Technique

You are currently browsing the archive for the Technique category.

In the last post I showed a picture of a marmelade fly on a yellow flower. I would like to revisit that picture to show how much an image can change depending on how – and with which tools – it is processed.

The original image was captured in RAW format. I then processed it in Adobe Lightroom 2. The result is this:

A marmelade fly rests on the petals of a large yellow flower before taking flight.

Marmelade Flies on a Yellow Flower processed in Adobe Lightroom 2

While I was reasonably happy with the image, I had to do some testing in Capture One Pro and decided to see if I could do better. I have long thought that Capture Ones color rendition is much better than Lightrooms. But judge for yourself:

A marmelade fly rests on the petals of a large yellow flower before taking flight.

Marmelade Flies on a Yellow Flower processed in Capture One Pro and Photoshop

Quite a difference, don’t you think? The first rendition looks almost like a painting while the second is so real you can almost touch it.

So how was it done?

I first opened the file in Capture One and set the exposure so that none of the color channels would clip. This part is identical to what I did in Lightroom. Note that the yellows are a bit darker in the C1 rendition than in LR. I then exported a 16-bit TIFF file to Photoshop from C1.

In Photoshop I created a mask to darken the green part to the left of the flower using a curve. A second mark darkened the bright leaf to the left and below the marmelade fly. Then I removed some spots from the yellow petals which were really there (i.e. not dust on the lens or sensor) but which I did not like. All of these steps are identical to what I did in Lightroom except that I did not darken the single bright leaf in LR.

I then added a watermark copyright note and reduced the size of the file. Finally, I used Pixel Genius PhotoKit Sharpener for output sharpening. All of this is fully automatic during the Lightroom export.

In total I spent about five minutes in Lightroom to get a decent image. I spent about half an hour in Capture One and Photoshop to get an excellent image. There is clearly a trade-off time for quality here.

That is why I usually perform all my culling, keywording, and rough editing in LR. When I have identified the handful of images with real potential I spend more time on them in C1 and PS. Now if only I could take the LR settings and use them in C1 so that, for example, I do not have to re-crop …

Processing multiple exposures into a single HDR (high dynamic range) image turns out to be more of a subjective process than I initially thought.

Have a look at the following image, which was processed using Photoshop CS4 and the “Merge to HDR” feature:

Image processed from 3 exposures by Photoshop CS4 "Merge to HDR".

Image processed from 3 exposures by Photoshop CS4 "Merge to HDR".

Not bad, really, at first glance. But notice at the right edge, about halfway down the image, how the arch coming in from the wall is completely blown out?

Now look at the same source exposures converted by Photomatix:

3 Exposures processed by Photomatix Pro.

Image processed from 3 Exposures by Photomatix Pro.

The highlights are not blown out, the tonality of the image is smoother, the reddish cast is reduced. All in all, the image is much closer to the intended look than what Photoshop allows.

Given that Photomatix allows me a lot more control to tweak the result than Photoshop, I think the money is well spent on Photomatix …

Amazon just offered a really good deal on the Asus EeePC 900A, which is very much like the original 701 (which I purchased for my trip to India last year) in outward appearance, but offeres a bigger screen with higher resolution and a much faster CPU. The internal SSD [solid state drive] grows to 8 GB, but it uses MLC instead of SLC, which makes is slower than the 701.

Anyways, I will not review the 900A in this post, maybe that will come later. Instead, I provide a detailed account of how I replaced the less than stellar Xandros Linux with the more than decent Xubuntu.

Caution: By following these instructions you will completely erase any data that may have been stored on your EeePC, including the Xandros Linux it came with, and any and all files you have created. Make a backup before you proceed!

General Disclaimer: I describe what worked for me. Your mileage can – and will – vary considerably. Consider this a travel report, not a guided tour. Know what you are doing, don’t play with matches, and do not run with scissors! You have been warned. 🙂
Read the rest of this entry »

Photographers create assets – images. Ideally, these assets can be used for the life of the photographer and beyond.

In the “good” old days of film, the problem was keeping the materials, i.e. negatives and prints, safe from harm (fire, flood, mildew, theft, etc.) and in pristine condition. The latter could be a problem if the materials where not of archival quality or contaminated or whatever.

As “digital” photographers our assets are by nature primarily digital files. The advantage of digital files compared to negatives or prints is that the problems associated with those are easily mitigated or can not occur because of the different nature: keeping a digital file safe from harm is easy is enough copies are kept in enough different physical locations. And deterioration is also not a problem for digital files.

There are, however, a number of risks and issues specific to digital files:

  • All currently available media deteriorate over time.
  • Files may suffer from “bit rot”, usually through copying errors or because of media deterioration.
  • Hardware becomes obsolete and it may not be possible to use todays media in 10 or 20 years because the physical connectors are no longer supported, because there are no drivers, or because hardware can not be replaced if it fails.
  • File formats become obsolete and are no longer supported.

Let’s look at the specific problems.

Media Deterioration

An old quib is that it is not a question wether a hard drive will crash but when. Hard drives are mechanical devices, so it is just a matter of time until they wear out or dust gets inside or something else goes wrong. And if you think that keeping the hard drive in a cool, dark place will help I have to disappoint you: the lubricants deteriorate and eventually the hard drive will fail. In fact, a drive that is spun up regularly (every few weeks) will last much longer than a drive that is just kept in storage.

Optical media, such as CDs and DVDs will deteriorate quickly if not stored perfectly. And even if they are stored under perfect archival conditions, there is ample evidence that the expected data retention time is much, much lower than the time claimed by manufacturers. A friend of mine, for example, found that after 5 years 20-50% of his burned CDs and DVDs show one or more errors that can not be corrected.

Magneto-Optical (MO) media where guaranteed for 30 years and it seems that these claims where accurate. Unfortunately, this is obsolete technology and the drives are no longer being made.

Ultra density optical (UDO) media are interesting, with manufacturers guaranteeing 50+ years of data retention.The drives start at about USD 1000, media are about USD 2 per GB, so UDO is not cheap. This may still be a viable option if the data is valuable enough.

Solid state memory, i.e. flash, is usually able to retain data for 10 years. After that, all bets are off.

There is, of course, an easy way to deal with these issues: copy to a new medium regularly. Regularly means that you must guarantee that a copy (better: two) is created well before errors can be expected.

Bit Rot

Data may change as the medium it is stored on deteriorates. Data can also change due to copying errors.

There are various techniques to detect and correct bit rot. They all involve checksums and error correction codes to correct problems.

Hardware Obsolecence

Hardware becomes obsolete with time. Do you still have a ZIP drive to read ZIP media? If you do, does it work with your current computer? And what happens when the drive breaks and you need a new one?

It is relatively easy to protect against this if you copy to a new medium (that is going to be supported for a number of years) regularly.

Format Obsolecence

If you have data stored in a proprietary format, chances are that you have experienced this problem already. It seems that every new version of Microsoft Word, for example, seems to introduce subtle differences in the way old documents look.

Data stored in an open format, preferably with one or more open source implementations for reading and writing the format, is much safer from becoming obsolete. It seems that JPEG and TIFF, for example, will be around for a very long time, if not forever.

 

So how does this translate into a viable strategy for keeping my digital assets safe for a long time?

First off, I keep all my data in open formats. For digital negatives, I use DNG files with XMP metadata. Processed files are stored as TIFF. I must admit that I sometimes also use PSD (Adobe Photoshop), which is proprietary and not open, but only to store working copies, which really only make sense in Photoshop anyways.

I then calculate an MD5 hash over each file which is stored with the file. This way I can easily detect changes to the file.

The files are stored on multiple hard drives. I use a combination of FireWire and USB external drives and internal drives that are quickly swapped using a Sharkoon SATA QuickPort which is a docking bay allowing a SATA drive to be connected to a USB port.

The drives containing multiple copies of the files are stored at home, in the office, and offsite (bank vault, friend’s house, etc.).

I have a regular calendar task to check the hashes on every drive every few months. If a single error is found on a drive the entire drive is tossed. This is not a problem as long as there is still a good copy on a different drive. The integrity check has the added benefit of ensuring that the lubricants of the drive get a good workout.

There is another calendar task to replace every drive after it is 3 years old. With the inevitable march of technology increasing the capacity of hard drives, I can consolidate the content of two old drives on a single new drive.

 

This strategy is probably not perfect, but it does give me a high degree of confidence that the files will still be useable in the distant future.

« Older entries § Newer entries »