Is Art Filter metadata stored in Olympus raw image files?

A visitor to my youtube show and tell of Olympus Viewer 3

asked how he could find out which Art Filter was nominated in the camera in a raw file and whether it could be applied in bulk to other raw files. I was puzzled by this and had to make a fresh raw file from my E-PM2 (it was handy) to verify my response. Indeed,

1. Olympus Viewer 3 does not display which Art filter was applied to the raw file.

Note that the Art Filter is not pre-selected by Olympus Viewer 3 even though the EXIF Makernotes metadata stores the info

2. The Art Filter *is* stored in EXIF metadata in the MakerNotes category in the tag ArtFilterEffect (shown using EXIFGUI / EXIFTOOL third party software)

The name of the Art Filter is stored as text but the but the parameters of the secondary adjustments is not labelled in text, just numeric codes.

1. You can find out which Art Filter was selected in the camera when you look at the EXIF of the raw file.
2. You have to manually choose this Art Filter in Olympus Viewer 3 yourself.
3. You have to manually choose the secondary variations yourself.
4. There are two alternative workflows if you want to apply your Art Filter to other raw files, 

Workflow A

1. Select the Raw Development Module by clicking on the RAW icon in the toolbar.
2. Choose the Art Filter manually and the secondary settings manually.
3. Save the raw develop settings as an .ORS file
4. Select raw file one by one and nominate that Raw Develop Setting to apply

Raw Develop Settings in the Raw Edit Module of Olympus Viewer 3

Workflow B

1. Instead of the clicking on the Raw icon in the toolbar, click on the Edit icon in the toolbar
2. Choose the Art Filter manually and the secondary settings manually.
3. Choose the menu Edit > Copy Edit Settings (Ctrl+Shift+C)
4. Choose other raw files in the thumnail strip in the toolbar - choose the first one you want then Shift Click the last one or Ctrl+Click each subsequent one
5. Choose from the menu Edit > Paste Edit Settings (Ctrl+Shift+V)

Relative Size is a Priority of Choice

Olympus OM-D E-M1 with Sigma 50-500mm Four Thirds lens next to the Sony A7 with 35mm f/2.8 Samyang pancake lens

People who have not gravitated to the Micro Four Thirds or Mirrorless ecosystems often take the example of a large MFT body and large MFT lens to demonstrate that the smaller sensor of the MFT system is pointless when the large MFT combo can be / is larger than a smaller-by-design full frame system. I realised that indeed, I do have the requisite gear to demonstrate this aberration and made this photo, impromptu.

The trouble with big trouble with waving big hands and making statements that seem obvious like that is, the truth is often other than obvious.

This specific Micro Four Thirds gear

The E-M1 and Bigma combo looks monstrous. It is. And not the most comfortable or effective for Birds In Flight - in fact it's far from optimum in most use cases. The E-M1 is not the smallest MFT body - it's made weather resistant, tougher, with a big hand grip to offer ergonomic comfort when mounted with larger MFT Pro Level Zooms. It and subsequent flagship Pro Level Bodies is packed with mechanical and electronic features - fast frame rates, sophisticated autofocus systems, the most effective in-body stabilisation and so on. So, it is not a good demonstration of a small light body for travel and street photography.

The Sigma 50-500 zoom is a huge zoom from the era of Four Thirds E-System DSLRs when the E-3 body was not particularly small and lenses for it were not well optimised for super small size. Lenses in those days were not much smaller than the competing APS-C or Full Frame DSLR lenses. In fact, it is likely that this Bigma is not specifically designed for a Four Thirds sensor and could be an APS-C (or full frame) model grafted onto a Four Thirds lens mount.

I bought the Bigma for old times sake - to play with a now discounted lens that I had heard so much about from the old days.

This specific full frame example

On the other hand, the Sony A7 (original version) was specifically made as small as possible for a full frame model. Sony chose lens mount called the E-Mount, originally first shown on the Sony NEX APS-C models. New competitors in the full frame mirrorless market are pointing out in a mischievous manner that their lens mounts, designed fresh, come with larger orifices to potentially enable f/0.65 lenses.

In this initial A7 model, Sony could not figure out how to include in-body image stabilisation into the system nor silence the strident sound and of the full frame shutter.  In this and in subsequent models, the hand grip is particularly truncated in contrast to the Nikon or Canon DSLR grips. There is no AF joystick, the buttons are not backlit for night work like the DSLRs.

The Samyang 35mm lens is particularly compact. It is only f/2.8, the autofocus is slightly noisy and the bokeh is not the smoothest.  I chose to buy it because I wanted something small, light and less expensive.

"Real serious" lenses that full frame owners (for example, those owners of the Nikon D850 and Canon 1D / 5D) prefer are typically 1.4 (at least), have a substantial number of glass elements to correct for all sorts of aberrations, ensure smooth bokeh, ensure 48 megapixel resolution and sharpness. Such no limits lenses are in no way small, light or inexpensive.

Meaning

Although the MFT sensor is a smaller cropped sensor, you don't have to design or choose gear that is small. Conversely, although the full frame sensor is larger and gear tends to be larger, you can opt to sacrifice design targets to make specific gear smaller.

Food for thought

The Charm and Idiosyncrasies of Shooting Film

The other day, I grabbed my film SLR from its sleeping position (which it occupies most of the year) and rushed off to a group meetup. I had my digital gear as well but wanted film because the homestead was a vintage scene. I was so sure of myself, I didn't check for motion in the rewind lever and after 26 shots, figured that either the film was not advancing or there was nothing in the body. I had the cardboard film box end inserted on the back of the camera (where digital bodies have the LCD panel). Sigh! There was no film in the body.

It's moments like this that I remember why I am so much more successful with digital cameras. Aside from the cost-free multiple shots, instant review on the LCD, easy restore of preferred settings, digital doesn't allow me to shoot endlessly without a recording medium.

So, why do I continue to shoot film from time to time? Well, I shoot 35mm film. Sometimes expired film. Often home scanned with a low-end scanner (lately the Epson Perfection V370). Comes with dust bunnies and organic visual elements. Imperfect dynamic range, colour rendition. Manual focussed with inexpensive old lenses.

The imperfections are a cornerstone of what I feel are believable. 

The moorhen and the lonely bench (old Kodakcolor Gold 400 in Olympus TRIP 35)

Above is a somewhat iconic Australian bush park reserve - a digital version could potentially (or certainly) have been sharper, cleaner, shot in raw and "worked" in Adobe Lightroom (or Capture One Pro, whichever is the editor in favour). With this, I set some scanning parameters, cropped and that was about it. I feel that it conveys the mood to me, I have a rough feel for the greens and browns instead of riding the vibrance and saturation sliders.

Gumtrees with the brown tones  (old Kodakcolor Gold 400 in Olympus TRIP 35)

A look across the water, embellished with dust bunnies
(old Kodakcolor Gold 400 in Olympus TRIP 35)

Micro Four Thirds in the era of the Full Frame Hubbub

The Era of the Full Frame Hubbub

2018 is the year when the duo of DSLR manufacturers, Canon and Nikon made moves to establish a beachhead in the full frame mirrorless world. Enthusiastic and triggered Youtube gear reviewers, quite a few of them, owners and users of the Canon and Nikon cameras grasping at the opportunity to denounce Sony gear and restoring faith in the two empires. Meanwhile, Micro Four Thirds (MFT) gear is being written off as passe, devices of the past, and at risk of being overrun by top-end phone cameras and computational photography. Even reasonable authors are being led to believe that with so much pressure from the full frame makers, MFT has a limited and declining future.

The MFT brands are not standing up and saying that MFT is doomed. Why would they? Currently, the sale of MFT gear is their major source of income. Olympus has not made any announcement producing a parallel full frame catalogue, Panasonic has announced they will build a second line of gear based on the Leica mirrorless full frame mount. But Panasonic says that they are not abandoning MFT.

If market size is constant respective shares are getting smaller

Sony was until this year, the only commonly available full frame mirrorless maker. Now, this market is being split at least three ways by Sony, Canon and Nikon. The Sony share of the full frame mirrorless market has to be, by logic, less than 100% that it once was.

The rest of the mirrorless market is APS-C (Sony, Fuji and smaller makes) and MFT (Olympus, Panasonic). They exist now, because

• the bodies are smaller and lighter in general (although that is a design choice)
• the lenses are smaller and lighter in general either in absolute terms or by the fact that there is a crop factor particularly for the telephoto range (although that is a design choice)
• they are cheaper (although that is a design choice)
• they produce smaller files which take less storage, memory buffer and computational processing memory
• the smaller sensors don't generate as much heat during movie making
• the smaller sensors have a lower manufactured cost - this may not have been reflected in the recommended retail pricing because there was little or no previous competition, so the brands obviously wanted to reap the rewards and keep a higher margin.

These points are often disputed and rebutted - again, if you are an unbeliever, your role in life is to dispute the facts.

Perceived Handicaps of the smaller MFT Sensors

On the other hand, people who just don't get the smaller sensor point to

• Lower technical image quality from
• lower resolution by design choice
• 2 stops higher noise level (in relative terms) for the same technology level and if you choose the same amount of scene lighting
• one or more stops less dynamic range (in relative terms) for the same technology level. (Again if you choose not to overcome the scene contrasts)
• 2 stops deeper depth of field, in relative terms if what matters to you is to produce an extremely shallow depth of field.

It comes back to viewpoint again. A handicap is only real if you perceive it to be so.

We've been there before. Hopefully, the brands have learned from history. The Four Thirds DSLRs and their lenses were not small enough. The sensor tech at that time was premature. At that time, Olympus and Panasonic had to retreat with severe financial losses at that time. That was then. Now is different. 

• Sensor tech has advanced a lot since those times. Good enough sensor tech is now available such that even minuscule phone camera sensors are acceptable. And MFT sensors are more than quite capable of super large enlargements (if you bother to take a good shot in the camera). Enlargement software like Qimage and Topaz A.I. Gigapixel offer computational methods to enhance the situation.

The way forward - leadership and determination in MFT

What matters more than anything is not so much the technology (which will continue to improve) but the wielding of it. MFT producers need to 

• understand the existing asset base - reliable MFT optical assets (lenses) have already been established, unlike the new full frame mirrorless mounts.
• wisely choose approaches to the producing the new range of bodies, both in features and pricing.
• continue to develop features in computational photography to enhance the bodies (remember the image sizes are smaller and can be more readily computed).
• define and aim for the optimum balance between aggressive product quests vs prudent financial management of the product lines.

Gear Tip Number 1: Schrodinger's Full Frame Mirrorless

By now, you have seen umpteenth videos of Youtubers ranting about the Nikon Z7 or the Canon EOS R full-frame mirrorless bodies. Reactions of praise and bliss alternate with heated arguments of contempt. They are both peerlessly beautiful and high performing as well as heavily flawed and poor first efforts of Pro cameras. In effect, they're Schrödinger's Full Frame Mirrorless Bodies - each exists in a state of quantum superpositions until you, yourself hold one in your hands.

Quick Content Tip 1: Embrace the NON "Standard"

I've been active in several photo discussion groups. Often gear focussed. Sometimes medium focussed. Sometimes region focussed. Sometimes theme focussed.

Unless participants are empathic, that is, they can put themselves in your shoes and see with your eyes, they often have difficulty understanding the intent of your image and cheering you on with your endeavour. They want to sit in their own comfort space, and look from their frame of reference.

Just keep faith with yourself. You sometimes need the validation of peers. Sometimes you don't. If you seek validation every time for every photo, you won't be able to contribute your uniqueness or personal flavour to the world. Even flaws are unique.

Playing with the Panasonic G9

Thanks to Panasonic Australia who arranged a Photowalk with Rob Mulally as part of Michael's Camera and Video Melbourne Photoshow, I got to play with the Panasonic G9 for a little while. I don't have the infrastructure to carry out an objective and detailed test, so just journaling some of my impressions in this article.

I am somewhat interested in an ultra-wide MFT lens - I'm quite satisfied in the images from my old Four Thirds Olympus Zuiko Digital 7-14mm but it is quite bulky and heavy, so just looking with #GAS. Of the ultra wide MFT lenses, the Leica DG Vario Elmarit 8-18mm is the most entrancing to me.

The photo below is quite interesting for me. It's the Lumix G9 with the 8-18mm.

Taken into Adobe Camera Raw October 2018 with Process Version 5. I first applied the Camera Matching Cinelike D Color Profile. This seemed to handle the deep shadows (where the people are standing) and the super bright sun further away without needing work from me.

Then I chose Auto in the ACR Exposure section of sliders which automatically removed the still deep shadows and delineated tones in their clothes.

This is a scene with very challenging dynamic range and the software / hardware combo did well.

Finally, after depositing the image in Adobe Photoshop, I invoked the DxO Filmpack 5 plugin. I have the free edition. I don't particularly like the magenta cast that sometimes plagues images coming from Panasonic cameras, and this time, chose the Kodakchrome 64 look from the Filmpack - the sky light blue and the reddish brick is what I like.

Lumix G9 + 8-18mm lens, processed ACR, DxO Filmpack

The photo below is also with the Lumix G9 with the 8-18mm.  The workflow is the same as the one above. However, before I transferred it from Adobe Camera Raw, the magenta cast was quite undesirable. Like a faux aged Agfacolor process. I manually adjusted the cyan-magenta slider in ACR and also the blue-yellow white balance slider. With the Kodakhrome 64 profile from DxO Filmpack, the result is actually quite pleasing with soft "organic" hues.

Lumix G9 + 8-18mm lens, processed ACR, DxO Filmpack

Bottom line: They're not the famous "Olympus Color" that Olympus JPEG enthusiasts like but they are quite satisfying for me. Will I be satisfied with the Panasonic colour (JPEG or raw) with less tweaking? Can't say, I would need to do more photos with the G9. (I do have the old G2 and the GF3)

Stamping text on your images in bulk

From time to time, people ask about a way to date stamp or filename stamp a bunch of images as a watermark on their images.  There is a free and easy way, use XnView.

It's in the Tools > Batch Processing menu

Product Differentiation by offering different features not truncating features

So, with the smoke clearing after the Nikon launch of their initial Full Frame Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras (FFMILC) and the Canon launch of their own FFMILC, we now know how the two big players in the camera industry play their hands. Yes, it’s like card players and it’s a leadership choice to take a risk here and there, to draw back at other times. You can do surveys on purchase statistics but at the end of the day, to design a new camera in a new category (as opposed to making a Mark 2, 3, 4), you do have to make a decision and often a crucial decision.

So how should the competitors react? Or more specifically how should Olympus react?

There is the linear reaction – manage advertising and sales campaigns, sales channels, plod along on the current product design policies and path.

Or

There is the proactive non linear initiative – possibly to break current approaches and modes of thinking and outflank the FFMILC.

Here’s an idea. And it’s not altogether unique or new. Because Canon and Nikon have already figured out a bit of the idea.

Differentiate a product not by tiering the product line and truncating features off the lower end models

1. Entry Level, Lowest Price
2. Enthusiast Level
3. Premium
4. Professional

But by producing DIFFERENT products with DIFFERENT features.

The fundamental questions are:

• How Different
• What Different

Olympus once had the mojo on how to do this around the 2010. They’ve lost it in the recent E-M10 Mark III and the PEN E-PL8 design policies. They’ve dropped into a Nikonist culture of tiering the D-3x00, D-5x00, D-7x00. That’s a bad approach for the company and for the buyers. Olympus needs to get their mojo back. Especially when products for that market segment is has been abysmal for Canon and Nikon.

Where goeth Micro Four Thirds?

The Question

With the spate launch announcements of full frame (often abbreviated as FF) interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (colloquially called “Mirrorless”) following the awakening of the two giants, Nikon and Canon, the time comes again for some crystal ball gazing of the two champions of the Micro Four Thirds  (MFT) Standard, Olympus and Panasonic.

As usual, there is a throng of owners and non owners who have the “chicken little” syndrome – the sky will fall down and all that precious gear will be valueless, without prospect of new products. And then there are the denialists who will stand, shoulder to shoulder and chant “full frame mirrorless is another market, MFT will continue unabated”

My Answer

Olympus and Panasonic, separately and independently, will have to choose a path forward that is aware, with staff leaders who are brave in making decisions and resolute. But they have always been resolute and brave, otherwise they would not have weathered the transition from the loss making prior Four Thirds system to Mirrorless MFT.

Without a doubt, the purchase dollars equation will be affected by more competitors in the Mirrorless market. That is no different from the current situation where Nikon and Canon have had DSLRs (non Mirrorless) and do their outmost to deprecate the Mirrorless market. The only twist, and it is a major twist, is that Olympus could wait for DSLR transition-ers (usually enthusiasts, some professionals) to quietly add MFT to their collection of gear or move completely. It is not to say that once Nikon and Canon have viable FF Mirrorless that that rebel recruits who abandon the Dark Side and come to MFT will completely stop. Full Frame still remains Full Frame, the sizeable telephoto lenses will continue to be sizeable, less 20mm of flange distance. And you don’t have to lock into the high priced, big and heavy pro level MFT body to do street photography – the petite bodies like the Olympus OM-D E-M10 series or the Panasonic G-85 series are more than capable of tasks like that and more.

The Bottom Line is that the design leaders and marketers of Olympus and Panasonic need to fully understand what they have in their range (already MFT is in its fifth or sixth generation of refinement in contrast to even Sony, much less Nikon and Canon) and to excel at the virtues, deprecate the disadvantages.

Doh! The Sony flash hotshoe has a different position for the locking pin

I kept thinking that the Sony hotshoe was dodgy because the flash foot of other brand flash seemed not to fit entirely in. It's actually by design - the locking pin to centre pin distances are different in Sony vs universal shoe design. Make sure the locking pin locks and you're good to go. The other brand flash needs to be on Manual and the Sony body needs to be on Manual Exposure because there are no secondary electronic contacts except the centre pin which triggers the flash. In fact, my Sony a7 does not even know the flash is there as it does not limit the shutter to the maximum flash sync speed. I found faster than 1/160th second, I could see a curtain shadow - the camera body itself does not limit the speed, you just have to remember it.

You've heard of the Exposure Triangle?

People refer to the Exposure Triangle endlessly. Someone has finally made an interactive one that makes sense.

Buttons and Dials preferences for the Sony A7 Mark 1

When I bought the Sony A7 Mark 1 recently, I refrained from overdoing customisations of the custom dials and dials. Now that I have had the time to think about it, here are my choices. Just in case you're after some ideas.

My Google Sheet (opens in a different window)

Colour or Black and White?

Robin Wong was asking whether we present in black and white or colour. I had been pondering similarly as part a recent blog article - there I was looking at an old end of the line railway station, in some disrepair and it suited a vintage monochrome treatment because the weathered and worn pink roof tiles, patches of green, took away from the shape and the vintaginess of the presentation. Here's another one I like in monochrome.

Bicycle at Pulau Ketam

In the above scene, there is some light from the sky and the narrow street accentuates the chiaroscuro. There are flashes of bright red and other colours in the scene and these detract from the play of light, in my opinion.

I reckon part of this empathy to monochrome is having shot film, fondled the silver gelatin paper and gazed at the lustrous blacks that are quite different from modern inkjet black or screen rgb(0,0,0). There are heaps of new gen photographers who do black and white treatments digitally though, whether they went to Fine Art school or pressed my D-76 under their fingernails I don't know.

Black and White print can also be extremed - instead of a Tri-X or Agfapan patina, you can just move sliders in Lightroom to your heart's content, crushing detail.

There are times when colour definitely works.

Black Cat not in a Coalmine

Apple Girl

And then there is that purgatory where it is neither colourful nor truly monochromatic

Three 200 hp SuzukiMarines

Revisiting The Then

There's an old saying "That was then but this is now..." or something to that effect. In the 1960s to 80s, the amateur photographer was simply that. There was no internet. Glossy magazines cost money and if you lived outside of the UK (Amateur Photographer) or US, disconnected from your environs and your life. Yes, there might be the odd Photographic Society and exhibition, a few people striving for ARPS or FRPS but the average amateur simply slung his rangefinder or SLR and just went taking photos of content that was interesting to himself . Photo Fine Art schools were for the privileged, not the broad masses and not in the country you lived in.

The camera you used was moderately priced. There would be a few grasping their Leica or Nikon but the average enthusiast would be using one of the middle class, Japanese makes - remember Petri, Miranda, Asahi Pentax, Minolta (before it fell into Konica), Cosina and so on. Some people used 120 size film not because they were artists, but because that type of camera wasn't out of the ordinary and they liked looking down at their belly button. Most were 35mm users - we didn't even call them full frame though there were cropped film sizes like 127 and 110.

Lenses might be original brand (in which case they would be the ubiquitous 50mm (plus/minus) or you could splurge on an additional heady 28mm f/2.8 at the wide or 135mm f/2.8 at the telephoto. You might walk around with the one lens because you didn't think of buying another. And if you bought extra lenses, they might not be tack sharp Carl Zeiss, they would be some Komuranon or similar. We didn't talk about bokeh because most things were blurred. We were just happy that anything turned out sharp and used f/8. We couldn't chimp. We certainly didn't mercilessly pixel peep at 1:1

What about technique? We knew about leading lines and.... that was about it. I don't remember that we used visual puns of juxtaposition. Things were pretty straightforward. Yes, I'll say it. It was all simpler then.

Now, whilst the rest of the world chases astrophotography, high dynamic range blending, high speed sync with TTL flash, super intelligent continuous autofocus tracking and high-speed burst rates on sports, there's nothing to stop you from slowing down, turning back the clock. It's all up to you.

Pengurus Stesen

Fisherman reeling in the Prosperity (Huat Huat)

Look up - can you see the sky from here?

Each place has unique nuances and scenes that regular inhabitants become blind too. The detail is so mundane and you see it repeatedly in your daily life, 365 days a year that it is no longer something you notice. I find when I leave a place and come back after some time away, I notice things.

Detail of old facade on Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Kuala Lumpur

So, I'm here, looking up, waving my camera around like a tourist.  Here's what I enjoyed and became a nugget of memory in my mind. It isn't created to be a poster photo to sell cameras for a brand. It isn't created to be Fine Art Photo for the discerning connoisseur of taste (at least I don't think so). It's too real to be desired as a stock photo. It's not in the category of varied travel photos that some young dude Youtuber will place on Instagram to gain sponsorship. It's not an avant garde, modern trend street photo with strong graphic elements. But it's my photo.

It presents my glimpse of old KL. Before the modern, super polished glass and cladded skyscrapers became so dominant. It's the facade of a pre-independence shop house, the roof long gone, without new paint. The weeds and tropical ferns have resumed their inexhaustible march to recover the scenes from man made brick and concrete. Some backlit leaves on a background of sky.

Stopped a moment. Breathe in the past and the present.

Waving your camera around like a tourist

Sometimes, you've got to unlax. Feel the environs. Get in the mood. Wave your camera around like a tourist.

What do you get for that?

• A refresh of your feelings about an activity or a scene. Not the photography aspects. But your personal perspective.
• Practice in handling your gear in a casual manner and the boundaries between casualness and image quality in the field.
• The liberty and freedom of NOT taking a technically perfect shot.
• Finding out whether the people you hang out with (the community on your social network) will travel with you on your journey or despise you because you take less than perfect shots.

Using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor body

A Quick FAQ for one of the most sensitive and hottest topics in forums. It stirs controversy not only because people don't fully understand, it causes anguish because people end up supplying answers to different questions.

Q1. Do I dial in a different ISO/shutter speed / f/no with the same lens on bodies with different sized sensors?
Ans: No, You use the same parameters

Q2. Do I get a different image "quality" if I use the same lens on different sensors?
Ans:

• It varies depending on some factors but overall, yes, the final image when enlarged from the sensor size to the final size of screen or print will show that the full frame image with less image noise, all things being equal. 
• It may not be exactly proportional to the sensor size ratios because all things are not always equal. 
• The increase in noise is due to the fact that the smaller sensor only sees a small part of the full frame image and you have to magnify the image more to fit the final size screen or print. 
• Some people want to explain it a different way and say that the smaller sensor has "lost" light - in one way, it has, because the smaller sensor cannot see part of the image. In another way, it has not - whatever light that does fall onto the sensor, is the same brightness per area.
• Also an issue is that people often want X megapixels (let us say 20 Mp) whether they use a cropped sensor camera or a full frame camera. That means that cropped sensor makers have to fit a higher pixel density (more pixels per area) onto a smaller sensor. This makes the pixel smaller on a cropped sensor camera. These are all theoretical design issues. At the end of the day, people compare real, practical cameras with real sensors - due to different technological edge, the superiority may not be proportional as prescribed by theory.

Q3. Will the amount of blur background be different when you use the same lens on different sized sensors for the same subject size in the frame.
Ans.

• Yes, there will be different background blur, all things being equal. This is where the notorious phrase - "f/2 on a MFT sensor is equivalent to f/... on a full frame sensor"
• A simplified visual simulator that you can interact with on the web is here:
  https://dofsimulator.net/en/
• An Android App that allows you to understand subject dimensions in the parameters of depth of field is the DOF and Hyperfocal Calculator by Cunning Dog.

Q4: If you fit a 50mm full frame lens on a cropped sensor body, what happens to the f/no?

Ans:

• The f/no stays the same - it is a property of the lens, not the camera body.

Q5: Isn't background blur the same as depth of field?

Ans: No, they are not the same. 

• Depth of field depends on camera to subject distance
• Background blur depends on camera to background distance

Q6. Will the inherent creaminess of a bokeh ball in the centre of the frame be different between the two bodies?
Ans. Likely the bokeh ball will be the same character of wiryness, onion skin, or bokeh ball shape.

Q7: Isn't bokeh the same as background blur?
Ans: Not, they are not the same. The original definition for bokeh is about the creaminess of the blur for the same amount of blur, not how blurred the background is.

Q8. Will the whole frame blur and bokeh effect be different between the two bodies with different sensor size with the same lens?
Ans. Yes, the full frame style of picture will be different because the smaller sensor does not show you the blurry bits and vignetting of the lens that is around the edge of the frame

Q9: If you fit a 50mm full frame lens onto say an MFT sensor body, will it become 100mm?
Ans: No.

• 50mm focal length is a property of the lens. 
• When you fit this lens on a cropped sensor body (whether it be MFT or APS-C), part of the image will not be seen by the sensor because the sensor is smaller (hence the name Cropped) than the Circle of Coverage of the full frame lens. 
• To ensure that you see the full height of the subject using a cropped sensor body, you will have to walk backwards - i.e. increase your camera to subject distance.
• People will then say that if you stand at the same spot but do not move back, you are using the equivalent of a 100mm lens on a full frame body, when you use a 50mm lens on a MFT body.

Having said all the above, let's look at an entertaining and illustrative video that combines some of these points together and..... potentially (if you didn't read above) fills your head with conflicting information (unless you sit down and calmly deconstruct the impact James is saying point by point)

Oh, Ok, so it wasn't that quick. Did you learn something?

For ease of access, here is a DOF calculator by PhotoPills

The Misconception about SOOC Raw

Recently I saw a question posed about which camera (or camera brand) had the better colour. I explained that each camera will likely have a different colour profile and it should not be viewed as a technical superiority, the merit is most often subjective and affected by artistic interpretations. In short, it's a matter of taste.

There is also a misconception that if one takes a raw file from the camera and displays it the preferred editing program of choice, without touching any adjustment sliders, that it is SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) raw. This is not correct. In order for the editing program to create a display on screen for you to asses, it has to demosaic, apply colour profiles, tonal curves, sharpening, noise reduction and even lens corrections. It's a bit like the old Australian ad phrase - "Clayton's - its the drink you have when you are not having a drink". Every editing program has to apply "factory defaults" as determined by the program maker (as opposed to the camera maker). In most programs, you can replace the factory default with your preferred "look", either on a one by one image, or in batch with a Develop Preset or save that "look" to the default.  In the last case, that means whenever you bring in a raw file, this camera calibration will be applied.

As Lightroom is one of the most popular raw editing programs, here are some screenshots of where you go to set up your personalised import defaults.

Edit > Preferences in Lightroom

Import Dialog in Lightroom showing Import Presets and Develop Settings

Preferences Dialog in Adobe Camera Raw

Develop Presets Panel in Adobe Camera Raw

Here's a video explaining this:

And here is a video by Mark Wallace about how to use the Xrite Color Checker Passport with Lightroom to set reference profiles and switch and also to offset the neutral colour to a wamer or cooler white balance:

Learnt something?

Keep it Simple: Fill in Flash in harsh daylight

It's not hard to reduce shadows in harsh daylight, for general circumstances. Here's how.

Equipment used:

• Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 1
• Nissin i40 (for MFT cameras, able to support TTL and HSS)

Many people who eschew using flash, are used to P A or S (Program vs Aperture Priority vs Shutter Speed priority) for ambient light shooting. P A or S can be so convenient, you feel like using it all the time. When you fit the flash on, you want the flash to somehow work in with the situation. It seems natural to think like that. 

P A or S were designed for when the camera just measures the light in the scene, computes what ISO / Aperture / Shutter Speed is right to use. When you introduce the factor of Flash, the camera now has a conundrum - the flash will only show its hand when it fires, not during liveview before you press the shutter release. So the liveview estimates for ISO / Aperture / Shutter Speed may or may not be able to be fulfilled when you click.  In this case, the camera makers so far, have made assumptions on how to make this mechanism work for P A S. These assumptions may set limits on what you want to do and you may spend more time fighting these assumptions than making forward progress.

Do the Gordian Knot thing - take a deep breath and leave P A S alone. For this situation, use Manual Exposure on the camera body and take control of your destiny.

1. Switch to Manual Exposure on the Camera
2. Ensure Liveview Boost (on Olympus cameras, the jargon is different for other mirrorless cameras) is set to OFF so that Liveview will emulate the exposure if using ambient light alone - this is typically OFF under normal use.
3. Ensure that you are not using Silent Shutter.
4. Set the ISO to fixed ISO 200
5. Set the shutter speed to 1/250th sec
6. Set the f/no to f/5.6
7. Have look at Liveview, take a shot. Make it look reasonable - darken / brighten by changing the f/no but keep the shutter speed at or below 1/250th sec.  This is what I got:

In this photo, without flash, I've adjusted the settings so that the brighter leaves are pleasant but the leaves in shadow are a little dark

8. Now fit the flash, switch it on, ensure the flash is set to TTL Auto (on the Nissin i40, there are two choices on the flash dial - "A" for standard TTL Auto and "TTL" if you want to use an enhanced mode and adjust flash brightness compensation using the dials on the Nissin i40 - choose A)
9.  and ensure that the camera has the flash icon in Super Control Panel enabled. Simply point the camera at anything (not your eyes) and click just to check that the flash will fire when you click.
10. Take a photo with the flash thus ready.

Photo with flash on TTL auto but otherwise same settings as the previous image above.

Notice in this photo, the shadows have been lightened considerably. You can now change the f/no by a little bit if you want to tweak to taste.

If the ambient light changes considerably, you might want to adjust the f/no again but I'm assuming you're using this technique because it is constantly bright and harsh and the lighting is not volatile.

If you are happy with this look, that's it, no need to read anymore. 

For those who are looking for more blur in the background and they have a lens that opens to f/2 (or brighter) which allows a shallower depth of field, this is what you do next.

11. Fit the brighter lens, take off the flash or disable the flash from triggering.
12. Ensure the lens is set to f/2 or the bright aperture that you so desire. Take a shot without the flash.  ISO 200, 1/250th sec, camera on Manual Exposure. This is what you get:

Over bright exposure, with a bright f/2 lens, same ambient lighting as the previous photos

So you see, by ambient light itself without flash, the exposure is too bright. Using Liveview, you will want to adjust the shutter speed so that the photo does not bleach out. This makes a high shutter speed necessary. 

13. Take another shot, adjust the shutter speed faster so that the photo without flash looks nice enough. Let us say, I got a photo that was nice at 1/800th sec.
14. Fit the flash, enable the flash in the camera. You will see the shutter speed drop to 1/250th and no amount of camera dial twirling will make it rise. This is the stage when you want to enable High Speed Sync (HSS).
15. On the Nissin i40 (see pdf manual), you enable HSS by pressing the lighted green button on the flash for a few seconds until a white LED blinks near the right-hand dial on the flash. Once you see that blink, you can use the camera dial to raise the camera's shutter speed past 1/250th sec. So raise the camera's shutter speed to the shutter speed that you arrived at in step 13.
16. Take the shot with the flash firing. You'll get this:

So, a similarly pleasant shot as the one you got at f/5.6 with flash. 

This new shot is similar in exposure brightness to the one you got at f/5.6 with flash. However, this is at f/2 or brighter and you now have a blurred background.

That's it. You've survived Manual Exposure on the camera body with TTL Auto and HSS on the flash and used a bright aperture like f/2 for shallow depth of field bokeliciousness.

Like what you read? Learnt something from it?

I have other flash notes too.
Jargon:

MFT	Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras. These cameras have LiveView so that you can see what image will look like in ambient light before you click
TTL Flash	Through The Lens metering so that the camera can measure the light that the flash produces when the flash triggers and regulate it to the image brightness you have nominated HSS
HSS	High Speed Sync - Focal Plane Shutters have a limited maximum speed when used with flash (flash sync speed), typically 1/250th sec and in bright sun outdoors, you need a higher speed than that. So HSS (also called FP mode) was invented to pulse the flash light many many times during the exposure so that the camera body allows you to use a higher shutter speed than the flash sync speed
Focal Plane Shutter	There are several types of shutter used in the variety of cameras. DSLRs and interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras tend to use a Focal Plane Shutter. A Focal Plane Shutter at a shutter speed higher than Flash Sync Speed, produces a travelling slit to expose the sensor that is less than the full area of the sensor.

Photographing the Super Blue Red Moon (Lunar Eclipse)

The Moon before the eclipse. Tokina 200mm f/3.5 film era lens on an Olympus E-M1 Mark 1 with film era Komura Telemore II 2x magnification teleconvertor.  ISO 200 1/250 (f/8 on the lens, I think)

We've had a fun time trying to shoot the moon.  Some people make the activity look unbelievably easy, others encounter all kinds of difficulties that puzzle them. Here's a retrospective on my technique.

1. Separate the process of aiming vs focussing vs exposure - I use a mirrorless Liveview camera and these modern cameras excel at general photography but shooting the moon is a non standard activity. If you don't separate these concepts in your mind, you end up with a blurry white disc in an expanse of black sky.
2. Put the camera on a tripod. You will be waiting for the moon and taking several shots. I was around for from 11 pm to nearly 2 am so that's a long time to spend holding a heavy long lens pointing up in the sky.  For some gear, turn off image stabilisation if you trust your tripod is very steady and your tripod head to camera mount is rock steady. Some cameras automatically understand they don't need image stabilisation.
3. Use Manual Focus and Manual Exposure and Fixed ISO. See point 1

Aiming

Liveview cameras are usually set to emulate the scene and the exposure - if the exposure is very bright, the liveview will be bright and vice versa if dark. This presents a problem with shooting only the moon (it's different if you want the moon as part of a nightscape). If the camera thinks there is a lot of dark (i.e. the black sky) it will brighten the liveview to the extent that the moon in liveview will be like a blurry, white washed out disc. You don't want that, you can't assess the clarity of focus or anything.

Tip: Set the exposure metering of the camera to spot area. Point the spot at a lit portion of the moon. The camera will attempt to make liveview display that area as 18% grey, suitable for eye judgement and assessment.

Focussing

Now that you can see the moon clearly (see Aiming, above), you can manually focus. If the moon is very small because you do not have a high power telephoto / zoom, you might need to magnify which Liveview cameras often easily do. Toggle Focus Peaking (I like red outlines) - you can outline the edges of the moon with focus peaking colour. Focus Peaking sometimes does not represent perfect focus in general use but the moon is a bright disc in the black sky, it works well.

The moon is not a racing car or a sports player. It does move but not at the speed of lightning. And its distance from you does not change - it traverses the night sky, it doesn't run away or toward you. Once you have achieved focus, except for gear accidents, touching the lens etc... you do not need to change focus. It's essentially at infinity.

Exposure

First to appreciate the significance, read through these B & H articles (highlighted by +Margaret Wong)

• https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/22-tips-for-photographing-a-lunar-eclipse
• https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/14-tips-shooting-moon

The moon will be bright before eclipse. Rule of thumb is the Looney 11. 

All you need is a ballpark figure to set the fixed ISO / shutter speed / aperture on your camera. Remember you are using a digital camera - you can shoot and review exposure almost immediately, then adjust the setting. Of course, you need to know which way on those scales is brighter or darker. But within a few seconds, you can home in on the relevant exposure.

When the moon enters eclipse, the brightness changes a lot because now, the light from the sun is being blocked by the earth. (It's the lunar eclipse, duh!).  In this case, it will be a lot dimmer. You might have to go to ISO 1600 as opposed to Looney 16 when you used ISO 200. You might be down to 1/2 sec exposure time as opposed to 1/200th sec exposure during Looney 16.

Tokina 200mm 1/25sec with stacked Komura TCON X2 and Vivitar TCON X2  ISO 200 (f/3.5 I think) on Olympus E-M1 Mark 1

Be awake to that. It takes like forever to eclipse, then it's suddenly dark and remains dark for 10 or more minutes. If you are not awake to that, you would have left your manual exposure setting on Looney 11.

Tokina 200mm 1/4sec with stacked Komura TCON X2 Vivitar TCON X2  ISO 3200 (f/3.5 I think) on Olympus E-M1 Mark 1

When you figure out that your settings for exposure need brightening, you have to reconcile whether you want to increase ISO (which implies more image noise) or lengthen shutter speed (which risks blur from camera/tripod/moon movement)

Tokina 200mm 1/2sec with stacked Komura TCON X2 Vivitar TCON X2  ISO 3200 (f/3.5 I think) on Olympus E-M1 Mark 1

Then, you wait around until the eclipse clears and it's back to Looney 11

Tokina 200mm 1/15 sec with stacked Komura TCON X2 Vivitar TCON X2  ISO 400 (f/8 I think) on Olympus E-M1 Mark 1

Triggering

Under Looney 11 conditions, you may not need much care in holding the camera steady or triggering. You could even hand hold the camera and lens if you could hold your aim steady enough at such a high magnification. However, when shutter speeds lengthen, you want camera motion to be the least of your worries. You could use a remote control mechanism (wired remote control or camera phone app or tether) or you could just use the 12 second timer built into most cameras. If you are worried about shutter shock or you want even more time for the camera and nervous tripod to reach static state, use the vibration reduction delay built into the camera.

Colour

If you are shooting raw, you can adjust colour easily during post processing. However, you have to remember the colour of the moon. Why not shoot JPEG + Raw so you can easily have a reference. And set the White Balance in the camera to Sunny. Not Auto White Balance which will fade the colours to pale (the camera does not know what colour the moon should be)

But my photo isn't as sharp as I expect - I'm not seeing enough detail

The tips above are to give you a head start, a ballpark result where the moon does not look like a blurred white disc in the sky. If your photo isn't as sharp or as detailed as you expect or some trolls egg you on about, consider:

• How was the atmospheric haze/cloud cover during your shot?
• Have you got the best quality lenses for this type of work - what is their usual sharpness resolving power and micro contrast. What's the next level up in performance and cost? Do you want to pay that for this pursuit? Or maybe you could rent?
• Have you got enough magnification? Speaking in terms of "full frame" sensor, 800mm equivalent focal length is nice to have.
• Have you got enough image light/brightness. An f/2.8 lens would be nice. It does not stay as f/2.8 brightness if you stack on one or two optical teleconverters
• Have you got a really steady tripod/camera/lens combination that does not wobble at the slightest breeze?
• Have you got a sensor that will have low enough noise at ISO 3200?
• If you are using specialised 2000mm mirror lenses which are high magnifying power and suffer from thermal expansion/contraction that affects the focus point, you should be checking your focus more frequently.

Like what you read? Learnt something from it?

Making YOUR photos UNIQUE

From Sara Dietschy and Chase Jarvis

Martin Parr On Parr

So I had a great time listening to the venerable Magnum photographer Martin Parr. I had very enjoyable company too, with friends who are birds of a feather.

Points I took away and interpreted from his presentation?

• Focus on the content. If you have chosen a camera and lens that is competent, your main purpose is to narrate the photo. In the digital age, camera parameters are captured to and stored in EXIF - it's inevitable that we get nerdy and ask "but what setting did you use on that photo?"
  
  When really, whether you use P A S or M, you're chasing the content, composition, opportunity, not the settings. Yes, if you are a newbie, you do want to know whether there is some setting that magically will give you the edge. But asking a photographer who captured the shot for the shot may not give you the right clues. For example, you might wonder why the photographer why he/she used ISO 1600 or f/16 (both closer to the ends of each measure) when that was what was on the camera from the preceding shot or what the camera happened to set. The setting might not be optimum for "image quality" but it happened to be opportune for that frame. So if you blindly follow the EXIF and it doesn't happen for you well......
  
  Or maybe, it's the primary factors are not in camera but outside the camera.
  
• Use a brand or model(s) of gear that you like but at the end of the day, you can make the shot happen even if other people think/feel/say that's not the best gear for that shot.  Martin currently shoots a Canon DSLR - and he documents people and their activities - now fashionably called "shoots street". That's not usually thought of as a street shooter weapon.  Many street shooters crave a red dot Leica, Fuji hipsteresque cameras, the Ricoh GR2 or even Contax T2 film bling - this gear is super cool and makes the owner really happy - ostensibly, these cameras are inconspicuous and allow the photographer to become invisible. It's weird though when I come across a guy with a Leica, my eyes go big and I unconsciously mouth "oh Leica".
  
  But, it's all in the mind of the street shooter. If you don't think that the camera is bulky, large or inappropriate then it does not detract from your confidence or your ability to take the shot.
  
• The most believable documentary shots are those that are not overprocessed. Martin says that he shoots and his colleague processes and finishes. His earlier film photos have a film palette and sometimes very even tonal range - he said for some period of time, he wanted a studio look even on informal, impromptu shots, so he used flash. In digital processing, they remove reflections on spectacles, crop but they don't appear to "work" the photos. Of course for a particularly quirky project, like his selfie photobook, there is major compositing.
  
• You don't have to shoot what every other photographer shoots. Good photographs don't have to be of special or very important subjects or scenes. The mundane and the middle class can be interesting if you have an idea, vision or theme to communicate through the photograph.

As a part of the #shoesmonday theme and a homage of his feet up photos, I'll conclude with the following shot.

The case of the black and white image

Monochrome or Black and White photos have been in existence ever since photography was invented. It was easiest to formulate an emulsion that displays an image in shades of grey in the beginning. Colour came substantially later because the mechanism to sense and render colour images is quite a bit more complex.

But in these days of the digital mobile phone, our scientists and engineers have already overcome the difficulties and easily render colour. Except for the odd camera (the Leica Type 246 Monochrom), the digital sensor is invariably a colour mosaiced sensor.

I once encountered someone on G+ who wondered whether there would be any need to make black and white images at all. In the ensuing discussion, I highlighted the ideas that the removal of colour from the image allowed shapes and texture to be presented.

Another angle that modern photographers encounter is that the capture of the image in raw and subsequent processing of said raw into the final output is all important. In which case, it's not necessary to set the camera to render in black and white, all that can be done in the post processing.

That runs counter to visualisation in-situ - we now have cameras that can render an image in front of our eyes, near instantly, as opposed to the film cameras of old which would require some delay before you can see and produce a different iteration. Photographers have the choice of going down the rabbit hole of creating ever more complex and detailed demands in the workflow to push away the immediacy of visualisation or to revel and embrace it.

The majority of photographers, although using digital cameras, still use DSLRs with Optical View Finders (OVF). They often spend a lot of time peering through the OVF because that is the most natural way of using the camera. Unless they shoot and chimp, shoot and chimp, rinse and repeat, the OVF is a tunnel to seeing colourful reality.

But if you are using a mirrorless camera, the natural way to use this camera is to aim and compose using LiveView - regardless of whether it is looking through the Electronic View Finder (EVF) or the back LCD screen. You can switch to a Monochrome Picture Profile. Often you can add a colour filter not to colour the image but to apply a colour mask to the input. If the depth of the black tones is not to your taste, you can apply tweaks in contrast, sharpness, sometimes even curves of shadow, mids and highlights.

Some people are of the opinion that they could enhance the result more, working from raw. There is no inconsistency with that workflow and setting the camera to a Monochrome Profile - if you shoot raw and set a Monochrome Profile, the Liveview and Preview would show you the black and white image, the raw would still contain the full colour information for post processing. If you shoot raw + jpeg, you get jpegs which (if you like) can be immediately posted to social networks or given as the end result. You have not lessened your options, you have increased them.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 1. Color Creator with red filter, desaturated and shadow curve tweaked for darker shadows

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 1. Color Creator with red filter, desaturated and shadow curve tweaked for darker shadows

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 1. Color Creator with red filter, desaturated and shadow curve tweaked for darker shadows

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark 1. Color Creator with red filter, desaturated and shadow curve tweaked for darker shadows