Category Archives: Photography

Wake up call

Hardware

To Canon and Nikon.

Canon and Nikon, in their adherence to their DSLR flapping mirror upper-end camera bodies, are comparable to Kodak during its last decade.

Kodak, let us recall, invented consumer digital imaging but put it on the back burner as there would always be film. It had made them, all of Rochester NY and their many shareholders rich for a century. Why change now? The comparison with the head-in-the-sand behavior of Canon & Nikon with regard to upper end cameras is apt. Canon & Nikon know how to make mirrorless cameras but refuse to permit the technology to permeate to their top end offerings. Much more of this and their DSLRs will be to their future what film was to Kodak’s.

Now let us turn our attention to Apple. Miserable as some of their software efforts are – Photos (see yesterday’s column) or the incessant dumbing down of OS X with useless bells and whistles – no such accusations can be leveled at their hardware efforts. The MacBook is the best laptop on the planet, the Mac Pro is a high end workhorse and the iPhone is the touchstone for quality and performance in the cell phone world. And the iPhone’s camera is simply spectacular, improving significantly with every new iPhone.

Unlike Canon and Nikon and the Kodak of yore, Apple refuses to rest on its laurels. Recall a while back that Olympus emulated Hasselblad’s earlier efforts in multi-image digital photography, with the sensor shifted a pixel or two between images which are then superimposed for better quality. The Olympus camera, as my review here disclosed, the EM5 Mark II, is an ergonomic disaster and I returned mine 24 hours after receipt. But that in no way invalidates the concept.


Click the image for the article.

Well, Apple has gone one better and acquired an Israeli company named LinX which adopts a like concept but takes advantage of the very small sensor size required by the iPhone and instead of using one sensor and multiple shots with pixel shifting uses multiple sensors with but one snap. Immediately the disabling aspect of the Hasselblad and Olympus designs goes away, namely that neither maker’s camera is suitable for photographing moving subjects, be it sports, people in motion or those swaying branches in the trillionth imitation of Ansel’s birches in Yosemite. Once the images are simultaneously recorded on the multiple sensors, they can be combined in software later. Brilliant and kudos to Apple for thinking well down the road and investing shareholders’ capital accordingly. Add folded zoom lenses, which use a mirror to avoid the depth demands of moving lens elements, and you have the death knell for the tired offerings of yesteryear from Canon and Nikon.

Will the annuitants wake up in time and change their ways? I think it’s already too late. The lead time and capital required to catch up with hardware leaders like Apple are too great. It’s all over bar the writing. Behemoths take a long time to die …. but in the digital world that is far less time than ever before. Just ask around in Rochester.

Apple Photos for OS X

Software

Another failure.


Another purported solution looking for a problem. Apple Watch, anyone?

Once upon a time – many years ago – iPhoto was a sweet application. Import of images was easy, addition of text always worked with no frustration and creation of customized web pages using either the built in code or aftermarket plugins was easy, fast and elegant.

Apple tried to get serious about still photo processing with Aperture but it was flawed software which never had the company’s full attention. The design was chaotic, with no logical work flow (the description ‘scatterbrained’ comes to mind), the machine demands were very high so you had to have the latest Apple hardware to make it run at half decent speeds (shock news there) and the application only worked with OS X.

The best thing I ever did with Aperture was to migrate to Lightroom which, even in its early versions, ran fast, was logical and far easier to use. Adobe has always done a great job of keeping current with the myriad of RAW formats coming to the market seemingly weekly, updates coming soon after new cameras are released. LR is now so capable that round trips to Photoshop for regular work are rare. Lightroom remains fast, compact and as useful on OS X as it is in Windows, the files readable in either. Adobe’s greatest challenge is likely in deciding where to draw the line in not cannibalizing its Photoshop cash cow any further.

I migrated to Lightroom in 2008 and frankly the signs for Aperture’s demise were already on the wall, with increasingly infrequent updates and interminable RAW delays, interspersed with constant bugs. It took many years for Aperture to die, however, the product finally being put out of its misery last year, but not before Apple cynically offered cheap/free versions for reasons I cannot fathom. Those who delayed conversion to the superior Adobe application(s) merely increased their conversion problem, which they are struggling with right now. Loyalty to software in a fast changing world is futile.

Now Apple has added Photos to OS 10.10.3 (Yosemite) and a like app to iOS. I downloaded OS 10.10.3 – mostly to see what else it would break – and toyed some with Photos. (If you use Trim Enabler for your SSD management and a ‘made for Apple’ Nvidia GTX680 GPU in your Mac Pro as I do, be sure to disable Trim Enabler as the chances are you will lose all video when moving to 10.10.3).

I wish I had not wasted my time with Photos. I use iPhoto for quick snaps which have no place in my ‘serious’ Lightroom catalog and generate occasional web pages for our family albums. The conversion process from the iPhoto catalog was seamless, and the iPhoto catalog remains accessible. Thank goodness.

Much of the sorting capabilities of iPhotos remains – Photos, Albums, Projects – to the point where you really wonder what has changed. Then you realize that there is no Web page output – you can create bulky ‘m4v’ slideshows, but not traditional thumbnail/big image web pages. The decent processing controls in iPhoto have been dumbed down for the iOS generation – people with poor visual sense and undemanding presentation standards.

You can find (normally hidden) adjusters for Sharpening, Definition, Vignetting, White Balance and Levels, and like these the excellent Highlights and Shadows adjusters are hidden, the assumption being that anything other than a slider is too much for the pea brained iOS mentality of the user. Stupefying. Yes, you can still print from Photos, but I recommend exporting the original to Lightroom or Photoshop and doing the job properly where you will see a professional and familiar User Interface.


The controls are there if you can find them.
The dumbing down of the UI continues apace in Cupertino.

Annotating images with text is a joke. It has gone from buggy in the last version of iPhoto to near useless in Photos. The only available choice is for the text to appear on the image itself and there’s no way that I can find of using a neutral background for the text, meaning it inevitably gets lost in the image. Sorry, but EXIF data alone do not cut it for family albums.

Of course, iPhoto, while still usable, is dead. New RAW formats will doubtless not be supported so unless you propose to stick with your existing gear, it will be curtains as soon as you upgrade. And given the modern 2 year life of digital cameras ….

You have to wonder why Apple even bothered here. Or maybe not. Given the shallow mind set of the typical iOS consumer (‘selfies’, for goodness’ sake), it’s what he deserves.

Barbara’s Fish Trap

Dining

In Half Moon Bay.

True to form Half Moon Bay was socked in when my son and I dropped by for lunch today at Barbara’s Fish Trap today. Barbara’s has been around for ever and we celebrated with, what else, fish and chips.

The setting is perfect, the place has a ramshackle, broken down feel unchanged all these years, and the fish is excellent. Bring cash as they do not take credit cards.

HP dye printing paper

Printing

Grab it while it lasts.

Click the image for the vendor’s site.

If placing a large order for the 13″ x 19″ paper, you can save a lot of money on shipping by going directly to eWholesaler.com’s website and ordering there. Looks like only 13″ x 19″ glossy is available but that is the premier surface for the highest quality prints.

The HP 30/90/130 DesignJet remains the finest large format color printer ever made for home use. The printer was discontinued by HP a few years back but as so many were sold, especially to print shops, parts, inks and paper have remained easily available.

Currently parts and inks remain easy to find (even HP USA still lists them as available) but paper is another matter. HP no longers lists any and it is getting very hard to find – most vendors listing it end up reporting their sites are wrong and that they are out of stock. The swellable special paper HP sold for these DesignJets is really the only one to use. Its surface absorbs the ink dyes, in contrast to modern papers and printers which use pigment inks which simply dry on the surface and do not have to be absorbed. The absorbent quality of the genuine HP paper is what gives the prints the DesignJets make their superior blacks, as well as conferring a total absence of ‘bronzing’ despite using just six ink cartridges. (Modern pigment ink printers add a special anti-bronzing finisher, further complicating matters in printer designs that are absolutely guaranteed to clog printheads, unless used constantly. The HP 30/90/130 printers use head warmers and as long as you leave the printer plugged in, albeit turned off, you will never suffer from clogged heads – I testify to that fact after 10 years of ownership. Sometimes I do not print for 6 months and a perfect print then emerges first time.)

Now and then remaindered lots of HP paper come to market and I have done my bit in procuring a lifetime supply of 13″ x 19″ and 18″ x 24″ supplies. Here is my 13″ x 19″ stash – some 500+ sheets which will see me to the grave. My average remaindered cost was under 40 cents a sheet and as the paper does not ‘go off’ with age, holding large quantities makes sense:


A lifetime’s supply.

Get it while it lasts!

The article index for my writings on the best large format printer ever made appears here. That link also shows the product numbers for the various HP paper sizes and finishes. Trust me on this – do not use pigment papers which claim they are ‘compatible with dye inks’. My tests elsewhere on this site shows the claims to be lies, and the prints thus made fade to oblivion in just a few weeks of exposure to light. By contrast, some of my DJ prints on HP’s swellable paper have been in bright sun >3,000 days (this is California, after all) and show zero fading.

B&H continues to list HP84 (black) and HP85 (five colors) ink cartridges and printheads. It makes no sense to stockpile inks as you want them relatively fresh – I keep a spare of each color) but if printheads start proving hard to get then I will stock up. The average printhead seems to last for ink throughput of some 200ml (meaning three 69ml cartridges of B, LM, LC or Y) or seven C or M whose cartridges are only 28ml in capacity.


Current B&H ink and printhead listing.

As I have often advised in the past, use of aftermarket inks is sheer lunacy. Untested, unknown longevity, potential damage to your machine – you really want to do this to your art work and hardware? The ultimate in false economies, regardless how low your opinion may be of the criminal cabal that is Hewlett Packard. That ’82’ sticker on the paper boxes above means an 82 year life when used with HP’s inks – not the bird droppings after market cartridge refillers offer.

For heavily discounted OEM HP84 (black) and HP85 (colors) printheads, try this link.

The Apple Watch

iPhone

Ooops!

Google famously continues to waste its shareholders’ funds on quixotic efforts like YouTube and Google Glass. The last takes some beating. Maybe its key supporter, Mr. Brin, spent too much time in Russia as a youth, but a moment’s thought might have convinced him that the Average Joe did not want to walk around with a camera stuck to his glasses, looking like nothing so much as Homo sapiens cyborg. At least not in the free West. The wearer of Glass made the paparazzo with his 1,000mm spy lens look a positive model of integrity by comparison.

And speaking of homo, Apple has decided to mirror Google’s failure with one of its own, the Apple Watch.


The $10,000 version.

While none other than Tim Cook has pointed out the failures of Glass, he has failed to realize that like accusations are equally valid when it comes to the Apple Watch (no, I will not drop the preposition – the Queen’s English is spoken here). The very idea of speaking into your wrist suggests the speaker is connected with some nefarious organization, be it CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service or private dick. All that’s missing is one of those silly coiled cords from ear to shirt collar to complete the picture.

But, OK, you say, I’m not going to talk into my watch. I want fast access to things on my iPhone. Well, let me assure you, access will not be fast. There is no pinch-to-zoom function on the watch so you resort to the crown and buttons. The screen is tiny, and navigation will be slow. And the functionality Apple displayed at its recent hypefest? Why hailing Uber cabs and tracking your heart beat. These are things only nerds do, and the Apple Watch reminds me of nothing so much as this:


Nerd Special – the Casio Calculator watch.

Apple has managed to upgrade the Nerd Special to the touch screen age. I mean, have you ever seen a person using one of those Casios? Trust me, it’s not pretty.

But there are tons of other reasons the Apple Watch will fail. This is not the iPod (“A thousand tunes in your pocket” – Jobs’s genius at its best) or the iPhone (“An iPod, a Phone and an Internet Commmunicator” in the great man’s words). Simply stated, it’s a solution looking for a problem. Let me list the reasons it will fail:

  • A minimum of $350 for a gadget which will be obsolete one year hence.
  • You want Mickey Mouse you can get a Timex for $20, every bit as accurate (What was Cook thinking of boasting of the watch’s accuracy? Doesn’t everyone – other than a Patek Philippe owner – assume that to be the case for the last half century?)
  • You already carry your iPhone with you at all times. Is it that much harder to remove it from your pocket than to glance at your wrist, only to have to futz with small buttons and a knob?
  • You want to talk into your Apple Watch and look like a jerk, or do you want to talk into your iPhone and pass unnoticed?
  • One more gadget to recharge daily with minimal value added. No way on earth that this thing will run 10 hours with any serious use. On the road? Oops, too bad you left the charger at home.
  • Needs lots of iPhone programming to make operation as simple as in the hypefest.
  • Remote garage door opening because the little one has lost her key and you are in Namibia at the time? Fughedaboutit. Your home will be hacked and burglarized by your local Russkie before you know it and Namibian wifi will be down in any case. No need for an Apple Watch to help with that.
  • Oh, but it’s such a great fashion accessory! Rot. It’s thick and ugly. Get a Patek if you are into fashion, or a Rolex if you want to emulate Apple’s poor taste in watches. (“Rolex. The watch for fat people” has a certain ring to it).
  • The $10,000 option in Real Gold? So now a company which has famously eschewed elitism – an iPhone is an iPhone is an iPhone – has decided to sell the same innards for $9,650 more than you paid? Eh? Come again?
  • Cheap or gold version, it’s so gauche.
  • An on and on.

One sign of Apple’s desperation was the inclusion of a famous model – Christy Turlington – in this week’s roll out. (“See, even a woman can use it”). Putting aside how much she was paid to hug Cook not once but twice, it remains unclear what her use of the watch in her recent half marathon in some African hell hole actually did for her. This was not disclosed. She did look great, though.

Apple is a one product company if your focus is the bottom line – it’s called the iPhone. The concentration of profit from this one device has gone up steeply under Cook’s leadership and while I have no issue with them milking it for all it’s worth, sooner or later they will stub their toe and come out with a stinker. Or some Chinese fellow will make something as good for 90% less. The Apple Watch is not the diversification savior they are searching for and Cook is a stranger to innovation.

The Apple Watch will sell a few million to more breathless hype from Apple (“Our biggest new product launch ever. Even Putin the Impaler has one!”) but once every nerd has one sales will cease and the product will be quietly removed from the product line.

Want a watch? Get something to aspire to that makes you feel good every time you check the time. And that’s all you can or should check on your wrist. OK, that and the date.


Neither ugly or nerdy.
So what if it’s off a minute or two?