• Photography Index • Home • .
. Digital Toolbox
Peter Kun Frary
Herein lie my ramblings about the toys and tools I use to make images: basically gear I've cobbled together over the years. Some are cutting edge, some low-end while others are ancient. But it all works and that's what matters to me.
A serious photographer desires control over his or her image during and after the exposure. In the past, controlling your images after exposure meant maintaining a messy and bulky darkroom. Today, digital imaging gives you the benefits of a darkroom with a lot less mess. To get the most out of digital imaging, you'll need a peppy computer, calibrated monitor, photo quality printer (or good lab), a film scanner and/or digital camera and image editing software.
Wailua Falls, Kauai • EOS A2, EF 28-105 USM, Bogan Tripod, Elite Chrome & Canon FS4000US
If you're discriminating about image quality, digital imaging is tweaky. Plus, learning to shoot, scan, edit and print images is expensive and time consuming. Although DSLRs are less tweaky than film scans, you still need to adjust your images for best results. A photographer whom merely wants a few prints for display and albums should stick with traditional photo labs.
I love to tweak, even if I don't need to. I guess it's my musical background that makes me obsessive with details. Like my camera kit, it took me years to build my digital darkroom. If you had to buy all the hardware components at once, the cost would be overwhelming for all but well-heeled shoppers. Here's my digital toolbox.
Computers The computer is the heart of a cyber darkroom and needs to kick serious digital butt. My weapon of choice is the Apple Mac Pro Quad-Core (2009). I have it dressed up in a quad 2.66 GHz Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor, 8 GB RAM, 3 PCI Express slots, 640GB SATA hard drive, 18x double-layer SuperDrive, 2 La Cie Big Disk (1TB) External Firewire 800 hard drives (stripped RAID for mains & backup), Sansdisk Firewire CF Card Reader, Tango Express Firewire 800/USB2 PCI Express card, Kensington Expert Mouse (USB trackball), NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB and 23" Apple Cinema Display. It's all tied together with the most elegant and powerful OS on the planet, Macintosh OS 10.6x. Yeah, it's a friggen hotrod at least for this year!
Apple Mac Pro Quad-Core • Looks like a freakin' motorcycle engine
The Mac Pro is an ultra fast and stable audio and image workstation. It's huge and looks like a nekid Moto Guzzi V7 Classic engine. It has 5 cooling fans (!) but it is surprisingly cool and quiet compared to my old plastic G4 MDD. I have to stick my head under my desk to hear it.
Besides blazing speed, the Mac Pro has one huge advantage over all-in-ones like an iMac or MacBook: expandability. This expandability yields years of future proofing. The 3 empty PCI Express slots allow features to be added as needed, e.g., external SATA, SCSI ports or an audio breakout box. Thus I can interface with both legacy and new gear without a hitch. Buying a new computer is expensive enough without having to upgrade printers, scanners and outboard audio gear. Also, out of the box the Mac Pro is ready to run dual monitors, house 4 hard drives and 2 optical drives.
One little gotcha: no Firewire 400. It has Firewire 800 ports front and rear but you need adapters to connect FW400 devices. Not a big deal to many users but if you have legacy video and audio gear--like I do--those $10 adapters start to add up. Also, once you connect FW400 to a FW800 port, all devices on that bus run at FW400 speeds--not good for FW800 hard drives. Fortunately there is an easy solution: install a FW400 or FW800 PCI Express card and keep your slower FW devices on a separate bus.
How fast is the Mac Pro Quad? A 18MP EOS 7D raw file (28MB) takes 3 to 4 seconds to convert to TIFF in DPP 3.7 (1 second in Aperture!). The same takes about 15 seconds in my MacBook Pro (2.2GHz Core Duo 2 & 4GB RAM) and a numbing 45 to 50 seconds in my G4 MDD (1.25 GHz Duo G4 CPU & 2GB RAM). Yikes!
Apple 23" Cinema Display
After 3 years of hard use the backlight inverter board in my 20" Cinema Display died: the dreaded blinking power light and dim screen. Apple quoted $400-500 for the repair so I bought a 23" Aluminum Cinema Display. Yes, the increased screen space (1920 x 1200 pixels) and brightness were welcome, but it runs hot and lacks the ultra wide viewing angle of the old 20" Cinema Display. Nevertheless, images within its viewing angle are stunning. And I like the adjustable tilt and small footprint. However you can never have too large a screen. Even 23 inches seems crowded when editing in Aperture or PS.
I later found out changing the inverter board is easy and was only $85 for the part and shipping. With the new board, it's as sharp and bright as a new one. Now I have two Cinema Displays and am in hog heaven. If you find your old Cinema Display with a dim view, follow these backlight inverter board replacement instructions.
Tall Ship Reflection at Aloha Tower • EOS 5D & EF 50 1.4 USM
Apple Macintosh MacBook Pro (2007): Macintosh OS 10.4.11 (Tiger), 2.16 GHz CoreDuo 2 processor, 4 GB RAM, 160GB hard drive, SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW) and 15" display. The MacBook Pro is my backup and travel computer so it rarely sees hard use. It's a jim-dandy computer but is overrated. After all the hype I figured it would blow the doors off my old G4 MDD Dual. Nope. Although startup is faster, it feels about the same running software like iTunes or Safari. However, Digital Photo Professional 3.7 (DPP) is about 3 times faster at RAW conversion than the old G4 MDD. Unfortunately PowerPC apps under Rosetta are painfully slow. Did I mention it was slow? Running MS Office 2004 is like watching grass grow. So I got Office 2008 and it was worse! And importing Wav or AIFF files into iTunes is slow compared to my G4 desktop (probably due to the slow SuperDrive DVD).
Apple MacBook Pro
Although the MacBook Pro has a nice screen as far as notebooks go, it falls short for photo editing. Why? Color and contrast change with angle of view: move your neck a couple inches and the image looks totally different. The good news is you can connect a Cinema Display to the MacBook Pro and all is well.
One more nitpick. This thing runs hot. Frying eggs hot. I've had my MacBook Pro shutdown after a couple hours of hard image editing. The fans were screaming and, zap, it was down for the count. The balmy climate of Hawaii is no friend to computers. I had to pull the battery to get it to reboot after cool-down. At least I figured out how to keep it cool enough not to shutdown: leave the lip open (it was closed while connected to a Cinema Display) and put it on an aluminum "Rain" stand. The stand acts like a heatsink and also allows air to circulate under it. Plus it looks nice. After I did those two things it never overheated again.
With all that said, I could live with the MacBook Pro as my only computer if I upgraded most of my apps to native intel code and docked it to a Cinema Display and fleet of hard drives.
Cameras
I'm a Canon shooter. I've used the EOS system since 1990 and have owned more gear than I care to admit. Currently I shoot with Canon 5D Mark II & 7D SLR cameras. Prior to 1990 I shot Nikon and still have a FM3A and a half dozen manual AI/AIS lenses for a semi-annual nostalgic kick. I won't go into detail here, but suffice to say Canon is a great system and has given me few reasons to want or need more. If you'd like to know more about Canon camera equipment, read my reviews.
EOS 40D & Elan in Tamrac System 6 • When I was young 'n foolish I packed two bodies and 3 or 4 lenses.
Most modern SLRs are excellent and produce great pictures in competent hands. Thus, the choice of a camera is largely based on personal preferences. Does the camera feel comfortable in your hands? Are the controls logical? Is the viewfinder clear and vivid? Does the system of lenses and accessories fit your needs? Only you can answer these questions.
Scanners
After the death of my Nikon LS-1000, I purchased a Canoscan FS4000US. The superior image quality of the FS4000US was immediately apparent. The higher resolution (4000 x 5888 pixels at 4000 DPI and 42-bits), greater dynamic range, auto scratch removal (FARE) and more accurate exposure and color adjustments set the FS4000US apart from the LS-1000. However, a 4000 dpi/42 bit scan yields a 125 MB image file, e.g., over 23 million pixels! There's a lot more information in a 4000 dpi/42 bit scan compared to a 2700 dpi/36 bit scan, so the size is worth it. I rescanned many old images and was shocked at the increased detail and dynamic range over the LS-1000.
Canon Canoscan FS4000US (2001). 4000 DPI 42-bit 35 mm film scanner. Old as dirt but works great.
Scans from the FS4000US require minor tweaking, at least with NPH, Portra, Sensia and Provia (I haven't tried many other emulsions). Portra 160VR scans especially well, not only because little tweaking is needed, but because of its ultra fine grain, saturated colors and moderately low contrast. Plus, FARE works amazingly well at removing scratches from images. Unlike other scratch removal products, there is little or no image degradation. This feature has spared me from endless "spotting" of old negs in Photoshop. My Photoshop chores have diminished considerably because of the FS4000US.
Aloha Tower View • EOS Elan 7E, EF 28-135 3.5-5.6, Elite Chrome& FS4000US Scanner
Although I mainly shoot with a DSLR (7D and 5D Mark II), I have 30 years of negs and chromes, so a film scanner will be essential for years. The Canon FS4000US is a nice blend of quality, convenience and economy. However it is discontinued and the Nikon Cool Scan or a high end Epson Perfection Photo series are now your best bet if you're in the market.
Click here for a review of the Canon FS4000US Film Scanner.
Epson Perfection 2400 Photo (2003). 2400 DPI 48-bit flatbed scanner with film adapter and USB 2.0 connection.
This scanner is mainly useful for scanning line art and text documents. It has handy "photocopy" and fax functions albeit the software is chunky. However it does a good job on photo prints and is serviceable for occasional scans of negatives and chromes. It's not a substitute for a dedicated film scanner but is okay for low resolution scans of film.
The 2400 has built-in 35mm film scanning via an illuminator in the lid and a mask/film holder. Although not as sharp and detailed as the Canon FS4000US, sharpness isn't too far behind my old Nikon LS-1000. Moreover, auto exposure and color accuracy are almost as good as the FS4000US and much better than the LS-1000. Unfortunately, dynamic range is narrow compared to dedicated film scanners, so forget about scanning contrasty scenes. Scans are more saturated than average and have a slight magenta tint.
Chromes scan a little better than negatives. Fuji negatives, especially NPH, scan better than Kodak negatives, e.g., Portra 400VC. Kodachrome sides don't scan well. The blacks are too dense for this scanner and make for a muddy scan.
Diskman in Waikiki • Canon EOS A2, EF 300 4L USM, Sensia 100, Epson Perfection 2400 Photo. This is my first scan on the 2400. I was surprised at the excellent color and tonality as this chrome scanned poorly on my LS-1000.
After a few months the inside surface of the glass became foggy due to outgassing. Scans were becoming increasingly murky. Although the manual says not to disassemble the scanner, it's easy to remove the glass for cleaning. After cleaning, it worked just like new. I had an outgassing problem with an old Umax flatbed too.
Dust and scratches are less apparent with the 2400 compared to dedicated film scanners. This is a good thing as the 2400 lacks automated dust and scratch removal. Nevertheless, the 2400 isn't the best choice for restoring old negatives and chromes (I've had excellent results from Canon's FARE scratch removal algorithms). You should always use canned air or a bulb blower to remove dust from film before scanning.
For causal hobbyists, this may be all the scanner they need. Epson upgrades these scanners regularly, so the latest model will always have a tiny upgrade or two. Flatbed technology is mature so don't expect earth shattering improvements.
For more scans from the Epson Perfection 2400 Photo, click on these links: 1. 2.
Printers
Epson Stylus Photo R800 (2004). Inkjet printer with 5760 x 1440 resolution and seven-color Ultrachrome High Gloss pigment ink cartridges (Magenta, Cyan, Yellow, Matte black, photo black, red, and blue) plus Gloss Optimizer cartridge. The R800 is a looker. The sliver-gray and black finish would complement a Mac Pro or iMac nicely.
My earlier Epson printers, Photo (1996) and Photo 1200 (1999), were a far cry from lab quality: I could see the dot pattern on close examination, fading was a problem and prints were fragile. However, Epson claims fade resistance and durability for the R800 comparable or exceeding lab prints.
Yes, the grain structure on true photographic prints is finer, but you need a loupe to tell the difference. Only those whom use a loupe to decipher small details such as street signs may be disappointed. Magnify an inkjet print and you'll see a half tone pattern (like a magazine picture), but no additional visual detail. In contrast, an optical print reveals a wealth of hidden detail with high magnification. Incidentally, the dot pattern of the R800 is ultra fine compared to Epson printers of a few years ago (the 1.5 picoliter droplet size probably has a lot to do with this trait). To see the dot pattern, you need a 6 to 8 power loupe.
Nice Knockers • Brugges, Belgium • Canon EOS 40D, EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM.
I'm extremely pleased with the quality of R800 prints for display of 4 x 6, 5 x 7 and 8 x 10 inch images. I prefer to print a full frame 8 x 12, but Epson doesn't sell that size paper. The R800's largest print size is A4 and legal. Unfortunately, Premium Glossy Photo Paper isn't produced in those sizes. The R800 can also produce borderless 8.3 x 44 inch panoramic prints (using Premium Glossy Photo Roll Paper), but I haven't used that feature yet. However, this may be a way of forcing a full frame 8 x 12.
I don't save a dine over Costco, Ritz or other labs by printing my own images.A set of cartridges runs you $120. If you make nothing but 8 x 10 prints, it goes really fast. Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper is about $.45 per 8 x 10 sheet. So, not considering the cost of equipment or your time, each 8 x 10 print costs almost $2.00 in consumables. However, if you're skilled at tweaking and printing, your quality will rival a custom lab and save lots of money. Plus, Epson photo papers are nicer than most lab paper.
I wrote a full review of the Epson R800 here.
Roma • Fontana di Nettuno in the Piazza Navona • Canon EOS 40D, EF 17-55 2.8 IS USM.
Software
Adobe Photoshop CS3. Image processing software
Photoshop (PS) is the only serious image editing software on the market. However, many of the older "full" versions will work fine, albeit without the bells and whistles of version CS3 or CS4. I used Photoshop 7 for six years!
I do my basic adjustments in Aperture or Digital Photo Professional (DPP) prior to RAW conversion. I only use PS for heavy editing tasks such as layer masks or optimizing for print (resizing & sharpening). The integrated Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) converter is excellent but takes a lot of mouse clicks to look as good as a default image from DPP. And the adjustment tools in ACR are pretty weak compared to Aperture.
There are two huge drawbacks to Photoshop: it costs $600 and takes a long time to learn due to its sophistication. Also it tries too hard too be all things to all people and has drifted away from its photographic roots: menus and tool bars are overflowing with tools and features most photographers never use, not to mention many redunant tools. If you're a causal hobbyist, consider the excellent, but less demanding, Adobe Photoshop Elements. For $99 it has most of the editing tools amateur photographers need. Also, Apple Aperture and Abobe Lightroom are aimed directly at photographers and has the tweaks most shooters want.
Aperture. Image organization, RAW conversion and extensive adjustments.
I was impressed with iPhoto's interface and ease of use but needed something with more control. I figured Aperture would be iPhoto on steroids: similar design philosophy and look 'n feel, but with more tools and customization. As it turns out, Aperture is not as elegant or easy to use as iPhoto, so I was initially disappointed. My main beef is iPhoto's browser system is easier to use than Aperture's project/folder system. However, the amazing power of the adjustment HUB really grew on me after a few days. All the RAW fine tuning, exposure, levels, color and other enhancements you'd ever need are on a single collapsible tool HUB. And they really work. Basically most of Photoshop's maze of menus logically organized on one tool palette.
The most amazing thing about Aperture is the fine control and recovery of highlights. I was able to revive "difficult" old EOS 10D RAW files I could never make presentable in DPP or PS.
Aperture Tool HUB (collapsed):
I wish Aperture included the iPhoto "Enhance" tool. Sure I can get the same effect or better in Aperture's Enhance Brick--after 4 or 5 click 'n drags! However the little iPhoto enhance tool nails it half the time.
RAW conversion is excellent but about 15-20% of my images are more work to prepare than Canon's free DPP. Why? DPP opens RAW Canon files with camera defaults (Picture Style, WB, saturation, contrast, etc.), intact. If you shot the image the way you wanted it, the file is ready for conversion. Aperture, like Adobe Camera Raw, is unable to read camera parameter defaults and starts with a "plain" rendering of the image. So some images need a lot of mousing to get to where DPP begins. In fairness, it's mainly sunset images that give Aperture a hard time: beautiful oranges, reds, yellows with a big blazing fireball throw Aperture into fits. No amount of WB, tint, levels or color can make these images look worth a darn. Oddly they open near perfect in DPP and look just like they do on the camera LCD.
DPP lens correction features are damn good but are not part of the Aperture feature set. Yes, you can add generic lens correction via after market plug-ins. Plug-ins are pricey as they cost as much as or more than Aperture!
The biggest shortfall is wimpy noise reduction (NR). Yes Aperture has NR and it works fine for modest amounts of noise. However it is useless for high ISO, e.g., ISO 1600 and above on a EOS 40D or 50D. Aperture NR is not strong enough, nor is it tuneable beyond simple radius and edge detail adjustments. The NR in DPP is about 10 times more effective and tweakable. Of course you can buy the "Neat Image" plug-in. Hmm, Aperture plus two plug-ins equal the cost of Photoshop CS4 Extended...
I still use DPP for files requiring lens corrections, high ISO NR and tricky conversions like sunsets. In fairness, most of RAW images convert as well or better in Aperture than DPP, so both programs are extremely useful.
And the final gotcha in Aperture 2.1.3 is an occasional bug that causes a black (i.e., blank) screen during adjustments. Sometimes the histogram disappears but the image is fine or both histogram and image disappear. A restart usually clears it up but sheesh...
Aperture is so good I rarely use Photoshop except for layer masks and print optimization (resizing & USM). One glaring omission in both Aperture and iPhoto is the lack of a text tool. I really would like to add my signature or labels without exporting to PS or resorting to a plugin...
Pantheon • Rome • EOS 40D, EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM
iPhoto. Image organization, RAW conversion and basic adjustments.
I originally set up iPhoto for my wife to use with her Rebel and Elf cameras. I figured it would be wimpy and inflexible like iWeb. Boy was I wrong. What an elegant and easy to use interface. It's the perfect app for causal photographers shooting JPEGs: logical organization and idiot-proof basic adjustment controls. Scrolling through the iPhoto image library is the simplest most intuitive interface for a browser. And the facial recognition feature to organize galleries around a single person is way cool although it only works half the time.
I wish iPhoto had the enhanced adjustments HUB of Aperture (with RAW controls) and I'd toss Aperture in a heartbeat. The problem with iPhoto RAW conversion is it automatic and lacks user controls.
iPhoto and Aperture are designed to work together and can quickly open and share libraries or individual images.
DreamWeaver CS3. Web design software
I switched to this program after designing in Claris Home Page for last eight years. I really needed to let go of OS 9.2. I tried iWeb but it was a cruel joke. It couldn't open Home Page files and is extremely inflexible. Dreamweaver is powerful but almost as easy to use as Home Page. What more can I ask for?
Emulsions for Scanning I mainly shot chromes for about 20 years. As much as I like prints and monitor viewing of images, nothing beats the magical sight of a chrome on a light table, Viewed with a quality loupe, the detail and sparkling realism are amazing. Sunsets make me squint. Beautiful models make me drool. Everything else is compressed and flat in comparison. Here are some of the basic advantages of slide film over negative film:
Some emulsions scan better than others. For example, Provia 100F and 400F, Portra 160 and 400 (N, VC & UC) and Royal 100 and 400 have extremely fine grain and scan fairly easily, i.e., only require a small amount of color and contrast tweaking. The Portra family is especially easy to scan. On the other hand, Kodachrome is a color adjustment nightmare and is difficult to get right (here's a Kodachrome scan). Elite Chrome is extremely contrasty and frequently requires masking or multiple layers to adjust highlight and shadow areas separately. Old Kodak Gold 400 negatives are grainy and have a heavy green cast, necessitating endless toil with noise filters as well as extensive color adjustments. Kodak Max 400 is better, but only by a small margin.
- Chromes are first generation images--the actual film exposed in your camera--and, thus, exhibit optimal sharpness, color and contrast.
- The exposure represents the choice made by the photographer, not a print machine or operator.
- Filter effects, e.g., polarizers, are rendered accurately because they're not "corrected" by automatic printing machines.
- While working on an image in Photoshop, chromes are easier to match colors with than negatives because you may view them directly on a lightbox. In contrast, I can tell nothing about color from a negative and a print is a poor color guide (i.e., prints are interpretations of the negative by an automated print machine and/or teenager in a minilab).
I rarely get scratches on slide film, probably because chromes receive less handling than negatives. Unfortunately, scratching and fingerprints are common with negatives, especially when developed at minilabs. Kodak Gold and Max negs scratch easily, whereas Portra negs are less scratch prone.
Fremont Street Casino • Canon EOS 10D & EF 17-40L USM
The Work Routine
I always scan at full resolution and save as an uncompressed TIFF. Thus, I can print 13 x 19 enlargements at 300 DPI or rez down for smaller prints or web display. For the rare larger print I use Genuine Fractals, a Photoshop plugin, to rez up the file. This nifty program increases the printing resolution and insures smooth, continuous tones without digital artifacts. However, it doesn't increase detail that's not already there.
I leave the chrome on a Cabin light box and use it as a guide for color adjustments. I spend a great deal of time compressing the dynamic range of scans to fit within the display range of monitors and inkjet prints. This entails working with multiple image and adjustment layers and blending these layers by sight. Negatives are troublesome as their dynamic range exceeds monitors, scanners and paper. For extremely contrasty images I scan the negative twice, once for shadows and again for highlights. I then selectively erase and blend the two scans in Photoshop. I apply noise and blur filters if necessary and save the file as a Photoshop document with all layers intact (so I can tweak later).
Images from my digital cameras are shot in RAW file format and are processed in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) or Aperture. I use RAW because it affords the most control and greatest quality. I usually make minor adjustments (WB, exposure, contrast, Picture Style, etc.) before converting to TIFF. Compared to film scans, digital camera images need fewer adjustments. However post-processing for print and web is similar.
Depending on the intended use of the image, e.g., inkjet prints or web, I adjust size and resolution for output: 300 DPI for printers and 72 DPI for web. Once I have the desired size and resolution, I apply the unsharp mask filter--often selectively with a mask or new layer--to taste (don't sharpen skies and of focus areas). Finally, I save the altered image under a new name to preserve the original file.
If I'm working on my website, I keep the site open in Fetch and DreamWeaver on my Mac. A DSL Internet connection and file sharing is used over Ethernet so I can quickly bounce files between my two computers and web server.
I store processed images on a La Cie Big Disk (1TB) External Firewire 800 hard drive (stripped RAID) and use "WD Anywhere" to automatically backup to another external drive.
Never archive in compressed formats such as JPEG. Compression throws away information and compromises the quality of your image progressively each time you save the file. Use JPEGs only for web display and email.
Starting from Scratch? If you're starting from scratch and want to build a quality digital darkroom, there are so many options it's overwhelming. However, you can build an excellent quality starter outfit for around $2000. This setup will allow you to scan and process slides and negatives, and make excellent 8 x 10 prints (or larger if you upgrade to a higher printer model). Here's my suggestion for a quality budget system:
• Apple 27" iMac computer, $1699 (or 21.5" iMac if budget is tight)
• Aperture 2 (or Lightroom if you prefer Adobe) $199
• Adobe Photoshop Elements (excellent "junior" version of Photoshop), $99
• Epson Stylus Photo 1400 inkjet printer, $250
• Nikon Cool Scan ED, $550; or Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner, $175
More Information There are many books and classes on Photoshop for graphic artists and web designers. However, few of these resources address the basic needs of photographers. The Luminous Landscape has many excellent tutorials for photographers at the on their website. Photo.net is also a good source of information about photography, cameras and scanning. Rob Sheppard's book is a wonderful primer for image tweaking, printing and presentation.
Sheppard, Rob. Epson Complete Guide to Digital Printing. New York: Lark Books, 2003. ISBN 1-57990-427-0
8/9/2001 • 10/24/2009
©Copyright 2001-2009 by Peter Kun Frary • All Rights Reserved .
• Photography Index • Home •
