The KSPD WebLog

I went out today to try to shoot some outdoor infrared photographs.  To be completely honest, I haven’t had much of a chance to shoot much IR with the D3.  I don’t recall any IR photographs from the D3 as being spectacular.  When I offloaded my card and worked on an image or two, I was rather unhappy with the results.  Here is one selection:

Nikon D3 Infrared Photograph

This got me to thinking about the actual nature of digital IR photography and how and why it works.  DSLRs try very hard to keep infrared light out of your camera’s sensor with a filter that stands directly in front of the sensor itself.  It only makes sense that the more expensive the camera, the more successful it will be at keeping IR out.  Does that prove true? In this case… YES.

After I got home, I decided to make a very quick and impromptu comparison between the Nikon D3 and an older Nikon D60.   Each image was shot in RAW, and processed in Lightroom for white balance only.  Click each for a larger version.

Nikon D60 Infrared Test

Nikon D3 Infrared Test

With equal processing on both images, you can instantly see some pretty clear differences.  First, the red cast from the Hoya R72 filter is much less apparent in the D60 than the D3.  The D60 provides a much more manageable color environment to work in.  This is not to say that the D3 image could not be massaged into the same image that the D60 produced almost out of the camera, but it would take some significant work.  This is relevant if you want to use the natural color of the IR, but if you convert to grayscale, I found that you get almost an indentical image:

IR grayscale Comparison of Nikon D60 and D3. Click to enlarge.

The only real difference, without close inspection is that the D60 produced a slightly more contrasty image.  Now, what about actual image quality and detail? Below you will find two 100% crops from the images above.

Comparing sharpness between the D60 and D3

Now the differences are more subtle.  Both images lack true sharpness but if one or the other has to be crowned the winner, I would say that hands down it is the D60.  The D3 just does not seem to be able to hold edge detail near areas of contrasting tones.  Instead, it just makes things a blurry mess.  This could be partly due to the fact that there is so much more red in the D3 and therefore less information available when translating to grayscale (depending on how you do it).

So I know that I probably could provide more examples to back my findings up, but I’m a little strapped for time at this exact moment.  I will try to get some additional samples up ASAP. My conslusion is that while the D3 is a capable infrared photography device, it’s IR filter is too efficient at blocking out those much needed invisible light waves and yields a less than spectacular result.  My recommendation, if you want to get truly great IR shots, go find an older cheaper body like a D70 or D50.

I saw a program on The Discovery Channel recently about photographing water droplets using high speed video cameras.  I thought I’d give it a shot using a traditional digital SLR.  This setup is incredibly basic and went something like this:

Setup:
Baking pan for water
C-Stand with grip arm to hold zip-lock bag filled with water over baking pan
Tripod
Camera (In this case, a Nikon D3 with a Micro Nikkor 60mm AF lens)
PW’d AlienBees B800 with 10 degree honeycomb grid
Sample book of Roscolux gels. (The free book of small gells that you can get from lighting stores, has about 500 free gels in them)
Reflective material behind the baking pan to reflect light down onto the water.  I used anything from a water color painting made by a friend of mine to a white piece of poster board.

I shot in manual, about 1/250th sec @ f 16 with the strobe at full power pointing at the background material.   I had to shoot A LOT of frame (about 300) to get these few keepers.  Its a very inexact science.  Mostly trial and error.  In a perfect world, I would have liked to have shot at a faster shutter speed, but my D3 syncs at 1/250, so I was somewhat limited.  A fix for this would have been to use a SB-800 or SB-900 with high speed sync enabled, but I just didn’t get around to it.  Stopping down a little more would have also helped with some focus issues I was clearly experiencing.

Enjoy!

Here are some sample shots I made with a pair of AlienBees monolights.  Overall, I feel like they performed very well.  In fact, I had no problem what-so-ever.  I can not say enough good things about my Innovatronix Explorer XT portable power unit.  The lights functioned just as if they were plugged into a regular wall outlet with identical recycle times and performance.  Obviously, you can’t use the modeling lights with a portable power pack, but I liberally used them for a couple seconds at a time and saw no impact on the charge of the unit.

The setup on these shots is fairly straight forward.  The key light is a PW’d AlienBees B1600 at about 1/4 power with a 47″ octobox setup on a C-Stand with grip arm.  The octobox is about 3 feet above and to the side of the subject pointing down at her.

The second light is another PW’d AlienBees B800 with a 10 degree honeycomb grid firing at about 3/4 power toward the subjects feet to light up the ground a little.  On some shots, I moved the B800 directly behind the subject to act as a hair/rim light.  Same settings.

All images taken on a Nikon D3, with a Nikkor 28-70mm f2.8 @ ISO 200 and roughly 1 – 1/2 second @ f6.

After some serious consideration, I finally decided to invest in an AlienBees lighting setup.  I had read a lot of great reviews about their stuff, but I also had read some s0-so or even negative reviews about them as well.  After spending a day with the system, I really feel like I got my money’s worth.  I plan to write a full review soon.  Here is a super quick one though…

AlienBees B800 and B1600 flash units – Great!  Satisfactory to very satisfactory build quality.  Lexan body seems sturdy and not “plasticy”.  The accessory mount, while different, seems like it will hold up well against the smorgasbord of light modifiers I picked up.  Even a 5 foot octabox.   Great features like modeling light tracking, senstitive optical slave, ability to use the modeling light as a ready light, telling you when your flash is recycled.  I like that the swivel tightening lever can be adjusted by simply pulling it out and reorienting it to where you want.  This will help guard against strain and fatigue on the moving parts.

The Paul C Buff Octabox and Extra Large foldable softbox assemble in seconds. (not counting putting the front on).  Literally the easiest softboxes to put together.  The AlienBees proprietary accessory / speedring mount is equally easy to manage.  More on these soon I hope.
Now, to the point of my post.  There was one troubling scenario I had ran across a couple times on the photo sites about the inconsistent light output of AlienBees units, especially at low power settings.   This was a big area of concern for me so I decided to see for myself if there was any truth behind these stories.  I used a Sekonic L358 meter and put them to the test.  See the results for yourself.  There is some slight variance in output, mainly right after lowering the output of the flash. I assume this happens as the capacitors fully discharge.

The B800 performed well in my opinion, and the B1600 performed even better.  No, these are not Profoto or Dynalite quality flashes BUT for under $400 a piece, you really can’t go wrong with these lights.   I hope this helps anyone who’s on the fence.

If you are having problems with Windows Vista and color calibration and profiles, by all means, read on…

I’ve been on Windows Vista since it’s early beta stages several years ago.  To be honest with you, now that I have been using Windows 7, can honestly say that I HATE VISTA!  Now before you think I’m just riding on the Vista hater bandwagon, please listen to one of my biggest gripes.

I purchased a new laptop recently.  A Dell Studio 15.  I had many troubles with it and decided to return it.  I exchanged it for an HP dv5 series.  A vanilla flavored laptop running Windows Vista SP1.  As a photographer, it is important for me to work in a computing environment that is color correct.  An issue that I was hoping was unique to the Dell perfectly replicated itself on the HP and that was I noticed that my custom ICC profile for used for color calibration kept dropping out of the video card.  I use Datacolor’s Sypder2Pro Suite for calibration.  Strange things seemed to cause my profile to be lost, such as Windows Vista UAC prompts popping up.  Not being a huge fan of UAC, I just turned it off.  Then I noticed that anything that brought Windows to the log in screen would cause the profile I created to vanish such as coming back from the screen saver or powering the screen back on after some idle time.  Even worse, whenever this happened, the only thing I could do was reboot the computer entirely.  NOTHING WOULD RELOAD MY PROFILE OTHER THAN A COMPLETE POWER DOWN AND REBOOT!  This was a huge letdown and actually sort of freaked me out.  This laptop would be worthless to me unless I could figure out a way around this.

Now thoroughly panicked, I went to the web and learned that this exact color issue had been a problem with Vista since it’s conception.  I find it rather strange that after owning several Vista machines, that I only experienced this problem on my two most recent computer purchases.  (I have several Vista machines that DO NOT have the problem I am describing in this article and at the time of this writing, I do not have an explanation for that).

Without going into too much detail, it looks like this problem exists in Vista because of the order that it loads the profile in relation to other display driver mumbo jumbo.  Basically, Vista loads your profile, and then loads the uncalibrated luminance data back over the corrected profile.  I really don’t understand how such a seemingly simple yet critical issue such as color profiling could fly under the radar (or be ignored) for this long.

The good news is that I have found a solution that works for me every time.  Its only a minor inconvenience and has sort of just become part of my work flow.  Will it work for you?  I don’t know, as I have not really had an opportunity to test this across more than just a couple machines, but so far so good.

You need LUT Manager for Windows (download here)

Solve your Windows Vista color profile nightmares with LUT Manager

Once Installed, place a shortcut for this application on your desktop.  As soon as Vista loses your calibration data (for whatever reason), simply launch LUT Manager, load your profile which is saved in C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color\ (you’ll only have to do this the first time or if you want to use a different profile) then in the program, under the LUT menu, select “Load default for device”.  This will magically reload the  LUT (look up table) data from the profile you created using your colorimeter into your graphics adapter.  The change will look dramatic, especially if you have been working without a calibrated screen for a while.  When I load the correct LUT data, I am always shocked at how magenta/dark the screen looks at first but its just because my HP’s screen leans so far toward the cyan, blue, way too bright side of the spectrum.  (Sound familiar Mac people???)  The strangeness subsides after about a minute.

So there it is, my quick, easy solution to solving the ongoing failure of Vista’s color management.  I am interested to know if this solution works for other people.  Feel free to post comments or discuss!

After a lot of frustration and searching around about how to get movies to play on my Blackberry Bold, I finally just resorted to experimentation.  I eventually found success and I thought I would put together a quick and easy guide to ripping your DVDs to your Blackberry Bold.  Here’s what you need:   (This is for Windows users)

DVD Fab removes the copy protection from the disc.

Handbrake encodes the ripped TS_VIDEO folder ripped from the disc into a format that your Bold can play. 

Lets get started:

1.  Open DVDFab and select DVDFab HD Decrypter

2. Inset your DVD into your DVD-Rom Drive

3. After scanning the disc, you will see a window like this:

4.  Select the “Target” folder.  This is where the VIDEO_TS folder from your DVD will be extracted to.  I just left mine at the program default, which is in My Documents.

5. You Don’t need to change anything, just click the NEXT Button

6.  Change the  “Volume Label” to whatever you want.  I would probably just use the name of the movie.

7. Click START and your are done!  Depending on the speed of your computer and the length of the movie, the ripping process will take anywhere from about 10 to 30 minutes.

When you are done, you will have a folder called “VIDEO_TS” in the target folder you chose on the front page of DVDFab.   Now we need to use Handbrake to encode the video data into a format which the Bold can play back.

When Handbrake loads up, the first thing you will want to do is load your VIDEO_TS folder.

1.  Click the big “Source” button at the upper left corner of Handbrake and choose DVD / VIDEO_TS Folder

2.  Navigate to the VIDEO_TS folder that DVDFab created.

3.   Create a Destination file by clicking the “browse” button next to the destination field.  Name the file whatever you like!

4. Now you need to input your settings.  For this I have just included a screen shot. (One image per tab)

5. Last but not least, click the “Start” button at the top and have something to make yourself busy with because this will take anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes for most people.  That’s it!  You are done (well, not quite, you still obviously need to move the MP4 file from your computer to your Blackberry’s media card, then your really done and reach to go).

ENJOY!

A slight note:   Many Blackberry Bold 9000 handsets with the factory operating system still installed will have crashing problems when trying to seek / rewind / fast forward in video files using the BB media player.  There is a fix for this from RIM.  It may not be for the faint of heart though, (but if you’re savvy enough to rip dvd’s, you should be ok to upgrade your BB OS).  I recommend you upgrade to the newest official OS release, with is 4.6.0.185.  Stay away from the BETA stuff like .190 etc etc.   Learn more here:

I just purchased a new lens today and after spending a few hours with it, I was rather disappointed with the performance.  It seemed softer than a $1000+ lens ought to be.  (My sub $500 18-35mm “just for fun lens” was giving sharper results.    Now frantic, I set out on the web (as I usually do when panicked) to look for answers.

After doing some googl’ing, I ran across accounts from people with my exact lens, that were experiencing softness and I was pleased to learn that there was an easy fix.  Now, there is one caveat, this fix is only possible on Nikon’s upper-tier consumer and pro bodies (D300, D700, D3, D3x, D90 maybe?) so if you have anything else, I’m afraid I don’t have a lot of answers for you right now.

Onwards..

I’ve often noticed an option buried in the setup (wrench) menu of my D3 called “AF fine tune”.  I never really paid much attention or really cared to take a look.  I figured that the AF should work just fine.  Why would I need to fine tune something that I just paid 5 golden bars for?    After doing a little research, that question now has an answer.   Apparently, due to inherent variabilities in lens and camera body manufacturing, some lenses and some bodies and some combinations of some lenses and bodies (ya dig?) need to be adjusted using this menu option to correct for slight front or back focusing.  Makes sense I guess, I mean do you ever stop to think about how a camera lens is made?  How much precision is required to resolve a sharp image on a plane using transparent discs made from melted sand and then ground to perfection with rocks? (That’s obviously an oversimplification, but I think you get the idea).    OK, so Nikon isn’t perfect.  I can’t really comment with certainty on the others, as I have not shot anything else.   But at least they gave some of us this fabulous fix, although it is a little disturbing that Nikon has downplayed this feature (and need of this feature)  in the instruction manual.

After running my own tests, I found that 2 of my main 3 lenses needed major adjustment.   The process was simple and I invite anyone else with a better method to chime in, because this was pretty straight forward.   Just grab your tripod and setup a a relatively flat object with fine detail (or a focus chart if you have one) and have it as close to perpendicular to your camera as possible, so you are not battling depth of field.    Then format your memory card so you can keep track of your images more easily.  Set your camera for JPEG and turn your Picture Control (under shooting options in the main menu) to “Standard”.  I did this so there was no unnecessary sharpening going on that could mask the results.  I would suggest shooting in M so you have the exact same exposure every time.  If you are using a speedlight, set it to M as well.   Lastly, set your camera to Single-Servo auto focus with the single AF point dial selected.  It’s always a good idea when running tests like this to eliminate as many variables as possible yes?

Now, go into the Setup (wrench) menu on your camera, and find “AF fine tune”.   First, turn it on (obvious I hope), then go into “Saved Value”.    You will notice that the camera detects and displays the focal length of the lens you have attached at that moment.   Any changes you make here will be associated with that lens and will be set automatically every time you attach it to your camera.   Now let’s start tweaking things…

Set your fine tune value to -20 and shoot.  Then go back into your menu and select -15 and shoot, then -10…  Wash, rinse, repeat until you get up to +20.  Be sure your tripod is staying in the same place and that your camera is not moving around because we’re dealing with some super fine adjustments, and your camera moving during this process will negate your results (well, not really, since we are using AF, but you will feel more confident about yourself and your results if things aren’t sliding around).  I chose to move up the slider in increments of 5, but if you have the time or curiosity, you can adjust in whatever increments you want, but I think 5 is a good starting point.

When you’re done with that tedium, bring all of your test images into Photoshop or whatever you use for study.  You will need to be able to get the images fairly close to each other for a side by side comparison in order to make a good judgment of focus.  Also, remember to view your images at 100% magnification.

I have provided my results so you can see how I basically setup the test after I shot the images.   I just shot a piece of mail sitting on my desk.  These are also low resolution, so unfortunately, these can’t be as closely inspected as the original files.

My results and required adjustments were as follows:  Remember that “0″ is the default, non-correct focus tuning.

Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF D  -  Fine Tune Adjustment = +20

Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AF D Results

Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 VR – Fine Tune Adjustment = 0

Nikkor 70-200 mm F2.8 VR Results

Nikkor 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S – Fine Tune Adjustment = -15

Nikkor 28-70mm f2.8 AF-S Results

This is basically just a long-winded way of saying adjust the fine tune setting until you get the sharpest results.

So…………….. the results are pretty frightening!   I was/am shocked especially at the 50mm.  The difference between what I have been shooting at (0) and the correct adjustment (+20) is substantial, equally with the 28-70mm.   Interestingly, the 70-200mm is spot on.

After reading posts made by people running similar tests, I found my findings to be fairly consistent with theirs.  Ken Rockwell (ughhh..) needed -15 on his D3 with a 28-70mm, and my results mirrored his findings.  I also read results from other people needing +20 on their 50mm f1.8 on a D3.. exactly the same as mine.    So it would appear, at least on the surface, that the adjustments are fairly universal. It should be kept in mind that this is not necessarily the case and you should test for yourself because every camera and every lens, although supposedly identical, are not.  Plus this is a good exercise in training your eye to identify true sharpness in an image.   Keep in mind also that the adjustments are more than likely unique to each lens/body combination so, if you are shooting a 50mm f1.8 on a D300, don’t expect your adjustment to be the same as a 50mm f1.8 on a D3 or any other body.

It’s a little painful to think about how long I’ve been shooting without doing this.  I thought the 50mm f1.8 was razor sharp before, now that I have done this, I have had to redefine my definition (or at least perception) of what sharp is.

If I get time, I’ll try to post some before and after real world images, just for kicks.   Check back or subscribe.

Just thought I’d share this.  My girlfriend and I were out doing a quick shoot for our Christmas cards and I thought I’d try out some of the lighting that is frequently featured on the popular Strobist website.   Please disregard the less than engaging pose, we were just playing around and I didn’t expect to actually post this.

The setup was like this:

Equipment:

Nikon D3
Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 AF VR
SB-800  CLS Master and Fill
3x SB-600 with cheap DIY cardboard snoots set on TTL

This really isn’t a very complicated shot so I won’t bore you with the details, but I’ll throw out some super preschool-ish diagrams for you.

As you can see, speedlight A is lighting Michelle’s face and torso, light B is lighting the ground, and light C is providing a rim light for some separation from the background.  Man I am a terrible artist!

The exposure was pretty straight forward.  I metered in M (manual) and got the standard exposure that I probably would have gotten in P or A, and then i stopped the aperture down about 1 stop to underexpose the ambient light.  Then I jacked up the TTL on the SB-600s (each one was a little different) until I got a look that I liked and voila!

Happy shooting!

UPDATED 7/29/08
Change Log:
Added info and images regarding bent forground piping.
Changed Piping Measurement Info

If you are a photographer on a tight budget like myself, you have probably noticed how over priced photography equipment can be.  Fortunately for us, many of the expensive items and equipment that we need are fairly basic in design and perform fairly fundamental tasks.  Take for example a strobe soft box.  It’s an enclosed space, with a reflective interior, and a translucent sheet at the end.  I have to admit, I’ve never actually made my own soft box, but it’s nice to know that if I had to, it wouldn’t be prohibitively difficult to make one, for half the cost (or less) than if you were to purchase one at your local camera store or online.

I found myself needing a shooting table for the studio, as I have been shooting a lot of food an product lately.  Naturally, I went online to see what my options were and I wasn’t surprised to see that shooting tables are quite expensive.  I realize that manufacturers need to make money, but a shooting table just seemed too easy of a concept to drop $700-$1000 plus shipping on some metal tubing and a shooting surface.

In this tutorial, I will show you how to make a functional and nice looking shooting table, much like a Bogen / Manfrotto 4′x8′ shooting table, which retails for $649.99 plus shipping.  While there are literally dozens of different ways create your own shooting table, this method creates a very sturdy shooting surface, it’s collapsible, and it looks professional.   While this tutorial won’t show you how to make a shooting table for free or almost free (although it can be done!), it is still significantly less expensive then purchasing one from a manufacturer.

Here is what our shooting table will be modeled after:

Bogen / Manfrotto 4x8 Shooting Table - Retail $649.99

Let’s get started:
Read more…

What is a HDR Image?

A high dynamic range image is a digital photograph that is displays much more tonal range that a traditional photo can. It captures detail in the extreme shadows and highlights that would normally be shown as pure black or pure white. In essence, it creates an image that is similar to what our natural vision and brain are capable of interpreting.
Read more…