Lessons In EOS

Rejoice, no choice!

2011-06-23T02:17:00.000-07:00

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

I'm currently reading a few books, including one called the 'Paradox of choice'. One of the themes is that too much choice brings negative side effects. People seem to want choice, and to exercise their freedom to choose - yet when choices are more limited they are better able to make a decision and happier with the result.

I got to thinking that this kind of applied to how I use my lenses. While I wish I could bring and have access to all my gear when I leave the house, I often find I use my camera more if I just pick a single lens and run with that for the day. Especially if the choice is a prime lens! It is somehow easier to make a choice and pick one lens prior to leaving the house. With everything in the bag I could obviously make the same choice on the fly, but somehow I suddenly want to pick the 'right' lens if they are all handy. I'd never grab my 28mm prime to get shots of the kids playing soccer - yet if that was the only lens I had I take photos with it and get something different.

Ah the simplicity of not having to decide if I want to zoom in or out... Rejoice! No choice! There are some extra benefits too, like learning how one piece of equipment works to a higher degree, getting comfortable with the angle of view, etc.

So next time you head out, limit your choices and see how you like it!

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Animoto

2011-04-26T16:01:00.000-07:00

Hey, I'm loving the Animoto service that allows you to upload photos and video and then makes a video slideshow out of it. It is pretty cheap if you don't want HD - I was able to create a video in a few minutes. It looks to be great way to share videos and photos with friends. I truly find creating a slideshow tedious at best, especially when a large number of short video clips are involved. Plus, you don't have to worry about copyright on music... The link above is a referral link, where you get money off and a free month if you sign up for a Pro or plus account. No pressure :)

Climate change stock photos

2011-04-18T14:46:00.000-07:00

Climate change stock photos can be found in my collection on Dreamstime, from a number of photographers including myself... Here are a couple of mine:

What to call the mirrorless format?

2011-04-18T08:39:00.000-07:00

DPReview has a vote going on to find out what people think the new mirrorless format should be called. They have a list of six options, but none really make sense to me. Just in case it ever takes off, I've got to put down what I would name the genre of cameras: High Fidelity Compact (HFC) or HFDC (high fidelity digital camera).

The issues with all the names they have, in my opinion, is that they don't distinguish from Point and Shoots with tiny sensors (which have never used a mirror) or by including the word 'system' they try to only include cameras with interchangeable lenses. But I think most would agree that the Fuji X100, Leica X1, Ricoh innovatively odd lens module system, Sigma's DP1/2 and so on are all contenders for dollars when it comes down to cameras like the micro-four thirds and Nex offerings. To me, it all comes down to the sensor size. Yet the mFT sensor is so close to an APS-C sensor it would be a mistake to rule out bigger sensors (surely the Leica X1 or Sony Nex are pysically smaller than the GH2 with bigger sensors). Mirrorless really just defines the viewfinder technology - so what about the new Fuji camera with a fixed mirror in the viewfinder.

Anyways, to me the 'format' encompasses too many different technologies to to try to build a name around any of those features - or you just exclude new developments from the field. I think it is all about getting higher images quality out of a small form factor camera. At the same time, the physical sensor size is kind of irrelevant - if we can get super high quality out of a sensor smaller than MFT in 5 years, will we care about that technicality, or just that it is high quality and fits in a pocket?

Brooklyn Bridge

2011-04-16T09:31:00.001-07:00

Here is a recent shot I took of the Brooklyn Bridge. It is always fun to play around with filter and so on. Tough to spend a lot of time on composition from a moving cab, so I'm pretty happy with the results...

Playing around

2011-04-04T21:14:00.000-07:00

With Dreamstime having some much lower weekly upload limits (35/week) I'm now running into the limit from week to week and having some time to play around with other stuff. Here are a few snaps that didn't work out so well that I tried to turn into something a bit more interesting. The cloud one in particular was barely different than a light blue swatch before I applied some levels and added grain, etc. Fun to play with, and result I enjoy looking at! I should add that DT wasn't interested in these as a collection, though I suspect they would get a few sales. I'm not heartbroken, as I did them for fun rather than for sales...

Something a little different

2011-03-24T21:49:00.000-07:00

I don't shoot flowers all that often, but here goes:

Back and White

2011-03-19T15:21:00.001-07:00

I played around with higher ISO, no flash, shot of my son after his bath and was very happy with this result. My only wish was that I hadn't touched the frame on the right side:

Don't miss CreativeLive !

2011-03-19T14:31:00.000-07:00

This has to be the best deal of all time - free! CreativeLive has a monthly weekend workshop that is broadcast live. You can purchase the course after the fact, but to watch it live is free. This weekend it is Bambi Cantrell - don't miss it! Coming up in July - Lighten up and Shoot...

Higher ISO on 7D

2011-03-17T19:35:00.000-07:00

It is pretty amazing what you get nowadays at higher ISOs. The shot on the left is ISO 160 and the right is 640 on my Canon 7D (click to see uncompressed at 100%). This is SOOC with no noise reduction applied in Lightroom. Bottom line is that I won't hesitate to use higher ISOs for shots I'm going to print or use personally.

Natural Light

2011-03-06T18:47:00.000-08:00

Who doesn't like to shoot in natural light when they can? I certainly do, but so often I'm either outdoor during the day, or not taking photos. This afternoon I had a nice chance to take some photos of my niece by their windows. Nice expression, and fun to not be thinking about where to bounce or position lights...

Spot metering

2011-02-17T12:49:00.000-08:00

In the 'old days' meters were center weighted, usually with a bit of a emphasis on the lower 2/3rds of the frame to avoid the sky contributing too much. Lots of things fooled such a meter - like backlighting, or a white or black main subjects. In modern times we now have the multisegment meters that make use of a large array of examples to compare the scene too in an attempt to overcome these kinds of challenges. The very latest meters from Nikon and Canon now use color as well.

All that is good, and helps the beginner get properly exposed images in a lot of situations without having to understand metering and exposure. For those of us who do understand such things, it becomes almost counterproductive. The multi-segment metering is invisible in its operation, and slight differences in framing can change the exposure dramatically. So - many resort to manual metering, or simply manual exposure. If you do use the meter for manual exposure I think you are better to switch to a more predictable metering pattern - either the center weighted or spot meter modes. The spot meter is the best, in my opinion, as it uses only the center of the lens and it is pretty easy to fill the meter area with a patch of solid color.

I've been using spot mode on my 7D lately, and find I'm getting more consistent exposures. Even with flash, I'm using the flash exposure lock (I have the mFn button mapped to F-El) to meter first, then concentrate on composition. Here is an example of a shot with bounce flash - but spot metering...

7D is sharp!

2011-02-12T21:08:00.000-08:00

I am generally impressed with the 7D's ability to focus and produce sharp photos. Contrary to things I've read elsewhere it is certainly good enough for stock photography. Here is a shot of my son - I certainly don't need any better :) I should add that this was using the single point focus mode...

Outdoors with the 7D

2011-02-12T16:04:00.000-08:00

Despite having a week off for skiing, I haven't spent much time outdoors with the 7D. Today was a nice sunny day so I brought both my 8.5mm fisheye and 70-200mm with me for some skating. The first shot here is with the fisheye (suprise, surprise). It is still pretty fun to use - and I haven't shot too much with it to the point that I'm bored of the look. It is crazy how close you have to get - I'm just inches from my nephew.

The one is with the zoom, zoomed in pretty close. I've been using the point expansion focus mode and it worked quite nicely. I have found that the zone focus tends to focus too close, so I've avoided it. I'm also trying out spot metering - it did a nice job here:

Photo arrived in the mail

2011-02-07T15:37:00.000-08:00

After a week of fun skiing with the kids at Big White, we arrived home to the first issue of the kid's magaizine 'Chirp'. To my surprise, the 2nd page had a photo of mine on it - licensed from Dreamstime. Along with calendars in Victoria, this is the one of the few photos I've found without looking for it.

The photo is below - they just used a small crop of the sled for a page on various objects you use to play with... Kind of cool for the kids to see their sled in a magazine!

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

7D turning out fine

2011-01-04T22:29:00.000-08:00

So far I'm very happy with the 7D. At low ISO it has amazing detail - with an extra 8 MP over my old 40D. I was somewhat concerned that I would start to find my lenses to be the limiting factor, but so far I've been pleased with the level of detail, sharpness, and ability to lock focus using my 24-105mm zoom, the 60mm macro, and even my 28mm f/1.8 lens. I haven't had a chance to take the 70-200mm for a spin yet - opting for the far more portable G12 for my recent sledding adventures with the kids.

Here is an example shot that was approved on Dreamstime today:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Nothing special at one level, but this is a tricky shot in terms of getting sharpness in the wood grain while avoiding noise in the wall paint. The 7D processed in Lightroom seemed to do just fine.

On a side note, I've been fairly pleased with the G12 as well. I've had a few approved from it now as well:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

This shot of a tree was fairly blah, but I was hoping to do something with it as a silhouette. It looked OK, but was tough to get enough color in it without overfiltering. I decided to push it over the top in an overfiltered look:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

In a previous post I said I was going to try to do a bit more with my photos, and I think these last two are evidence of that. The hockey one I deliberately shot into the sun to this image's advantage, and the tree shot I pre-planned some post processing...

Back to Canon...

2010-12-31T05:12:00.000-08:00

As previously posted, I was leaning towards giving micro 4/3rds a fair shake - but I just can't get the results I can from the Canon equipment. As I said, I would have to move to the 7D or 5D to get a bigger viewfinder. While they are indeed more expensive than the Panasonic bodies, they are more capable for what I do... So, I've sold my GF1 and gone back to the G12 and put the proceeds towards an update of my 40D to the 7D. Goals I have in mind:

1. Current model for high resolution in stock photography at base ISO. If I'm ahead of the curve now, the images I upload today will be current for longer.
2. Smaller RAW sizes (sRAW), lower noise high ISO for personal shots that don't demand high resolution. This is an area the micro four thirds system falls short...
3. Better AF. Microadjust for primes, zone focusing, AF tracking, point focus, etc. I've very curious to see how the 7D's point focus mode works. With my 40D I very often find that shooting a flat target is very accurate, but I get front focus when shooting something on an angle like a face. I don't think this is a microadjust problem but the physical size of the AF area picking up the front edge of the subject. Smaller AF targets should help nail the eye of the person.
4. Video.
5. Wireless flash - sell the ST-E2 and get the flash control without any physical add-on to the body. Sell the 40D as well.
6. Bigger viewfinder. 5D Mk II would be even nicer, of course, but the extra $1000 goes a long way with 4 kids... The original 5D is an option as well, but used they seem to be closer to $1200 or more if you want a low shutter count. For what I do I think full frame is overkill, and suddenly my 24-105mm doesn't zoom enough, etc. A 7D replaces my 40D, while a 5D would supplement it - meaning I can't sell the 40D to help pay for it.
7. More customizable camera. The more I like using my camera the more I bring it and use it - and the better the photos that result from that... I love the little details on the 7D: depth of field button can be used to toggle AF modes, LCD viewfinder hides non active AF points, AF in live view, etc.

We'll see how happy I am with it in a few months :)

Critque of my own photos

2010-12-29T21:03:00.000-08:00

Well, I probably won't do much actual critiquing, as I'm intending to show some photos I really like... Lately I've been focused on gear and stock photography on this blog as I sorted out my various equipment, but all along I've been happily taking shots of my kids that I really enjoy. I intend to step it up a bit in 2011 and focus a bit on developing my style. I find I tend to do things the 'safe' way, and while I have developed my skills in terms of exposure and getting sharp photos, I now need to turn more to composition and concept.

This shot of the kids sledding is one I think worked out nicely. I've got my son dead center in the frame, but I think it works well because of the other kids in the upper right, and the space it leaves for him to move into... It also has a kind of nice diagonal flow to it, from the upper right and through the sled to the bottom left. I'm not sure if his expression is one of worry or just concentration - probably the latter as at this point he hadn't bailed yet :) That said I think this is an example of a safe shot - but still one I really enjoy looking at.

Why you want an articulated screen

2010-12-07T20:22:00.000-08:00

For reasons I'll get into in a future post, I've finally decided to go back to the Canon G series in the form of a Canon G12. There were a couple of deal breakers with the G10 that made me move away from the G series down the micro 4/3rds road, and now that they've been solved I'm back ;) Those deal breakers were the lack of HD video of any kind (I'm happy with 720P), and the other was just a bit too many megapixels on the sensor. One key feature I missed with 4/3rds is the compatibility with my Canon flashes.

My main criticism of the Micro 4/3rds was that it really meant I would have needed to start duplicating equipment with my Canon gear to really embrace it. In the end, I think it could be very well suited for many applications - but not if you also maintain the dSLR system.

But back to the point of the blog, here is an example of the difference that having an articulated screen makes. The first shot is about as good as I would normally get without a screen that flips out. With my dSLR I would have been even higher up, not being able to hold the camera at arms length. The 2nd shot is the result after flipping out the screen and holding the camera closer to the ground! Forget pixel peeping for a second, this is a real difference in the image that makes it in my opinion! Wish I hadn't clipped her foot, though :)

Dreamstime hits 10,000,000!

2010-11-22T19:48:00.000-08:00

Wow - Dreamstime is going to hit 10 million online images tomorrow (Nov. 23). To mark the occasion, buyers are getting a discount on purchases and contributors get 100% of the royalties (110% for exclusives!). Get over there and check it out if you haven't already... Here is a link to register. As a contributor you don't necessarily love hearing about all new highs in the image count, but you can't slow it down by wishing about it, might as well be happy about the royalties :)

In case you haven't heard about stock photo sites, it is where you can buy a generic type photo or illustration for a few dollars and use it commercially. Great when you need that shot of a banana peel and can't be bothered to take it yourself !

Here are a few of my latest uploads available for purchase:

Sticking to Canon?

2010-11-10T08:13:00.000-08:00

I decided to really put my micro 4/3 GFI to the test yesterday and get some indoor shots of the kids. Frankly, I was a bit surprised. While the 20mm f/1.7 does very well in low light - it is 3 stops faster than the 45-200mm zoom. As soon as I started trying to work with the telephoto the AF was not great and the viewfinder was sluggish, even with relatively bright room lights.

My 40D, even with the f/4 zoom, was snappy and spot on for focus. This is pretty much a deal breaker - micro 4/3 is perfect for stock photography where I tend to have time and bright light. Small, easy to carry and cheaper, and I will continue to use it for that. But for now I'm just going to stick with what I have. Might as well try to learn to push the envelope on my current gear.

Flash was the other deal breaker - a big bounce flash is just huge on my GF1. If I switch to the Panasonic flash it would be easier to use, but then I lose all the nice wireless feature of my Canon system.

Moving to micro 4/3rds?

2010-11-03T07:11:00.000-07:00

I'm seriously considering moving to micro 4/3s for my main camera now that the GH2 is up and coming, here's why:

1. To get a larger viewfinder than my 40D I need to go to the 7D or 5D, which are $1,700 and $2,700 body only. The flagship GH2 is about $1,000.
2. Size/weight. I actually like a camera the size of a digital rebel, but have stayed a model up because of the larger viewfinder and better body controls. The GH2 is a perfect balance of small, with good grip and button placement. The GH1 wasn't bad, but the wheel on the front meant you had to take your finger off the shutter to change settings - much improved with the GH2.
3. Mirrorless. This isn't an advantage per se, but with the GH2 they have solved most of the negative, and added a bunch of positives:
3a. EVF. While an EVF isn't as good in some situations (low light) they really are pretty darn good, and the GH2 offers twice the refresh over the GH1. It also offers the same size view as a 5D in a body smaller than a rebel!
3b. Mirrorless. By getting rid of the mirror the camera functions the same way regardless of whether you are using the rear screen or the viewfinder. With the Canons you are still changing from great phase detect AF to crappy slow contrast detect when you switch. Only the 60D offers a flip out screen, and still a more expensive body.
3c. Sensor performance. Too early really say on the GH2, but with my GF1 I did some testing and an HDR capture made with it looks fantastic as an 8x10, which is as big a print as I'll ever scrutinize. I mostly put photos on my blog or in a photo book, so nothing bigger than 8x10 will be viewed closeup. Further, I rarely shoot at high ISO, and if I do I'm happy to accept some grain. Bottom line is that the dynamic range of these smaller sensors is still as good as my 20D was, with lower noise. Wasn't I happy with the 20D when it came out? ;)
3d. I'm able to get stock photos accepted from my GF1 at about the same rate as my APS-C camera, and if ever there was a test of performance viewed at 100% on the screen it is getting stock photos accepted.
4. Because Panasonic has embraced 4/3s as their only sensor in both still and video camera, I look forward to their plans for dedicated lenses. Unlike Sony, and probably Nikon and Canon, they are making lenses for full frame, APS-C and micro - which means most of the really good lenses are way bigger than needed. All my nice L series lenses for my 40D are wasted to some degree - heavier and more expensive as a result.
5. There are some very cool features that Panasonic offers because they have embraced this format with no legacy equipment: 3D lens (which presumably they correct in camera to only show the view from one lens), touch AF, AF anywhere on the sensor, re-sizable AF points, face detection AF that is fast, cropping in camera at 1:1, 16:9, 3:2 and 4:3, live black and white, 40fps crop mode, 2x digital zoom in still and video.
6. Video. I'm not a huge fan of taking the time for video, but at least this camera offers some advanced stuff like full manual control, AF during video, audio levels and a flip out screen. It also offers some of the highest bit rates in a combocam, plus video out monitoring. Video isn't going away.
7. Easily adapted lenses. Using the very short mount means any lens can be adapted to this format. Some cool stuff like tilt shift lens adapters are possible too.
8. I'm trying to get out of the constant upgrading of equipment. With micro four thirds I can get more features, same lens coverage in a smaller kit and end up with money left over - versus dropping another $2,000 for a state of the art Canon. No focus micro-adjust needed, either :)

What am I losing?

1. Fast lenses. This isn't a big a deal - with my Canon my L zooms are f/4 anyways, and the 20mm f/1.7 is my perfect focal length. My guess is that Panny will eventually step up with more options.
2. Macro. There aren't a lot of cheap macro options.
3. High ISO - but I hardly ever actually take advantage of it.
4. Weather sealing and durability. There is no question that my L lenses are tough, but they are also really expensive. I can replace a lot of 20mm pancake lenses before I'd pay for a 35mm L.
5. Depth of field. This is a wash - with wide angles you can get more depth of field at say f/2.8. With the larger sensor you should get more background blur - but I don't notice this in practice. Being selective about what is behind your subject makes more of a difference. I don't own a f/1.2 lens for my Canon, and frankly my 20mm f/1.7 can be used wide open in bright sun - not realistic with my 28mm f/1.8 Canon.

Fujifilm X100

2010-09-19T21:30:00.000-07:00

Now this looks like a sweet camera!

Fujifilm x100

Having fun with it

2010-09-13T21:41:00.000-07:00

It turns out that 28mm is a focal length that I love using! I was worried that the shorter focal length would be unflattering for portraits and that I'd need to be so close that I influenced the picture. Turns out that I was close enough to influence before I had the 28mm, and when I'm a little ways back and not directing the photo it allows for some interesting environment to creep into the frame. For shots of kids, the little bit of distortion doesn't really harm anything - but I'll stick to something like a 50mm or 85mm if I'm doing formal shots...

I took it on a hike the other day and aside from putting on a zoom to get a few shots at 200mm I never really wanted anything else. Sure having fun with it :) The f/2 aperture really made a difference too - nice and bright to look through and in the woods I'm still getting 1/60s or 1/100s where my zoom would dump me down to 1/15 or 1/30s.

Year over year microstock progress

2010-09-08T07:03:00.000-07:00

© Photographer: Bradcalkins | Agency: Dreamstime.com

There are lots of ways of measuring progress in the Stock Photography business, but my favorite is to look at my year over year increase in sales. As one continues to upload you hope (expect!) that your sales will grow too. I like to take the comparison a step further and divide by the increase in online photos. If the result is above 100% then you are increaseing revenue faster than you are increasin your portfolio. Comparing to the previous year's month in this way helps avoid some of the month to month jitter - if July sales are always lower for me I shouldn't get excited about a better August. Looking at my portfolio this way I am very pleased! Below is a graph starting about a year in (hard to do year over year in the first year!) - it shows that every month I've increased revenue per photo online faster than I've been uploading, very encouraging! Surely a large part of this is the fact that DT files sell for more as they rise through the levels, but whatever the reason its working for me...

Hubble, it isn't

2010-09-02T21:34:00.000-07:00

OK, this isn't the best piece of astrophotography to hit the blogosphere but I was surprised how many stars one could see in a patch of sky from the city. My new lens, close to wide open, did a fair job of catching some stars. Looking forward to some shots next time I'm in the country with something to put in the foreground other than some telephone wires:

New lens - 28mm f/1.8

2010-08-31T11:36:00.000-07:00

I've been torn up about this lens for a while - there are a lot of mixed reviews on it, and I couldn't find a store that had all the options to test out. I had tried the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 on a 5D II and liked it. I found a few cases online where tests showed how it looked on something other than a test chart and it looked good so I ordered one up. Here are some initial shots. Focus is spot on (shots at f/2.5). Wide open it has a dreamy look, pretty similar to the 50mm f/1.4 in bright light - looks good in low light higher ISO, though. Outdoors I'd stop down to f/2 or below. Overall I'm impressed - and much cheaper than the 35mm f/1.4 L :)

And a center crop from the shot above:

Canon 60D and Sony SLT-A55

2010-08-26T06:24:00.000-07:00

© Photographer: Bradcalkins | Agency: Dreamstime.com

In the last week two new cameras have been introduced that are of interest to me. The first is the Sony SLT-A55. It is unique in that they have adapted the Pellicle mirror idea from the 60's to modern SLRs to allow the faster phase detection autofocus to be used in movie mode. Most SLRs flip the mirror out of the way (or have no mirror like my GF1) and use contrast based AF off the sensor. Fuji makes a unique compact with some trickery up its sleeve with a few modified pixels in the center, but otherwise this is a new solution to the AF during video problem.

Advantages:

1. Fast autofocus during video.
2. Full time view in viewfinder allows eye level video shooting for more stability or in bright light where the screen is hard to see. No blackout between still photo shots. Should translate into faster response time after the shutter press, but on a lower priced body I doubt it beats the best.
3. Solves some of the problems with the original Pellicle mirror design: a partially silvered mirror loses light in the viewfinder - with an EVF this can be corrected with more amplification. Another issue was light leaking in the viewfinder - again no problem with the EVF sealing the body.
4. Potentially much better AF tracking during high fps shooting since the AF sensor has a continuous view. This could be a really big deal if ever adapted into the high end Canon/Nikon sports bodies.
5. Fewer moving parts.
6. Potentially allows different lens design as the mirror won't hit the rear element (Canon Pellix has two special lenses).

Disadvantages:

1. No AF when stopped down to f/8 or smaller. All phase detect camera have that issue, but not it applies to video. Still - better to have great AF down to f/8 for most users.
2. Mirror is now the dust and grime collector. I've always been warned not to touch the mirror due to its delicate surface - I wonder how that will play out over time. No dust reduction on mirror I don't think. Note that due to the mirror being away from the sensor this should mean dust won't affect the photo in the way that dust in a lens doesn't. That said, the top of the mirror is close to the sensor...

The 2nd major announcement is the new Canon 60D. I've been waiting for this to be released to decide what to do - I want more megapixels for stock, but just can't justify a 5D Mk II. 7D is very interesting but I didn't want to spend the extra only to find a similar spec'd 60D. I don't really see much video shooting for me - I have a GF1 that does a fine job of HD video for my purposes, and it is usually the camera I have with me for family outings when I want to take video. So that said the 60D announcement is somewhat ho-hum. The interface on the body is simpler, has SD cards, new grip, new batteries, same AF as the 40D, plastic body, and some of the former button functions are now in the LCD menus. Flip out screen is nice, but better for video. No PC Sync cord option. On the plus side is the same size viewfinder at the 40D, level, flash commander built in, etc. I'll have to get this in my hands to make any sort of decision.

By the way - what is with 'amateur' cameras having 18MP? I just can't imagine having lenses that can take advantage of all that for someone on a budget.

Profile your camera

2010-08-11T12:20:00.000-07:00

Since I got my GF-1 I've been bothered a bit with trying to get consistent color between it and my DSLR (Canon 40D). While I don't really expect an exact match, I do find that I like the color on the Canon better, and the Panasonic seems a bit off. Skin color especially seems tricky to get right with any of the built in presets for white balance and 'film style'. I tried profiling it in Lightroom today and below is the result. There is quite a different in the individual color patches and how much more saturated they render now. Looking forward to doing the same with my SLR and comparing them with some real shots. First up is the original / default profile, second is profilied from a target... Decide for yourself :) Definitely less of a difference on the blog than directly compared in Lightroom.

For those who like 100% crops

2010-08-10T22:55:00.000-07:00

I've written reviews on the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens and how I didn't love it wide open. Live and learn - it is worth bringing up a couple of points about that statement.

The first is that if you buy a lens to shoot wide open and expect perfect results you will need both perfect technique (for focus) AND an expensive lens. Most primes have some flaws, and shooting wide open in bright sun is usually on that list of flaws. I've been disappointed by hearing how great a lens it and then getting mixed results when using it.

Here is a perfect example. This was shot in slightly overcast conditions, at f/1.4. Note that the grass looks really good. I did a little contrast boosting to help it out, but really quite good results. What you notice, though, is the purple line around the white object on the lawn. I was able to reduce the purple in the second shot, but still pretty obvious.

The crux of the issue is that you really should use your widest aperature for what it was deisgned - lower contrast, lower light shots. Stop down to f/2 or f/2.8 for wide open bright day stuff. Looking at the grass right around the center of the frame you'd be hard pressed to say there were any issues. Bottom line? Pay attention to how people use a lens before you take their advice - if you only shoot test charts (white/black high contrast) you'll have a poor picture of how the lens with behave in the field. And hence why so many mixed reviews on lenses are out there.

My Camera Couture

2010-08-10T06:57:00.000-07:00

A colleague at work has a family member who has started up a business selling custom and interesting camera straps. I took a quick look at the site and will surely be getting something to help her out. Check out her products and accesories at http://mycameracouture.com/category_12/-ShoulderNeck-Straps.htm.

For the fun of it...

2010-08-09T06:50:00.000-07:00

I find that as I get or change equipment over time I use it heavily then go back to the basics for while. This weekend I thought I would get some shots of a friend's baby, but my kids too. Rather than do what I've been doing lately I broke out the shoot through umbrella, remote trigger and setup near a leather chair. In between baby shots I grabbed a few shots of my kids too:

Simple, classic lighting but makes a nice record photo :)

Vignetting and metering...

2010-07-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

I did a quick search around the web, but I couldn't find anyone talking about this particular problem (if it is one). I've often noticed that different lenses might require different exposure compensation, etc. It occurs to me that if you are using a prime lens with a wide aperture, especially a wide angle, if has dark fall-off towards the corners (vignetting). Since today's camera meter with the lens wide open, this must impact the exposure calculation to some degree. If you end up shooting at the wide aperture, then the metering may well be bang on, but if you are stopping down to f/8 and the vignetting is gone - you may well end up with overexposure. Just another thing to think about, but at some point I'm curious enough to do a quick test with my prime lenses...

GF1 doesn't disappoint...

2010-07-26T07:55:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about my Panasonic GF1 the other day and there is really only one thing that bugs me - the inability to zoom in on playback and then step through pictures to compare them. I was telling this to a friend and was saying that they could have just used the dial's ability to be pushed in to swap modes. As I was saying this I actually did push the button in and lo and behold it did exactly what I wanted. So there you have it - nothing to complain about :) Seriously, though, it is a very capable camera, especially if there isn't too much dynamic range. I find on a bright sunny day it is hard to hold the highlights - but this is a bit more technical than it seems as I'm usually happy with the photos themselves...

I also really like combining Lightroom's Black and White ability with my GF1:

Lightroom 3 Release

2010-06-08T07:45:00.000-07:00

I've downloaded and tried out the version 3 beta of Adobe's Lightroom. Adobe has now released version 3 for sale. I'm very seriously considering taking the plunge into an all RAW workflow with Lightroom. Anyone had any success stories (or not) with Lightroom?

Full frame 'myth'

2010-06-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

The are many reason to go full frame, but two of the most touted ones make me wonder:

1. Better dynamic range.
2. Lower noise.

The problem is that this argument is usually in the absense of the resolution, or generation. When I look at the numbers the Canon 20D and the 5D MkII have the exact same pixel size. So you can't talk about full frame having a 'deeper well' compared to a crop camera, or when comparing a crop camera to a compact. Not necessarily, anyways.

Personally, I find my 40D with smaller pixels offers lower noise than my 20D ever did. So what is going on? Why do the new 5D and 7D offer lower noise AND higher resolution? The answer is that there are several things going on.

1. More resolution means more noise per pixel, but at the same time you have more pixels. So for a print of the same size, or view on screen at the same subject area you get to reduce on the higher resolution sensor. According to DXOMark this actually turns in the favor of the higher resolution sensor.
2. Each generation of sensor offers new technology. Larger microlenses mean that the actual pixel size gets closer to the actual area the light falls on. Better processing means manufacturers can increase the S/N to some degree. Thus, comparing a 5D MkII to the 20D isn't totally fair. Same size pixel and new sensor technology.
3. Field of view - for a full frame sensor versus a crop sensor with the same angle of view you are gathering more light, onto a larger area, with more resolution. That helps...

So it isn't all hogwash, but don't tell me that a full frame sensor has larger pixels than a crop sensor or I'll pull out the cheap original digital rebel that has larger pixels than a 5D MkII. In case you are interested, the original Canon 5D and 1D MkII are still the champs of pixel size in the pseudo 35mm SLR sized camera market. That is probably why the Nikon D700 is so well regarded. They've kept the megapixels at the same size at the original 5D, with a few years in technology development.

Wowza...

2010-05-21T09:40:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I had what must be my best day ever in stock photography - at least in terms of sales. 42 different downloads! Everything from crinkled paper, to a chocolate bunny went home with a lucky buyer...and my personal favorite - a VCR tape from a friends house:

Lens reviews

2010-05-12T22:55:00.000-07:00

I'm a big fan of looking into a purchase as much as possible, but how do you know who to trust or what to pay attention to? Here are some tips for wading through the murky world of online lens reviews:

1. Screen shots. You can't really trust jpgs posted online for review. There are just way too many factors that go into compressing and uploading to sites and the final quality. It is far more important to pay attention to what the reviewer says about the product that the actual images. Any lens can produce an image that looks good at 640x480 resolution.
2. Is the reviewer a photographer, or a reviewer (or both)? If they are a reviewer getting paid to do reviews or supplied products to review their impression of a new piece of equipment is limited to a short amount of time with it. It is important to ask yourself if they took photos with it that will be similar to your subjects.
3. Test charts don't tell the whole story. Sharpness is just one of many aspects of a lens' performance. CA, fringing, vignetting (dark corners), distortion and bokeh are just a few of the optical properties of a lens. Quality of manufacture, AF performance, maximum aperture, zoom creep, minimum focus distance, weight, and other physical factors add to the list. My personal experience with lenses is that the black and white test charts may be the worst place to start when evaluating a lens. Some would argue that only prints tell the final story, but if you submit to stock sites then how it performs on screen at 100% is important.
4. Sample variation. If you get into reading reviews you will ultimately hear about how a lens has varying quality, that you may need to test 3 or 4 copies of a lens at the store to find a good one, etc. There is clearly some variation between lenses, and that is too be expected as a manufacturer can't have perfect calibration. There are small variances in the alignment of the camera body (mirror, AF unit, sensor) as well as the lenses calibration. Hence why modern bodies allow the user to adjust things. But that isn't the whole story. You have to learn how to use a wide aperture lens, for example. You may be used to locking focus with the centre AF point and recomposing - that may be fine at f/5.6, but with an f/1.2 lens wide open you may move a little while recomposing and throw things way off. Another catch is people who shoot the ruler on an angle to determine front or back focus - the AF point isn't exact either. I did a recent test with my 40D where I focused on a spot on a plain wall and it was still hitting focus on the spot with it completely outside the AF point in the viewfinder...
5. Expectations. When recently looking for a wider (28-35mm prime) I found that just about every lens reviewed had the comment "we expect more from a prime lens". It just turns out to be hard to make a wider angle lens that is optically good from f/1.4 to f/16!

My personal take on this topic is that you should read the optical reviews and see what they say - if you can't find anything positive that is probably a good indication. Then take a look in Flickr groups for the lens, and see what kinds of shots people are taking with the lens in question. That says a lot to me... Certain lenses just have galleries full of shots you wished you'd taken, and others are a bunch of ho hum shots with people gushing over them - those are the lenses I try to avoid :) Bottom line - don't take it too seriously as there is no perfect lens. Here are some sites to try:

Photodo
SLRGear
FredMiranda

RAW = Copyright?

2010-05-12T07:54:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of talk on stock photo sites about whether you can prove ownership/copyright if you sell the RAW files. A second issue is whether it is worth selling the RAW files to subscribers to sites (who may pay the same small fee for a RAW file as a tiny JPG).

The copyright issue revolves around the idea that selling the RAW file is like selling your negative - now the person holding the RAW "negative" can prove they took the jpg, just like the original photographer can. While this would certainly complicate a legal battle, my guess is that you would still win the case. The RAW file has embedded information about the camera and lens used that one could presumably prove you owned at the time, or the photographer can 'prove' they took the photo by showing others taken at the same time. The latter strategy helps jpg only shooters too. There is nothing that says you have to shoot RAW to win a copyright case. That said, I have a simple solution for people who do want to increase their stock photo revenue by selling RAW files - convert the RAW files to DNG and post those. Keep the native manufacturer's RAW files for yourself only. Since going to DNG is a one way process (you can't go from DNG to the native RAW file) you still retain the ability to show proof of the original RAW file - just make sure you don't select the option to include the native file when you do the conversion! This has a secondary benefit too - you increase the chances that a buyer owns software that can do the conversion, a problem for anyone using a very new camera.

The 2nd issue is whether selling a RAW is worth it. I sell RAW files on Dreamstime and have probably only sold 5 RAW files for full value. When that happens it seems worth it as you can get $10-$15 for a sale. The rest usually go for $0.42 (I'm exclusive) - though DT changed the pricing this year so level 3-5 files sell for $0.84 or $1.26. What selling RAW files do on Dreamstime is raise the level of the file. I have had many buyers buy both the large jpg and the RAW - double the dollars earned for that sale and boosting future revenue as well. Finally, on Dreamstime a buyer can search for files with a RAW option - in many cases I feel this helps a buyer find your file. They may not actually buy the RAW option, but they may get to you in the first place becuase of it - think of it as another way of increasing exposure.

What I don't understand are those who are selling stock who feel the low subscription prices aren't good value for the RAW file. I'm producing content to sell to buyers who need photos - and many of those are graphics editors who will want to process the files themselves to get the highest quality result. How can I shoot RAW, argue that you should shoot RAW to maximize quality, and then expect the buyer to make do with an 8-bit jpg processed on my potentially uncalibrated monitor?

I think the answer lies in your motives for doing stock. If you are spending hours submersed in a pool of water to get a shot of lions feeding on the shore you probably won't be happy with a $0.50 sale (RAW or JPG) - and probably shouldn't be selling it as stock in the first place. If you are happy getting $0.25 for a large quality jpg, why do you care if the buyer pays the same for the RAW file? They want to publish it - give them the quality they want!

If your focus is on Art - and your final image presentation is very important to you I can see why you might not want someone processing your original RAW file and then crediting you, but then I don't see why you would sell your files as stock in the first place since there is nothing stopping someone from doing a bad job post processing your jpgs...

New Sony NEX cameras

2010-05-11T08:31:00.000-07:00

Today there are some previews and reviews of the new Sony cameras with a larger format senor in a compact body. The field is getting pretty full, with almost everyone except Canon, Nikon and Pentax having offerings in the mirror-less segment. What is most curious to me is how Sony made the publicity photos such that they almost emphasize how big the cameras are rather than how small - why have a large zoom mounted and then use a closeup shot to make it look even bigger?

I'm not getting rid of the GF1 anytime soon - these new cameras are interesting, but the jump from a 1/1.7" CCD to micro four/thirds was big, but from there to APS-C just isn't that huge. I'm happy with the quality/size ratio of micro 4/3. It also has the advantage of adapters being out there for just about every manual focus lens ever made. Once again, I was happy when I popped my GF1 into my coat pocket.

5,000 sales!

2010-05-10T07:35:00.000-07:00

I finally hit 5,000 sales yesterday evening - I've had this number in sight for a long time now. Here is the image that rolled me over:

In some respects, getting here seemed kind of inevitable - with 300-400 sales a month it is a matter of time. On the other hand, nothing is for sure and those sales were the result of hard work up front - building up a portfolio of almost 2,000 images. There is no free lunch in stock, but it does show that you can get significant revenue from stock if you set your mind to it. I'm at the point where I'd need to work more than 60 hours a month at a minimum wage job to get the same income - and I like doing this a whole lot more :)

Micro 4/3 advantage

2010-05-01T19:56:00.000-07:00

My brother in law recently purchased a Canon S90, and I was interested to see how the current state of the art in higher end compact cameras compared to my GF1. The S90 has some great features, and I would argue it is easier to use than my GF1... I've felt that the GF1 has significantly more satisfying results on screen at 100%. I do a lot of my work on screen, and sell stock so the pixel level does matter for that. In actual prints I would be happy with the S90 for most things. I did a quick shot in the yard today to compare then on a bright sunny day which puts the S90 in its best light (pun intended). Since I do a lot of work with the GF1 at low ISO for stock, it is only fair to compare it to the S90 at that setting.

I used to have a Canon G10, and often felt that areas in photos were mushy. Something like blades of grass or tree limbs would look great, but faces, singles on a roof or moderately busy areas didn't quite have the detail I can get out of a DSLR. I felt the same way looking at the S90. Looks great on review, nice prints, great for computer viewing, etc. - but lacking a bit at 100%. Below is a crop midway to the border of an image. Not a strict test, to be sure, but it shows what I consistently find when editing photos later. Just a bit mushier - look at the bench texture. Keep in mind that the GF1 is almost 3 times the price, and double the volume. I'd be very happy with the S90 if I didn't do stock. Note that the lens on my GF1 is the excellent 20mm prime compared to the S90's zoom. There is no doubt that the GF1 suits my needs well, and was worth the extra dollars to me. For my brother in law? The S90 fits the bill nicely too. Everybody's happy :)
Please don't take this comparison to the nth degree - the key here is that this is representative of results that I get with my camera... I wouldn't notice the difference in a 5x7 print done at a lab with these two cameras. Note the sensor size difference made me use a more open aperture on the S90 to avoid diffraction... Both are stopped down somewhat from their maximum apertures.

Level 3 in a month...

2010-04-29T09:29:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you create an image that seems like it will be an obvious seller. The one below is like that, and has moved up two levels already in the month or so it has been online. I'm especially pleased since we got the binoculars for 'free' when our car repair bill was high :) Maybe I'll be able to pay off the bill with this shot!

© Photographer: Bradcalkins Agency: Dreamstime.com

Bokeh by Zeiss

2010-04-21T18:52:00.000-07:00

I've become increasingly interested in Carl Zeiss lenses, but still don't know if I'll actually spring for one. The 35mm f/2 Distagon seems to fit the bill for a high quality fast prime for under $1,000 (unlike the Canon 35mm f/1.4). No autofocus, though :)

Anyways, Zeiss has a newsletter and currently has a very comprehensive PDF that goes over many of the challenges of lens design and how it affects the characteristics of how a lens 'draws', among other things, the out of focus areas and results in good or bad bokeh. Of note are a few key points and reminders about bokeh - there are many misconceptions out there: the bottom line is that there is more to it that just the number of blades (though that helps too!).

Reminding us of our limits

2010-04-19T07:56:00.000-07:00

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

As in control as we humans might like to think we are, the Earth has a way of reminding us that we are just invited guests on this planet, rather than the owners. This week's volcanic eruption in Iceland put a stop to thousands of flights to and from London - including some family I have planning a trip overseas. It is always humbling to be reminded that we are at the mercy of the weather, and I happened to be in Washington, DC around this time to see some of the preparations being made for the upcoming Earth Day in the Washington Mall:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Nice trend!

2010-04-01T00:02:00.000-07:00

Below is a graph of my quarterly results from Dreamstime. I've stripped the absolute numbers, but the key point is that the trend over the last 8 quarters is straight up. It hasn't varied much according to my upload rate - other than to say I've kept that pretty steady too. What is of interest to me is that while the monthly sales seem all over the place, and often feels like I'm not gaining ground by uploading, the actual trend smoothed over time is remarkably steady. Of note is that the revenue is gaining partly due to increased revenue per download - whether due to the higher pricing or movement of files to higher levels is hard to discern. I'm very satisfied with return from Dreamstime on my efforts in uploading. It is nice when you get more and more monthly income for the same level of monthly effort :)

March was a good month...

2010-04-01T00:01:00.000-07:00

My sales on Dreamstime were excellent last month - a best month for me. My individual sales and revenue were higher than ever. RPD was a little less than February, but still up quite a bit since the new levels and pricing took effect in January. Of note is that I'm seeing a lot of first time sales - almost 100 images were purchased from my portfolio for the first time in March. 30 files moved up a level, including 2 into level 4. Finally, I was 1 image short of 100 uploads. I don't think I have it in me to get another 180-ish up by the end of the month to hit 2,000 by my 2nd anniversary on Dreamstime - but one can always try !

Here is my first sale of April:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Stock mirrors life...

2010-03-27T09:06:00.000-07:00

Here I am, putting tile in my shower stall this morning when someone buys this photo:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Instant success!

2010-03-24T00:01:00.000-07:00

I love it when an image sells for the first time within a few days of initial upload. I've had a few of those lately, and it always makes me feel like I know something about shooting for stock - but then I look at the other 19 from the same day :)

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Yes - brick has been done before, but I've noticed that the Pansonic GF1's 12 MP files seem to get more attention. Not sure if it is coincidence or not, but if you are looking for a background texture I don't know why you wouldn't want the most pixels...

Not sure if anyone else is seeing this, but lately my sales seem to be on a real roll. I had an EL sale today, and yesterday managed to bring in 23 sales!

New sensor technology?

2010-03-22T00:01:00.000-07:00

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

In an interesting development that (as always for new technology) seems to solve problems with the current technology, and promises 4x the efficiency of current CMOS technology, InVisage has developed a new sensor type based on Quantum Dots. Very promising if it comes close to their claims of 2x the dynamic range!

Hopefully we'll be able to have our cake and eat it too!

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

First time sales

2010-03-19T00:01:00.000-07:00

One measure of success in stock photography is the number of images with a sale - unique sales. While revenue wise it may actually be better to have 1 of out 100 images selling 100 times over, there is some satisfaction knowing that the images you are spending time on and uploading are actually being purchased. Of the 1,800 images I have online, some 1,038 have sold at least once. I think that is pretty good - over half have sold... One thing I've noticed lately is that I actually sell images for the first time quite often. For example, just yesterday here are images I've sold for the first time:

This one I've had online since July 2009 - which goes to show you time helps sales:

Many of these were just recently uploaded, but of note is that I've sold more first time files in a day than uploaded (average). That should hopefully take things to new levels - literally on Dreamstime...

Do you print?

2010-03-18T18:46:00.000-07:00

I read an article over on Luminous Landscape that talked about how you just can't judge a camera without considering physical prints. While I won't attempt to dispute that for fine art purposes, or many other applications, stock photography in particular is an area of photography that is totally focused on "pixel peeping". Images are taken, processed, uploaded and sold with no printing on the part of the photographer. In many or most cases the image sold won't even be printed - if used in a Powerpoint, web page design, etc. In many other printed cases the quality of the print would be minimal due to output size. Certainly there are those who would ultimately print a brochure, annual report, magazine or art to hang on a wall. Those uses would be more demanding, but again except in the art cases the ultimately image quality would be limited - and the image supplemenatary.

On the other hand, stock images ARE reviewed by editors at 100% magnification. In that sense, the actual pixel level performance of cameras is much more important for stock photography than other uses. Not to say that it is of no importance, but a person buying from a thumbnail (or 800x600 comp) isn't even given a good example of the work prior to purchase.

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Demanding 100% pixel level performance be of utmost importance does not really advance the art of photography, but it is a valid way to evaluate a camera if that reflects your end use... How many stock photographers ever truly appreciate or even need to know about the fine art of printing?

More flowers, abstract

2010-03-17T07:00:00.000-07:00

Flowers are a typical subject that is hard to get approved at stock agencies. It isn't that they don't want them, but that they are a common subject among 'amateurs' and also easy to come by. Finally - flowers are beautiful all by themselves! Last weekend I was at a friend's for dinner and noticed their clear glass coaster sort of acted like a sheet of glass with water drops - only easier to move around. I glanced around the room and figured the vase of roses would be cool to shoot through it. I (naturally) had my 40D, 60mm macro and flash at the ready so I held the glass close to the flowers, focused on it, and bounced the flash off the ceiling to light the flower behind. Voila:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Dreamstime changes upload limits

2010-03-12T17:31:00.000-08:00

Dreamstime has had a very generous upload limit on contributors, as long as you have had an acceptance ratio above 50% or so. For my tenure with Dreamstime I have been able to upload anywhere from 50 to 150 images per day. I'm not sure who has ever used the maximum (1,500 images a month!) but fair to say that many of the larger contributors make use of the daily limit several times a month.

© Photographer: Bradcalkins
I tend to upload about 3-5 images at a time. My goal is to produce 3 images a day, most of the time to get close to 100 a month. The new scheme doesn't limit me at all in practice, but does drop my daily limit to 20, from 50. The big news here is for those who have a low acceptance ratio. People under 30% were limited to 2 images a day. Now they will be able to do 5 /day, unless they are under 10% (still upped to 3/day).

© Photographer: Bradcalkins
This could allow some to dig themselves out of the low AR hole at a faster rate, but frankly if you have improved significantly even 2 / day is enough for most to up their AR in a couple of months. The problem is that someone who has an AR of 10% who really improves to 20 or 30% still has to upload 10 images just to get 2-3 online - this continues to build a large chunk of rejectons over time. For those with really low ARs, this may have the opposite effect - they can be a little less choosy in their uploads which may in fact keep them low. On the other hand, big contributors like Yuri Arcurs will have to actually hold back images. It remains to be seen if that is good for the site, but for me in particular it should be a good thing since it will serve to improve my exposure (given my rate of uploading stays the same and the big contributors will be reduced). The theory is that this should help keep the larger photo shoots from diluting earnings for a contributor.

© Photographer: Bradcalkins
Arcurs has argued in his post on exclusivity that limits make him be less risky - since he has to get on the images he knows will sell, ahead of those that might... This new limit is still significantly more per month than iStock allows, so hopefully it won't keep the 'interesting' images away from Dreamstime!

Spring has arrived

2010-03-12T08:10:00.000-08:00

Granted, these are cut flowers from a greenhouse, probably, but spring seems to be in the air. I'm happy to see this flower shot made it online - I'm had trouble getting flower shots up due to so many already being online.

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Another that I did a while back that was accepted:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Depth of field for different sensor sizes

2010-03-02T12:17:00.001-08:00

40D - 24mm f/4
GF1 - 20mm f/4

There is a lot of talk about how people love micro 4/3s becuase of the ability to get more out of focus backgrounds (shallow/less depth of field). At the same time, the argument goes against micro 4/3s in favor of APS-C. Then again, in favor of full frame over APS-C. I've seen both side of the argument, and decided to do a quick comparison between my Canon 40D and Panasonic DMC-GF1. The problem with these kinds of tests:

1. Different focal lengths. Without going into great detail, you have to choose between using the same focal length, or same perspective/angle of view. I went with the later, choosing a focal length on my 40D that approximated the GF1's 20mm lens. I eyeballed the 40D and ended up using 24mm - about 38mm in 35mm equivalent field of view terms. The Panny had the 20mm x 2 for about 40mm. Pretty close.
2. Aperture. When it comes to compact point and shoots versus an SLR it is unfair - SLRs have lenses avaiable with much larger maximum apertures so you'll always be able to isolated better. In the GF1's case I happen to have a wider aperture there than most of my SLR lenses (85mm f/1.8 excepted). I chose an aperture of f/4 so I could compare with a similar field of view. It won't be as dramatic, but that is kind of the point - take a look at what I can get with my normally used lens on the 40D (24-105mm).
3. Foramt. The GF1 has an image sensor size ratio of 4:3, while the 40D's is 3:2. This creates some minor differences, but for this example I just tried to keep the subject the same size.
4. Resolution. The two cameras have slightly different resolutions - the 40D's 10MP compared to the GF1's 12. As you can see, they aren't that different, and really if you cropped the GF1 to 3:2 it would be close to 10MP.

My main question was how did the backgrounds compare - did the Panny have visibly more sharpness resulting in a more distracting background? Sort of. Sure the 40D has a little more blurring, but that is partly because the lens is wide open (circular aperture) versus the Panny's stopped down f/4. All in all I wouldn't really notice this difference in practical terms. Of course, all things are never equal - I can get MORE blur out of the Panny at that focal length becuase I don't even own a f/1.7 lens in that range. Or I could slip a 50 f/1.4 on the GF1 and walk a little further away. In my opinion, the difference over a compact is there, but against the slightly larger APS-C sensor lens and aperture available is more important the sensor differences. I could affect it more by moving position a bit and selecting focal length. With the 20mm f/1.7 Panny lens I can get enough separation for my taste...

I really don't think it is worth the fuss - you are much more hampered by the 4/3s lack of lens selection that a slight difference in blur. This is a knock against the Olympus system (by some), but who makes an f/2 standard zoom (Olympus!) versus everyone else's f/2.8...

You know you do stock when...

2010-03-01T08:03:00.000-08:00

...your four year old asks "Daddy - do you have a picture of everything in the house?".

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

The Quality Myth

2010-02-27T09:34:00.000-08:00

One thing I keep hearing in the message boards on Dreamstime is the idea of quality versus quantity as it relates to DPI (downloads per image). Contributors with high DPI are seen to be more successful per image, but also attributed the honor badge of 'quality'. Does this mean if you have a low DPI you aren't uploading quality? NO!

The thing is, DPI is only affected by two factors - the number of online images and the number of sold files. Let's analyze what affects this number and how you can change it:

1. Time. The longer you are selling images, the higher your DPI. Keeping everything else constant every sales contributes to making your DPI higher. While we can't increase how long we've been doing stock other than waiting, you will notice that most poeple with high DPI have been doing it for a while (2005-2007).
2. Images online. When you upload new images, you instantly knock your DPI down. If I had 1000 sales with 250 images people would say I had a high DPI and a quality portfolio. I could then upload 250 new images and my DPI would drop in half. That says nothing about the quality of my portfolio, and in fact my (previous) DPI on the older images shows that I'm likely to sell the new images well too. As I will show, stopping uploading is the fastest way to boost DPI, but the worst choice in terms of revenue. Note the opposite is also possible - you can cull non-sellers out of your portfolio, boosting your DPI (with no new sales!). Does this add quality? Yes, but also shows how a contributor can artificially make it appear they had good up front selection (to anyone looking solely at their DPI with no history). I could seriously boost my DPI if I pulled out 500 non-selling images - but I don't know which will succeed later!
3. Sales. There is no doubt that a portfolio with high sales has something going for it. I question the use of the word 'quality', though. More often it is a niche that someone has hit. I see high DPI in small portfolios of a single topic. Could these contributors continue to upload on the same topic and increase sales? Probably not - they've focussed on their best shots already. Adding more of the same dilutes sales. I gauge my sales success on my monthly sales per 100 images online. This seems to remain pretty constant for me, and shows what my ability to generates sales from a given number of uploads is. I get about 20-25 sales per month on 100 onlines files. This is a number specific to Dreamstime, and not that important in many ways (say revenue) since a given site with higher sales may have lower royalties, etc. But it is relevant to DPI.
4. Depth of the sales. Most of the small portfolios I've seen with high DPI are by people who started early in stock and stopped uploading. This is the recipe for high DPI - get in early (so sales trickle in and boost DPI), stop uploading so you don't knock it back down.
5. Luck. A good article from the master of stock, Yuri Arcurs, says that he can predict "40-50 percent of sales, max". So even the master of quality (large format, quality equipment, quality lighting, models, experience) still says he can't predict which will sell. So I think luck really comes into it. You'll find in people with high DPI that many with small portfolios have a very small number of images with large sales, and the rest don't do well. In other words, they got lucky or deliberately delivered on something buyers really needed.

So what do I call quality? A large portfolio (> 1,000) with steady uploads where both new and old images contribute to a moderate DPI (2-5). Arcurs has both of those, plus a high DPI. But consider how high sales on a portfolio with 25,000 images continues to add to the DPI despite uploading 800 new images a month. That is almost the exact rate I'm adding to my portfolio! Also, a portfolio where the popular images go beyond the first few images says 'quality' to me...

Finally, an example (I'm making some assumptions based on my experience). Consider two contributors with the same mysterious ability to deliver on quality (sales). They both get 25 sales a month for every 100 files online. They continue to upload for a year adding 25 images a month. At the end of year 1 they both have 300 images, and a DPI of 1.6 (487 sales). Contributor 1 says "I'm doing great" and stops uploading. Sales continue and by the end of year two she has added another 900 sales, ending up with a DPI of 4.6. Contributor 2 continues to sell and still uploads another 25 a month ending year two with 600 online. Contributor 2 has a lower DPI of 3.1, but generates twice the sales. I would argue they have exactly the same 'quality' or ability to generate sales, but the resulting DPI is totally different. If contributor 1 had started a year earlier, total sales and DPI would be even higher!

Bottom line, I don't think a high DPI is the final word on a contributors quality!

Stick with it...

2010-02-25T06:29:00.001-08:00

A while back I was reading an article on a new 'technique' called ttv - through the viewfinder. People are taking old cameras and attaching them to digital compacts and shooting through the viewfinder of the old film camera, being sure to include the viewfinder itself. I thought it would make a good border for stock (although purists eschew fake borders, of course). I got my hands on an old Pentax k-1000 body and figured I'd give it a try.

It was harder than I thought. The viewfinder has an optical distance of about a meter so you eye can focus, so a macro lens wasn't needed. What was hard was that most lenses I had didn't have the angle of view to get the whole viewfinder in. My trusty Panasonic GF1 and 20mm lens came to the rescue.

I was disappointed to see it not accepted on Dreamstime yesterday, so i made a few changes and got rid of the ground glass and focus circle which was grainy (true to life!). This morning, this was online:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

And while I'm at it, here is the back of the camera:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Vacation pays off?

2010-02-24T07:56:00.000-08:00

I basically managed to pay for our trip to Hawaii last November with stock photo earnings... Which is great! But even better, the trip is now paying for itself. Today marks the day that I got a full payout ($100) just from the trip! That took about 4 months, so I should be able to go back to Hawaii every couple of years now, right ? :)

Couple of the more popular shots:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

My family looked at me funny when I took this one, but I got the last laugh:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

4000 sales!

2010-02-21T09:36:00.001-08:00

Wow! I hit my 4,000th sale today... I've been doing the stock photo thing for just about 2 years now and have been very happy with the results. Hopefully things keep on the rise :)

Fittingly, it was one of my assignment entries that hit the 4,000 mark:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Stocktastic!

2010-02-19T07:26:00.000-08:00

I've finally signed up someone on DT who has got some uploads going - helps that it is a close friend :) Here are a couple of his images:

© Photographer: Stocktastic | Agency: Dreamstime.com

© Photographer: Stocktastic | Agency: Dreamstime.com

Finally...

2010-02-18T07:35:00.000-08:00

A few months back I picked up a Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens but then won the contest and purchased the Panasonic GF-1 right after. As a result I've kind of been neglecting getting out with the 10-22mm. For stock, I think it lends itself to outdoors since indoors you need a pretty clean room to use a 10mm lens without clutter :) Here is a recent shot that was accepted on Dreamstime:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

On the technical side, I've found it to be very sharp and easy to use. It is fairly light and compact, and is still pretty wide when mounted on my GF-1 (20-44mm equivalent field of view). The CA is pretty low compared to other wide angles, but with a backlit tree you do get some. For a large print you probably wouldn't notice, but I still cleaned up the CA a little bit in Photoshop prior to submitted to Dreamstime.

The depth of field is amazing - this was shot at f/10 or so and the really close branches are only a few cms from the front of the lens! According to DOFMaster you get from 24cm to infinity when shooting at f/11!

Re-visit old stock images

2010-02-16T12:27:00.000-08:00

I attribute some of my success (almost 4,000 sales!) on Dreamstime to analysis and subsequent incorporation of feedback provided on the site. One such lesson is the importance of titles, descriptions and keywords. In the early days of uploading I frequently revised as I learned better approaches to keywords. Titles turn out to play a big role in how an image sells early on. In that light, I frequently take a quick look at images that have been online for a while with views and no sales. Below are two examples that I changed titles on, and was quickly rewarded for my efforts with a sale:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Interestingly the words used to search on for the second image didn't relate to my title changes - the keywords used to find my image were: "senior alone woods", and "Outdoors". In the first case a mere 14 images in the Dreamstime database match those terms: Senior alone woods

Winter through a pocket camera

2010-02-12T07:36:00.000-08:00

We recently took the kids up to Big White for a week and the Panasonic GF-1 proved to be a capable companion to my Canon 40D. There was no way I would have taken the 40D along when helping a 2 year old ski - the GF-1 slipped into my jacket pocket nicely.

Of note is that unlike my old Canon G10, niether of these shots needed noise reduction or downsampling to get a sharp image. Again - not shots you couldn't have done with the G10 or another compact, but ones that saved some steps in my workflow and resulted in higher resolution files.

One point about using the LCD to compose in bright winter conditions - I can no longer say that I haven't noticed the LCD washing out in bright sun. While totally sufficient for composing, it was pretty hard to judge exposure other than on the histogram (which is fine). On the other hand, I could shoot with my ski goggles on - greatly speeding up the process and allowing me to get more shots without annoying people I was skiing with :) I should also add that I was able to take shots, adjust EV and shutter speed without taking off my mitts (not gloves, mitts!).

Assignment entry AND editor's choice

2010-01-27T07:58:00.000-08:00

I submitted a few entries in this month's assignment on Dreamstime. The shot below is one of them, for the 'first steps' assignment focussed on people in the act of learning. I actually had this image queued up for submittal a number of months back but held off becuase I hadne't uploaded releases for the out of focus kids yet. I found that it was accepted this morning for the assignment, but better yet, it was selected as an editor's choice as well! All good news with the promise of increased porfolio exposure in my near future :) This was taken with my 40D and 70-200mm f/4 lens...

© Bradcalkins

Two images found!

2010-01-26T20:26:00.000-08:00

Just by chance I found two of my images out in the real world this week. Last Friday I flew through the Victoria airport and I took a second to glance in the Victoria calendars on sale. Amazingly I found one of my images in the first calendar I looked in! This is the shot they used for February 2010:

© Bradcalkins

Then, on Monday I received the latest copy of Photo Life. Sure enough, I had an entry in this month's Showtime contest that made the cut (the theme was Juxtapositions):

© Bradcalkins

Environment Ransom Note

2010-01-15T06:41:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been thinking about some type of theme to focus on - and the environment seems like a good choice. Both becuase it is something I feel strongly about, but also becuase it is a hot topic these days. Here is an example of a recent upload - I was hoping for a bit of humor, too!

© Photographer: Bradcalkins Agency: Dreamstime.com

© Photographer: Bradcalkins | Agency: Dreamstime.com

And of course, there are always classics like this:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins Agency: Dreamstime.com

Free stock photos

2010-01-14T12:13:00.000-08:00

Many people may be unaware that Dreamstime offers free stock photos, in addition to the commercial ones. In some cases they are older or lower quality, but many are there because contributors want to attract people to their portfolio.

This is an example of mine that I donated a while back:

Recyclable

There are some additional limitations on use, but for many these may fit the bill - especially for non-commercial work. I also found it of use when I started out in stock as I could get my hands on top contributors images to get a feel for how their quality was at 100% to see if I was in the ballpark or not quality wise. Handy to avoid rejections on your own work.

You'll also note that contributors get their other images shown next to the free one, so this may provide some additional exposure. You still have to sign up (I think) to get the free images, but there aren't any other charges or commitments...

Ski season

2010-01-08T07:55:00.000-08:00

I've been planning on this image for a while, and fortunately got some ski goggles for Christmas. Getting something new helps same time as you don't have to clean out any dust and scratches prior to shooting... I made use of a mountain image for the reflection. I like this type of image as it doesn't take much time, but is a lot more dramatic that just a shot of goggles. I would imagine that any magazine using this for an article would probably highlight actual products - and therefore wouldn't buy a logo free shot. Thus, my target audience is someone looking for generic googles - and this calls your attention a bit more than just goggles. It also helps to hide the logos on the strap that you would otherwise see through the lens.

© Photographer: Bradcalkins | Agency: Dreamstime.com

I had the idea of a hockey goal shot while skating at the rink, but it proved to be quite hard to get. I had my son throw the puck repeatedly into the net so the net was sort of bulged out with the puck. Looked better than this shot, I think, but I just couldn't get it sharp and in focus. Thus I settled on this shot...

© Photographer: Bradcalkins | Agency: Dreamstime.com

Is a software feature free?

2010-01-07T07:55:00.000-08:00

© Boris Kocis Dreamstime.com

In reading various blogs and reviews it often comes up that a manufacturer is being mean spirited by 'crippling' low cost cameras by taking out features that are software only (like mirror lock up, RAW storage, etc.). The original Canon EOS Digital Rebel was missing key features of the 10D that were later added back in via software hacks and the like.

Why do people think that adding a software feature is free for a manufacturer? For sure there is an element of not hurting sales of more expensive models by keeping some features out, but there ARE costs to adding a software feature beyond the obvious:

1. Testing! If you add a feature it must be tested. Testing the feature in another body/product does not mean you can skip testing in the new product.
2. Documentation. You must document every feature in a camera - this adds costs to the product when you have to pay someone to document it.
3. Support. More features means more support costs. Ultimately there is someone who can't figure out how to use the feature that needs help. While a tech support person who has used a feature in one body would know how to use it in another (without additional training) it does increase costs if you have teams dedicated to a product line...
4. Firmware releases. The cost of releasing a patch or update to correct a problem goes beyond testing and distributing the patch. You must also include the cost of bad press. So if you do add a feature 'for free' and then have to patch it you've really lost the bonus of that feature.

Another assignment entry

2010-01-06T07:57:00.000-08:00

At the eleventh hour I thought of a new take on my pollution shot from China. It has been relatively successful, so reworking it seemed a good fit for the assignment (reshoot or improve upon what you've done before). My favorite part of this shot is that the zipper is from the Dreamtime jacket I won in a previous assignment :)

© Photographer: Bradcalkins Agency: Dreamstime.com

GF1 + EF 85mm f/1.8

2010-01-04T08:15:00.000-08:00

The other day I slipped my EOS adapter and 85mm prime onto my GF1 and slipped it into my coat pocket (once again proving the size of the GF1 makes it very portable compared to my 40D). I was able to grab some manual focus shots of the kids sledding, but also this one of my parent standing atop a snowy hill. This and others were accepted for stock, which is a pleasing side note. I can't say enough about how much I'm enjoying the GF1. I wouldn't try to manually focus my 85mm on the GF1 for moving subjects, but having a telephoto (170mm f/1.8) for 'free' is great. The fact that it fits in my pocket AND that I can go sledding with it stowed there is icing on the cake :)

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Manual focus is actually quite well done - a quick press of the dial on the back and you are looking at 5x for focus, then a tap of the shutter zips back to full screen. The only thing that would be better is if it showed a partial enlargement so you could still see the 'whole' image behind for faster framing.

I would also say that I'm not a huge fan of the out of camera jpgs, but as I shoot RAW anyways I'm pretty happy with the color on this camera. Here is an example shot with the pancake lens:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins

Perfect bokeh

2009-12-30T07:29:00.000-08:00

A lot of talk goes on about the out of focus rendering on a lens. This is a shot I took recently with my new 85mm f/1.8 lens wide open. The OOF highlights are perfectly round - something you don't see in many lenses... I often wonder why not, since the blades themselves aren't even in the picture.

Then, there is the new Panasonic GF1. While I admit I love the out of focus rendering, it doesn't come close to circular blur wide open except in the centre of the frame (taken with the 20mm pancake set to f/1.7):

New assignment image up

2009-12-29T07:32:00.000-08:00

I went for a Christmas theme on the assignment this time around. Hopefully this turns into something again! One overlooked aspect of the assignments is the jump to 100 downloads. That gives you a real boost in getting your image noticed - perfect for something like a Christmas image that might not be needed for a few months... I don't think I'd upload this shot so far in advance of Christmas without the instant Level 5 rating. Feel free to head over to Dreamstime and vote for my image :)

© Photographer: Bradcalkins Agency: Dreamstime.com

Do we need a new Sunny 16 rule?

2009-12-23T08:52:00.000-08:00

Many photographers who have been around for a while will be familiar with the 'Sunny 16' rule. On a sunny day you set the aperture to f/16, and the shutter speed to 1/(ISO). If you camera is set to ISO 100 you'd use 1/125, or 1/90 as the shutter speed. Rules are useful, as far as they go, and as cameras have had meters added it becomes less useful.

People do still like to shoot in manual, though, and it is still relevant to have a place to start for exposure - especially for white or black subjects which you'd have to compensate for if you used the meter. I'd like to suggest, however, that the rule needs an update - shooting at f/16 just isn't a good idea with today's digital sensors. Most sensors these days (APS-C or micro 4/3, anyways) start to hit the limits of diffraction by f/16. It is better to shoot at f/8, or even f/5.6. On a digital compact like the G10 you don't even have f/16 as an option! Note that I'm talking about using f/5.6 or f/8 as a starting point - there are good reason to use f/16, even with diffraction...

So here is my new 'Sunny 8' rule:

On a sunny day, set the aperture to f/8 and the shutter to twice the ISO speed.

Note that these days shutter speed are displayed as their reciprocal (at least on my 40D's top LCD and in the viewfinder), so why not lose the 'one over' part and just tell it like you set it!

Off to give it a try :)

GF1 and stock

2009-12-21T09:48:00.000-08:00

The GF1 is proving to be a capable stock photography camera, as well as being perfect for my go anywhere camera. Unlike the G10, which I left at home too often, the GF1 gets grabbed whereever I'm going. The G10 wasn't a camera you could slip into your shirt pocket either, so I'm not really finding any cases where I wish I had the slightly smaller G10. As a result, I'm also getting more out of the GF1 in terms of stock photography - just becuase I have it with me. Here are couple of recent uploads that were accepted this week:

Wow! DT corrects mistake...

2009-12-16T08:24:00.000-08:00

DT Announces error in our favor...

On a lot of levels it isn't necessarily good news, but it certainly has a happy results. DT has found that they were shorting exclusive contributors. I've actually e-mailed support as ever since the last price update (going from $1 per credit to $1.67 or so) I seem to have less, not more per credit revenue. I used to routinely get $0.60 from a 1 credit sale (i.e. 60% commission on a $1 credit). Since the update I have only seen about 3 (out of thousands!) cases where I got more than $0.60. I've been getting $.35-$.50 per credit for most. This was bad news on a few levels - first it meant that despite a big jump in price I saw no more income per sale. Higher prices should discourage use a bit so you'd hope the jump in royalties would more than offset the prices (as they would if buyers were not really price concious at this level). I was worried that the jump in prices would mean more buyers were getting pushed to subscriptions. In effect, I was basically seeing NO NEW CREDIT PURCHASES - based only on per credit revenue. This was troublesome to say the least. I e-mailed support and they responded that sales must be coming through partners, hence the lower income. As recently as two days ago I was starting to go through the earnings reports to try and show my per credit revenue over time - which should be going up and wasn't.

We'll today they announced that they were shorting exclusive contributors and are adding the dollars back to accounts. They say it is a few cents per sale, but I've got over a thousand sales in the last few months so that adds up - over $300 already... Something to smile about - not so much for the $300 (which is nice, of course!) but more so for the expected rise in RPD. Going forward I'll be getting more per sale than I have. I did a quick calculation and this boost in earnings has raised my RPD for ALL SALES (not just recent credit sales) by 10 cents - that is significant!

My take on this is that DT messed up after the last drop in non-exclusive royalties a few months ago and applied that to exclusives as well. Pure speculation, of course, but that would agree with the approximate dollar value, and number of sales affected. Combined with the recent news about levels going up, this could mean quite a difference for the new year in terms of RPD.

Dreamstime ups prices, lowers levels

2009-12-14T21:11:00.000-08:00

Interestingly, Dreamstime has announced that the number of credit per sale will go up in January, and they have also lowered the levels required to hit higher credit values. Both good per sale for contributors, but will buyers go elsewhere?

Link to post

Micro 4/3s adatper with EOS mount lenses

2009-12-14T12:14:00.000-08:00

Indeed, it works! Here is a shot from a lensbaby (illustrating that it works, not that I can get a great image with it!):

The Lensbaby mounted on the GF1 (for some reason I think it looks a little dorky, but looks don't matter much versus not using it at all):

Here is a wide closeup with the EF-S 10-22mm mounted on the GF1:

And shown on the body:

I'm really looking forward to taking the GF1 on trips, with the 10-22mm thrown in the carry on for some tight interior shots. This combo works nicely due to the large depth of field wide open. The manual focusing works great too - for static subject you just hit the Focus Point select button, then hit Menu/Set (or move the area around first to focus off center) and you are presented with a live 5x or 10x view. I wouldn't choose this combo over an SLR for fast action, but for macro or landscape work it 'works'... The lensbaby, on the other hand, is perfect given that it doesn't have focus or aperture control anyways.

I'm still shocked by my ability to get excited and describe something as 'perfect' when it doesn't do anything - but that is what this camera brings out in me :) Next thing you know I'll be buying the Zeiss ZE mount lenses and raving about their MF perfection on Alt-Lens boards!

m4/3 to EOS adapter

2009-12-14T07:56:00.000-08:00

I'll be looking forward to posting some pics from my GF1/EOS combo - the adapter arrived today. It fits both EF and EF-S lenses, so I'll be trying it out with:

EF-S 60mm Macro (alot cheaper than the 45mm Panasonic Macro if it works!)
EF-S 10-22mm (pretty wide, and with the smaller sensor I get quite a bit of depth of field even wide open - 3.3ft to infinity)
EF 85mm 1.8 (I'm very interested to see how this performs)
Lensbaby 2.0 (especially given the upcoming contest! Seems cool, but needs to be on a tripod to hold steady)

I'm curious to see how the sharpness and corners look, since I have to either shoot these wide open or do the 'hold down the depth of field preview button' trick when I take it off my Canon body.

Power meter

2009-12-11T07:00:00.000-08:00

Here is a shot of a power meter that I took with my new GF1. We had a new meter installed so it was sitting at very close to zero, and I thought I'd better get in there and grab a photo early on. The photos were pretty boring (see example above), so I spiced it up a bit with black and white and a zoom effect. The zoom helps to get rid of the logos, at the same time as it plays off the energy side of things. Happy to say it was approved for sale today - another stock shot with the GF1. DT isn't accepting Panasonic RAW files yet, so I've been converting to DNG - probably more useful to buyers anyways (they don't have to have the absolute latest to make use of the files).

Tiny viewfinders?

2009-12-08T14:02:00.000-08:00

I'm interested in the opinion of people who use point and shoot cameras... One of the criticisms levelled against the Panasonic GF1 and the like is that they lack an integrated viewfinder. While I agree that a viewfinder is better than not having one, all things being equal - the form factor of the GF1 versus my SLR is significant. If I need the stability of the larger camera held to my eye, I can pull it out - assuming I have it with me! Otherwise there are tripods...

The GF1 lends itself to all kinds of situations where I find I don't have my SLR with me. I'm curious how many people that use Point and Shoot sized cameras with viewfinders actually use them on a regular basis? I used to have a G10 that had a viewfinder on it, and aside from a couple of shots taken in bright light out a plane window, I almost never used it. So to me, losing the viewfinder wasn't a big deal. Anyone else agree?

Is it just that I live somewhere where there isn't as much direct sunlight? Sure I can go to the GH1 and get a viewfinder in almost the same size, but that adds a lot of cost to the package...

Flash for GF1

2009-12-07T07:37:00.000-08:00

I told you I'd bring Canon's EOS system back into the fold! With much trepidation, I followed a large number of online poster's 'advice' and tried my 430EX on my new GF1. Happily, it fired the flash. While I don't get eTTL, manual for flash is pretty common anyways. I can balance my exposre for ambient with on camera controls and then use the manual adjustment on the 430 or 580EX to adjust the flash level. In theory, the fact that this triggers at all means I should have no trouble using my wireless trigger and off camera cords, etc. Very exciting!

Here is a center crop of a test picture. Note that this doesn't illustrate much (nothing does on the web!) other than that I can get an exposure right with bounced manual flash on the 2nd try, and that the GF1 does what I'd hoped - delivers the resolution of an SLR or Canon G10, but without the noisy, grainy look of the G10 in unfocused areas. There is something odd about the GF1 - until now I've been excited about things working together in fully compatible auto modes - but now I'm getting excited about being able to use a lens without manual focus or aperture control, or a flash in manual only :)

85mm f/1.8 Canon prime lens

2009-12-04T08:06:00.000-08:00

After sort of moving to zoom lenses for most of my work, and only the 60mm macro as a prime, I rented the 85mm f/1.2 recently. While this lens is very much beyond any kind of reasonable price that I could ever justify, it got me interested in both primes, and the focal length again. I liked the ability to be a bit further away and get less in focus compared to my 60mm.

As well, when comparing the 135mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 the depth of field difference was there, but not something I thought I would notice a lot if framed right. As well, when I rented the 135mm I found it nice, but a bit long for most use on a crop sensor camera. At the same time, I became convinced I would appreciate the 35mm f/1.4 L lens as well, but couldn't justify it, either. As mentioned previously, I ended up deciding on the GF1 instead of the prime lens - and I've been happy with that decision.

Then I found a refurbished 85mm f/1.8 and decided to give it a go. Since the alternative at 85mm in the Canon lineup is so outrageous, and even the 'cheap' 135mm is three times the price, I'm happy to have found a decent prime lens that should get some use. Here is a recent stock image taken with this lens. I like the out of focus background, and even her ears are showing some blurring at f/2...

One thing I haven't quite understood with primes is that they often seem to have poor results in tests wide open. One wonders why you would pay for such a lens over a zoom if you "can't" even shoot wide open with it. And there is the problem - the reviewers often ask the wrong question. They are asking how well does it perform taking shots of a black and white, high contrast target in bright light - what they get is a bunch of CA and fringing, and general lack of contrast. If you actually take such a lens and shoot in the kinds of conditions where you want a fast lens, you find that it performs admirably. Hence why there are so many reviews that primes aren't great, not sharp wide open, and then a whole bunch of people using it for professional use and swearing by it. You need to actually use it to rate it! How often will I shoot back lit leaves with this lens wide open? Never! How many wedding shots are blurry, slightly soft, but absolutely loved because they captured the emotion?

New images online

2009-12-04T07:32:00.000-08:00

Had a group of images approved today, but for some reason the one below really appeals to me. I don't know if it is the old engine, the blues, or what - it just feels like it could as easily by 1970 as 2009...

The shots of the kids playing on the WII guitars are pretty cute, too:

First GF1 shot approved

2009-12-03T07:37:00.000-08:00

Well, 1 out of 1 isn't really a long term trend but I'm pleased to see the first shot I submitted to DT with my GF1 was accepted. I don't see another contributor using this camera yet - unless they've just left it off their profile details. Definitely some folks using the G1 or GH1 to submit. After processing a few photos from this camera, I can see it will have a significant reduction in workflow time compared to the Canon G10. The files it produces are just great!

I also find it is easier to use than my 40D on a tripod for manual focus work. Live view is its primary interface and it shows. Looking forward to getting my EOS adapter so I can put my macro lens on it :)

Panasonic GF1

2009-11-23T08:15:00.000-08:00

I've been interested in the large sensor compact camera segment since the Sigma DP-1 came out, but could never commit to paying that much more for a camera that handled like the Sigma. In the last year, though, both Olympus and Panasonic (and now others like Leica and Ricoh) came out with large format sensor compacts. The thing I like about both of these is the possibility of interchangeable lenses, as well as the option to use my Canon lenses to some degree (I'm excited to try my 85 f/1.8 out with a 170mm f/1.8 equivalent! or my lens baby).

In the end, winning the Dreamstime assignment and winning some money tipped me over to the point where I've decided to take the plunge. I really liked my Canon G10 and how it handled, but there was always something about the colors and ultimately the image quality that I didn't like. At one level, you could really work it and get some shots that were almost indistinguishable from a DLSR (like my 40D). On the other hand you really did have to work it. The light had to be right, you had to spend time tweaking it, or even downsampling to get rid of some noise. Interestingly, there was some kind of sweet spot for the sensor. Too little detail and it seemed noisy. Too much detail and it seemed muddy. But if you could get it just right on a sunny day - WOW! 15MP of excellence! Ultimately, though, my goal of the compact camera was three-fold:

1. Occasional work and stock photo use where I didn't want to bother with a 'big' camera.
2. Family shots, quick movies, etc.
3. Stock video (someday).

The G10 just never seemed to hit it on any of the three, except the quick movies of family. While the sensor could turn in nice detail, I found that in practice for family shots the light was never quite right to get great shots. Faces were always lacking in detail for some reason. ISO 80 and a f/2.8 or slower (if you zoomed at all) lens meant putting on a flash or getting lots of noise when indoors. And the movies were limited to VGA resolution. All in all, I found it started bringing my 40D when I really wanted to carry a compact because I knew I'd get better pictures.

Enter the Panasonic GF1:

I picked it up on the weekend and so far have been very impressed. Colors (even via RAW Conversion) are better than the G10 with little tweaking. Noise is non-existent at base ISO and shows lots of detail. It has HD video when I get into that. And a pleasant surprise was the more SLR like depth of field. With the f/1.7 lens I'm getter sharper shots indoors with pleasant background blur - this really bring a sense of depth into the photos.

The bottom line so far, is that despite the additional cost (almost twice the price), it is already the camera I grab when I head out with the kids, or to snap a couple of available light shots at dinner. As well, I like being able to shoot with a black and white image on the live screen and shoot in a 1:1 format. It is just plain fun! I don't know if the extra cost is justified in terms of actual better prints, etc., but I can already see I'll spend little to no time processing for stock use, and the fact that I'm happy with it means it will be getting used a lot more than my G10. The almost non-existent shutter lag versus my G10 is very nice as well...

I know that this is an 'EOS' blog - but I just couldn't wait any longer for Canon to come out with something like this... I had been thinking about a 35mm f/1.4 for my 40D, but I can already see that grabbing the SLR, switching lenses and carrying it around just isn't anywhere close to the convenience of throwing the Panny on the shoulder and jumping in the car with the kids - and cheaper too. So I guess the 'lesson' here is that the EOS line has a hole in it :) Don't worry, I'll bring it back to EOS once I get the EOS adapter...

New shots

2009-11-23T07:23:00.000-08:00

Among other new shots, I'm particularly pleased with how this shot turned out:

And, no, I didn't bribe him with cookies - he was getting some whether he helped or not :) It isn't that hard to get a boy to smile at a big plate of cookies!

Canon 85mm f/1.2 II Prime

2009-11-17T07:27:00.000-08:00

On the weekend I rented, among other things, the well regarded Canon 85mm prime. This was one heavy lens, and while capable of fantastic background blur, I didn't really think it through. I was planning on shooting against a white background (not too hard to blur that!) with some high powered strobes. When I got out the f/1.2 lens I couldn't get the lights low enough, or far enough away to use the wide open aperture. At f/8 this is like every other 85mm L lens that I own.

I did manage to capture a few available light shots near windows, etc. and they turned out great, but I highly recommend renting this for available light shooting, not studio!

I won this month's assignment!

2009-11-12T08:00:00.000-08:00

I'm excited to say that I won this month's contest on Dreamstime! The winner image was:

© Photographer: Bradcalkins | Agency: Dreamstime.com

Check out the other excellent entries and winners at:

Elders and Seniors Winners

2009-11-07T20:39:00.000-08:00

This is one of my latest images that I really love how it turned out. The kids were playing with a tower of marbles, and I stole them from them (for 2 minutes) and photographed them in the jar. The setup was simple - I had my flash on a cord underneath the bottom of the jar. I had to play around with it a bit to get it right. In the end I think I had the flash about an inch or so from the bottom with the wide diffuser on it.

Sale number 3,000!

2009-11-07T20:31:00.000-08:00

Well, here it is - my 3,000th sale!

And my 1,500th upload:

I've hit 2 downloads for every image online - a bit of a milestone in and of itself! The downloads per image ratio has always been of interest to me, because the fastest way to increase it in some respect is to stop uploading. If I were to suddenly post 100 images tomorrow, I'd be back under 2 - yet I've increased my sales potential. Hence why I don't try specifically to maximize the DPI number. I'm a lot more impressed by higher revenue per image online figures!

Leave IS turned on?

2009-11-04T11:22:00.000-08:00

I've never really thought about leaving IS turned on, but a recent test I did proved to me that it is worth thinking about. When IS is first started up, the lens elements may move quickly to begin compensating for your camera's motion. This can actually move faster than the camera is moving! What does this mean? It means that if you take your camera from 'off' to taking a picture, the shot may be more blurred than without IS turned on, even with a fast shutter speed. I suggest turning IS off as a rule when shooting outdoors, unless you need it. Or pay attention and give the system the half second it needs to get working.

IS is great, but know when to turn it off, too. I find that with kids around you often want to take a shot 'right away'. With IS on you'll need to delay the shutter press just a bit to get optimal results... When I first got an IS lens it seemed like it didn't help at all until I learned this tip!

Focal length usage

2009-10-29T20:03:00.000-07:00

I recently ran my images through a little program that tells you the number of times you've used a particular focal length, aperture, etc. Looking at the results, I can see why I'm so happy with my 24-105 zoom and 60mm macro. I'm pretty much focused on 28-100mm...
The 60mm macro explains the huge number of shots at that focal length, but clearly I don't get out the 17-24 range very much. The really low numbers indicate shots with a compact camera... There is a hump at 17mm, indicating that I'd probably go wider on occasion, if I had it, but not enough to justify an expensive lens.

2000 Sales

2009-08-11T06:59:00.000-07:00

My stock photo sales are ticking right along - I passed 2000 sales this month! Here are some recent uploads:

Maximize your sensor

2009-07-30T04:37:00.000-07:00

Different cameras have different aspect ratios, and this has various impacts on your photography. For isolated stock photos, I've found that there is a way to increase your use of the sensor. For example, on my Canon 40D it has a 3x2 ratio - 50% longer than it is high. If I'm shooting something long, I often find I can get closer (making the subject larger in the frame) if I shoot it corner to corner in the frame, rather than squared up. Ultimately, this means I get an image out of it that is longer in terms of pixels. In the example below, I did two shots:

1. Key horizontal in frame.
2. Key rotated about 40% so it went corner to corner.

The first obvious thing was that I had to actually move closer with my macro lens to fill the frame when I went corner to corner. Below you can see the result of taking the rotated key and making it straight (right side of image). I ended up with a larger image. Here I've just copped the head of the key to show the difference in size with a 100% crop.
What does this all mean? It means that for an isolated subject you end up with a larger file that normally possible with your camera - say a 12MB file by pixels from a 10MB sensor. I would expect a little loss of something when I rotate, but close inspection of these two images suggests it is more than made up by getting more pixels on each detail in the subject.

Happy shooting!

Happy Father's Day

2009-06-19T09:33:00.000-07:00

I'm not the "Hallmark" Dad getting out and golfing, fishing or watching football with a beer, but I do love the actual 'Father' aspect of the day. I can't wait get away this weekend with the family and kids. Nothing else compares to the joy of raising kids and having a loving family... Happy Father's Day!

Another reject!

2009-05-17T12:36:00.000-07:00

I guess if I pay attention I'll stop submitting flowers to DT :) It is a shame, as these are significantly better than ones I've had approved before...

Rejected

2009-04-11T08:32:00.000-07:00

Over the course of a year I have had many photos rejected at Dreamstime. Of course, the agency has every right to reject what isn't up to their quality standards, if they don't think they will sell, or if they just have too many already. Here is an example of a recent reject, that I particularly like. Oh well - you can't take it personally (it was rejected because they have too many of this type already)...