The Art Filter or the Effex filter

Olympus was the first to incorporate in-camera  Art Filters into their DSLR and ILC-M  (Intercheangeable Lens Cameras - Mirrorless). From there they have progressed the their product naming to Magic Filters which may be a more palatable term for conservatives.The branding of the "Art Filter" name is of course to capture the imagination of the public. We all know taking a ready made can of "Art" vs producing a work of Art, aren't the same thing. But I like the idea of having effects filters in the camera - just like you can buy a can of Niks for the computer, why not let the camera have one as well?  And you know when you're onto a Good Thing when the competition flatters you with imitation. So far, several camera brands have responded by incorporating this into their products.

For those who don't "get it", an  Effex filter when implemented in the camera does the following:

• display a result show on the LCD after the shot - in your hand, in situ - if you don't like it, you can shoot again immediately. Even something simple like conversion to black and white helps me visualise the patterns by suppressing the colour during framing and composition.
• show you in Live View before and during the shoot to predict the shot - this allows you to tweak settings, change framing and composition, depth of field - it all becomes tangible and real rather than waiting for some hours later to sit at the computer
• often you can shoot RAW + JPEG. This allows you to the ability of preview and look at your result, yet, you have an untampered copy where the manufacturer's software can render at the computer or avoid the effect altogether.
• for those who shoot movies, it seems really cool to be able to apply live filter effects, in situ.

Anyway, Robin asked today, whether we had any Art Filtered shots to show off. Here are some.

A wet Sunday and reflecting on technical RAW image quality

Here's a response I posted on at a DPR forum:

Question

I was looking at the reviews on dpr and wanted to know about RAW image quality.  All other things being equal is RAW image quality the most important?  I mean isn't that the "real" picture?

Response

The most important, in no real rank sequence are:

• The shooter - at least 80% of the picture. I have repeatedly seen Grumpy Old Conservatives (sometimes I am one of them) proclaim that gear A is so bad that it could not be used for activity X and then wait a few months, look around and voila, some unknown person on the other side of the internet produces an image which is spectacular.
• The ability of the shooter and camera to get exposure "right". Some people rely on the camera a lot, others rely on themselves a lot. Those who rely on the camera need the exposure to be "just right"
• The ability of the shooter and the camera to get the focus "right". Again some people rely a lot on the camera, others are more tolerant
• For their needs, some shooters rely on the in-camera JPEG engine to get it right. They have no patience or persistence to sit at the computer and process data, their skill is in the field - composing, choosing the "decisive moment" - you can get gear that is technically perfect (i.e. 99% better digital quality vs 80% digital quality) but the image sucks because the shooter is a dud and gets composition, focus, exposure, depth of field or the moment, wrong.
• RAW quality is technical quality - in order to render on the screen, a human or a program has to initially preset the choice of gamma transformation curve, colour saturation, sharpening, aberration correction, perspective correction. Any image you see on the screen that is recognisable to a human, has been rendered with these rendering parameters - the rendering is not about technical perfection it is about visual choice - the two do not have to be equal.
• The RAW quality is the sensor and image processing pipeline quality - if you pick a camera which does not have the lens you want to use or the lens quality that you want, then the image could suck.

The Four Stages of Exposure Awareness

Stage 1: The first thing that newbies learn about is that there is an Exposure Triangle. Some Peterson guy is said to have wrote about it in a book. I haven’t read it. I’ve seen his videos. Maybe his intentions are good and he knows what he’s doing. But a heap of newbies don’t “get it”

Stage 2: Eventually it dawns on people that the Exposure Triangle has a Fourth Side.

Stage 3: After rummaging around, comparing effective techniques of whether to use P A S M or figuring out which metering pattern is better – Evaluative Matrix vs Centre Weighted vs Spot vs the classical Sunny 16 rule vs Interpreting the Histogram vs ETTR and asking themselves where the hell they put the white towel / Kodak 18% Neutral Gray Card or the XRite thingamajig, someone mentions that Adams chap who wrote about the Zone System. And bang! Smack on the head. There is no Correct Exposure. There is what the camera measures as an instrument and what the artist (you) choose to convey and interpret. The two are not and do not have to be the same thing

Stage 4: So far, so good. People are shooting decent shots. But they’re not spectacular. Like those gorgeous smooth skin tones and sharp, clear irises of the girls in the portraits. And so on. So we ask, how on earth does so and so get this shot with his iPhone but we can’t and we’ve almost spent as much as a Nikon D3s? And the penny drops. We can’t. If we REACT to the scene. Often times, the pros don’t react, they’re pro-active. They light up the scene the way they want. Or gain a vantage point if they can’t control the light. And having done their utmost to light the scene well, they touch up with Photoshop. Delicately and Emphatically. Not the other way around.

And then, there’s Black and White

For a long time, I didn’t get any joy out of black and white shots in the digital Bayer colour sensor era, with LCD screens. I didn’t get the drama that I wanted, the depth of tones in monochrome that I visualised.
Not that I did that well in the film days. I used several films but my favourite turned out to be Agfapan 100 processed in Rodinal. Or was it Neofin Blau?
Seeing the picture was an issue with black and white. I guess I dream in colour and that hampers my recognition of what the panchromatic translations would yield, days after the fact.
With the Olympus PEN E-PL1, I’m on a new adventure. I can see, in Liveview and in different aspect ratios, the gritty black and white that I almost like (well, it’s better than most of the bland monchromatic transformations). It’s not that I can’t get one good monochrome shot, once in a while, it’s just that I don’t get one regularly.
Victory with Kodak V705

Discarded Shoes with the Samsung Galaxy S

Fellini with the Olympus C-750uz

Enchanted with the PEN E-PL1

An Awakening of the Senses, A Quickening of the Pulse

You know when you have a camera that you will bond with when you hold it in your hands, switch it on, point it around, have a feel of the sounds it makes, the menus and displays, the feel not just of the weight but of the skin texture and so on.

That’s why we often ask “what camera shall I buy” newbies to go to a shop and actually hold the cameras that are on their shortlist. Sometimes they reach an epiphany, sometimes, they come back with a shrug of their shoulders and say  “feels a much of a muchness to me”. That’s just sad, actually not being able to realise that moment.

It gets better when you actually have your first real outing with the camera (aside from pointing it at the ceiling lights in a darkened room and making vroom, vroom sounds (or whatever sounds photogs make).

And in your first outing, you feel at one with the camera, you see, you point, you shoot, you chimp and it feels good. Then there is that bated breath moment when you actually see the images on the screen (or print if you are so inclined) and YESSSSSS, it is as you envisaged at the time you clicked the shutter release).

For some cameras that I have owned, it doesn’t feel like this. Ever.

For the newly discounted (for Mother’s Day 2011 in the US), PEN E-PL1, I get it. The attractiveness of the LCD. The often deprecated buttons that get me to the menus. The sound of the shutter. Oooh. I’ve had several cameras with focal plane shutters. There are only two that I have owned where the sound of the shutter turns me on – the Minolta X-700 (film SLR) and the E-PL1. For some reason, it puts a spring to my step during Shutter Therapy.

And, of course, the results.