Wherein we opine on more or less anything that strikes our fancy.
In the ongoing saga of my cataract interocular lens implant surgery (IOL), I have finally gotten to the stage of a refractive vision exam. A substantial degree of residual astigmatism, leading to strong double vision, lingered after two IOL surgeries and a laser polishing. The exam revealed uncorrected vision in the affected eye to be 20/60. With either laser correction (LASIK or PRK) or glasses this can be improved to 20/25, a good outcome all things considered.
Laser correction is widely used these days, but it is permanent and irreversible. Once bitten, twice shy, as the saying goes. Given the long and convoluted journey following an initial unsatisfactory multi-focal IOL implant, eventually replaced with a simple non-toric lens, the thought of yet another eye intervention was a little unsettling. Glasses may need to be changed over time, but I've lived with that situation since age 12, so the risk-aversive choice was to go with glasses for now. With an anticipated delivery time of three weeks, we should be back in business soon. Then we will tackle the other eye, now clearly in need of cataract surgery as well. Next time around, simple is best.
Adapters: simple, control ring or polarizer?
The Canon EOS R mirrorless system introduced a new lens mount. The RF mount differs from the long time EF mount in flange distance, pinout and bayonet configuration. Of course, one can sell off one’s stable of EF lenses and buy fully into RF mount lenses, but that’s expensive and the gain in performance and functionality isn’t worth the cost for some EF lens owners. Also, some equivalents do not yet exist, notable among them Canon's excellent line of tilt-shift lenses.
In the latter case, one is faced with the need to choose an adapter in order to continue use of EF lenses. Canon makes three, a simple pass-thru version, a control ring version and a drop-in filter version that comes with either a circular polarizer or a variable ND filter.
The simple version is the least costly and it works virtually seamlessly to mate EF lenses to EOS R cameras. The control ring version, at twice the price, mimics the control ring found on most RF lenses, and it allows one to map an additional function to the ring, e.g. ISO, exposure compensation or a number of other choices. Bodies such as the R5 already have three programmable dials, and the control ring provides a fourth if needed. If not needed, then the simple adapter is the best and least expensive choice.
The drop-in filter version is quite pricey, but it can replace several filter sizes at once, and if one uses either filter quite a lot, the added cost may be well worth it.
There is a sentiment among some that the more expensive control ring version is not needed since one never had the flexibility it provides in the past and therefore there is no need for it now. And if one truly cannot think of a use for it, then by all means the simple adapter works transparently at half the price. But, I’ve never understood the logic behind the “never had it before so don’t need it now” reasoning. To adapt a certain phrase, "progress happens."
By analogy, my first car was a second-hand 1950s era three-speed manual shift clunker with an in-line six cylinder engine that blew a quart of oil out the tailpipe every 100 miles. By the above logic I should still be driving that archaic beast. But I have had no trouble adapting to a modern power train featuring a nine speed push button fly-by-wire automatic transmission, paddle shifters and variable torque management all-wheel drive, the latter offering a marvelous boost to powering out of apexes. For those resisting anything new, Ferrari introduced paddle shifters on their 1980s Formula One race cars. If it’s good enough for Formula One, I think I can figure out a use for it.
As for the control ring, after much experimentation and experience in use, mine now sets flash exposure compensation, a useful feature since I use fill flash for many subjects, including birds and portraits. Experience has brought other changes. After a year with the R5, I now use either manual exposure with Auto ISO and exposure compensation or just straight manual exposure for the main exposure mode as well as the C1, C2 and C3 custom shooting modes. In all modes the front dial sets aperture and the back dial adjusts shutter speed. For cases with Auto ISO, the top Mode dial sets exposure compensation, and for full manual cases the Mode dial adjusts ISO.
Goodbye manual shift oil burning clunker.
There are many reasons why an individual might be considered a photographer. Perhaps in the common perception a photographer is one who uses a camera to produce images that are recognizably artistic, images of an almost infinite variety of subjects and genres. Such people would indisputably be considered photographers. Another recognized category is photojournalists and their subcategory, sports photographers. These individuals document topical events that match the interest on the part of many people, often part of a daily news cycle. Occasionally images from these events become iconic representations of an era.
There are many more. Wedding photographers preside over thriving businesses. Commercial and product photographers produce many of the images we see in a variety of advertising media. Photographers document corporate events, ceremonies, school graduations, and much more. All would be considered photographers.
But what about the casual snapshooter? In an age of ubiquitous camera phones and instant social media, the number of images created has multiplied almost without bound. But, are such people really photographers? Many would answer in the negative. However, there is a related category that should receive consideration, i.e. those who document everyday life around them, particularly the comings and goings of family.
Why is this category worth considering? Speaking personally, some of my most treasured images are those of family members from the distant past, often from a hundred years ago or more. These are my ancestors, and each has contributed a little to who I am. Given that imaging equipment was more primitive and less widespread, these images are limited in number, almost exclusively black-and-white, and often posed, sometimes obviously in a studio setting and sometimes in a casual setting. Often these are the only glimpses we have into the lives of the people who came before. As such, they are priceless beyond measure.
For my money, those who capture family moments, often simply making a permanent record of their own memories but with the side effect of documenting daily life for posterity, perform a vital service whether they qualify as photographers or not.
Things aren't always as they appear. And, sometimes imagination plays tricks on people. There are even times when cameras can seem to be something entirely differnt. . .
It happened a few months ago, during a visit to one of our favorite vacation spots, a well-known restored historical area choc full of architectural photo opportunities. Such places can be quite popular, and getting good photos without crowds in the frame can be a challenge. However, even the most enthusiastic history buffs ususally don't get up with the sunrise. So, it was up and out in the early pre-dawn light for some unobstructed compositions.
This was also the first opportunity to try out a new wearable double camera harness. For nature outings, I try to work not too far from a car, not being a huge fan of hiking. (One trip down into a very deep hollow to photograph a scenic waterfall confirmed my preference; the hike back up carrying two cameras and a tripod almost did me in.) And, for tourist type outings, I prefer to go without a camera bag, with a pair of cameras slung on straps, one across each shoulder -- usually a 24-105mm f/4 zoom and the tilt-shift lens du jour. But, the hazard of a strap sliding off a shoulder and wrecking a bunch of expensive gear doesn't appeal, so I've tried several alternatives, finally settling on a minimalist product that promised to do the job without a lot of excess weight.
The harness in question fits like a skeleton vest and allows each camera to hang down at one's side, instantly accessible but otherwise out of the way. And, therein lies the tale.
There I was, strolling along the sidewalk along a broad avenue of restored and reproduction history, the sun not yet peeking through morning clouds, my objective at the end of the street a gorgeous reproduction high court and legislative complex -- an architectural gem -- with wide-brim slouch hat pulled low and my trusty cameras slung by my side. In the distance, I noticed a single car, headlights still on, creeping along the otherwise deserted avenue at walking speed toward my location.
Being a friendly type, I waved a greeting as the car approached, and then kept walking toward my objective. Suddenly the car stopped, as if the occupants were sizing me up. What are they up to, I thought? The writing and logo on the side of the car made clear their interest -- it was a city police car. And, I was left to wonder -- as I continued along without breaking stride -- did they initially mistake those two cameras hanging down at belt level for something else?
The car eventually moved on, and I hope they had a good laugh at this morning apperition seemingly out of the old West. Upon reflection, I certainly saw the humor in it!
This is the latest update in the ongoing saga of my Cataract Confusion implant surgery, introduced in the linked article. As we saw from last time, at the three week mark, progress, in the form of replacement of an unsatisfactory multifocal implant with a single focus lens, appeared to produce an improvement, subject to needed vision correction and a bit of laser polishing to remove scaring from the surgery, which seems to have caused both blurring of the image and a significant loss of visual contrast.
Well, we've had another visit, this time to take a look at the scarring. My hunch regarding the prospect of improved contrast following laser polishing (see link to American Academy of Opthamology article referenced previously) proved correct. The result was that the laser polishing did improve contrast, as well as overall visual acuity, and lo and behold, the hazy rendition through that eye has disappeared!! Hallaluah! That eye now forms a clear image, albeit still with some double vision attributable to astigmatism. Colors are finally both vivid and correct. Whites are now white, blacks are black, each with plenty of contrast in subtle shades, and colors are positively intense.
The end may now be in sight. We go back once more for a vision exam and possible laser correction to fix the astigmatism and to get a proper progressive lens to add closeup vision to the distance implant. That suggests that there will, hopefully, be only one more update to this saga and then we'll come out the other side. After that, we'll work on the other eye.
The article, Cataract Confusion, introduced below in "The Eyes Have It . . . Or Not!", discussed intraocular lens implants (IOL) as a treatment for cataracts based on my own mixed personal experience. Before cataract surgery the eye needing surgery was 20/70, with or without optical correction. In other words, nothing more could be done without an IOL implant.
Briefly, there are several IOL types: simple, astigmatism correcting and multi-focal. I initially chose multi-focal but could never get a sharp image with it. Additionally, colors were less vivid than before, an unusual and unexpected outcome. After consultation, I went to a specialist for a replacment, this time choosing the simplest alternative.
Initial results were encouraging, but progress was slow. Vision remained blurred, this time with an intruding ghost image offset from the main subject. Colors remained disappointingly muted, as if seen through haze or fog. While Internet by no means replaces sound medical diagnosis and advice, a search nevertheless turned up the possibility that the ghost image resulted from astigmatism, a defect that both eyes possessed before surgery on the worst one. In fact, without glasses, the other eye also exhibits ghost images as well.
Having no choice, I waited for my three week post surgery exam before panicing. The result was better than expected. Everyone is familiar with the standard alphabet chart, a row of letters rendered in decreasing size until one can no longer make out the letters. This time, I was given the pinhole test. In this test, one eye is covered as ususal, but rather than the eye to be tested being completely open, the tested eye is blocked with an insert that has a scattering of pinholes. The theory is that the pinholes restrict the incoming light rays to a small part of the eye's lens, thus minimizing the effect of any aberations.
To my surprise, the test chart letters were sharp and clear, rather than blurry blobs, down to a 20/20 vision level! The doctor laughed and said, "Your vision is perfect, you just need new glasses. Needless to say, this was excellent news.
He was not optimistic about the loss of color contrast. As a photographer this didn't sit well. So, I turned to Internet again and found a possible explanation from the Americn Adademy of Opthamology, namely that the posterior capsule (membrane behind the implant) can become hazy from cell growth. This is treatable with YAG laser polishing, a simple in-office procedure, and one that is often needed to remove post surgery scarring anyway.
So now we await new glasses and laser polishing in a much more optimistic frame of mind!
Subject: Organizing and finding stuff in a large image collection.
(Reader alert: In this post, the curmudgeon strikes again. There is no real catastrophe here, just gripes -- i.e. nothing to see, move along. . . )
Photographers often use digital asset management software (DAM) to organize their image collections. Typically such software stores stuff where it wants and gives the user a set of tools to access it. Being one who wants to know what actually goes into the sausage, I prefer to manage my own file system, thank you very much. For those who care about such things, our file structure is described in How We Process Images > Organizing Images.
All well and good -- but. . .
Collections get bigger and bigger over time. Faced with trying to find that special image that one remembers but cannot quite recall where it is stored, DAM starts to make sense. Naively, I thought that keywords might be the answer. As a user of Capture One Pro, it seemed natural to assume that keywords would do what I wanted. So, being a top down thinker, I set out to create a comprehensive set of keywords that would do the trick. This included keyword collections for various subjects such as Travel, People & Places, Birds, Animals, Flowers, etc., each library containing dozens of keywords This process was made easier by using Copy Path to extract text IDs of various folders containing subject and session organizing structures. The subjects were then imported into Capture One's keyword library tool using CO's very handy text import feature.
Great so far. . . Or so I thought.
That's when the angst began. All went well until I tried to search for keyworded images across multiple folders. To my dismay, this simply doesn't work. As was once said of Oakland, "There's no there, there." Which calls into question just what use Capture One's keywords are.
An Internet search turned up a raft of similar complaints. There was a presumably constructive recommendation to try CO's Smart Albums. But, a quick examination of this feature revealed that in order to accomplish what I wanted I would have to create a Smart Album for every keyword in my keyword libraries, numbering in the scores. This on top of keywording every image in my collection, which I would have to do in any case. Being of sound mind (there's that sausage thing again), I gave up, and I'm now scanning each CO update to see if and when the requisite capability is finally added.
Some of the most acrimonious debates on Internet photography forums follow from loyalty to a particular product or brand. This certainly applies to cameras and their associated lenses and accessories. But it also applies to image processing products as well -- and no doubt other photography gear if one looks closer. For now, we'll confine discussion to the two aforementioned product lines, cameras and image processing software.
The bottom line-- perhaps disappointing to trolls and argumentative types -- is that there are many more-than-satisfactory products in each category, and it all comes down to specific use cases, preferences and financial concerns. Every product and brand has strengths and weaknesses, and what is best for one individual may not be quite so good for another. Neither is right or wrong.
In the camera world, I moved from Minolta to Canon in 1999 once I could afford to pursue bird photography in a big way. The attraction then was their unique-at-the-time image stabilized supertelephotos. Since then, the market has caught up, and as I made the case in Rebuilding My Photo Kit, any of the big three brands, Canon, Nikon or Sony, could be made to work for my particular interests. In which case, there is no compelling reason to switch -- especially considering the cost of doing so.
In the RAW processing domain, I've tried Photoshop, Lightroom, Canon DPP, Capture One, Rawshooter (IP sold to Adobe), Bibble (now defunct), Affinity and Luminar. There are certainly additional RAW processors that have a following, although I've not tried them. Other software includes HDR, panorama stitching and virtual tour products, including Photomatix, AuroraHDR, AutoPano, PanoTour, PTGui and Pano2VR. Specialty products include Neat Image, Topaz DeNoise AI, Topaz Sharpen AI and Pictures2Exe. They all did the job at the time, although I've sometimes moved on for better features or greater usability. Given the relatively minor cost of software compared to camera hardware, cost has rarely been an issue.
But then, such a stance leaves little room for endless Internet brand wars. . .
Author's disclaimer: My extended article, Cataract Confusion, discusses intraocular lens implants (IOL) as a treatment for cataracts based on my own mixed personal experience. There are multiple IOL types, brands and technologies. Once one is confronted with these choices, one is left to best match the choice with one's own preferences and needs. Individuals have had success -- and problems -- with each and every type. As for myself, as a photographer and a tennis player, picking the right IOL turned out to be non-trivial since each type could conceivably be useful for one or more of my personal interests and requirements.
Each individual is different, so my experience is not applicable to everyone, and it should it not be taken as guidance as to what any individual should do. Anyone considering cataract surgery should consult a qualified ophthalmology surgeon and should make themselves fully acquainted with all aspects of the process and the products -- especially the down side of each choice.
For those short on patience, the bottom line is that my initial choice, of a diffractive optics multi-focal IOL implant (MF), proved unsatisfactory -- for me. Despite the risk involved, I chose to have it removed and replaced with a simple single focus (SF) implant instead, bypassing the more expensive astigmatism correcting (AC) single focus IOL. I can only say that I wish that the post below, by a practicing ophthalmologist, had been available when I made my initial, fateful decision. The text, which recommends against current multi-focal technology for many situations, with explanation of why, is self-explanatory, although the entire thread is worth following.
The introduction of the Canon R3 brings with it a new form of Internet semantic nonsense -- is the R3 a "flagship" camera or isn't it? Since the R3 seems to best Canon's acknowledged flagship, the EOS 1DX MkIII, and is priced within a stones throw as well, why isn't the R3 a flagship? Or even the flagship? Even Canon acknowledges that in some ways it deserves that moniker, but given where MILC technology is going, they want to do better before attaching the flagship name to a supposed R1.
All of which begs the question, what is a flagship? The common definition is that it is the best compared to its companions. In navy terms, the flagship is the ship with the embarked admiral, in command of the fleet or task force or whatever, i.e. a multi-ship aggregation. But, in the end, cameras aren't navy ships, and the what's in a name question applies. What really matters is capabilities, performance and price. What is the frame rate? How many megapixels? What is the dynamic range? What features does it have, e.g. GPS, wireless downloads, etc.? How robust is it? How big, how heavy? What customizations are available? . . .And many more. These are the things that matter, and not marketing labels.
Arguing over terminology and semantics is pretty much an exercise in futility -- full of sound and fury but much ado about nothing. . . with apologies to the Bard!
There are those who defend the fact that in recent years Canon has sometimes produced sensors with fewer megapixels than competing brands. A good example is the recently announced R3 at 24MP. The claim of the defenders is that Canon is the best selling brand overall and that surely they have done market research that supports their direction. However, isn't basing an argument for ~20MP sensors on the foundation that the company is the top-selling brand and that it has done market research a bit like the logical fallacy of argument from authority: https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/appeal-to-authority/?
Stalin says such-and-such | Stalin is Party Secretary | Therefore such-and-such must be true.
Top-selling Company is releasing this-and-that | Top-selling Company has done market research | Therefore this-and-that must be what the market wants.
Might be true, but do we really know? Canon is indisputably the market leader in sales -- although where it ranks in full frame camera sales, and especially high-end FF cameras of the types likely to be used by professionals, is less well known. Canon, like all manufacturers, is certainly better positioned to know buyer preferences than individual customers, whether by sales, market research or user feedback -- but are they infallible? Finally, the claim that the target market, heavily weighted toward sports photographers and photojournalists, neither needs nor wants high MP cameras due to constraints on upload time, seems to make good sense. But, whether this is universally true, and if so whether it will remain true as communication and processing speeds increase, is nevertheless up for debate.
In any case, there are other possibilities as well, not only as to why Canon has chosen its particular product lineup but also why people continue to buy products with what some believe to be inferior specs. In fact, more than one explanation may be valid -- even for an individual user.
Feel free to add others that appear plausible. Which one or more of these represent reality? And who knows for sure? Not I, certainly. And not, I think, anyone expressing opinion as certainty. Not even those who resort to https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/ad-hominem/ and https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/name-calling/
It would be interesting to know long term market share of the A1 and Z9 relative to the R3 – although we in Internet land will likely never have accurate data on same. In fact, while Canon is the best selling brand by total sales, we don't actually have detailed data on their relative position with respect to full frame cameras only, nor to upper tier cameras. Nor do we know trends, which could over time reverse market positions in one or more product categories, including high end cameras. Since the rapidly shrinking market for traditional cameras, whether DSLR or MILC, is headed toward upper end, higher value cameras, that seems to be a very relevant unknown.
Every company makes choices regarding how they position their products to compete for sales. SKYLUM has evidently chosen to focus Luminar on exotic compositing features such as sky replacement and others under the much overused rubric of “AI"?. Meanwhile, what was once the best HDR software on the market, Aurora HDR, languishes without even the simplest update for more recent cameras and RAW file formats. One guesses that corporate financial analysis projected a better return on limited software development resources from the direction Luminar has taken, at the expense of Aurora HDR sales and customer good will.
The fact that Aurora HDR has not been even minimally updated to incorporate more recent camera file formats suggests that the debayering code may not be sufficiently modular to be reused between Luminar and Aurora HDR. If this is indeed the case it would behoove SKYLUM to invest development resources in that direction if Aurora HDR is to have a future.
I have no idea whether the exclusive Luminar focus to the exclusion of Aurora HDR is the correct choice from a profitability perspective. However, personally I have no interest in the image manipulations that Luminar current direction seems to suggest. I simply want the best set of tools to produce highly refined images representing the scene I captured, across domains that include nature, wildlife, landscape, sports, architecture and portraiture.
As a multi-decade Capture One user, I have that tool, so the direction chosen for Luminar is irrelevant to me. And now, Capture One has announced that the next version will feature both HDR and panorama stitching, each of which I use extensively. So, it looks like SKYLUM has delayed long enough to miss a possible Aurora HDR upgrade sale that would have allowed me to process recent camera files.
The Internet gives short shrift to cameras with mixed card types. (And that's ignoring the calumny visited on cameras that accept only one card.) This opprobrium resurfaced with Canon's R3 and the development announced R3, both of which feature a slot for the recently developed CFExpress standard and a second slot for SD/SDXC cards. However, one pro suggested that perhaps bringing forward a card such as the SD that users already have on hand not only saves cost but also in many cases does not adversely impact end user performance. He may have a point.
Speaking only for myself, it’s been a long time and many camera models ago since I ran into card and buffer limitations. And, like many I have drawers full of cards of various generations – flash card archeology, if you will. So, the above logic makes sense – even if it is irrelevant to my own preferences, which run to identical card slots and the fastest technology available. Why? Just because.
But, that’s just me, and it’s hardly a requirement – I don’t shoot much BIF, and when I shot pro tennis it was all about timing for the moment of most visual impact: ball incoming, instant of contact, outgoing just off the racquet. Or, the point of peak potential energy in the ball toss for a serve -- as well as the ball just coming off the racquet. High frame rates (and an adequate buffer) were more important than the specifics of the cards in order to better the chances of getting it just right
Regarding frame rates, the higher the better, and I’ll gladly accept the extended culling time from 20 or 30 fps sequences in exchange for more “perfect�? compositions.
Ever opened your favorite photography web site and browsed to the online forums, only to discover that you’ve landed in the middle of a vituperative mud-slinging match? Internet, it seems, is something of a verbal Wild West show. Specifically Internet photography forums. (But, casual perusal of almost any domain of public discourse is likely to turn up similarities.) Sound familiar? Then visit our “Grumpy Grandpa's Gear Gripes" article.
Jane Austen's Fanny Price, the heroine of Mansfield Park, Austen's novel in the Regency genre of morality and conduct for young women (see, for example, Fordyce's Sermons to Young Women), is frequently seen as a milquetoast heroine, not worthy of the accolades bestowed on Jane Austen’s other leading ladies. If only she had a little more gumption! For an example of what Miss Price might have been, one need look no farther than Elizabeth Gaskell’s Molly Gibson, the quiet but determined protagonist of Wives and Daughters. Like Fanny, Molly makes her way through life creating the same respect and reliance on the part of everyone she encounters with her patient understanding, finely-honed judgment and fidelity to those she loves. But, unlike Fanny, Molly is nobody’s pushover. In that respect, Molly Gibson is perhaps the heroine we all wish Jane Austen had authored.
In fairness to Austen, perhaps Fanny Price's lack of assertiveness was a necessary literary choice in order to render more vivid her inner strength of character in standing up to the temptations surrounding her in Mansfield Park's Bertram household.
|Left-centered text, shaded background goes here||© 2021 Michael W. Masters Return to top|