March 03, 2015, 11:56:32 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - scottburgess

Pages: [1]
Software & Accessories / c't Digital Photography: A personal review
« on: August 03, 2014, 05:04:31 PM »
I had the good fortune of getting a couple copies of an uncommon (and relatively young) quarterly magazine for photographers.  After looking the issues over, I thought some folks here might like to know a bit about the magazine.  I expect other readers would have very different opinions about the publications mentioned, so do take this with a grain of salt.  I'm merely offering my impressions and my experience as a writer, editor, and educator for those who want to know what this magazine is all about.  (And no, unfortunately I'm not getting paid for writing this drek.  But I will graciously accept goodies from my Amazon wishlists from those desperate to reward me!  lol)

c't Digital Photography is produced by Heise Zeitschriften in cooperation with Rocky Nook, so it has both German and American roots--it appears much of the production is done in Germany, and the photographs themselves are frequently from Germany and California.  The first thing that struck me, as an American, was the slightly bigger size and heft of an A4 thick paper format compared with American publications.  The samples I had were 138 glossy color pages each with noticeably less advertising per issue than, say, Popular Photography or Outdoor Photographer.  The magazine is a full 0.25 inches thick, about twice as thick as Popular Photography's typical 100 pages.  Since the target audience of these three publications is amateurs at a similar range of levels, and many of you are probably familiar with one or both of these American counterparts, I'll confine my comparisons to these three publications.

What does c't offer that the others don't?  A few things:

1) Longer, in-depth articles on particular topics, sometimes with detailed analysis.  I just spent some time over breakfast finishing a semi-technical comparison of smart phone cameras with compacts and dslrs replete with extensive data tables.  The article did a respectable job illustrating the strides in SNR that have been made, as well as connecting the dots well enough between SNR and low light performance that an amateur could understand what some of the issues are.  From the article, once can conclude that smart phone performance is close to compact camera performance, and that further improvements in sensor technology may push even a few pros into eventually dumping dslr gear.  The authors offered good tips for smart phone users who want to get the best images from their hardware.

2) Free software.  Yeah, you read that right.  Every issue comes with a disc packed with image processing tools, photo tools, sample images from comparison articles, video tools, video tutorials, and even the occasional free ebook.  This is not just junk!  Many of them are quite good.  Many of the applications are available free on the Internet, but you'd spend days digging them out.  The good folks at c't have done that work for you and saved you the download time to boot.  I looked carefully and saw almost no overlap in the listed offerings between the issues: GIMP and Grey's Magic Image Converter appeared in both lists only because of version upgrades.

3) Unique content: big how-to articles, including do-it-yourself projects; and topics uncommonly covered by other magazines.  One issue had a long three-part article on building your own tilt-shift lens, converting your camera into a telescope or microscope, and doing high-speed photography.  The second copy had big articles on underwater photography and 32-bit image processing.  Another issue carried an article on graphics cards.  While few may build their own tilt-shift lens, it was refreshing to see that there is now a magazine which supports that part of our community.

My overall impression of the magazine is that it is still a work in progress.  The writing is a little uneven, like Outdoor Photographer, and at times both the magazine as a whole as well as authors of individual articles don't seem to have a clear idea who their audience is.  An article on nature photography, for example, has a section on photographing trees which expends its text on finding a tree to photograph, but says little about what to do afterward.  Perhaps this is partially due to articles being translated from German: it appears that most of the authors were from Germany.  Likewise, some articles are written for the complete newbie, others for the advanced amateur.  These inconsistencies generate excitement for me about an article when I read the cover followed by a big let-down when I find that it has nothing interesting to say.  It's one reason my wife and I dumped Outdoor Photographer.

I expect this problem comes in part from having few professional photo educators on the editorial staffs.  A professional educator gets a lot of feedback about what is unclear and not working, then has to adjust audience focus, progression of the topic, and so forth when teaching the topic again to correctly carry an audience at one general level to a particular conclusion.  Popular Photography exhibits greater consistency, in my view, but is geared to an amateur level that I've gone beyond.

One would think that less advertising would be grand, but it's not all roses.  Fewer advertisers means fewer opportunities to run across new products, too, and that is one thing that I find acceptable about the American counterparts: I'm always seeing a new gadget that gets me thinking.  Frequently I don't end up buying the product but do initiate a photo project related to what the gadget was for.  Some of the gadgets end up on my Amazon wishlist where a thoughtful relative can scratch my photo itch come Christmas.  Fewer advertisers and an expensive format also means that this magazine will set you back a bit compared to the more generic counterparts.  Still, it was really nice to open up c't and see long pages of explanatory text and clear photos in some of the how-to articles.  The extra space created opportunities for the authors to give ample details, side notes, and illustrative photographs.  I bet at least some folks here will think this is a good trade-off.

One small thing going against this publication is the name...  What the heck does "c't" mean, and why would the editors think that this name connects to an American audience?  I haven't a clue.  It appears to be a carry-over from Heise's similarly-named computer technical magazine, but I had to look that up.  If I were editor, I'd consider rebranding the English language version.  I would probably also add 5-10 pages of ads at the end, and contact big outlets like B&H or Adorama to help fill them.

So none of these publications are really what I personally want, which is a true advanced-amateur-only publication that always assumes many years of experience with photography and a high level of technical sophistication, has good advertiser support, but also allows for deep, involved articles.  I'm not as interested in do-it-yourself articles, but would like more post-processing articles.  I don't expect to get all of that because the audience is much smaller and harder to reach.

But some of you may be interested in what this magazine offers.  The big project and how-to articles are an attraction, as are the software/tutorial discs.  I certainly would like this to remain part of the photography magazine ecosystem and perhaps develop into something really special.  So far, I would call it "quite promising."  And I would like to encourage American photojournalists to consider submissions to this publication for the same reasons (I didn't investigate what this would entail).  If this review has piqued your interest, I encourage you to give it a try.  You can read a couple sample articles at their website.

Software & Accessories / Batch process to fix missing EXIF data?
« on: May 16, 2014, 11:57:59 PM »


I'm fiddling with a new pinhole cap lens.  The obsessive-compulsive part of me wants to batch fix the EXIF data to show "Pinhole" under the lens information, and add in the correct approximate aperture and extension tube info too.  I have or have access to the usual Canon software, Photoshop/Bridge, and a couple other tools. 

Does anyone have a quick batch workflow for patching EXIF data in multiple files?  As far as I know the fields I want to modify exist automatically from the camera (though most viewing/editing software will ignore fields with blank data by default).

Of course, if someone is knowledgeable about adding an identifier chip to the pinhole cap, that could be a fun project, though I don't know if those can be programmed to take into account the use of extension tubes.

Lenses / What about those lens weights?
« on: May 08, 2014, 09:24:33 PM »
Are you doing curls with your lenses lately?  Is your photo pack dragging you down hills?  Or is all the fuss about the weight of today's lenses just for wusses?  After a discussion of gear weight elsewhere, I saw Bryan's review of the Sigma Art where he cleverly provided the build data for many 50mm lenses, along with dates of manufacture.  Dropping them into a scatter plot yielded the attached chart.

At least this confirms what we would suspect.  None of the lenses in his review built prior to the year 2000 weigh more than 400 grams, while 6/10 of those after do.  There are a few notable lenses missing, and this only covers 50mm, but the data here was handy so I nabbed it.

So what do folks think?  Is smaller and lighter better for you?  Or do you prefer higher quality and damn the pounds?  Have you swapped down to a mirrorless ILC, or would you own and use both ILCs and SLRs?

EOS Bodies / A speculative thought on Canon test bodies
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:41:49 PM »
Some rumors have indicated that Canon bodies in test eat batteries, which got me to thinking...

Suppose the new bodies are testing a triple-sensor design.  That is, light is pushed through a trichromic prism to three CMOS sensors, one each for RGB.  It is essentially a very old idea, but eliminating the Bayer sensor would improve both low light capability and effective resolution.  Such a design would be bulky and would eat batteries, but it is a potential pathway to improved capabilities for high end DSLRs.

I suspect such a sensor array at around 40Mp (x 3) would be competitive with current MF cameras.

Just a thought.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled rumors.    ;D

Lenses / Speculation: Year of the Lens
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:08:18 PM »
Lots of lenses on sale at B&H.  Perhaps the rumors of new lenses are true, and we're in for a surprise or two this year as Canon and Nikon respond to the surge of quality third party designs.

So what strategy does everyone thing Canon would employ, and which would you prefer: a) mark ii versions of L lenses that are reasonably competitive with the new Sigmas and Zeiss glass, with a bit higher price point than current releases, or b) a whole new SL line ("Super Luxury") that beats the pants off of the competition, but at prices closer to the Otus?

Or perhaps you think Canon could do both?

EOS Bodies / Moving sensor: an attractive option?
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:35:11 PM »
Suppose Canon executes a technology exchange with Hasselblad for this technology:

Would you be interesting in having this as an option on your camera body, despite the long exposure times?  What cost limit would you put for adding in this feature?

Third Party Manufacturers / The Sigma SLR Strategy?
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:28:10 PM »
Many company moves make sense to me, but I still haven't figured out why Sigma is still producing their Foveon-based SLR bodies, or for that matter any SLR bodies of their own.

Do they believe they will eventually win substantial market share in SLR bodies with so many stronger players?  Do they mainly want to hang on to potentially valuable patents in case of industry contraction?  Is there a solid future for the Foveon sensor, and is this the best way to use it?

I'm not knocking Sigma here.  I think they are arguably the most successful of the independent lens makers and as such can probably continue making a decent living.  But what precisely is the value derived from making their own SLR lineup?

Someone please help me understand this one.

Third Party Manufacturers / An Era of Mergers?
« on: February 15, 2014, 03:57:42 PM »
Thought it would be fun to start a thread about the possibility that we are entering an era of mergers and corporate closings in 35mm/compact photography companies.  Business analysts frequently say there are too many players in these markets and a shakeout is inevitable, but it has not really happened yet. 

Some general questions:

So are the analysts right?  Who might buy whom, and for what reasons?  Who will go down swinging because they have no technology or patents worth selling?  What companies are best positioned to weather the tough times over the next several years?  What data can help us forecast their futures?

Some more specific questions:

Are Canon, Nikon, and Sony swamping the market with too many SLR body choices, forcing competitors out?  (Perhaps relevant here: "Too Many Choices," Consumer Reports, March 2014.)

Is there any photo company Canon should buy?  If so, why?

What might become of offerings from Olympus, Pentax/Ricoh, Sigma, Panasonic, Leica, Zeiss, Samsung, etc...?

Please share data, analysis, and your reflections on this!

Pages: [1]