you've
landed on a page that,
admittedly, is not for everyone.
indeed, if you haven't found this page with Google, you need to exit now -- before you fall asleep.
indeed, if you haven't found this page with Google, you need to exit now -- before you fall asleep.
My Inkjet Papers of Choice
MATTE:
After experimenting with several matte papers, my favorite by far is Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper. Among the matte papers I've tested are: Moab Entrada Fine Art Natural and Bright papers, Epson Ultra Smooth Fine Art (too warm for me), Hahnemuehle Photo Rag, Crane Museo Max, and Somerset Velvet Fine (not to be confused with Epson Velvet Fine). To my eye (and those of a few photographer friends), none of these papers has a better tonal range, including a richer black, than Epson Velvet Fine Art. Nor with this paper have I experienced the flaking problems others have complained about. Although I'm sure I'm in the minority, I find Velvet Fine even richer than photoblack papers in natural light. Unfortunately, Velvet Fine comes no larger than 15" x 22," so when I need a larger print I go to my second choice: Hahnemuehle Photo Rag.
PHOTOBLACK
Using
the manufacturers' ICC profiles and my Epson 9800, I compared
Epson Premium Luster, Epson Exhibition Fiber, Museo Silver Rag, Harmon
Gloss FB AL and Galerie Gold Fibre Silk. While such comparisons are
obviously subjective, for me, Galerie Gold Fibre Silk was the winner.
The ICC profile was excellent, the stipple wasn't obtrusive or overly
dense (as I found it to be with Silver Rag), the paper didn't have a
plastic sheen or feel (unlike the Harmon Gloss), the image "popped" in
the right light, the blacks were rich indeed, and the flesh tones
looked great. I was surprised to like it more than Exhibition Fiber, a
paper that cost twice as much. The weaknesses? -- for one, like other
photoblack papers, this paper requires just the right type of
light. (As noted above, I may be in the minority, but
ironically,
in natural daylight, I find that a good matte paper like Epson Velvet
Fine looks richer than any of the photoblack papers). Secondly, the
roll paper in particular is uncommonly fragile. The slightest nick or
touch will mar your print, particularly in the first 24 hours. The
paper can also crinkle easily. Be particularly careful as the print
comes out of the machine! I found the sheets of this paper to be much
heartier than the rolls. Still, it's the final product that counts,
hence despite its fragility, Galerie Gold Fibre is my favorite
photoblack paper ... for now.
WHICH TO CHOOSE, MATTE OR PHOTOBLACK?
If you're confused -- matte or photoblack? -- welcome to the club. But don't despair. Cognitive dissonance is the dark before the dawn. It leads to exploration, which leads to ... resolution? I hope so. Before the photoblack baryta papers, life was simple. My printer and I well knew Epson Velvet Fine, and the three of us got along quite well. Then came the invasion. And the issue. Was baryta the perfect hybrid? Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape certainly thinks so. See Battle of the Barytas. (If you're still reading this, welcome back, or thanks for not bolting so quickly.) Could Reichmann be wrong? Actually, I think he might agree it's a subjective choice which comes down to one's own artistic goals and sensitivities. There is no right or wrong choice. In any event, for now, I've chosen to live in both worlds. For my portfolio, I continue to use matte. It has a canvas look and feel that to me says "fine art." But for portraiture I rely on Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, where the extra sharpness seems to shine.
WHICH TO CHOOSE, MATTE OR PHOTOBLACK?
If you're confused -- matte or photoblack? -- welcome to the club. But don't despair. Cognitive dissonance is the dark before the dawn. It leads to exploration, which leads to ... resolution? I hope so. Before the photoblack baryta papers, life was simple. My printer and I well knew Epson Velvet Fine, and the three of us got along quite well. Then came the invasion. And the issue. Was baryta the perfect hybrid? Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape certainly thinks so. See Battle of the Barytas. (If you're still reading this, welcome back, or thanks for not bolting so quickly.) Could Reichmann be wrong? Actually, I think he might agree it's a subjective choice which comes down to one's own artistic goals and sensitivities. There is no right or wrong choice. In any event, for now, I've chosen to live in both worlds. For my portfolio, I continue to use matte. It has a canvas look and feel that to me says "fine art." But for portraiture I rely on Galerie Gold Fibre Silk, where the extra sharpness seems to shine.
How to Print without a calibrated monitor
If the title to this little piece got you here, and you're serious about printing, stop reading this piece and buy a calibrator! Okay, if it's not in your budget, then read on, and find out how you can achieve something close to WYSIWYG in Photoshop, particularly for your black & white prints:
1. Load Photoshop with lots of manufacturer ICC profiles, even if you don't intend to use these profiles to print.
2. Now, print an image using the appropriate settings and ICC profile for whatever paper you choose.
3. Place the resulting photograph under the light in which it will be displayed, and make sure you can compare it to the image as it appears on your monitor.
4. In Photoshop, go to view/proof-setup/custom. When the Custom Proof Condition Menu appears, put your cursor on the first "Custom Proof Condition" choice and blue it so that a different ICC profile will appear each time you move the wheel on your mouse down. Next, scroll through the profiles until the screen image looks identical to the print you've just made. Now, next time you work in Photoshop, go to view/proof-setup/custom and choose this ICC profile while you work. When you print, you'll achieve WYSIWYG. It's important to understand that your view/proof-setup/custom choice does NOT affect your printing driver. It only affects what you see on the screen. Because of this, it doesn't matter that the ICC profile you pick in the view/proof-setup/custom menu isn't the same as the paper on which you print. Of course, as in step 2 above, when you actually set up your printing options and print, here you do need to use the correct ICC profile.
My experience with the Canon Powershot G9
I have to concede, when it comes to cameras, I'm a snob. When traveling, I've always used my digital SLR or Leica; if the shot is there, I want it to be the best it can be. In the past week, however, I went to a beach resort where (1) I didn't take the Leica because it's in the shop; and (2) given the insulated environment, I didn't feel like lugging my SLR around everyday, particularly on the beach. So Geek factor aside, I placed a new Powershot Canon G9 ($470) in a small binocular pouch that fastened to my belt, and walked around with it. See Canon site for specs. Click here for a review. The camera was so small and light, I never noticed it until it was needed. Also, because I took it everywhere, and because of its 35-210mm range, I shot more than usual, particularly when compared to my M8 -- and wonderfully, all in RAW. And as compared to my SLR, I was actually somewhat inconspicuous when shooting, a real treat. It was also a pleasure to use the auto-ISO function, an option I wish Canon would put in the Sherman Tank of a camera I otherwise use. But would the images be decent? Well, I can't compare this camera to my SLR, but surprisingly, I find myself pleased with the result, particularly at lower ISO levels. If the composition is there, I could see a G9 shot making it into my portfolio. Finally, while the camera's manual rivals the manual for the 1DsIII in complexity -- (I'm not kidding) -- it still can be used as a simple point-and-shoot, hence is a good option for just about anyone.
Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS vs. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens
In 2006 I compared two lenses
from
my arsenal: (1) a $319 Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di autofocus
(for Canon); and (2) a $1,299 Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM autofocus
lens. Though I didn't compare images at their edges, I didn't
have to carefully compare them at their center: the Tamron was
decidedly sharper. In light of this test, I sent my EF 24-70 to
Canon for a tune-up. On receiving it back, I compared the lenses
again -- and again, the Tamron won. Frustrated, I shelved the EF
24-70, bought Canon's slower EF 24-105mm f/4L, and haven't looked
back. The 24-105mm has become a staple, and when the extra speed
is needed, I'll fall back on the Tamron (my only third-party
lens). See Lens Comparison Shots
for tests and comments.
So is the Tamron AF 28-75mm a better lens than the Canon EF 24-70? I doubt it. But what I don't doubt is this: my Tamron AF 28-75 was indeed a sharper lens (at least in the center) than my Canon EF 24-70. The reason? Who knows. Perhaps it comes down to quality control. My guess is: I received a wonderfully calibrated Tamron and a lemon of a Canon.
If there's a lesson here it's: test your lenses right out of the box . This could save a lot of aggravation later, and make a big difference in the quality of your images.
So is the Tamron AF 28-75mm a better lens than the Canon EF 24-70? I doubt it. But what I don't doubt is this: my Tamron AF 28-75 was indeed a sharper lens (at least in the center) than my Canon EF 24-70. The reason? Who knows. Perhaps it comes down to quality control. My guess is: I received a wonderfully calibrated Tamron and a lemon of a Canon.
If there's a lesson here it's: test your lenses right out of the box . This could save a lot of aggravation later, and make a big difference in the quality of your images.
The Canon EOS-1Ds Mark 111:
Do we really need the AF Microadjustment Function?
Do we really need the AF Microadjustment Function?
Yes, well, forget esoterica,
let's
examine a question on the minds of every Mark III shooter: do I
really need the microadjusment function? If your Mark 111
is
anything like mine, I've got good news and bad news. The bad news
is: yes, you're going to need it. The good news is:
it works.
Okay, so what is it? The AF microadjustment function (C.Fn III-7 AF Microadjustment) is a calibration process that allows you to correct front or back focus issues ... up to a point. Interestingly, in discussing it your manual states:
Whoever wrote this disclaimer shouldn't go into advertising. In fact, after reading this, more than a few people will turn the page of their manual as quickly as possible. But actually, that would not be a good idea. After spending $8,000 on a camera, and thousands more on lenses, wouldn't it be nice to actually shoot in focus?
The microadjustment function has 40 calibration units covering a range from minus 20 to plus 20. If your lens is properly focused, you need no adjustment; the default calibration of zero will work just fine. But how do you know if you're in focus?
The test: The test I set up was relatively simple. I placed my camera on a tripod, enabled the mirror lock function and attached my cable release. Next I placed a ruler on a table and set it at about a 60 degree angle from my camera. Targeting the number "6" on the ruler, I kept the aperture of each lens I tested wide open, and shot just within focusing range, thereby narrowing the resulting depths of field. With each test I started by shooting in the following calibration settings: -20, -15, -10, -5, 0, +5, +10, +15, +20. Based on the results, I then narrowed the next test to the most promising seven or eight units. After checking the results twice, I settled on my final unit. All shots were taken in RAW, with no adjustments.
The results: Do you see the first sentence quoted above from the manual? Wishful thinking. I'd remove the word "not." Do you see the third sentence above? Well, based on my experience, the converse is true: not doing this adjustment may prevent correct focusing from being achieved. Based on my tests, here are my final adjustments:
Below are two images from my EF 135mm f/2L test:
Okay, so what is it? The AF microadjustment function (C.Fn III-7 AF Microadjustment) is a calibration process that allows you to correct front or back focus issues ... up to a point. Interestingly, in discussing it your manual states:
| "Normally, this adjustment
is not required. Do this adjustment only if necessary. Note
that doing this adjustment may prevent correct
focusing from being achieved." at 169 |
Whoever wrote this disclaimer shouldn't go into advertising. In fact, after reading this, more than a few people will turn the page of their manual as quickly as possible. But actually, that would not be a good idea. After spending $8,000 on a camera, and thousands more on lenses, wouldn't it be nice to actually shoot in focus?
The microadjustment function has 40 calibration units covering a range from minus 20 to plus 20. If your lens is properly focused, you need no adjustment; the default calibration of zero will work just fine. But how do you know if you're in focus?
The test: The test I set up was relatively simple. I placed my camera on a tripod, enabled the mirror lock function and attached my cable release. Next I placed a ruler on a table and set it at about a 60 degree angle from my camera. Targeting the number "6" on the ruler, I kept the aperture of each lens I tested wide open, and shot just within focusing range, thereby narrowing the resulting depths of field. With each test I started by shooting in the following calibration settings: -20, -15, -10, -5, 0, +5, +10, +15, +20. Based on the results, I then narrowed the next test to the most promising seven or eight units. After checking the results twice, I settled on my final unit. All shots were taken in RAW, with no adjustments.
The results: Do you see the first sentence quoted above from the manual? Wishful thinking. I'd remove the word "not." Do you see the third sentence above? Well, based on my experience, the converse is true: not doing this adjustment may prevent correct focusing from being achieved. Based on my tests, here are my final adjustments:
| Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Lens | plus 5 |
| Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens | plus 5 |
| Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
USM Lens |
plus 9 |
| Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens |
plus 16 |
Below are two images from my EF 135mm f/2L test:
with
no microadjustment:
with a microadjustment of plus 16:
For me, the microadjustment function has indeed been a plus.
with a microadjustment of plus 16:
For me, the microadjustment function has indeed been a plus.
