Shutterfinger

Upgrade Update

Adobe has decided to modify its previously stated upgrade policy for its Creative Suite products, which includes, among other things, Photoshop. In December Adobe announced a policy that would basically require you to upgrade to Photoshop 5 or 5.5 to qualify for a discounted upgrade to Photoshop 6. This policy was, ahem, not well-received by Adobe's customers.

The new policy is a lot like the original policy: You still qualify for a discounted upgrade price if you own CS versions 3-5, at least until December 31, 2012. (What happens after that is anyone's guess.) The difference is that the upgrade pricing is tiered. The more recent the version of Creative Suite/Photoshop you own, the greater your discount. Feel free to click this link for more details.

Isn't it nice to know that even companies as big as Adobe listen to the voices of their customers--or should I say "howls of protest?"

Dropbox: A Convenient Way to Share Photos

  Here's what your list of folders would look like on the Dropbox site. I've added an arrow that points to the Photos folder. You can also open Dropbox from your desktop or file manager, in which case it would look like any other window with a list of folders and files.

How often has someone asked if you could send them a copy of the photo you've just taken? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request. After all, all you have to do is e-mail it to them. Except that if you're shooting RAW you'll have to convert it to JPEG first. You might even be tempted to adjust it a bit first so it looks the way you intended. And if you're shooting at anywhere near full resolution, you'll have to resize it so it won't choke their e-mail server. If you're sending several photos, e-mail really isn't an option. Then you're looking at either burning the images onto optical media and sending them the disc or uploading them to a website where they can access and download them.

I personally find uploading to a website to be the most convenient approach. Once I upload the photos, all I have to do is send the requester(s) a link to where to find the photos, then it's up to them to go get 'em. No muss, no fuss, no discs, no postage.

There are a variety of ways to set up such a website. The one I find the quickest and most hassle-free is Dropbox.What is basically is is an amount of disk space that you have reserved on a remote web server. Anything you upload to this server can be available to anyone you want to share it with, including yourself. Sharing with yourself is convenient because it allows access to the same files even if you're using multiple computers in multiple locations. The only "catch" is that because Dropbox is web-based you have to Internet access to access the files.

It costs nothing to sign-up for Dropbox and the first 2GB of space are free. Two gigs can store a hell of a lot of JPEGs, especially when you're just using it as a temporary place to upload files until whoever asked for them has had a chance to view and download them. To do this, you send an e-mail invitation to whomever you want to grant access to a shared folder. Your invitees will only have access to folders you specifically share with them. Anything else is private and visible only to you.

Another convenient aspect to Dropbox is that it resides as a folder on your desktop, taskbar, finder, or wherever else you choose to replicate it. All it takes to move files is to select, drag, and drop--hence the name "Dropbox." It doesn't get much easier than that. And just in case you're wondering, I have no financial or otherwise self-serving interest in recommonding Dropbox. I don't get any money or extra GB of space if you use it or not. I just like using it and think you might too. Another other Dropbox users out there who would like to share your experiences, pro and con, should feel free to leave a comment.

 

It Depends on What You Mean by "Simple."

The top of this Sony NEX-7 mirrorless interchangeable lens digital camera looks wonderfully clean and simple, doesn't it? Maybe a bit too clean and simple... As far as size and weight are concerned, though, the NEX-7 actually weighs about half as much and is 20% smaller than the Nikon FM3A below.

One of the things I have to think about in my day-job as someone who designs and scripts web-based training is user-interface design. User interface is a techy term for “controls.” I generally try to make the user interface as obvious, intuitive, and simple as possible. One of the complicating factors is that simplicity isn't always as simple as it seems.

For example, take a look at the top of the Sony NEX-7 above and tell me if anything jumps out at you. No? Well, let me put it another way: Can you tell by looking at the controls on the top of the camera how to set the exposure mode, aperture, or shutter speed? Do you have any idea how you would find out? Can you tell for sure which one of the two buttons on the top of the handgrip is the shutter button, short of pressing one of them to see  what happens? I've only shown you the top of the camera, but trust me, you won't find any more clues on the back either.

Nothing jumps out at you because this is a classic example of a hidden interface. The NEX-7 has so many features and functions that the designers decided not to “clutter” the camera with dedicated buttons, dials, levers, and switches. Instead, they created dials whose functions vary depending on what mode you’re in. That’s what the button to the right of the shutter button is for, by the way: It cycles you through the NEX-7’s various modes. What to know what mode you’re in? You have to look at the menu on the LCD display. It’s therefore impossible to set anything directly. You first have to be in the right mode, then you need to know which of the dials to turn and in what direction. Keep in mind that I've never handled an NEX-7, so for all I know it's a lot easier than I'm making it sound--but I doubt it.

The dial on the left is for setting the ISO and exposure compensation. The dial on the right is for setting either a specific shutter speed or aperture-preferred mode. The only other controls would be on the lens: focus and aperture. This may look more complicated than the Sony above, but to some of us it's actually a lot more simple.

Contrast this approach to the user interface of an old school Nikon FM3A (or the many other manual film cameras that look pretty much the same). Even if you didn’t know what each of these dials did, it would be pretty evident that each one does only one or two things and they are the same every time. The aperture ring controls the aperture, the shutter dial controls the shutter, the ISO dial controls the ISO. Period. There are no menus, so the interface has to be clean, simple, external, and self-evident.

As for which approach is “better” than the other, well, that depends. Some people like having almost limitless combinations of options they can program into their camera and then let then program run with an occasional tweak every now and then. Others would rather use their brain as the software and exercise direct, real-time control with their fingers. Either interface approach can produce fine pictures. From what I hear, the NEX-7 has been a hit for Sony. The more retro-designed Fuji X-100 and its recently introduced sibling, the Fuji X-10 have been hits too. May they all continue to do well. As for me, well, let’s just say I plan to hold on to my Nikon FM3A for as long as I can still get film for it.

Ricoh GR Digital IV Review – Part 2

Is This the Perfect Compact Camera for Street Photography?

Here's what the Ricoh GR Digital IV looks like in its fully relaxed state. The generous grip allows for a secure hold despite there being space for only two fingers. On the bottom you might just be able to make out the reflection of the stainless-steel tripod socket.

 In Part One of this review I highlighted the Ricoh GRD IV’s key features and explained how I set it up for my own particular style of street photography. In this second and final part I'll cover some of the more operational and experiential aspects of using the GRD IV.

I want to reemphasize that the GRD IV has an amazing range of setup options, most of which are quite useful, depending on your needs and desires. The catch is that there are so many of them that the choices can be bewildering, especially for the neophyte. My approach, which I recommend to anyone else who decides to buy a GRD IV, is to focus first on familiarizing yourself with basic controls such as how to adjust the aperture, shutter speed, focus, and exposure compensation. Once you’ve got that down to the point that it all becomes second nature, you can then add specialized settings and custom functions at your leisure and as you find useful.

Okay, I should have shot this so the controls on the rear are easier to see, but trust me, they're there, along with enough space to rest your right thumb.

I used the GRD IV with the file size set to maximum resolution (3648 x 2736 pixels) and the file format set to RAW. With a freshly formatted 4GB SD card this allowed a maximum of 203 frames; more than enough for an average day of street shooting. The advantage to shooting RAW is that you don’t have to worry as much about white balance and exposure; you can make adjustments in post. The disadvantage is that it significantly slows down the GRD IV's frame rate.It needs 2-3 seconds after each RAW shot to clear the buffer before it’s ready for the next. If you set the camera to Continuous mode you can shoot several RAW shots in a row at approximately 1 fps, but each shot you take will still need 2-3 seconds to clear before the camera is ready to shoot again. If you’re big on continuous shooting and you insist on RAW format you may want to look elsewhere.

Battery life shouldn’t be a concern under normal use. When fully depleted it takes roughly 2.5 hours to recharge. Once charged it’s spec’d to last up to 390 shots, depending on how much you use the flash and LCD. After a few hours of fairly steady shooting with the LCD used for framing and reviewing, the battery charge indicator still showed "full."

It takes approximately two seconds for the lens to extend or retract once you press the power button, so for the sake of speed and readiness you may want to leave the camera on for several minutes at a time. If you're worried about forgetting to turn it off, there's an Auto Power Off feature which can be set to 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 30 minutes.

I was less than five feet away from this produce vendor in Philadelphia's Chinatown. Because of the low angle he probably thought I was taking pictures of the scallions and bok choy. I converted to B&W because the colors were too varied and distracting. The sunlit areas are overexposed, but given the extreme dynamic range this GRD IV still did pretty well.

Framing with the LCD-only has several advantages over optical and SLR viewfinders. From a street photography perspective it makes you look more a harmless amateur and less like a serious pro with expensive equipment and questionable intentions. I felt comfortable enough to point the GRD IV directly at people and in full view. Most simply ignored me. If not, the most they would do would be to either move aside, so as not to “get in the way,” or glance behind them to see what I was photographing. From a framing perspective I could set the camera at ground level, against a wall, or on a counter, and still be able to use the viewfinder without contorting myself into awkward positions. I have to say it made me feel a lot more free and adventurous in how I framed my photos.

Another major advantage of the GRD IV for street shooters is quietness. You can adjust the shutter sound in three increments, from an audible “chirp” to a whisper “snick.” Even at the default medium setting I could stand right next to someone and release the shutter several times without being noticed.

Handling was great. I could set the aperture with my right index finger and exposure compensation with my thumb on a rocker switch on the back of the camera. I could also use my thumb to press in on a dial/lever on the back, which brought up a sub-menu that allowed me to choose and adjust other frequently-used settings such as white balance, ISO, file size and format, image setting, metering pattern, and AF point position. I found the GRD IV's size to be just right—not too large, not too small. On the other hand, a few non-photographer female friends of mine thought it was tad large.

Of course, all the ease of use and flexibility of the GRD IV wouldn’t count for much unless the image quality met expectations. I’m happy to say it did. Unlike most compacts I’ve used, the GRD IV usually managed to retain detail in the highlights, yet because I was shooting RAW there was still enough dynamic range that with judicious exposure I could use curves to boost the shadows or reduce the highlights in post if necessary. I could boost the shadows by at least one stop without the image posterizing or otherwise falling to pieces. All post-processing was done in Adobe Lightroom. Ricoh’s native RAW format is Adobe DNG, so Lightroom had no trouble digesting it. The color balance was on the cool side of netural, with colors that were rich without appearing garish or over-saturated.

ISO 100 (0.3-stop above the base ISO). Click to enlarge.

ISO 800 -- the highest I would feel comfortable using. Click to enlarge.

ISO 3200 -- not so bad at smaller sizes. Click to enlarge.

To get the best image quality, however, you’ll need to shoot at as low as ISO as possible. When set to Auto ISO the GRD IV ISO never rose over 154. That was fine outdoors in daylight. Indoors it resulted in shutter speeds too slow to stop camera and subject motion, even with the GRD IV’s built-in image stabilization. You can set the ISO as high as 3200, but I personally wouldn’t go any higher than 800 unless there was no other way to get the shot and I didn’t plan to make large prints. The high ISO examples I’ve provided should explain why. There’s only so much a 1/1.7” sensor can do, even one as good as the one in the GRD IV.

So is the Ricoh GR Digital IV the right camera for you? That depends. If all you need is a simple, low-cost, general-purpose compact, you can find plenty of good options for a lot less than the $599 the GRD IV will cost you. On the other hand, if you’re looking for a fixed-lens, wide-aperture, compact camera that can perform almost as capably as larger, heavier micro four-thirds or APS-C alternatives, the GRD IV deserves to be on your short list—and in your pocket.

By the way, should you decide to buy one, I'd recommend using the link to B&H Photo that I've provided here and above. They're an authorized Ricoh distributor, their prices are competitive, and ordering from them helps support this site. Also keep your eyes peeled for a short review of the GRD IV's bigger brother, the Ricoh GXR with A12 module. If you've been wondering how practical it would be to attach Leica M-mount lenses to a camera with an APS-C sensor, here's where you'll find out.

My Hard Drive Migration Story

I recently filled up the external hard drive I use to store my photographs. This was no great achievement: It has a maximum capacity of 250GB, small these days. For me that represents over eleven years of photos, from the year 2000 to the first half of 2011, so I couldn't complain. I did, however, have to expand my hard drive storage.

One option would have been to buy a second drive and simply begin where I left off. The first drive could store the first decade of 2000 and the second could start with 2010. The downside would be that most of my photos would be on the older drive. Even if I transferred the original photos to a new drive of the same capacity (thus ensuring redundancy and a safe backup) I would still have to switch back and forth between drives to manage my catalog. That's more work and more opportunity for error than I cared to contemplate, so I scratched that option.

The option I chose was to transfer the photos to a new Mercury Elite AL-Pro hard drive with a 1.5TB capacity. This way I still have access to all my photos on one drive. I will back up the first ten years of 2000 onto a physically smaller drive that I will store off-site in a safe deposit box. It's a free service at my bank and I can't think of a safer place for my photographs.

I'm also in the continuing process of backing my best photos onto other media such as high-quality Taiyo Yuden DVD-Rs and the hard drive in my Mac. This works well for me because all of my best photos can still fit on two 4.7GB DVDs with room to spare. Depending on your perspective this is either a testament to my superior editing skills or my meager output of quality photographs.

In any event, the transition has gone smoothly. I created a new catalog in Lightroom, set it as the default, and was back in business. As the size of my catalog continues to grow I will have to be more careful to maintain a sound yet simple backup strategy, but so far everything is under control. If any of you reading this have faced a similar situation and have any brilliant strategies or unmitigated disasters to share, please feel free to share.

 

 

 

Tips for JPEG Shooters

It's a July 4th tradition in my neighborhood for the firemen at the local station to use the ladder on their truck to suspend themselves over a crowd of eager kids and toss handfuls of peanuts and candy down below. Thanks to the light clouds and overcast, I didn't have to worry about overexposing the background or underexposing their black uniforms.

Yes, I know. No photographer worthy of the name shoots JPEGs these days. RAW is superior, it’s the only way to go, blah, blah, blah. All that aside, let’s suppose someone did want to shoot JPEGs for whatever reason—say, for example, because JPEGs take up so much less space on an already overcrowded hard drive, because your camera’s RAW format is so new your favorite raw converter doesn’t support it yet, or maybe just because you simply want to shoot without having to later spend time in front of a computer monitor, tweaking file after file. It might even be that you like shooting video with your DSLR, in which case there is no RAW option; the camera applies whatever JPEG rendering style you've set your camera to. If you fall into this iconoclastic group, here are a few tips to help you get the most out of this  valid and often necessary file format.

 

Pay attention.
When you shoot JPEGs, what you see is pretty much what you’re going to get. Exposure, white balance, contrast, and sharpening are baked into the file. Anything other than minor tweaks can therefore cause the image to degrade noticeably. That means you need to make sure the settings you’re using are the ones you really want and appropriate to the light source. The upside to applying this much care and attention up-front is that you won’t have to do it later.

Shoot at maximum quality.
You’re saving so much file space by shooting JPEGs that there’s no point going overboard. Shoot at maximum resolution and minimum compression. If need be, you can always reduce the pixel dimensions and/or increase the compression later, and you won’t need sophisticated or expensive software to do it.

Get the white balance right.
This is a follow-up to my first tip. You really have to have a feel for how well your camera’s white balance settings handle various lighting conditions. When you’re shooting under tungsten lights is the tungsten setting too warm? If the lights are fluorescents is the fluorescent setting too green, magenta, or blue? Are the “cloudy” or “shade” settings too warm? Do you know how to perform a custom white balance to correct for this? The minute of extra effort you put into getting the white balance right from the start can save you hours of regret later.

This was shot with the JPEG sharpening in my camera set to minimum. Given the amount of detail that's still evident, some subjects might prefer that I could set it even lower.

Avoid over-sharpening.
In contrast to RAW files, which allow you to adjust the sharpening in post-production according to your preference, JPEG sharpening is applied in-camera and can’t be reduced if it’s too high. How can you can tell if it’s too high? Look for a halo effect between high-contrast edges when you view the file at 100%. If it’s obvious it’s too high. Turn it down. If it’s barely noticeable you’re probably okay. If in doubt, set it to the minimum.

Reduce the contrast setting in high-contrast situations.
The default for most JPEG renderings is for “snappy” contrast because that’s what most people like—that is, until they notice that most of the photos they shoot on bright sunny days have bleached highlights and blocked shadows. If you notice your camera doing this and it’s set to Standard, Vivid, Bright, or something similar, try either reducing the contrast setting for your rendering of choice or switching to a lower-contrast rendering such as “neutral” or “faithful.” A couple of clicks is usually all it takes to tone things down a bit.

Although the clouds and water in this photo technically have clipped highlights, it's a more visually  accurate rendering of the scene than the photo below, where none of the highlights are clipped.

Develop a tolerance for slight over-exposure.
There’s no getting around the fact that JPEG is an 8-bit file format. That means it simply can’t record as wide a dynamic range of tones as a 14-bit RAW file. If you shoot a scene that has a brightness range that exceeds what the JPEG format can record then something has to give, either the shadows or the highlights. If I’m shooting a scene that has bright but small highlights with not much useful image detail then I let them clip. As you can see from the accompanying photo example, the alternative is a photograph that looks underexposed.

So there you have it. I think I’ve covered all the most useful tips but if you’ve got anything of value to contribute please feel free. And if you feel obliged to preface your suggestion with “I never shoot JPEGs myself, but…” trust me, I will understand.

Technology Overload

This is just one of several similar menus I configured in the hopes of wirelessly transmitting JPEGs from a Canon EOS 5D Mark II to an Apple iPad. My efforts were for naught.

For the past week I've been working on a series of "cheatsheets" for Canon's Digital Learning Center website. I've written several of these before and will probably write several more--if I survive this session. This experience is showing me that although it sounds like fun to get to use a boatload of fancy new photo equipment all at once, the reality is it's a headeache.

Let's start with the fact that today's digital cameras and flash units have far more setup options than similar equipment of the film era. That's why I'm writing the cheatsheets: To provide a detailed explanation of features that were only summarily explained in the instructional manual. In some cases the explanation is clear enough but the implication isn't. For example, it's one thing to tell someone how to do something and another thing to explain why they would want to do it. In one particular case, the why was obvious enough, it was the how that caused me to throw in the towel.

In theory (I say "in theory" because I haven't been able to prove it) it's possible to attach a Canon Wireless File Transmitter WFT-E4 to a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, configure the WFT-E4 as a wireless FTP server, and configure an Apple iPad as an FTP client. The reason you would do this is so that every photo you take with the EOS 5D would automatically be transmitted and displayed on the beautiful 9.7"-diagonal screen of the iPad. This is a boon for photographers who want or need to have their images monitored by clients or models during the shoot--that is, if you can get it to work, which I could not.

Attaching the WFT-E4 to the camera was simple enough. Things went swiftly downhill from there. The screen below offers visual insight into why. I had to wade through at least a dozen screens similar to this one, each requiring me to select some arcane option (such as ad hoc vs. infrastructure mode) or enter an exact sequence of numbers that will have to be mirrored on the iPad setup.

That's right: You have to set up the iPad too. But before you do that you have to download and install an app called Shuttersnitch, after which you have to open the wireless network that shows up on the iPad (assuming you've configured the WFT-E4 correctly) with a static IP address.

Are your palms beginning to sweat yet? But that's not the worst of it. What's worse it that after four solid hours of effort and many different permutations I couldn't get it to work. Some photographers could, as evidenced by their testimonials on various web forums, and others couldn't. I happen to be one of those who couldn't. The kicker is that even if I had been able to get it to work it would have taken roughly five seconds for each file to transfer from the camera to the iPad. That's no problem for a catalog shoot or a portrait session. It's a tad slow for a modeling session.

I'm sure there are some of you who are reading this and saying to yourselves, "What? You couldn't configure a simple ad hoc wireless FTP connection? Child's play. I did the same thing but in infrastructure mode with a battery-powered wireless router. You get greater range and reliability to boot." You're probably the type who configures your smartphone to receives photos from spy satellites. You're a freak.

In anticipation of those who will feel obliged to inform me that Shuttersnitch is primarily designed for easy link-ups with DSLRs equipped with EyeFi cards (SD cards that have a built-in wireless transmitter), I know this. The point of this exercise was to do it with the Canon WFT-E4, not a third-party solution. 

I sent the EOS 5D Mark II and WFT-E4 back to Canon. I continue to use the iPad, but only for simple things like browsing the Internet and keeping track of e-mails. As for taking photographs, I'm feeling the urge to use my EOS 1n film camera for a while. It will be a relief to use a camera that doesn't do anything more than take pictures.

 

My Newest Camera: The HTC Incredible 2

This is the backside of my HTC Incredible 2. The camera lens is in the lower-left corner. Immediately above it are two LED lights that provide "flash" illumination in low light. The slot above the LEDs is the speaker, which you'd use for use the speakerphone feature.

Yeah, I know: It's a phone; specifically, an HTC Incredible 2. It's also a mobile computing device that provides wireless connection to the Internet, either through my provider's 3G network or my broadband connection at home. Depending on which application I launch, it can also be a turn-by-turn GPS navigator, an MP3 player, a video player, a video recorder, a voice recorder, an electronic book reader, and yes, a digital camera. As with most devices of this type, it's not that it does any one of these things exceptionally well, but rather that it can do so many of them well enough to be useful. Keep in mind we're talking about something that measures 120mm x 60mm x 10mm and has a 100mm (4-inch) diagonal screen.

The digital camera part is pretty impressive as these things go. It has 8MP of resolution, auto-focus, face detection, auto-ISO, auto-LED illumination (there's no flash as such), and digital zoom. Exposure, contrast, saturation, and white balance are all adjustable. It automatically geo-tags each photo with your exact longitude and latitude. For those who like visual effects, you can choose the way it renders JPEGs. Among the many rendering options are vignette, shallow depth-of-field, vintage, sepiatone, negative color, and solarize. It even includes a self-timer--although finding a way to aim and secure a smartphone with no tripod mount on a stable surface requires better than average ingenuity.

To switch the phone into camera mode you simply tap a camera icon on the screen. This opens the "camera app," which displays whatever the lens on the back of the camera is aimed at. (There's also a 1.3MP front-facing camera that's designed mainly for video-conferencing. Yes, it does that too.) The camera controls are located along the short sides of the frame. On one side is a scrollbar that controls the digital zoom. Slide your finger up to zoom in, slide it down to zoom out.

On the opposite side of the screen is the shutter button, which looks like the diaphragm of a lens. Tap any place on the screen and that's where the camera will focus. Tap the diaphragm icon to release the shutter, after which you'll hear a "click." The shutter is actually silent, so if you'd rather not hear a click you can simply mute the sound.

As wonderful and convenient as it is to have such an amazingly full-featured camera built into my cellphone, there's no way in hell I'd consider this a substitute for a "real" camera. The only viewfinder is the screen, which washes out in bright light. You have to hold the phone along the edges while keeping your fingers out of the way of the lens, so it's difficult to get a firm grip. There's enough shutter lag that action shots are out of the question (unless of course you're shooting video. As I said, it does that too.) Image noise and compression artifacts are minimal in bright light but atrocious indoors.

Here's an example of what you can expect from a decent cellphone camera. The image is downsized and slightly cropped but otherwise unprocessed.

And yet... On occasions when I'm out and about and either can't take a DSLR with me or don't want to, the camera built into my cellphone is definitely better than no camera at all. It's perfect for visual notetaking. In one snap I can not only record a scene I might later want to revisit, I also record the exact location and time of day. I don't even have to bother with connecting the camera or mini-SD card to my PC to download a photo; I can attach it to an e-mail or text message and send it to whomever wants a copy. Small wonder that smartphones are beginning to displace point-and-shoot digital cameras among snapshooters as their camera of choice. And if you should happen to use one yourself from time to time, trust me, I completely understand.

 

Back From Holiday Weekend

As I've remarked in a previous post, no one cares how much effort it takes to produce a photograph. They judge it on it's merits, good or bad. I just wish it had been as easy to produce this shot as it looks.

I'm back from a three-day weekend at an outdoor camp in northwestern Pennsylvania. My wife, kids, and I canoed, zip-lined, swam, rop-swung, hiked, and had a generally excellent time. My one regret was leaving my good cameras at home in favor of bringing a Canon Powershot G9 someone had given me. I had been warned that it had come back from repair and, although it worked, produced exposures that were either overly contrasty or veiled with a grayish haze. Lo and behold, this was true. It took considerable effort on my part to produce a decent photo, two of which you see here. The moral of this story is that life is too short to be spent using bad cameras--and by "bad" I mean a camera that can't or won't do what you need it to do.

This took conversion to monochrome and some judicious curve-tweaking to rise to the level of acceptability. The image noise would bother me on anything above a 4x6 print. Also note the clipped highlights on the white chess pieces. Even so, it captures the memory of my 9 and 7 year-old sons playing chess.

I would have gotten much better results and still satisfied my desire for portability if I had brought one of my film cameras; for example, a Pentax ME, Olympus OM-1, or Nikon FM3-A. My film of choice would have been Kodak Portra 160, which the more astute (and sneaky) of you correctly guessed was the source of the photo in my immediately preceding post. There's a reason why so many perfectly rational and highly skilled photographers continue to shoot with film. I will elaborate in my next post, a review of--what else?--Kodak Portra 160.

What Is "Correct" Exposure?

"The D7000 is a great camera, but as some reviews have pointed out, it's very prone to blown highlights. I love the camera but hate the meter." -- Rob

Rob,

You can find the full answer to your question here on TestCams.com. The writer compares how the Nikon D7000 exposes different scenes versus the Canon EOS 7D. His comparison and conclusions comprise three separate video segments which total slightly over 23 minutes. For those who would rather read a short summary, here it is:

What you may consider a "correct" exposure largely depends on whether you are primarily shooting RAW or JPEGs. If you're shooting RAW you probably prefer to "expose to the right," meaning you want to give a scene as much exposure as possible without blowing out any of the color channels. The reason for this is that you have more data bits to work with when you subsequently adjust the image in Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, or whatever other raw developer you prefer. There will be less noise in the image overall and a lot less in the shadows. You're less concerned about how the image looks on your image preview than how it looks after you've finished processing it.

In this example the D7000 actually did overexpose by about a half-stop, mostly because of the leaves in shadow at the top and right side of the image. The highlights on Philadelphia City Hall are clipped in the unprocessed RAW file and the JPEG you see here.

Here's how the same image looks with the exposure pulled back a half-stop and with the shadow brightness boosted by about two stops to show off the amazing dynamic range. You can take your pick as to which version has the more "correct" exposure.

In this respect the Nikon D7000 does just what a RAW shooter would want it to: It exposes as far to the right as it can. In scenes that have a broad dynamic range you may never notice this because this camera does its best to fit the whole range between the left and right extremes of the histogram. In low-contrast scenes--those with a short tonal scale--the narrow range of tones is shifted to the right and therefore looks brighter than you expect. Again, it isn't actually "overexposed" because none of the color channels are blown and you can easily reduce the brightness later.

If, however, you're shooting JPEGs, then the exposure and dynamic range are pretty much baked in. You will want the exposure to correspond to the original scene brightness from the beginning. Although you can still darken an over-bright exposure a bit in post-production you would probably prefer not to, otherwise why would you be shooting JPEGs?

The D7000 has a tendency to exacerbate this exposed-to-the-right JPEG issue if you have the camera set to one of its JPEG picture control styles such as Vivid or Landscape, which boost saturation and contrast. Highlights that are a tad too bright become irretrievably overexposed. You can counteract this tendency by setting -0.3 to -0.5 exposure compensation. Unfortunately, if you use the same setting with high-contrast/high dynamic range subjects the result will be underexposure.

Finally, note that this automatic expose-to-the-right tendency happens only if the camera is set to matrix metering. If you use center-weighted or spot metering then the calibration is the same as for any other center or spot meter. You could probably shoot JPEGs all day long with only minimal adjustments for subjects that are lighter or darker than average.

So does the Nikon D7000 have an overexposure problem? I don't think so, but JPEG-only shooters who use matrix metering might. My advice to you, Rob, is to carefully review the videos on TestCams.com and then, depending on what type of shooter you are, adjust your camera accordingly. You might find yourself falling in love with it all over again.

In anticipation of those who want to know whether the Pentax K-5 shares the same tendencies, the answer is no. JPEGs are exposed more toward the center than to the right. As a consequence, the most extreme highlights and shadows in high-contrast scenes get clipped. If you wanted to retain all highlight detail in your JPEGS you might feel as if the K-5 was overexposing. If you wanted the mid-tones to be in the middle you would probably think the exposure was just right.

In short, the answer to whether any given camera is exposing correctly will depend on how you personally define "correct." As long as your camera behaves predictably--and almost every decent camera I've ever used does--then you should be able to anticipate what it will do and shoot accordingly.