Category Archives: Photography

Full frame bargains

Canon 5D, Photographs

From Canon.

One of the signal advances for photographers has been the continuous improvement in processing software. The enhanced capabilities for shadow recovery and highlight taming in products like Lightroom 4/5 (and doubtless in others like DxO, CaptureOne and Aperture – none of which I use, but competition always does its thing) give new life to old picture files.

Case in point, my first serious DSLR was the original Canon 5D (2006). When I pull up images from that body in LR5 they appear with an exclamation point lower right alerting me that an older version of LR was used to process them. Update those to the latest version (Develop Module->Settings->Process) and your images can enjoy the benefits of the latest in processing technology.

I have gone back and re-printed some of these and the results really are impressive.


The indoor pool at Hearst Castle.

The above 5D Mark I image has high dynamic range. Updating to the 2012 Process from the original 2003 in LR5 allows easy recovery of the shadows and taming of the highlights with the related sliders. A touch on the Noise slider takes out what ails the shadows. A quick click in the Lens Profile section has the 15mm Canon Fisheye image de-fished for a linear rendition, into the Print module and the 18″ x 24″ print will knock your socks off.

Sure, neither the original 5D or its ‘pro’ equivalent 1DS Mark II had sensor dust removal, but I can assure you that my Nikon D700 did and it was almost useless. You still had to clean the sensor with moist alcohol swabs, as I now do with my Nikon D3x. The price of a lightly used, amateur owned 5D or 1DS Mark II? How about $450 or $800? If there’s a better bargain for a photographer looking to make really large prints from full frame negatives I do not know of it. And you can forget the overpriced ‘red ring’ Canon ‘L’ lenses. The 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye (discontinued), the 35mm f/2 USM, the 50mm f/1.4 USM and the 85mmf/1.8 USM ‘cooking’ variants deliver all the quality you need, at bargain prices. Just avoid the cheap and nasty zooms if you are printing big. For web display any FF DSLR is overkill.


The exceptional Canon 1DS Mark II.

Nikon? There are no FF bargains yet. The D700, which has an excellent low noise sensor sells lightly used for a surprisingly high $1,300, the D3 (same sensor, pretty much) for $1,800.

New prices of the 5D and 1DS Mark II? How about $3,000 and $8,000, respectively? Do you really need the latest and greatest or would a small fraction of the extra money be better spent on a large format printer, paper, ink and some mounting supplies so you can really show your work for once?

Mounting Big Prints revisited

Printing

Cutting costs.

The ‘archival’ acid free issue:

When I first wrote about heat mounting of big prints over 7 years ago I advocated the use of premium priced acid free mat board and acid free mats. I have reconsidered that advice and have concluded that it is not correct.

A quick look at the specifications for Seal/Bienfang mounting tissue explains why, but first let’s take another look at the physics of the equation. The ‘sandwich’ comprising a mounted print consists of the mat on the top, the print, mounting tissue and the foam board. Heating the sandwich in a press causes the adhesive in the mounting tissue to melt on both sides, forming the bond between tissue and board and between tissue and print.

Here are the spec sheets for the mounting tissue:



Note the pH rating of the adhesive which contacts the print and the board – it’s 7.0. Acid free. Neutral. The tissue itself is 6.9, very mildly acidic, and buffered by the neutral adhesive at that. About as close to neutral as you can get. As for the mat, the area of the mat contacting the print is minuscule – a small border contact, if that, as the mat is not in high pressure contact with the borders of the print.

Best mounting press temperature setting:

I now print exclusively on HP Premium Plus Glossy Photo Paper, preferring the punch to prints made on Matte paper. There are two drawbacks to glossy paper. First, every defect in the mounting process will show – loose hairs, dirt between print and board, creases in the release paper, any dirt on the heated platen in the press. All will leave a mark. This is bitter experience talking. Second, the warmer the press, the more of the gloss is lost in the process.

After much experimentation, I have found that a setting of 170F (compared with the 190F recommended by Seal/Bienfang for their Colormount tissue) is optimal. Is that a real 170F? I do not know as I have no way of verifying the accuracy of the temperature meter on the 160M Seal press I use. So you may have to experiment with yours. This low setting has two advantages. Much less gloss is lost than if you use 190F. And the mounted print can be pulled off the board for repositioning or removal of debris. The other day I had an ugly bump in the center of a glossy, mounted print. I peeled off the print, sure enough confirmed that a small piece of foreign matter had somehow crept in between print and mounting tissue, remove the offending dirt and reheated the print in the press. Perfect.


The 170F (77C) setting has been marked on the dial.

I always use release paper between platen and print and recently found some which has a very high gloss finish, which helps even further with gloss retention. And the release paper must be devoid of creases or they will become imprinted on the photo paper’s surface. It’s available inexpensively in long rolls from Artgrafix and highly recommended. Be sure to store the cut piece of release paper in a glassine bag between uses or it’s back to dirt, debris and printed surface damage again.

Even prints exposed to direct, long term sun have shown no sign of lifting from the mounting board using 170F for mounting.

Mat openings – key dimensions:

I typically mount both 13″ x 19″ and 18″ x 24″ prints on 22″ x 28″ boards. The HP DJ90 and 130 leave a 1/4″ border top, left (long side) and right (long side), with a bottom border of 9/16″ (short side). For the HP Designjet 90/130, after allowing another 1/8″ for safety,the mat openings are as follows:

  • 13″ x 19″: Opening is 12 3/8″ x 18 1/16″
  • 18″ x 24″: Opening is 17 3/8″ x 23 1/16″

Standard 1/2″ undercut mat openings will not work (17 1/2″ x 23 1/2″, for example) with the Designjet. Get custom cut mats from MatBoard&More. This vendor only stocks foam boards of 1/8″ thickness, so use Readimat for 3/16″ foam board supplies.

Conclusion:

1 – Foam mounting board:

22″ x 28″, 3/16″ thick, ‘Acid free’ foam mounting boards sell for $7.10 at Readimat.com. The non-acid free version is $4.10, or 42% less. I conclude that using ‘acid free’ boards is a waste of money with no material impact on longevity of the print. I continue to recommend 3/16″ thick boards over 1/8″, especially if, like me, you do not glass cover and frame your prints, opting instead for inexpensive mirror hangers to hold the ‘sandwich’ to the wall. The thicker board resists warping far better.

2 – Mats:

Acid-free mats 22″ x 28″ external, 17 3/8″ x 23 1/16″ opening cost cost $24.68 each. The non-acid free version costs $12.79, or 48% less. I recommend you use the non-acid free mats. Get custom cut mats from MatBoard&More.

3 – All-in price:

Excluding frame and glass, the cost of board and mat for an 18″ x 24″ print mounted on a 22″ x 28″ 3/16″ foam-core baord is $16.89 non-acid free, compared with $31.78 for acid-free. A savings of 47%. Buy in bulk and the savings grow.

The mirror hangers I use run $2.50 a set of four plus call it $0.10 for 4 x 3D 1 1/4″ nails, making the cost of a 22″ x 28″/18 x 24″ mounted hung print:

  • Mounting board: $4.10
  • Custom HP DJ 90/130 mat: $12.79
  • Mounting tissue: $0.50
  • Mirror hangers: $2.60
  • Paper and ink: $3.00
  • Total cost: $22.99 plus shipping costs for the mats and boards

That is a very attractive all-in production price for a large unframed print.


Nothing beats a big print.

D & K:

D & K bought Seal/Bienfang, the press maker, in 2010, so it may help to also search under that name when looking for supplies.

Enhanced indexing of this site

Photography

Finding things made easier.

As the archive of articles here has grown, finding things has become harder. Browsing for fun also became trickier than it should be.

Accordingly, I have enhanced the masthead links to provide indexing of articles.

Click on ‘Indexes’ and you now get:

Click on ‘Photographers’, for example, and you will see:

Click on ‘Book Reviews’ and you will see:

Further, the many technical articles here have now been grouped under ‘Technical’ in the masthead:

Each of the drop downs has its own index once you click on it.

Combine these new indexes with the topical, random, recent and archival sorts at the bottom of the page, together with the Search and Sitemap links at the top, and most things can be found fairly easily.

Enjoy!

ImageWell

Software

A CAD app.

ImageWell is a $20 lightweight CAD app which I have been using for ages to upload images to this blog. It stores the path for the image which is simply dragged and dropped on the app, resized with a couple of key strokes, one more click adds the drop shadow, and off she goes to the server.

But this small app offers far more than image upload. With a very undemanding learning curve you can create charts and technical drawings of remarkable sophistication. Case in point my 12 year old son had to prepare an earthquake evacuation drawing as part of an earthquake awareness class. Now while this is somewhat reminiscent in utility value to those ‘nuclear safety’ newsreels of the cold war, which showed children hiding under desks for protection from Ivan, the project was a lot of fun and he emerged an ImageWell expert. With a minimum of tuition he was able to produce this:

This took him about an hour, including learning time.

Adding text to images is equally simple. Drag and drop the image, insert a text box and you are done.

ImageWell is highly recommended for Mac OS X users and bloggers, and will also do nicely for all but complex CAD projects. If you are making technical instruction manuals, it’s hard to beat photographs annotated with text using ImageWell.

Imminent failure

Cameras

Don’t worry about it.

On occasion when buying some new item of photo gear from which I hope to get many years’ use, the thought which crosses my mind is “What if the maker goes out of business?”


Sony’s innovative A7R Won’t be around long.

Over the past decades we have variously read that each of Leica, Zeiss, Ricoh, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, you name it, will shortly be exiting the camera business. Yet all still make cameras and lenses, though the paucity of data about the profitability and size of the photo segments in these businesses makes it impossible to make meaningful predictions of the likelihood of demise.


From a soon to be bankrupt manufacturer, the thrilling OMD EM1.

Leica, after many reorganizations and recapitalizations, seems to be selling everything it can make to the collector set. It’s a private company and not about to tell what it’s earning. Pentax was, we are told, at death’s door until Ricoh bought it, but how much Ricoh makes on photocopiers – in themselves a dying business – to permit subsidy and recap of Pentax is unknown. Olympus we know for one startling financial statistic, being that over the past decade they committed the greatest accounting fraud since Enron yet today they remain in business helped along by the tightly knit society of Japanese bankers and industry, a philosophy also prevalent in Germany. Olympus meanwhile is rolling out some of the most exciting MFT bodies since the format was invented with Panasonic. Based on no data that I can find, Panasonic has been rumored to be exiting the MFT world for many quarters now but they continue to innovate with such splendid bodies like the GX7 and a raft of excellent lenses.


Pentax K3. The K is for Kaput.

Nikon, as a business with relatively few sidelines, has been cremated a dozen times over the past decade, while making some of the very best DSLRs available (the D4 and D800) and remaining a strong #2 (I’m guessing here) to Canon in the pro-DSLR stakes. Sony has stubbornly managed to lose vast sums in its flat panel TV business for over a decade now, but Japanese pride prevents then walking away from this commoditized sector. Their latest reorganization says they will focus on 4K TVs, but it’s hard to forget that the Trinitron CRT was once your cash cow. Meanwhile Sony experiments aggressively with new camera bodies and in the compact A7 and A7R full frame DSLRs they have shown that innovation remains in their soul. They also make sensors for more other camera makers than the latter care to admit.


The just introduced Panasonic GH4, from a maker
exiting the camera business any day now.

So why does America no longer make consumer cameras? I think the answer is a function of the transparency of American financial reporting and the brutal discipline of quarterly earnings reporting. Mess up and your stock and executive options go south, fast. It’s a system heavily focused on profitable growth and innovation. Once a product line is seen to be losing profit margins or revenues start dropping, it’s immediately put under the microscope of forensic accounting by both the company and Wall Street analysts, and Americans have never had an issue with dumping a loser and moving on. Whereas failure is punished in Germany and Japan, and its victims ostracized, here it’s seen as a badge of honor and a stepping stone to greater things. The cancer excised, we move on. iPod anyone?


Nikon D800. Finished. Fughedaboutit.

Accordingly, when dark thoughts of a camera manufacturer’s iminent demise crowd my brain at buying time, I disregard them. Not only have I yet to see any credible, predicitve data on all those rumored events, corporations are almost as good as governments in ‘kicking the can down the road’.