, so tonight I put a minor update on an old 2008 article that I think many of my current readers might enjoy. The cameras have changed, but the concepts and improvement percentages remain roughly the same.
If you have kids, then you will most likely find yourself shooting sports. For most of us it will be soccer or basketball, which means a lot of fast-paced action. This also means a lot of pictures are taken, so it isn't long before your camera is bogged down trying to write photos to your compact-flash or SD card.
The RAW versus JPEG dilemma
Unless you've been living in a cave, you've heard numerous arguments about the advantages of RAW over JPEG and near religious debates as to why to use one over the other. The purpose of this article isn't to rehash that debate.
RAW is a technically superior file format because you capture everything your sensor sees which gives you creative freedom later to alter things like white balance and exposure drastically to create results not possible with JPEG. It also is only lightly compressed in a lossless format (on Canon, Nikon has compression options), which means no pixels are lost during saving. The downside to RAW files are that they are large and must be converted to another format before they can be made useful. RAW is my preferred format for my digital workflow. Back when I wrote this article originally, my Canon 1D Mark III saved CR2 images that were 3888 x 2592 pixels which are about 14+ MB each on average.
JPEG is great because it does compress the image which makes the file smaller. Smaller files mean faster burst mode performance and more files on your CF/SD card, hard drive, etc... Its major disadvantage is that you must recompress the image on every save, so you lose data with each save. How much you lose depends on the compression level, but it happens with all saves. In addition, you are limited in what you can do with exposure and white balance changes after the fact, so it is more important to get these things right in-camera for the best results (and most of us fail to do that until we become very good).
Another feature of JPEG is that the camera color space and built-in enhancements (i.e., saturation, sharpening, etc...) are applied to the image prior to saving, so the out of camera result will typically look more vivid and sharp compared to the unedited RAW. This advantage can be a disadvantage if the default processing isn't what you wanted. The default processing is determined by your camera picture style (also called picture controls on Nikon), and some of these can be more saturated or sharpened than you might want for a given picture. Removing these edits can be very challenging, and impossible for beginners.
Some film photographers and photojournalists prefer the JPEG format because argue that if you get the results right in-camera, then you'll be fine. What's more, you'll have a shot that is immediately usable out of the camera (unlike RAW which always requires some degree of post-processing). On my old Canon 1D Mark III camera, I used the JPEG L (for large) setting and I've changed the camera default compression level of 9 to 10 to use the minimal amount of JPEG compression on my photos when I chose this format. This results in a 3888 x 2592 pixel images are about 4.8 MB each on average. That’s a significant size difference over the RAW’s!
Enough gibberish, what does this mean to me?
What does all of this mean? If I'm shooting the kids at soccer with a typical camera (at the time this was written that was a 50D or D300) and I chose to shoot RAW format, then I'm going to find myself waiting on my camera to write photos to the CF card after roughly 15 - 20 images taken in 3 to 6 frame bursts. If I shoot with JPEG, then I can generally keep pace with the action with a 6+ frame burst and 60+ images before my buffer fills.* However, there's a gotcha in that it will come with a loss of what I can do after the fact to save a picture. In sports, getting perfect in-camera results is very difficult, so RAW is very helpful for this reason. A good example of this is a shade covered soccer field where you get bright sun and dark spots on the field as shown in the following photo:
In RAW you could expose both sections of this shot differently using Lightroom (or Adobe Camera RAW) and create a perfectly exposed shot. In JPEG, this is what you live with, so the over exposed face (a.k.a, white clipping) on the boy's face with the blue jersey can't be corrected.
* = It should be noted that camera buffers have gotten larger, so many current models (i.e., T5i, 5D Mark III, 6D, D600, D7100, etc…) can typically exceed 100 JPEG or more before the buffer fills. For RAW files it varies on the camera but it’s getting more common to see over 20 RAW images before the buffer fills.
A Solution - sRAW
In Canon DSLR's dating back to 2007 a new RAW format was introduced in the 40D to provide another possible solution to this problem. Canon called it the small RAW format (sRAW). sRaw on my 1D Mark III was 1936 x 1288 pixels and saved in the same CR2 format as the large images. The difference is that since there are less pixels of information, the file size is only 7.7 MB on average. While this is larger (almost twice as large) than JPEG, it is still half the size of a traditional RAW. This means that you can capture more images and write them to your CF card faster. While I wouldn't want a small image like this for my motorsports work, it makes perfect sense for my kids sports photos because how often do I ever make prints larger than a typical 4x6? In fact, even with typical cropping, I've found I can do prints as large as 11x14 without any problems using the sRAW format.
Even works for the big boys too
I currently shoot with the Canon 1D X, and even though it is a sports camera I my buffer eventually fills which can leave me struggling to keep up with the fast paced action in RAW. In fact, years ago it was my daughter's soccer game that forced me to give this format a shot when the weather conditions made JPEG too much of a risk. While some shooters might just stick with JPEG and shoot a higher ISO, I felt that keeping giving myself some wiggle room with RAW later made the most sense. Given the fact this was just a kids soccer game, I thought I'd give it a try and I was very happy with the results. All of the girls soccer photos in this article were taken with the 1D Mark III using sRAW and that was perfect for these shots as most have stayed on the hard drive and only a few were printed as 4x6” prints.
Conclusion
Canon has expand its system to add medium RAW’s, and Nikon allows different bit depths and compression methods to reduce its raw file size. To my knowledge Nikon still has no sRAW or mRAW equivalent. Camera buffers have gotten bigger, but megapixels have also increased. As a result, the problems of 2008 still exist today so using a smaller raw format is a great way to balance performance with quality for things like kids sports.
Other articles you may enjoy
If you enjoyed this article, you may also enjoy these reviews and articles:
If you make a purchase using links found in this article, I may make a commission. It doesn’t cost you a penny more, but it does help to support future articles like this.
NOTE: This site requires cookies and uses affiliate linking to sites that use cookies.
If you enjoyed this article, please support future articles like this by making a donation or saving money by using my discount coupon codes. Either way, your support is greatly appreciated!
This blog is intended for freelance writing and sharing of opinions and is not a representative of any of the companies whose links are provided on this site.
The opinions provided are of Ron Martinsen alone and do not reflect the view of any other entity
