Lets allow ourselves that one question that requires a little more thought before answering….. If you had to name one aspects of photography that you think are thee most important skill you need, what will that be? Before scanning through the article, allow your own mind to play with this thought for a few minutes. If you feel strong about what you think feel free to go to the forum and to take part in the new discussion I opened on this question, I am really interested to hear what you think.

Image taken with my E3 in Monaco

The above image was edited such that it brings out the specific result I wanted. How often do you see an image unfold in-front of your eyes, you grab for the camera and when home and seeing the image on your computer screen you think, no that is not what it looked like? You open Photoshop, adjust the brightness, contrast and saturation and it just becomes worse. You also know that many images you see in the web or magazines have been edited and you die to know how to……

RAW version of above image developed with PSE9

Photography has so many different aspects that it is nearly impossible to name the one aspect that will help you see the difference you are looking for. One can start with the camera lens combination, camera settings, how to hold the camera, framing and so many more. These are all critical in our search for better pictures but will they make the difference to really help us get the best from the recorded data in an image. Keep in mind that the image data is there, once you push the shutter button huge amounts of data are recorded. In most cases the challenge is the "tiny" little processor that is build into the camera and which are tasked to develop all the image RAW data into a fantastic looking JPEG image.

The new E-P3 from Olympus I read was fitted with a Due Core processor. I was interested to know what part of taking the image enjoy the biggest portion processing power of that powerful new processor. It is well known that Olympus has the best JPEG output from all cameras today. Did Olympus add more image processing power to the E-P3 range? As I understood from reading the article, most of that additional processing power was assigned to the operation of the camera, the FAST focussing speed, touch screen, responsiveness of the camera and many more.

RAW image edited in PSE9 with no further editing

In a previous article I referred to the importance of having and using image editing software. Think of software as the film development room hobby photographers used in the old days to get the most out their 35mm negatives. Exactly the same is true for digital images. I remember years ago when I started with my first 2MP Fuji digital compact camera. Those were the days Photoshop Elements 2 were introduced to the hobby photographer. I tried to get use to Elements, I tried PaintShop Pro hoping that it would be easier to master, I then tried working with RAW images and the harder I tried the more difficult it appeared to be. I think the only reason I managed to develop my editing skills were an intense interest into what are really available in the huge data files these digital cameras produce.

That brings me back to that one aspect we started with, if I had to name one then this it would be. That one aspect that are relatively easy to master and that can help you change your complete photographic experience, are layers. Various software packages offer layers, my personal favorite is Photoshop. It is true that the Pro version referred to as CS are the better one, but again if you ask me then I would say Photoshop Elements is more than enough to really help you start enjoying the unique power of photo editing software.

The above image is a picture of what the layers pallet in Photoshop CS look like. All the most important buttons or functions are market. I copied this image from another website, something I not do as rule. I think the mentioned site is really interesting and has great information on layers. You will find it at www.lanoie.com Go to the layers pages for a great explanation of what layers are and how to use them.

Personally I have a few books, several video lessons and many hours of practice. I am still far from being an expert but I did manage to master layers to the extent of really enjoying working with it. I was looking for a suitable image for this article and did a Google search using the string "layers image". Several layer images pointed me to several sites offering information on layers. My advice is, do the search and go find you a site or more with which you can familiarize yourself with layers.

I am planning to start a unique page on layers that will discuss and show unique ways of applying layers. I will only show info which I think will help you improve your image. The information will therefor be specific and not enough to master layers. You will have to find more information to help you really familiarize yourself with layers. This will be fun and I trust you will join me on this journey.

Kind Regards

Siegfried

With excitement many PowerShot G range users new that the popular Canon PowerShot "GXX" Range could not compete against the new generation large sensor Compact System Cameras (CSC). To make it worse, in many cases the CSC camera were carefully positioned in the high end compact segment. Consumers were thus hoping that Canon will do something to improve sensor technology on the future PowerShot G1X range. From the day Olympus launched their excellent high end compact camera, the XZ1, most high end compacts suffered in terms of sales. The reason is that on the one hand, large sensor compacts like the Olympus E-PM1 was staging an excellent alternative to the high end compact user and on the other hand, top performing optics coming from cameras like the Panasonic LX5 and the Olympus XZ1 completely outperformed the outdated optics used in the PowerShot G11/12.

One need to take a closer look at the fast growing CSC market to better understand what the marketing guys at Canon faced when working on the next G series. For example each time I see a iPhone 4S television add I cannot help to wonder how much longer will the traditional compact camera continue to exist. The Compact System Camera which predominantly use the Micro Four-Third sensor, has become a real force plus it has become a lucrative fast growing segment in the camera industry. We saw Nikon reacting by launching its own small sensor type CSC solution. Nikon had obvious expectations of what this new market could do for the brand. Looking at the pricing and the range Nikon probably thought it is a profitable segment and that image quality are not that critical, hence the new "small" sized sensor. Pentax marketing had a similar opinion of the CSC market. It is only those who had been in this segment long enough that really know how competitive and tough the CSC segment is. I cannot help to think of brands like Samsung, Fuji and Leica when thinking of additional aspects this segment pose to the manufacturer and which needs consideration when planning something new like the upgraded PowerShot G series. Lets have a quick look at the actual sensor sizes and just by how much these sensors differ in size.

We saw how difficult it was for the Four-Thirds sensor to establish itself in the market and how much more difficulty it was for the four-thirds sensor to be recognized as a full grown D-SLR sensor. The Nikon SCS sensor is smaller by a similar margin to the Four-Thirds sensor as what the four-thirds sensor is to the APC sized sensor. One could therefore expect IQ improvements moving from the Nikon CSC sized sensor to the micro four-thirds or to the APC sensor. To help you get a better understanding of what these ratios mean in real life, I like to invite you to read the many reviews in the media that discuss these same aspects in literally tens of CSC related reviews over the last seven years.

The traditional APC sized sensor, the four-thirds sensor and the recent smaller sized Nikon CSC sensor, all fits in-between the new PowerShot G1X sensor and the older PowerShot G12 sensor in terms of physical size. Did Canon plan this to reinforce the impact sensor size has on image quality? Did they think that by doing this they could lift the new G1X into a completely new level in terms of image quality? Personally I do not think that was what Canon intended, I think it is more a case of not using an existing format plus the "new" sensor was most probably already available from Canon's laboratories.

By using the existing APC sized sensor in something like a supercharged G12 could degrade the existing APC sized D-SLR market many believe and on the other hand using the four-thirds or Nikon CSC sensor in the new G1X would add credibility to these sensors, a risk to high to take. Was it really a risk? Looking at the sensor in general like we did to this point, it does provide the reader with one side of the equation only and I realize that. In a way it does also help to put things into perspective, sensor size was always used by the media to argue camera performance and image quality. Think of small DR, noise and so many things that were always linked to the "small" four thirds sensor;-) Just think of it, who will be next to receive the new sensor, will it be the D SLR range….no that is too much…..lets go take pictures...

The concern I have with the new PowerShot G1X is that I do not believe the camera will physically benefit or augment the new sensor. If Canon for example rather stayed with the smaller sized Nikon CSC sensor then it would have given both Nikon and Canon more credibility. This would help Canon to keep the physical size of the PowerShot G1X small plus it would have helped Canon to use and design a really top class lens to round of the new PowerShot G1X package. If Canon then later introduced a real new CSC solution, similar to what Samsung has, then they would have had a large sensor high end compact camera solution plus a new APC sized CSC solution. Most interesting would be the fact that then they would have effectively continued to degrade both the four-thirds and the Nikon CSC sensor sizes plus they would have had a real chance at the CSC market.

We have seen that the market is extremely demanding and that drivers like innovation plus good ideas make or break new camera models and new market segments. Speed is also important and its important that manufacturers do the right thing at the right time. If not, they really risk not being a part of a particular segment. We saw these mistakes happen in the past and some of the players still today pay the price for either being late or making incorrect decisions.

The range finder has a new meaning with what Leica did in the past. In addition companies like Fuji added a different View Finder technology and recently launched the X100 and X10 series. Without saying much, how does the new G1X optical view finder compare to these existing players?

I have no doubt that the new G1X will be a great extra large compact camera and its images will most probably be really good. I cannot help thinking that the dynamic range of these images will be awesome, especially if one take into account the sensor size. At the same time I cannot help thinking about the actual size of this new beast. Would the image quality be that much worse using the CSC sensor from Nikon, would that enable a better lens technology and finally what about the horrible OVF we know from G7 days, did anything changed in later models? Think of the new G1X as a street racer, something with only the driver seat, no trimmings, big powerful motor and much performance….

Guys if the prize tag was less than $400 then I would take some time to think about it, if its anything more I will seriously look for something else……. What type of accessories could one expect, add-on or clip-on wide angle adapters plus zoom adapters, leather bag?

Siegfried

Software Updates

I talked about software updates in one of my previous articles. Also when I believe many software updates are more profit orientated and not always aimed at providing the photographer with improved tools, I can also point out specific cases that resulted in real performance improvements. One such example is Optics Pro 7 from the software company DxO. In parallel to Optics Pro 7, DxO also recently released FilmPack 3. Both software packages are absolutely outstanding.

Why not using Lightroom 3? I tested Lightroom and although I think it is a good option I am a little worried that it will follow the same pattern as what Adobe CS and Elements did. Each year mentioned packages receive updates in the form of new releases. To benefit from these new releases the user is basically forced to upgrade. The reason is the RAW converter in both older versions receive no further updates once the new releases are out. If the user keeps the same camera then all is OK and RAW files will be treated as "normal" in the older versions. If the user upgrade to a new body then working with RAW files in this example becomes a lengthy process.

Here are one of my HDR creations. I used HDR Effect developed by NIK Software to create this Image.

Photoshop Elements use a basic or scaled down version of the full CS version RAW software. Up to Elements V8, the Mac version of Elements were supplied with Bridge and by opening the RAW file in Bridge the Mac user had access to the full CS version RAW converter. That has now changed and from PSE9 onwards Adobe supplies a different looking image organizer with Elements. No need to say I prefer to use Bridge. In addition I use iPhoto to manage my photo collection. Nothing is as quick as iPhoto when working with large image databases.

RAW Converter Advancements

Optics Pro from DxO

The final aspect I briefly like to touch on is the ability of Optics Pro 7 to capture the full dynamic range of the RAW image. Any RAW converter can do that and depending on the user's skill more or less dynamic range can be extracted from a RAW image. What I find outstanding with Optics Pro 7 is the dedicated slider or function that will allow the user to optimize dynamic range in seconds. The results are absolutely outstanding, leaving the user with beautifully balanced images. It is that good that I find myself returning to the more natural "HDR" look plus I hardly ever use my dedicated HDR software. This function was already available in V6, from my initial tests its difficult to say if the HDR function were further improved or not.

I hope you enjoyed this short article talking about software or editing techniques. I hope to find the time to talk more in depth about Optics Pro 7 in the future. My advice is go download the trail version and try it.

Siegfried