The Samsung Galaxy S7 - A Photographers Perspective

Greetings folks!
It's been quite awhile hasn't it. I admit, I have neglected my photoblog some and in later posts I will touch on why that has happened.

Today though I want to talk about something I never really thought I'd be talking about. Let's face it. Cell phones and cameras have both a stigmata and a stereotype about them. The whole "look mom, a hipster!" is one of those, the other is that the photos coming out of them generally as a rule of thumb are worse quality than a compact point and shoot camera. The latter I generally agree with.

I dropped a wad of cash on my phone. In all honesty, it's rather amazing how much these devices can and do cost. I'm prepaid so it was 100% out of pocket but I waited for a long time, a few years, for something like the Samsung Galaxy S7 to arrive on the scene. I knew it was just a matter of time until it did and I wanted something which would add to my arsenal of camera gear. Something which really would work and something that had the features I really wanted. One of the biggies of course was the ability to shoot RAW. The S7 does that in the form of DNG.

This past summer, myself and someone who I hold very near and dear to me, did a 7,800 mile photography trip that covered 4 states and hit several national parks. I had just received my S7 weeks before leaving for my trip and it was a great opportunity to really give the S7 a workout.

"Evening At Dead Horse Point" 

The one thing I noticed right away about the Samsung Galaxy S7 was how sharp the RAW files were. This honestly caught me off guard because I was not expecting that. The amount of detail pulled in from the camera is truly stunning and in some ways actually rivals that of my Sony A77. Not only that but the images are sharp all the way through. The only thing I have found is that in super high contrast situations, especially those involving trees, there does tend to be some colored noise at times which is easily adjusted inside Nik's Dfine 2 which I use for noise reduction. Or a simply mask inside Photoshop using an adjustment layer of hue/saturation works as well. That doesn't happen often but it is there once in a blue moon.

"A Bed Of Wildflowers"-- Kebler Pass outside Crested Butte, Colorado.

I started processing my photos inside Lightroom & Photoshop which is my regular apps for my workflow. Considering that the images are only 12MP, things flew by. That is one thing I enjoyed, it's fast and easy. I also have bought a cheap little tripod to help me steady the camera but I mostly wanted it for video which the S7 does wonderfully. The focus points while in "Pro Mode" are rather incredible and remind me a lot of my DSLR.

"Rolling Thunder" - Arches National Park, Utah

So what are my thoughts on it all?
Well, in all honesty I do believe that the time has come and is here now to where our phones no longer take really bad photos but are a legitimate camera in its own right. Does it have limitations? Sure it does, I wouldn't try taking wildlife photos with it or astro shots but in terms of landscapes? Yeah, it certainly serves its purpose and does so that left me pretty darn floored. It used to be that cell phone shots needed all these "Instagram-esque" filters applied to them just to make them look half way decent. I can say that with the S7 that is no longer the case. In fact, it is now my second camera and I find myself being just as serious behind the lens of it as I am with my regular gear. That my friends says a lot.

If you're honestly thinking of ways to step outside the box and add to your arsenal as a photographer, then I have to say go give the S7 a good look. It's a very solid investment and one which will only put a smile on your face.
--John

Do you shoot Sony cameras? Here's the biggest unknown tip ever.

  This autumn I spent some time down in the West Elk mountains of Colorado. All I can say is is a very huge "wow". If you've never been there you really need to put it on the "must do" list. An amazing place that really is a photographers heaven. Like any other photographer, I was both anxious and excited to get home and begin processing my photographs. So when I did I was rather startled by what I found.

  I shoot Sony cameras. Right now that consists of a Sony A77 and a Sony A550 as my backup camera. There's a few things inside Sony cameras which sets them apart from others; most notably is what is called "DRO", basically it stands for "Dynamic Range Optimization". It is basically leased technology from a company named Apical  and Nikon uses their technology as well, the difference however is that Nikon, unlike Sony, didn't provide them a "chip" which from my understanding basically fine tunes things. Now I know, this is really in the weeds stuff here but hang with me. 

  Now I imagine most photographers workflow these days consists of basically this;

*Download photos to computer

*Open Lightroom

*Import photos

*Process

*Maybe touch up in Photoshop

*Save

That "open in Lightroom" thing though got me. It got me good. When I did this, I noticed right away a complete loss of color and luminescence. I've always noticed it before but it was really never that big of a deal. However for these photos it was. Gone was the "shimmering effect" the Aspen once had and how they glowed. Lightroom was essentially zeroing out every single thing as far as settings went with my RAW files. Flat out, it wasn't reading the information embedded into the RAW files as far as creative styles go or anything as far as DRO went. What I would see on my cameras LCD would look very different than what I saw when I imported them into Lightroom. No, I don't shoot RAW+JPEG, only RAW. I couldn't figure out why this happening so I went digging.  I found a few threads here and here over on dpreview and flickr which touched on this happening but not a whole lot and then I saw someone mention "Sony IDC". A light bulb went off. 

  

  Like most photographers, the software that comes with our cameras we sort of consider "just there". In fact, I would think most never even bother to install the stuff. After all, we have the latest and greatest software from Adobe. Who needs factory junk which hardly has anything included in it, right? Right. Well....no, not right, in fact....very wrong. I opened up Sony IDC just to see what would happen, expecting nothing at all and just the same thing really. Boring software and no real fine tuning tools. Boy, did I get a shock. Right away I noticed a huge difference. We're talking massive. Everything that was recorded from the time of capture in my camera was retained in full. Everything. All the luminosity was there, the fine detail with the DRO, the shimmering of the Aspen and their colors when I saw them. All there. All retained. Needless to say I was rather elated and excited.

Click for larger size

Click for larger size

  Since finding this out I have redone my workflow entirely and now use Lightroom as a more of "in the weeds" app that my go to app for editing. My workflow used to look like this;

*Import photos into Lightroom
*Process in Lightroom
*Export out as a 16 bit TIFF
*Final editing in Photoshop
*Done

  My workflow now looks like this;

*Import RAW files into Sony IDC
*Fine tune exposure, DRO, camera settings
*Save RAW file & export out as 16 bit TIFF
*Open in Photoshop to edit, save TIFF file
*Open TIFF file in Lightroom and do in the weeds editing and keywording

  It sounds like it would take more time doesn't it but in reality it has allowed me to really cut down on the time to edit photos. I no longer have to mess around with trying to get back color from color shifting or retaining DRO which was basically futile. That being said.....

Not without caveats.

  There are some caveats when it comes to editing in Sony IDC and one has presented a real problem which I'll explain. There is a work around for this but it is kind of intensive and unless you know some things inside Photoshop (Lightroom is incapable of helping here) you may have some problems. It's times like this sites like YouTube come in very handy with video tutorials.


  Sony IDC has issues when it comes to 16 bit TIFF files and I haven't quite figured out why. It may be in the way the files are written themselves and I really need to contact Sony about this and thus far I have never heard this mentioned anywhere. Basically, when you export out a RAW files as a 16 bit TIFF, dithering can occur in skies. It's rather odd considering this shouldn't be happening at all and is basically 8 bit behavior and what you would find with JPEG images and as far as I'm able to tell, it only seems to happen in skies.

The work around. 

  I don't worry about how the skies look inside Sony IDC. Instead, what I do is now process the skies inside Lightroom. Things like DRO and camera settings don't matter much when dealing with a sky. I then export out that image from Lightroom to a 16 bit TIFF file. Inside Photoshop I use layer masking to bring that sky from Lightroom on to the other photo that was processed inside Sony IDC. Problem solved. This allows me to get the exact image I am looking for without the massive loss in quality due to dithering. Intensive? Perhaps. It doesn't take a lot of time however and I believe it's very much worth it. If you aren't familiar with how to use layer masks, simply Google or YouTube it. It's extremely easy and one of the most powerful editing tools in post work. One you use them, you'll always use them.


  The screen shot below is a really drastic illustration of what I am talking about. I was frustrated and was fighting with retaining DRO and adjusting the color shift inside Lightroom. I tried and failed to replicate what I saw in camera. As you can see, the oranges in the Aspen trees is basically toast, gone, as is the dynamic range from DRO which was recorded inside the RAW file from the time of capture. I opened it up in Sony IDC and there it was....all retained. The finished photograph is done using my workflow above (not the layer masking part of course as there is no sky).

Click for larger size

click for larger size

  In closing, those of you who shoot Sony may want to take a minute and take a look at your RAW files inside Sony IDC. It's a pretty huge difference and one that I think will probably surprise you.
It's worth the 5 minutes for sure. Be sure to check out my website www.jdebordphoto.com and my facebook page https://www.facebook.com/jdebordphotography  to keep up with my adventures behind the camera.

Yours,
John

Ramblings from a photographic junkie

I am gearing up for Fall and it has been far too long since I wrote anything on my blog. In all honesty I just have been so busy with everything that I haven't had the time. A lot of stuff has suffered like social networks, photo sites like flickr, 500px, deviantART, etc. BUT (yes that's a big BUT) there's a good reason for that too....I have been spending my time wisely with getting out as much as I possibly can with my camera. The result? Doing what I love to do like no tomorrow. I also had a lot of downtime shortly after January 1st due to a massive surgery that kept me in the hospital nearly a month, from which I am still recovering. Only until very recently have I been medically cleared to go to the mountains.

It's kind of funny however. You tend to really start to notice your immediate surroundings a lot more when you shoot close to home. Luckily I live in an area where I have endless amounts of photographic subject matter like state parks, national refuge's, amazing city parks, all of which have kept me incredibly busy.

Anyways....

I recently came across another photographers photo blog (wish I could remember who and I didn't bookmark it...doh!) where he basically explained "how to suck at photography". It was a very interesting read and I didn't agree with it all but it did make me think. One of the things he mentioned is paying too much attention to social media and basing your own self worth as a photographer on how well an image does, how many "retweets", "shares" and "likes" something gets. It's a very valid and good point and many times I have personally witnessed photographers basically give up because they don't get the attention they want, seek, or in some cases deserve on social media sites like twitter, G+, facebook and the host of others.

Let me throw you a bone. If this was 2005 what would you do? better yet, if this was 1998 what would you do? Before the entire world was online, before facebook, before twitter, before flickr. What would you do? We often see things in a negative light from the get go and that is one of the problems. A change of vision is in order and a change in how we perceive things is in order.

When I was recovering from my surgery I rekindled an old flame and I began to remember why I love the internet when it comes to photography. That fame was the love for seeking knowledge when it comes to photography as an artistic medium. The study of a picture, the ability to get lost in an image and admiring for what it is, a piece of art. Not how many comments, favs, likes, share it has but rather the inquisitive nature of how the photographer took the shot, why he clicked the shutter at that very moment, how he composed and framed it and how it was processed.

In a way, many of us have become cynics when it comes to photography on the internet and other photographers. We really have. You look around and you see a lot of posts posted by photographers which are subtle but very snarky. We've lost our vision and creativity due to over consumption of photography on the internet and we've changed our point of view from a learning process to one which sees every other photographer not as a friend but as a foe and a competitive enemy. It is hard to move forward when you have that monkey on your back. It's even harder when you stop learning and instead begin concentrating on how many page views and favs something has.

Create. Learn. Explore. Envision. Most of all, click the shutter not for someone else or for social media recognition but YOU. The roots are calling, it's time we get back to them and rekindle our love affair of what brought us all here to begin with!
---John

Here's a selection of recent work, as always prints are available, please inquire.

How does one get photography burnout?

Ok, honest question here, just how does one get photography burnout? I don't understand this and I don't think I ever will. I am fortunate enough to live in one of the most beautiful states in the country, Colorado, yet I hear people say this all the time. It confuses me, in all honesty. To me, photography is like going to the bathroom, you just do it. It is never a question of "I am not sure, I am kind of sick of shooting", or "I have shot there so often I am not sure I want to go again". Each and every time I return back to a location, I see something new, I see something which I would have never seen if I hadn't gone to begin with, and that my friends is half the battle, just getting out of bed, or dragging your butt to the car to get there to begin with. We only live once, so we had better make the most of it, right? For myself, that means bringing my camera just everywhere I go.

A good shot doesn't just randomly happen while sitting around at home on the couch, you have to get to the location first. I see a lot of folks who literally go in to hibernation and I just don't get it...really I don't. As an artist, I NEED to be creative, if I am not,  I go literally insane. I see beauty in everything and all around me, from when I walk in my backyard, to when I am sitting next to a waterfall up in the Rocky Mountains. It is the drive to capture it all on the camera that I enjoy, it is in my blood, it is in my every waking thought with "how can I capture this, how can I be a better photographer, how can I make the scene look best as a whole?"

Maybe it is just me, but I doubt that it is, in thinking this. Granted I have some extra drive in that photography is my sole income, but make no bones about it, I must create and shoot as often as I can. I don't just do it for the income and to pay the bills though, I do it for me. I do it for the sheer love, the experience of seeing things most people will never see in their lifetimes. I do it because I enjoy it. Isn't that what it really all boils down to? The enjoyment? So how are people getting burned out?

You know, it's rather freezing cold outside this AM, I think I will go get bundled up and go for a walk. Of course I am bringing my camera with me, too.
John



I have always loved capturing the textures during autumn and getting in kind of close to explore them. I decided to use my Sigma 28-90mm Macro on this shot, as it has some nice macro abilities about it. I wanted to not only capture the textures, but the light and color as well. Shot in my backyard, beauty in nature resides all around us!
Technorati Tags: photography, photo, photoblog, autumn, fall, Sony

Photography Community websites & Limits

I was recently saddened to see that one website I love, Naturephotographers.net started going to a more private community, allowing those who are not paying members to only post a message once in 48s hrs. A couple of weeks ago I tried to post a reply to someone in a thread which they had started to share information with them, but was unable to do so.

I understand that every website requires money to run, but I wonder why a photography community, where the sharing of information is essential, with things like locations, equipment, processing, would do something like this? Wouldn't it kind of actually hurt the community as a whole? I would imagine it would. After all I was unable to share information with one photographer who was looking for info on how to get to a specific place. It seems rather counter-productive.

Though I am sure that many of the paying members are unaware of this, I wonder what their thoughts would be about it? I have always loved that site, and it is one of the "Go to sites" on the internet as far as nature photography. There are others, like Fred Miranda Photo Migrations Bird Photographers and Nature Scapes All of which are very high end professional nature photography forums.

I guess I will have to start hanging on a more regular basis at those sites above I also mentioned. Photography is learning experience, one that never ends, it is also about sharing information, and when you are unable to do that, you lose a lot. Not only within the community you are a member of, but also your own personal knowledge as well.


Shot in rural Castle Rock, Colorado, this Horse just seemed to echo what rural Colorado life is like. Captured on my Sony a550 using a Tamron 200-400mm lens

Photography, photoblog, nature, naturephotographers.net, thoughts, community, social networking

The Musings Of A Photographer

The disgruntled upgrade path of a photographer---- Honestly Sony, wtf are you doing?!?!?! I don't know what exactly I am going to do now, but I think my plan is this; to go with what is now an "older Alpha", probably a200, a300, a350, and just wait and see. The newly released Alpha's have me more than disappointed, honestly. They lack features, features which I use in my everyday photography, and are clearly aimed at what I can only describe at Soccer Mom's. In fact, someone on the dpreview Sony dslr forum made the comment "The girlfriend dslr has officially landed!", while someone else said "Wife Camera 101 debuts!" (Seriously who the hell thought of a PINK lcd screen on the camera? WTF!?!?!?) You can watch the youtube review of 2 of the 3 new dslr's here I like how the Sony rep states "The a200's successor", ya, sure, lol It is dummied down for geeze sakes!

So here I sit, debating about all this, and wondering what exactly Sony is doing. I am going to have to sell my current dslr and a couple lenses (now ya all know WHY I bought 3 lenses from Ritz) to buy my new body eventually, which will happen in a few months. Sure, an a900 would be nice, is it realistic? No. Especially NOW considering all this and the fact that my money would be better spent in other real life issues. So I have come to a conclusion. I may just buy a cheap used a200 for now, and play the wait and see game, for a few. I am honestly very disappointed in these new cameras Sony has come out with, these are very beginner cameras, more so than any other out there and make a d40 look like a pro level camera.

If I don't like what I see, well, my only hope then is that Fuji releases the s6 Pro. Otherwise, I may just hop into a s5 Pro. Other than that, Pentax I have always liked, a lot, and Bestbuy has the Nikon d200 on closeout for $599.

How bad is bad? Look at this post on dpreview:

"Sony entry level DSLR's - redefining the term Upgrade

A100 had MLU, DOF preview, AEL button and SSS switch
A200 only had the AEL button and SSS switch
A230 has none."

The A200 was 70 gram lighter than the A100 and most people who handled both agree that build quality seemed to be worse with the A200. The A230 is 150 gram lighter, so I wouldn't be surprised if it feels like a cheap toy. To make matters worse, its framerate is now lower too (2.5fps vs. 3.0fps in the A100 and A200).

Does anyone want to guess what will go next? For the A260 I bet Sony is considering to drop PASM and RAW. After all, who need those?

I hate this crap. Minolta, where art thou? Please come back and save us, we dearly miss you more than we can say.....


Hey Photo Forums? Guess what? It's 2009! Wake up!--- You know what I can't stand, and is a serious pet peeve of mine? Photography Forum sites that only allow 700px-800px photographs on the longest side is what I can't stand. It is 2009, wake up! This usually equates to people posting photos from their flickr site that are like 400px in size. Seriously. How the hell is anyone supposed to see ANYTHING at a resolution of 400px? It's 2009, 24" monitors are the norm this day and age. If you didn't know, your ass better call somebody! I didn't join 4 forums because of this rule, the 2 exceptions is naturephotographers.net and naturescapes.net which only allows 700px on the longest, because, well, the info one gains there is next to invaluable.

Shutterstock CEO--CSR Skills Much? FAIL!--- Seriously, want to see how NOT to talk to your contributor base? This is ridicules and shows not only complete lack of respect but arrogance as well.

A little history first---The IRS is for some reason withholding taxes of international contributors on Shutterstock, even though they are not citizens and pay NO US tax. They have a right to be pissed, I would be too. There has been a massive outcry and well, there should be, as well. (Last I heard, wasn't America essentially founded on the catchphrase "No taxation without representation"? So do they get to vote in our elections then?) Check this out on the Shutterstock forums

Here is the post on how the CEO of Shutterstock responded to the community (not the way to address your clients mind you IMO. BAD customer service defined!)

Witholding Tax Issue - Calm down.

Okay.

1) This is a US government regulation. What would you like us to do about it? Go to jail? Go out of business? We are sorry - but we can’t just move the company out of the US or creating another company somewhere else to pay you. That is called tax evasion. These are laws. We can’t change the laws. We have 60 employees in NYC - they aren’t going anywhere.

2) If you follow the rules you won’t be double taxed. Your country has rules that we follow every day also. You may need to do a bit of work here, but we will help you out with them. You will have a chance to get your ITIN before we start following regulations and witholding.

3) If you don’t want to deal with this, then leave. We are happy to remove all your images for you. If I continue to read threads on the forum that you will be taking your images elsewhere, I will delete them myself and close your account. I’ve done it a few times already- I am not kidding about this.

4) Online petition claiming we are taxing you? Why would we be taxing you? Again, this is the US government. We are just following the law.

5) Want to change your avatar to something obnoxious? Again, I will personally delete your profile, images, etc. You are just creating more work for us.

6) If you think other microstock companies are except from paying tax, think again. It’s a matter of time before they start following the law also.

7) Why don’t US citizens have to deal with this? Because we already have their W9 forms. Don’t worry - they dealt with it also.

8) Welcome to doing business internationally. We will all make money together - but we have to follow the rules.

9) We will answer every single question you have - but you have to give us time to get to them.

Jon Oringer
Founder/CEO
Shutterstock Images LLC


Captured this past Sunday at Mount Evans Wilderness here in Colorado, Bristlecone Pines are the oldest living on the planet, it is amazing to think that some of these trees are literally thousands of years old, imagine the stories that they could tell if they could speak! To see more of my images, click the photo which will take you to the gallery on my website with the photos from my trip!Technorati Tags: business, Shutterstock, photography, marketing, photo, Colorado, Photography, landscape, outdoors, nature, thoughts, Sony, Minolta,

Reminiscing....

Reminiscing....

I wonder what one is to do when they become disenfranchised with their camera maker?

Minolta, where are thou? You were such a great legend, a great maker, an icon in the photography world....come back, for I miss you, I miss the days of affordable lenses, true dedication, and cameras that actually advanced the future.

These new cameras that just came out that has your mount, is not what I have known nor loved the last almost 20 years. A chocolate and copper colored DSLR? I did not get myself into a whole new definition of the word "Fashion Photography" by purchasing your cameras.

I don't want to switch systems, I just want my Minolta back, where the motto "Now you don't have to buy expensive lenses to have them stabilized" was a sales cry. Instead, we now have 70-200mm f2.8 lenses that cost more than a Canon IS lens of the same focal length.

Please come back Minolta, many of us miss you....terribly.....
---John



Technorati Tags: Minolta, camera, photography, nature, sony