Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Photo Post
Couple of photos from the backlog. Haven't been making many lately - too much work going on. Bleah.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Another blog, OMG! And this one needs your help
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Flowers Under Snow
Friday morning we woke up to a decent snowfall here in Cambridge, and I took the opportunity to make some photos of flowers poking through the snow.
These are all made with a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 which I rented. This is a huge professional lens; it's the size of a one-liter water bottle and weighs half again as much. It's quite unwieldy. However, it's definitely a step up from my own (much cheaper) lenses. The build quality is great and the optics are noticeably better as well. For example, the "bokeh" of the out-of-focus areas is more pleasant (something you can compare here on this blog) and it's noticeably sharper. It will be a lot of fun.
These are all made with a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 which I rented. This is a huge professional lens; it's the size of a one-liter water bottle and weighs half again as much. It's quite unwieldy. However, it's definitely a step up from my own (much cheaper) lenses. The build quality is great and the optics are noticeably better as well. For example, the "bokeh" of the out-of-focus areas is more pleasant (something you can compare here on this blog) and it's noticeably sharper. It will be a lot of fun.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Photography Workshop, Session 1
I'm taking a photo workshop. Here are my favorites from the first of four sessions.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Calibrating a Display Using ArgyllCMS under Linux
Calibrating a display using ArgyllCMS, which is a pretty high-end color management system and (AFAIK) the only serious tool to calibrate a display under Linux, is, shall we say, an adventure. Here are my notes on doing it so I don't have to figure out everything again when I recalibrate again down the road. These were created by walking through the documentation's Profiling Displays scenario and also looking at the docs for each individual program.
Anyway, here's the steps I followed.
0. cd to a directory where you can store some temporary files.
I leave the final profile here too.
1. Make sure you can talk to your display properly.
This clears the active monitor profile. It's unclear to me whether this is actually needed, but it seems like a good idea.
2. Calibrate colorimeter (optional)
If you have a wide-gamut display and your calibration instrument is a colorimeter (you probably know if you have a spectrometer, as they're significantly more expensive), a CCMX colorimeter calibration file is helpful, if you have access to one. Creating one of these requires buying, borrowing, renting, or stealing an expensive spectrometer; fortunately, my upstairs neighbor has one and was kind enough to lend it to me (thanks Doug!).
Graeme Gill (ArgyllCMS creator) keeps a database of contributed CCMX files, though there appears to be some disagreement about whether variation between colorimeters and displays prevents these files from being useful to others.
If you do not have or need a CCMX file, then omit the -X arguments below.
Connect both the colorimeter and spectrometer and say:
Note that since the .ccmx file is of general use for future recalibrations, I put it in a common directory and not with the profile.
3. Adjust and calibrate your display.
In this step, you'll tweak your display's physical controls and measure its response to specific color inputs.
Plug in the calibration instrument and attach it when the software asks you to. Be wary of the suction cups coming off at inopportune times.
Mess with options 1-5 until you're happy (I haven't yet figured out what values indicate a "good enough" adjustment), then choose option 7 and watch the pretty colors.
This will emit a file named hp.cal.
4. Create test patches for profiling.
It is useful to have a "close" or old profile handy, here called old-hp.icc. (The docs refer to a .icm file, but this worked fine.)
This will emit a file hp.ti1.
5. Measure the display's response to the test patches.
6. Create the display's profile.
7. Install the display profile.
For me, that's four places:
Updates:
1/9/2011 – remove CCMX arguments, change color temperature & luminosity, add dispwin -c.
2/2/2011 - add CCMX creation step.
2/12/2011 - change luminance target to 110
Anyway, here's the steps I followed.
0. cd to a directory where you can store some temporary files.
I leave the final profile here too.
1. Make sure you can talk to your display properly.
dispwinThe latter will list appropriate arguments for -d in later tools (specifying which of multiple displays to work with). In my case the tool saw both displays, but X11 limitations mean I can only work with display 1.
dispwin -?
dispwin -c
This clears the active monitor profile. It's unclear to me whether this is actually needed, but it seems like a good idea.
2. Calibrate colorimeter (optional)
If you have a wide-gamut display and your calibration instrument is a colorimeter (you probably know if you have a spectrometer, as they're significantly more expensive), a CCMX colorimeter calibration file is helpful, if you have access to one. Creating one of these requires buying, borrowing, renting, or stealing an expensive spectrometer; fortunately, my upstairs neighbor has one and was kind enough to lend it to me (thanks Doug!).
Graeme Gill (ArgyllCMS creator) keeps a database of contributed CCMX files, though there appears to be some disagreement about whether variation between colorimeters and displays prevents these files from being useful to others.
If you do not have or need a CCMX file, then omit the -X arguments below.
Connect both the colorimeter and spectrometer and say:
ccmxmake -v -d1 -yl -s4 -I "HP LP2475w" reids_huey_x_lp2475w.ccmx
Note that since the .ccmx file is of general use for future recalibrations, I put it in a common directory and not with the profile.
3. Adjust and calibrate your display.
In this step, you'll tweak your display's physical controls and measure its response to specific color inputs.
Plug in the calibration instrument and attach it when the software asks you to. Be wary of the suction cups coming off at inopportune times.
dispcal -v -d1 -yl -X foo.ccmx -t6500 -b110 hpThis sets adjustment targets of color temperature 6500K and luminance 110 cd/m^2. As far as I can tell, choosing these targets is voodoo, so these two are somewhat arbitrary.
Mess with options 1-5 until you're happy (I haven't yet figured out what values indicate a "good enough" adjustment), then choose option 7 and watch the pretty colors.
This will emit a file named hp.cal.
4. Create test patches for profiling.
It is useful to have a "close" or old profile handy, here called old-hp.icc. (The docs refer to a .icm file, but this worked fine.)
targen -v -d3 -f500 -c hp-old.icc hpNote -d does not indicate a display number, but rather the colorant type (3 is Video RGB).
This will emit a file hp.ti1.
5. Measure the display's response to the test patches.
dispread -v -d1 -yl -X foo.ccmx -k hp.cal hpThis will show a bunch of patches on the screen and produce a file hp.ti3. It takes a little while.
6. Create the display's profile.
This produces a file hp.icc and prints a report of the profile's error. I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers to know if it's a good profile.colprof -v -D "HP LP2475w 2011-01-06 night" -as hp
7. Install the display profile.
For me, that's four places:
- Run the command dispwin -d1 -I /storage/photos/cms/argyll-1.3.2_20110105/hp.icc
- Place that command in .xinitrc
- Tell GIMP about the profile (File -> Preferences -> Color Management -> Monitor profile)
- Tell Bibble about the profile (in the same place, believe it or not)
Updates:
1/9/2011 – remove CCMX arguments, change color temperature & luminosity, add dispwin -c.
2/2/2011 - add CCMX creation step.
2/12/2011 - change luminance target to 110
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Not Art
This afternoon, I took the long way home & made some photographs.
Just so you know though, this is not art; viz:
Just so you know though, this is not art; viz:
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Intrigued by P
I am intrigued by this P.
Black and white or color?
As for background, this P (and its twin, not pictured) label a parking garage near Kendall Square that I pass on my way to work. It also has a bright red neon sign that reads "DANGER VEHICLE EXITING" or somesuch all the time, regardless of whether there is a car coming.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Fireworks
Went to scope out the fireworks at Powderhorn Park last night, with the lovely wife as well as David P., Pete, Dr. Andy, and Bethany. I took along the photo gear; some very nice results, I think for a first-timer.
These are all ISO 200, f/8, 2-3 seconds exposure, on the 2 second timer because I don't have a remote shutter release. I think if I did it again, I'd just do a bulb exposure on f/9.5 (and thus a remote shutter would be essential).
These are all ISO 200, f/8, 2-3 seconds exposure, on the 2 second timer because I don't have a remote shutter release. I think if I did it again, I'd just do a bulb exposure on f/9.5 (and thus a remote shutter would be essential).
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Lens Focal Length Analysis II
Last year, I posted a histogram of lens focal lengths from my Stevens Canyon adventure.
Here's the histogram for my recent Grand Canyon adventure. This time, I took just one lens, the Nikkor 18-200. It's again a bi-modal distribution, but it's not quite so lopsided; on the long end, while there's a spike at 200mm (the max), it doesn't feel quite so confining. On the other hand, it sure would be nice to go wider than 18mm!
Alternative kits include the Nikkor 16-85, or a (perhaps not quite so horrible) two-lens kit, maybe the 16-85 plus a 55-200 or 70-300. Of course, long lenses get heavy (the 70-300 is 750g). Also, it would be a blast to take along the 10.5mm fisheye.
Monday, December 14, 2009
B&W pics
Couple of images that have been floating around for a while. Both of these were taken in November. Isn't black and white fun?
These were converted using the iNDA film simulator plugin for Bibble 5.
These were converted using the iNDA film simulator plugin for Bibble 5.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Vignetting Analysis: Pentax DA 18-250 vs. Nikkor 18-200 DX
One of my key beefs with Pentax was the nasty asymmetric vignetting (falloff), and one of my hopes with switching to Nikon would be that I could have a superzoom that doesn't have that awful behavior.
The Nikkor is much better, though still not perfect -- I'll still need to stop down significantly to shoot blue skies, but the horrible gray fleck in the upper-right corner that plagued me on both copies of the Pentax that I had is gone, gone, gone.
Here's a falloff analysis of the Pentax and Nikkor at 30mm and f/4. Each color band is another 3% luminosity falloff, except for the red band which is the limit of the visualization, so red = serious bad. Pentax is first.
And here's the images that produced the above. Quite a difference.
Verdict: Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] = fail. Note that the Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro is the same lens, so also fail I would assume.
The Nikkor is much better, though still not perfect -- I'll still need to stop down significantly to shoot blue skies, but the horrible gray fleck in the upper-right corner that plagued me on both copies of the Pentax that I had is gone, gone, gone.
Here's a falloff analysis of the Pentax and Nikkor at 30mm and f/4. Each color band is another 3% luminosity falloff, except for the red band which is the limit of the visualization, so red = serious bad. Pentax is first.
And here's the images that produced the above. Quite a difference.
Verdict: Pentax SMC DA 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 ED AL [IF] = fail. Note that the Tamron AF 18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro is the same lens, so also fail I would assume.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Bibble 5 - First Image
Bibble 5 is still in "previews", and the interface changed a lot from 4 and confuses the hell out of me, but it does seem to produce nice images from my NEFs (and the subtle red tint in the shadows seems to be gone).
The above is some barley and brewing tanks of some kind at Surly.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Pentax K200D vs. Nikon D90
Some of you may know that I've been making pictures with a Pentax DSLR for the past year. But, now I've switched; a new Nikon D90 and used Nikkor 18-200 lens arrived a few days ago and I hope to have the remaining Pentax gear sold and out the door soon. (Fortunately, it looks like the financial loss will be modest.)
Why? Well, that's a long story and one I'll tell later. Suffice it to say that I managed to get ignored and blown off by all levels of Pentax USA, from customer service on the phone to Mark Davis in management.
Anyway, here's some impressions of the new device. Not comprehensive obviously - you want a multipage review, click here. ;)
The Pentax has far better ergonomics. It fit my hand quite well, while the Nikon is somewhat clunky and actually gives me a blister. I'll have to add padding in some strategic places. Another major fail is the exposure lock button - if you're left-eyed and have a nose (like me), then it's extremely hard to reach this important button without poking yourself in the eye or moving back from the viewfinder. There's a number of other warts as well, like the buttons that can be remapped having a very limited set of remapping choices, and other useless buttons not supporting remapping at all (so I'm stuck with the AE-L in its stupid place).
The Nikon also doesn't fit in the small bag I like.
However, there are lots more things one can do directly with buttons, without needing to enter the menu system. For example, it has two adjustment dials instead of one, making manual mode (where one needs to be able to easily adjust both shutter speed and aperture) quite feasible - it wasn't on the Pentax (though the next higher Pentax does have two dials).
The Nikon system is roughly 50% more expensive in general, as far as I can tell, for "about the same" stuff - maybe, since I haven't figured out yet really what's comparable.
Another thing that seriously bugs me - and this one isn't Nikon's fault - is that Bibble 4 (my raw processing software) doesn't support the camera, even though it is hugely popular and not particularly new. This is because Bibble Labs massively screwed up the Bibble 5 release schedule - it was due Q4 2008, but it's still in "preview" releases - and quit adding new cameras to Bibble 4 some time ago. I'll install one of the Bibble 5 previews and hope it's not too horribly buggy.
On the other hand, the Nikon is clearly a higher spec camera. In addition to the many more buttons, it has a much more capable autofocus system which I don't really understand yet, and max ISO is two stops higher (6400 vs. 1600, i.e. four times more sensitive to light).
The image stabilization on the Nikon is far superior. First off, the experience is great - you're looking through the viewfinder watching the world wiggle around, and then when you push the shutter release halfway and the stabilization activates, bang! it's suddenly rock solid. It's viscerally satisfying, and the sensor-shift stabilization in Pentax cameras simply can't provide this (because corrective elements aren't in the viewfinder's optical path).
User experience aside, it works. I was able to take respectable snaps at 1/4 second and 200mm. For comparison, without VR (that's what Nikon calls it), that kind of exposure looks like complete mush, and the "rule of thumb" for handheld captures at 200mm is 1/250s. The Pentax is completely and utterly outclassed.
Other nice things about the Nikon: it uses a normal USB cable instead of a stupid proprietary one, and the screen is super high resolution (640x480) and gorgeous.
I guess the conclusion is, there are some major annoyances, but overall it seems like a very nice machine, I think it will be an effective tool, and for the most part I suspect I'll be able to work around or get used to the annoyances.
Why? Well, that's a long story and one I'll tell later. Suffice it to say that I managed to get ignored and blown off by all levels of Pentax USA, from customer service on the phone to Mark Davis in management.
Anyway, here's some impressions of the new device. Not comprehensive obviously - you want a multipage review, click here. ;)
The Pentax has far better ergonomics. It fit my hand quite well, while the Nikon is somewhat clunky and actually gives me a blister. I'll have to add padding in some strategic places. Another major fail is the exposure lock button - if you're left-eyed and have a nose (like me), then it's extremely hard to reach this important button without poking yourself in the eye or moving back from the viewfinder. There's a number of other warts as well, like the buttons that can be remapped having a very limited set of remapping choices, and other useless buttons not supporting remapping at all (so I'm stuck with the AE-L in its stupid place).
The Nikon also doesn't fit in the small bag I like.
However, there are lots more things one can do directly with buttons, without needing to enter the menu system. For example, it has two adjustment dials instead of one, making manual mode (where one needs to be able to easily adjust both shutter speed and aperture) quite feasible - it wasn't on the Pentax (though the next higher Pentax does have two dials).
The Nikon system is roughly 50% more expensive in general, as far as I can tell, for "about the same" stuff - maybe, since I haven't figured out yet really what's comparable.
Another thing that seriously bugs me - and this one isn't Nikon's fault - is that Bibble 4 (my raw processing software) doesn't support the camera, even though it is hugely popular and not particularly new. This is because Bibble Labs massively screwed up the Bibble 5 release schedule - it was due Q4 2008, but it's still in "preview" releases - and quit adding new cameras to Bibble 4 some time ago. I'll install one of the Bibble 5 previews and hope it's not too horribly buggy.
On the other hand, the Nikon is clearly a higher spec camera. In addition to the many more buttons, it has a much more capable autofocus system which I don't really understand yet, and max ISO is two stops higher (6400 vs. 1600, i.e. four times more sensitive to light).
The image stabilization on the Nikon is far superior. First off, the experience is great - you're looking through the viewfinder watching the world wiggle around, and then when you push the shutter release halfway and the stabilization activates, bang! it's suddenly rock solid. It's viscerally satisfying, and the sensor-shift stabilization in Pentax cameras simply can't provide this (because corrective elements aren't in the viewfinder's optical path).
User experience aside, it works. I was able to take respectable snaps at 1/4 second and 200mm. For comparison, without VR (that's what Nikon calls it), that kind of exposure looks like complete mush, and the "rule of thumb" for handheld captures at 200mm is 1/250s. The Pentax is completely and utterly outclassed.
Other nice things about the Nikon: it uses a normal USB cable instead of a stupid proprietary one, and the screen is super high resolution (640x480) and gorgeous.
I guess the conclusion is, there are some major annoyances, but overall it seems like a very nice machine, I think it will be an effective tool, and for the most part I suspect I'll be able to work around or get used to the annoyances.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Surly Brewery Tour
Today, Erin and I visited Surly Brewing Co. and took their once-a-week tour.
Sunset waiting for the ride from Erin behind the CS building.
Tasting room before the tour. It was a pretty popular event (these things are free, but you have to make reservations and it's hard to get a spot).
Surly has some pretty dramatic warning signs.
This is the airlock for one of Surly's great big fermenters. It was bubbling quite vigorously & frequently spilling over the side.
Incidentally, these are the first photos on this blog from my new Nikon D90. A future post will explain why I have a new DSLR so soon after the Pentax.
Incidentally, these are the first photos on this blog from my new Nikon D90. A future post will explain why I have a new DSLR so soon after the Pentax.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Third Roll of Film
My third roll of film came back last weekend. I'm really pleased with the results. Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)