I’ve been drinking Deschutes Jubelale, a festive winter beer from Bend, OR, for quite a number of years now.  Well, surprise, surprise what my trip to the grocery turned up tonight!  A fresh off the line six-pack of Jubelale 2009!!!  Yea!  That “time of year” is finally here!  I wrote about it on a whim last season and have decided to continue in that tradition.

This year’s batch is just in time, too!  This is normally the type of beer that is oh-so satisfying during the winter months.  Well, here in Missoula…we apparently skipped fall and moved head on into winter.  At the moment, we’ve got snow on the ground and single digit temperatures at night…perfect weather to be thinking about a soul warming winter brew!

Perhaps it’s the amount of time between batches, as it’s a seasonal and only seen during late fall and winter months, but it seems to me that the beer takes on different dynamics with each successive year.  Some years, I’ve literally fallen in love with it, and yet others, it doesn’t quite draw me in that far, but it’s still good.  My impression of my first bottle of the year?  Fantastic!!!!  Reaching for my second as I write this post.

It seems with this year’s batch, the hops profile is more revealing and forward than it has been in years past.  I’ve always appreciated the dark malted goodness this beer offers, but as a big-time fan of IPA’s (India Pale Ale), I like a beer that isn’t afraid to use hops to liven things up a bit.  With this hop-forward lunge, it could possibly turn out to be my favorite of all the batches I’ve tasted.  I remember the 2004/2005 years, and oh were they good like that…but it seemed that 2006/2007/2008 batches were much more muted with the hops, allowing the dark malt to largely dominate the taste buds.

Then again, the season is still early.  This is a beer that ages with time and it’s dynamics change from month to month.  It does seem a bit early for the Jubelale…but I’ll be interested to see how it develops with this coming winter season.

Cheers to you!

Related posts:

1. Don Harkins (1963 – 2009) I learned today, with great sadness, that one of my...

Well, it seems appropriate around this time to provide my very own “State of the Blog Address” where I can tell you where we’ve been…and more importantly, where I’m going with this blog.

Come this February, jeffwhiteside.com will be turning a whole two years old!  Yep, I claimed it…so all you poser wanna-be Jeff Whiteside’s out there have to suck it up and take it.  You’ve got to listen to my Libertarian crazed criticisms and forever hope that someone doesn’t mistake me for one of you.  Sorry ’bout that if it happens.  I’m just conceited enough, though, to think it might actually *help* you. 

Over the last couple years, my site’s design has changed a few times.  What stated as a little web page hosted off one of my servers at home has now seen two different web hosts.  I’ve been able to pursue my interests of providing online videos and now have the knowledge (but not the motivation) to do a video log.  I’ve also (barely) ventured into the realm of social networking.  I’ve toyed around with the so-called “Web 2.0″ with dynamic information relevant to my life.

I still don’t have a MySpace account and I surprisingly haven’t become the next millionaire blogger.  Some things will never change.

In the coming four years, you can expect more of the same from me.  I don’t promise change…no…I vow to stay the same.  I promise to keep ever vigilant and critical against violations of our civil rights, unwise governance and an out-of-control world.  I hope to continue my own personal education and efforts to share that which I learn, and to inform those who are interested by writing about that which I feel is important.  I seek to hone my skills as a battered in blood political activist and to follow through on my commitment to restore what I think is great about this nation, America, in which I live.

You see, the last two years of this blog have seen great growth.  Admittedly, I only manage to write a handful or two postings a month…and sometimes ya’ll won’t see me for months on end.  Call it a vacation…I still probably put more time in than Bush did during his eight years.  But you see, that’s not what’s important here…it’s how I feel as a person.  I guess one could say that I finally feel like I have a place in this world.  And this blog has been part of it.

I do wish I was blessed with the motiviation and inspiration to write every day or nearly every other day – but, sadly, it simply wasn’t in the cards.  Nonetheless, I think the last couple years of this blog have shown a marked improvement in quality over the term of it’s existence.  I suppose it’s a natural progression of “learning to blog,” if you will, but it’s also about (in my case) forcing myself to find the creative outlet with words.  It’s about being inspired enough to actually go and write about it while resisting the urge to bore you with insignificant facts like, “I flossed my cat today.”  It’s also about resisting the urge to be apathetic and lazy.

And with that, comes even deeper clarity and perspective.  This blog has become me.  Not my specific interests, not my deepest desires, nor a representation of any of that.  It’s the journey…the process…the growth of one individual amongst a sea of others.  Where I stand and what it’s worth amongst that sea, I do not care…it’s more for me then it is for you.  It is the documentation of myself and my work, my thoughts and my hopes, my fears and my state.

So as we go into the next several years, I hope to maintain this effort and have an historical account of my life and the path that it’s on.  I hope to reconnect with those I have met in the past and look forward to meeting those who have yet to come.  I anticpate knowing what I have never known and resolve to do the best that I can with what I’ve got.  I thank you for your interest and hope you too will find your place in the world.

No related posts.

So, I’ve been keeping an eye on the alleged change to digital TV transmissions for the last several years.  My interest, considering I don’t really watch TV, comes more from being curious about how the market will handle the government declared transition to a digital TV format.  It occurred to me the other day that the deadline for this transition is a mere two months (or less) away.  If you’ve been following this, you’re aware that the supposed deadline has been pushed back at least a couple times due to readiness concerns.

Within the last year, I set up a media center PC and HDTV antenna that would be capable of receiving HD broadcasts.  I did this for the technical knowledge and the event of an emergency.  I’ve found that I am simply no longer able to watch television after over a decade without it – it insults my intelligence and I am no longer drawn in by it’s assault on cognitive thought.

The results of my HDTV experiment were astonishing to me, considering the deadline was nearly a year away at the time.  In Spokane, Washington – out of the dozen channels that were supposedly available “over the air” – I could only receive about 4 of them.  Now that I’ve moved to Missoula, MT and set up my HD rig…I was shocked to see that I can only receive 3 channels!  Both Fox and CBS cannot be received at my home.  The broadcast antennas were simply too far away for me to receive the signal for these channels.  CBS doesn’t even have a plan to broadcast off a nearer tower, whereas Fox will supposedly be broadcasting off the closer tower post-conversion.

Also, after getting the rig set up, it was apparent to me that much of the programming on the boob tube is still standard definition format.  I’ve read countless articles how news crews aren’t set up for HDTV broadcasts and it’s shocking to see that only a handful of broadcasts are actually in HD format.  Not just that, but I’m pretty certain that millions are still not set up to receive the new digital format.  Additionally, I noted that the digital broadcasts were volatile – it seemed fairly common in my limited experience that “down time” was a common theme.  It’s pretty clear that the market just isn’t ready for the conversion, despite the government’s whim on the matter.

Perhaps the cable and satellite providers have the edge – from reports from my friends, there’s dozens of HD channels up and operational.  For me though, there’s just simply no way that I’m paying $50+ a month for something I’ll hardly use – and not just that, I’m offended that I would have to pay “extra” for HD programming.

This is the typical result of a government mandate being pushed on the market.  The market and individuals have to scramble and spend billions of dollars in new equipment to comply.  It’s no wonder that there’s some resistance and delays associated with it!  I’ll be really curious to see if the nation will be ready for this change next year.  I suspect that it won’t come without a slew of complaints once the old “analog” system is turned off.

No related posts.

Barry Cooper, former Texas police officer, has made it his mission to expose the heavy handed tactics that police are using these days to fight the war on drugs.  There are quite a few cops that have seen the light and now oppose the incendiary and ineffective war on drugs.

It was fantastic.  They rented a house and set up a couple of Christmas trees under high powered lights, similar to those used in a marijuana grow operation.  And then they waited.  Sure enough, 24 hours later, the cops came busting in the door – only to find benign Christmas trees and a lawyer waiting for their arrival.

One question.  Where’s the probable cause??????

I can pretty confidently say that pine trees and marijuana do not smell at all similar.  Obviously if a cop had *seen* the plants, he would have rightly come to the conclusion that they do not look similar either.  Interestingly enough, the Austin cops are refusing to release the search affidavit – which, in this case, is clearly full of lies and false statements.  Just to be clear, lying to get a judge to sign a search warrant is highly illegal and is very dangerous to a free society.

Click here to view the video!

For those that know me, you know that I support the libertarian viewpoint on drug legalization.  I say legalize ‘em all.  The argument is very simple and has three major points.

First, for over 30 years, the war on drugs has done very little to actually reduce the amount of drugs on the streets.  Instead, it has caused prices to rise, further increasing the alure for young kids and law-dodging entrepreneurs to make huge sums of money.  The underlying effect has been to actually increase supply.  It’s been proven over and over, especially during the times of prohibition, that when a “popular” thing is made illegal, it does not go away and it concentrates the activity into less-than-desirable underground movements.

The second is that legalization would do nothing to increase usage.  I ask every pro-drug-war proponent this question:  “If drugs were legalized tomorrow, would YOU go out and start dropping heroin and meth?”  The answer is by and large no, and that truth stands for me as well.  Those who will experiment will experiment, regardless of what the law says.  The difference is that legalization would bring things out in the open, where dangers could be warned against at the time of sale.

The fundamental argument is whether we are allowed to put whatever we want into our bodies, so long as it does not harm others.  The problem of addiction is a health matter, not a criminal one.  Causing harm to others is all ready against the law – so things like hurting another person or driving under the influence are illegal regardless of the status of drug legalization.

In conclusion, I give my props to Barry Cooper and his group KopBusters for performing this little stunt.  The trap they laid was awesome and will hopefully go a long way to expose the police, judges and other parties that were involved in this.

No related posts.

Well, I don’t entirely hate myself from last night’s drunkin’ blogging debauchery.  I didn’t go and say something entirely stupid, so I guess I’ll keep it around.  Oh, that good old Jubelale…it’s like the beer equivalent of Jose Cuervo. 

As to the future of drunkin’ blogging, I think it remains to be seen.  Overall, I think I prefer sober blogging – probably because it’s easier to find those keys and I find it better when I have clear subject in mind.  Last night’s effort was more like, “Wheeeee…let’s see what happens when you combine beer & blogs?!?!?!”

As for the rest of this morning…one word.  Coffee.

Sobered up Jeff….out.

Related posts:

1. Jubelale 2009 – Most Wonderful Time Of The Year I've been drinking Deschutes Jubelale, a festive winter beer from...

What the hell.  I decided to give it a spin. 

Under normal circumstances, I opt to not blog whilst intoxicated – but it occurred to me that I had never done it before.  So, why not give it a whirl.  I have a backspace, right?

I’m making a mix album at the moment, for reasons I will not specify.  Essentially, it’s a CD that compiles several songs that I feel describes a moment in my life.  At this time, I’m listening to it in it’s entirety to insure it suits the purpose for which it’s been created.  So far, so good.

I love winter time.  It’s the time of year where Deschutes Jubelale comes about and this years batch returns to it’s roots of the yummy pre-2006-era batches.  This years batch is particularly drinkable & festive – it warms the soul rather well.  I’ve enjoyed the recent six pack and have also discovered a venue that sports it on tap.  (Hard to do when you’re hundreds of miles from the brewery!!)

I hope it snows soon.  I’m feelin’ the need for winter and over the last several years, have become accustomed to significantly more active winterness than my hometown of Portland, OR.  I’ve come to love travelling around Montana this time of year, with the many snow-capped mountains we have here.

I love music.  It is my diffuser, my friend, my lifelong companion.

End of drunkin’ blog post

Related posts:

1. Jubelale 2009 – Most Wonderful Time Of The Year I've been drinking Deschutes Jubelale, a festive winter beer from...

It was particularly dark on my drive home from Billings, Montana last night.  Montana is an exceptionally dark state with our expansive tracts of rural land and matters of darkness were amplified by the new moon that cast little or no additional light.

So there I was in the middle of nowhere, cruising along & rocking out to some tunes, when I noted two very bright lights in the southern sky.  These lights were bright – like staring down a 747 with their landing lights on.  Problem was, I was able to rule out aircraft very quickly when they didn’t really move anywhere.

It was hard to judge the distance of the lights due to their brightness…but my guesstimation was that they were “surface to air missile” close.  I’ve seen my share of celestial bodies – stars, comets, shooting stars and planets – and nothing had struck me as bright and near as these two points of light in the sky.

So, naturally, with the absence of any rational explanation, I assumed they were UFO’s.    (I think my discussions with Peter Davenport, director of the National UFO Reporting Center are getting to me!)  I thought about calling Peter, but I decided to do a little research first.

Well, interestingly enough…Venus & Jupiter happen to be hanging out at night right near the very patch of sky that I was looking at.  Mystery explained.  Montana’s a hot bed for UFO activity, according to some of my cursory research…but thankfully, this time it’s just a couple planets.

Apparently, tomorrow night (Nov. 30th), the pair of planets will appear closest together.  The following night, the crescent moon will intersect with the pair, briefly creating a momentary “unhappy face” in the sky.

I’m still taken aback by how bright, clear and near these reflections of the sun seemed.  I think I’m still not accustomed to the very dark darkness out here and the increased elevation is also certainly playing a role.

The words “Big Sky” have new meaning for me today.  I love the Montana sky.

Related posts:

1. Jubelale 2009 – Most Wonderful Time Of The Year I've been drinking Deschutes Jubelale, a festive winter beer from...

I’ve been getting interested in a new aspect of photography lately. As a student of the subject of photography for many years now, I’ve finally graduated to the point of being interested in controlling light beyond just a simple on-camera flash. When you file it right down, photography is about light and I’ve found that when there is more interesting light…well…it makes more interesting photos. The generally preferred way (debatably the best, arguably not the simplest, nor least expensive) to do this artificially is with lighting designed for photography, such as flashes and continuous lighting.

I was mostly concerned about the cost of getting into off-camera lighting. From cursory research, it was quite apparent it was going to be expensive. (Like the kind of expensive where I’m glad I don’t have a wife, expensive.) I also wanted it to be portable…the way I saw it, if it’s too unwieldy to carry, chances are it’ll get little use. Again from cursory research, portable was pretty much out of my financial reach. I mean $3000+ for battery powered lighting?? Ouch. A little too much for a hobby photographer. I was nearly doomed to never realize my interest.

So, not quite feeling defeated, I started looking into regular hot-shoe camera flashes (such as a Canon 580EX) to see what could be done. I wasn’t really happy with what I read about optical transmitters that the camera manufacturers offer as their in-house solution. The line of sight limitation crippled what I wanted to experiment with in off-camera lighting – light wherever I want it, even if it’s around a corner, in another area or somewhere an infrared signal couldn’t travel.

Well, I discovered a relatively new field of study pioneered by a photographer named David Hobby, more popularly known as “Strobist.” He’s put together extensive information (almost encyclopedic, actually) on using regular camera flashes to get well lit exposures, both cheaply and with minimal, portable gear. I began to get excited – he was all about DIY (do it yourself) stuff and keeping it on the cheap. (I’m all about cheap, a little bit of labor and big-time learning) Whether it’s using kitchen garbage bags and tupperware for studio gear or building a product-photo box out of an everyday cardboard box and tracing paper, the less it costs, the better it is. His results (and those of his students) are quite amazing, to say the least.

This whole concept really appealed to me as it met nearly all my criteria – it’s portable, small, flexible, relatively inexpensive and best of all, thoroughly pioneered. (The free part was a killer perk.) The only area that it didn’t compete in was if I wanted to light up a canyon…but I figured it might just be easier to wait for daytime. I still wasn’t sold, but it was quite apparent I needed to research it thoroughly.

Honestly, flash is a little intimidating for a starting point as a lighting newbie – it’s hard to learn something that’s only around for a brief second. I studied David’s website for several weeks until I felt comfortable with product decisions and core flash lighting concepts. David’s excellent ability to communicate, teach and assess his readers (as well as entertain…OMG, I’ve cracked up dozens of times reading his stuff) makes these difficult concepts much easier to reach by someone that doesn’t do photography day-in, day-out.

So, I’ve started the journey and ordered equipment from one of David’s sponsors and made the appropriate trips to Home Depot and the craft store…I’m anxiously awaiting the gear to arrive by big brown. For just under $1500 (that’s like pocket change in photography gear…I don’t actually believe this, but apparently photographers are very wealthy), I purchased enough gear to run three flashes simultaneously with a full accompaniment of studio gear…all wireless, with a range of up to 1600 feet from the camera. On top of that, I will have full color correction capability and countless DIY projects & light modifiers to work with. Here’s the rundown on what nearly a grand and a half can get ya’:

(2) Vivitar 285HV Flashes
(2) Bogen 3373 6′ Compact Light Stands (Portable stands)
(2) Interfit 8′ Air Cushioned Light Stands (Home stands)
(4) Pocket Wizard Plus II Transceivers (Wireless transmitters/receivers)
(2) Pocket Wizard to Vivitar Sync Cords
(1) Hot-shoe to Pocket Wizard Sync Cord (For my Canon 420EX)
(2) Westcott 43″ Compact Umbrella, White w/ Removable Black Cover
(2) Westcott 43″ Compact Umbrella, Soft Silver
(2) Rosco Pro Color Correction Gel Packs (Flash Color Correction)
(2) 4-Pack Rechargable Batteries and Recharger
(2) Packs of Bongo Ties / Ball Bungies
(3) Umbrella Swivels
(2) Bogen AW3279 Compact Light Kit Bags
(2) RoadWired RAPS Advanced Protection System
(1) Super Clamp
(1) Justin Clamp
(1) Stofen Omni Bounce Diffuser
(1) DIY Macro Studio Box w/ accessories
(2) DIY Softboxes (Will probably replace these with a commercial product)
(12) DIY Snoots (6 regular, 6 grid, 3 sizes each style)
(4) DIY Barndoors
(3) DIY Gel Holders
(2) Foam-core reflectors
…and a few other super-cheap DIY things…

(All ready owned my 3rd light…Canon 420EX & several modifiers including A Better Bounce Card, Gary Fong Lightsphere, and an Omni Bounce. )

Talk about a diving right in with almost limitless possibilities at your fingertips! A similar setup with “normal” commercial gear would’ve likely approached ten grand, just to put it into perspective. Provided it can be justified, the kit may see an upgrade of two Canon 580EXII’s, a Canon optical transmitter, and two more Pocket Wizards. That’s a five light wireless (optical eTTL & radio non-TTL) set up for under $3000…sweet.

I could’ve saved $600 by not going with the Pocket Wizards (at ~$180/each) and instead gone with cheap-o Gadget Infinity wireless triggers. After reading enough poor reviews of the off-brands that made it clear they would likely not meet my needs and OMG, people’s overwhelming lust for the PW’s, I decided this would be the “investment” part of the investment. Heck,I saved so much money anyhow…and David’s advice is to save money elsewhere so you can spend it on what really matters. I mostly agree with that advice.

What’s next for me? Going through David’s tutorials to understand how to use off-camera flash lighting. He’s put forth an excellent series of hands-on exercises that are designed to exploit the capabilities of minimal gear. He’s just entered Lighting 102…I think I’ll be able to catch up. Then again, maybe not…running Strobist.com is the guy’s day job.

Anyway…so here I dive into lighting for photography. Should be a fun journey! If you’re interested, there’s a great group of people over on the Strobist website. All it takes to get started is a camera with a hot-shoe or a sync port, something which many cameras these days have. It’s also MUCH cheaper to get into if you don’t go wireless…you can spend $200 a get a decent kit. Also, for some great DIY projects, you can check out LightingMods and DIYPhotography.

Hope you enjoy!

No related posts.

I see that a lot of bloggers put up a post about their computer gear. I gotta admit, I’ll check the specs of those bloggers…just to see what they’ve got under the hood. If you could care less about my uber-geekdom…well, there’s plenty else to see that’s far more interesting to read & you can just move right along.

When I was younger, one of my first jobs was building computers. Ever since then, I’ve been building my own computers by hand selecting each component and getting it all to work. Anymore, this is not the cheaper way to go if you just want a computer – in fact, it often costs more than a pre-built Dell or the like, even with the labor & profits involved. I just like knowing what I’ve got and the freedom of making hardware decisions.

I run three computers with two being “on” full-time…I’ve junked my older gear as it really was a waste of space. The first is my primary machine that sees the day-to-day. The second is my Linux-based Asterisk PBX that runs my telephone communications. Third, I run a file server (read: expensive network storage device) that is used to backup critical files as well as a secure backup of my extensive digital photography collection.

I’ve been resisting the urge to go quad core. I think I’m going to wait for octo-core (or whatever they come up with when they can put 8 cores on a CPU) as that’s gonna be one bad-a$$ CPU. Screw the gigahertz, I want multi-threaded, simultaneous, precision calculation. That’s gonna be like having your own freakin’ super-computer at your finger tips.

On with the specs…

Primary Computer:

This is my primary machine where I spend most of my computer time. It runs Windows XP Professional and has turned out to be a solid machine. It runs sweet & with the way I use computers (extreme multitasking), the dual monitors & dual core CPU have been an amazing plus for me. The hard drive space is seemingly infinite as well…clocking in at a massive 2.2 terabytes, storage is not a problem for me. It’s also a decent DVD duplicator with three DVD writers, which it can barely squeak by running all at once. This machine will likely be retired in a year or two and will become a dedicated Linux-based VMWare machine, thus the need for beefing up the RAM to 4GB and a configuration primed for hardware or software RAID.

(1) AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ 2.3GHz Dual Core CPU
(1) ABIT AN8 32X Socket 939 nForce4 SLI Motherboard
(4) OCZ 1GB DDR400 (PC3200) RAM (Total 4GB)
(1) XFX GeForce 256MB 7300GT Video Card
(1) Western Digital 250GB SATA2 Hard Drive (OS & Programs)
(2) Seagate 500GB SATA2 Hard Drives
(1) Seagate 120GB USB Hard Drive
(1) Iomega 320GB USB Hard Drive
(1) Iomega 500GB USB Hard Drive
(1) Lite-On 16X IDE DVD Burner
(2) Lite-On 20X SATA2 DVD Burners
(1) Mitsumi 1.44MB Internal Floppy Drive
(1) Thermaltake Tsunami ATX Mid Tower Case
(1) Windows XP Professional
(2) Viewsonic 19″ Widescreen LCD Flatscreen Monitors (VA1912wb)

Future: Pretty much content with it now that all my upgrades are complete. Likely in it’s final configuration, minus an OS changeout for Linux when it’s repurposed as a VMWare server upon retirement.

Asterisk PBX Server:

This machine, retired from primary rather early due to a motherboard issue with running more than one stick of RAM, quietly runs full-time and provides me with mind-boggling communication capabilities. It’s seen several upgrades & changes to what is now it’s final configuration. It runs the open-source Asterisk “Voice Over IP” PBX software on top of CentOS Linux. Seeing as how I work with PBX’s (phone systems) for a living, it’s suitable that I would run one in my home & subject my friends to an auto attendant (IVR) with multiple options when they call me. It’s also paid for itself – for about $12 a month, I have four telephone numbers in three states, an 800 number, unlimited telephone lines, multiple telephone carriers for redundancy and the ability to control some ultra-cool phones. It’s been a sweet journey & Asterisk is just freakin’ kewl.

(1) AMD Athlon XP 2200+ 1.2Ghz Single Core CPU
(1) MSI K7T266 Pro2 Socket A Motherboard
(1) 1GB DDR266 (PC2100) RAM
(1) EVGA NVidia TNT2 32MB AGP Video Card
(1) Linksys 10/100 Network Card
(2) Seagate 80GB ATA133 IDE Hard Drives (Software RAID1)
(2) Lite-On 52X IDE CD-ROM Writers
(1) Mitsumi 1.44MB Internal Floppy Drive
(1) Beige ATX Mid-Tower Case w/ extra 80mm fans
(1) CentOS Linux 4.5 (Server style, no GUI)
(1) ProView 19″ Widescreen LCD Flatscreen Monitor (KVM switched w/ Backup Box)

Future: It’ll probably be replaced with an ultra cheap build using newer hardware when the motherboard or CPU dies. It suits it’s purpose just fine for now with the recent RAM upgrade to 1GB from 256MB and the configuration of software RAID with high-quality Seagate drives.

Backup Computer:

This machine, my “old” primary and original Asterisk server, is running Ubuntu Linux and acts as secure network storage for my sensitive, unreproducable files as well as the secure backup of my growing digital photography collection. After reading “The Dam Book” by Peter Krough (BTW, DAM is Digital Asset Management or, in layman’s terms, understanding a massive digital photography collection), I was fully sold on protecting my collection of photos that I’ve accumulated (over 16,000 images at last count) since entering digital photography several years ago. The 250GB RAID configuration is enough to securely store my entire collection of photos as well as providing peace of mind protection for any other files I couldn’t bear losing in the event of a hard drive crash. With the operating system & critical files on seperate hard drives for ease of OS changes, this machine has seen several flavors of Linux over it’s life span, including Ubuntu, CentOS, Mandrake, SuSe and FedoraCore.

(1) AMD Athlon XP 2200+ 1.2Ghz Single Core CPU
(1) MSI KT3 Ultra Socket A Motherboard
(2) 1GB DDR333 (PC2700) RAM (Total 2GB)
(1) MSI NVidia GeForce FX 5600XT 128MB Video Card
(1) Seagate 80GB Hard Drive
(2) Seagate 250GB Hard Drives (Software RAID1)
(1) NEC 12X IDE DVD Burner
(1) Mitsumi 1.44MB Internal Floppy Drive
(1) ProView 19″ Widescreen LCD Flatscreen Monitor (KVM switched w/ Asterisk Box)
(1) Antec Black ATX Mid-Tower Case w/ extra 80mm fans
(1) Ubuntu Linux running Gnome GUI

Future: I’m going to do something far more sensible & purchase a multi-drive eSATA tower with RAID capabilities. They’re spendy now ($300-$500 without any drives) and I’d prefer a unit that’ll take 8 drives, providing four separate RAID1 configurations. We’ll see if the price of those puppies come down at all…then I’ll think about it.

No related posts.

So, I made a slight modification to my photography workflow…nothing major, just found the right tool for the job. The new process only affects how I get my images from my flash cards to my PC. Sure, you could just copy them over…but then I have to manually:

• Rename files to my preffered naming scheme
• Apply copyright metadata
• Create a backup copy to another location
• Create a DNG copy to future-proof my RAW files
• Verify all images are not corrupt
• Sort the images by subject matter

It’s the perfect job for automation as the above can take hours.

I used to use an Adobe Photoshop action that I learned about from reading Peter Krough’s Digital Asset Management book. It was all right…a little tweaky to set up, but it just worked thereafter. It did the job…but I am always looking for something better.

In that light, I was crusing the DAM forums and learned of a new tool that Peter recommends – Image Ingester Pro. I downloaded the demo & paid for it in the same day, it was that good. Sure, it’s 3rd party and doesn’t integrate directly into Photoshop – but after thinking about it, I didn’t see why it needed to. There’s a free version too…but I wanted the pro version because it had enhanced metadata capability, image filtering and ingestion tracking built in. It’s also able to handle multi-camera shoots…something that I may need at some point in the future. The free version would certainly work for most newbies and amateurs…and likely most professional photographers.

After having run a couple thousand images through it, I can highly recommend Image Ingester Pro. I like how it breaks the backups into date based folders – this makes it a cakewalk to sort images into their context for my final image structure. I also like being confident that the images have been verified and the conversion to DNG being automated. Sure, it can take a litle while to tear through a large flash card when doing all the above…but the way I see it, I’ve tasked my CPU & ImageIngester with the labor while I can kick back and do other things. I like it.

So, check it out…play around with the free version. I can almost guarantee you’ll like it!

No related posts.

I thought it would be good to review the tools (aka plugs-ins) that I use for my digital workflow. I primarily use Adobe Photoshop, the gold standard in image editing, for all of my image work. It can be intimidating to begin working with Photoshop and while it truly is an amazing application, it is also a little daunting to get the results you want. For this reason, I’ve found it much easier to go with plug-in tools that do a whole lot of work without a whole lot of work. Of course, I still use the standard repertoire of Photoshop tools, such as curves, levels, hue/saturation and so on…but for advanced functions and things that cannot easily be done within PS, it’s just easier to spend a few bucks on a plug-in.

I also have also tried not to over-do the plug-ins that I use…I definitely apply the KISS philosophy here. I require “bang for the buck”…one could spend thousands on plug-ins, and frankly, I’ll only spend money on things that will provide results. Two of my absolute requirements for any plug-in that I might use are that it works with 16 bit images and will work with automation via Photoshop’s actions.

• First up, noise reduction. Anyone that outputs to larger print sizes, has a point & shoot camera or uses a high ISO in their digital photographs needs to consider noise reduction. It’s essential when you go beyond about 8″x10″ prints as noise becomes too distracting, unless that’s the “look” you’re going for. There’s a lot of options out there, but I use Noise Ninja from Picture Code. It’s mostly automated, has plenty of tweaks for getting it just right and best of all, works on 16 bit images. I’ve tried a few plug-ins of this nature, but finally settled on this for my solution.

• Next, I absolutely fell in love with the products from PixelGenius. I didn’t care for the results of their sharpening plug-in, PhotoKit Sharpener, but both their PhotoKit and PhotoKit Color 2.0 products are top notch. The plug-ins are built with the photographer in mind and provide an array of tools that, anymore, I would be lost without.

PhotoKit Color 2.0, from PixelGenius, is probably my favorite plug-in of all. With an extensive array of tools for a color photographer, it’s amazing what one can do. Want to enhance the shadows or boost the contrast? No problem. Want to darken or lighten the blue/green/red/etc? Absolutely. Want to raise or lower the exposure? Check. Color correction? Sure. Film effects such as various chromes? Done deal. A color overlay? Cake. Split toning effects? Yep. Cross Processing? Part of the package. Burn or dodge using gradients over parts of the image? Included. It’s rather amazing what one can acheive from this plugin alone and almost every one of my images sees something out of this kit. What I like most about it, though, is that it applies the changes as a layer, which means you get much more creative control over the final effect when you play with opacities and other layering effects.

Second from PixelGenius, the PhotoKit plug-in. This is primarily designed for black and white work and provides a wide gamut of tools for B&W photography. It gives the photographer a large number of B&W conversion methods, color casts such as sepia, a standard array of contrast correction and several other tools. For B&W photography, this tool is one of the better ones I’ve found for pure flexibility and bang for the buck. Almost all of my B&W work is done with this tool. The only thing it’s lacking is a preview capability, which is found in the PhotoKit Color plug-in above. Hopefully they’ll bring this product up to par so we can preview the results without having to constantly undo/redo if we’re not happy with the results.

• Next, sharpening. After far too much time spent learning the finer points of Unsharp Mask and Smart Sharpen, I sought a sharpening plugin that was much more predictable. The tool I settled on was Nik Sharpener Pro 2.0. What I liked about it was the extensive output methods that allow one to apply just enough sharpening for the output method that will be used. Anyone that knows anything about sharpening knows that an image must be sharpened differently for the output of choice, be it the web, an inkjet printer, or a professional printing service. This tool provides all of that in one package and all I have to think about is: how sharp do I want the image to be? I’ve had some trouble with using this app in PS actions, so I’m still looking for a similar tool (or upgrade) that will provide great results with better automation capabilities. I’ve found this to be OK as sharpening is usually a manual step, anyhow, that is performed near the final stage of image output.

• Finally, I use Genuine Fractals for image enlargement. When I need to print images at a larger resolution than my camera’s output, I prefer to use a 3rd party application to resize the image. From my research, the 3rd party apps simply provide better enlargement results, although some argue that the “stair-stepping” method may be superior. While I don’t believe GF’s hype of 1000% image enlargement without loss of quality, it does a great job when I approach 100-200% enlargement, or so. Though my prints are usually 12″x18″ and below, I’ve printed up to 20″x30″ from an 8 megapixel image and the quality was superb enough for my purposes. (I started with a good image, however. Crap in, crap out very much applies here.) It does the job…there may be better stuff out there these days…but I’ve been using this for 3 years and it works for me.

That’s really it…like I said, keep it simple stupid. I only need what I can’t easily replicate in Photoshop with minimal effort. The way I see it, the more options there are, the more time I’ll spend exploring them and the further I get from the original image. I go with what works and what suits my needs…and have so far, resisted the urge to be a plug-in junkie.

No related posts.

So, it never ceases to amaze me when I’m out taking photos with my DSLR where someone will come up and try to argue that their $300 point and shoot (PnS) is better than my [expensive] DSLR equipment. Hmmm…I say…I guess I just threw away a lot of money. Errr…did I?

Well, I own both a DSLR and an average PnS. There’s no doubt that the cheap PnS cameras are both high quality and can produce excellent results…for most people, that’s exactly what they need. Why did I upgrade then? Well, frankly, I was hitting the ceiling of capabilities a little too often with the inexpensive PnS. What capabilities, you ask…they both take pictures, right?

I learned rather quickly when I really started picking up photography that the camera is not what makes better pictures. A crappy camera, in capable hands, can produce fantastic results and even the best gear, in the hands of an inexperienced person, will produce high quality, yet dismal results. I was aiming for “just above dismal” with extensive study of composition, exposure, lighting, and post-processing techniques. All of these items apply to all but the cheapest of digital cameras.

Yet, I still found myself cursing the PnS when it wouldn’t do what I needed it to do. So, without futher delay, here are the reasons that I abandoned the cheap PnS for a (wallet draining) DSLR camera:

• Speed. Frankly, I was getting tired of waiting around for my PnS to process images. Sometimes it took upwards of 5-10 seconds to capture an image and I was missing shots while my camera was screwing around trying to store the images. DSLR’s are built for speed. I didn’t need 12 frames per second, but the entry-level DSLR’s provide a much improved level of speed over any PnS.

• Custom glass. With a PnS, you’re stuck with the lens it comes with and maybe have the option of a couple pricey modifiers. I wanted more reach as well as well as the creative possibilities available with the wide range of lenses available for DSLR’s. With two lenses, a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, I’ve acheived the range of the average PnS 12x zoom camera. I added a 1.4x teleconverter (max 320mm) and all of a sudden I leave the PnS behind…a 2.0x teleconverter will extend my reach to 400mm with just the minor cost of 2 F-stops. (Oh, and the associated wallet drain…)

• Fast glass. Oh, how I loathed the performance of PnS indoors. Now, even with fast f/2.8 glass, this is still a problem, but it’s *much* improved over the PnS performance. I learned an early lesson diving into DSLR’s…if you can afford it, go with the fastest glass you can buy. I’ve never regretted the decision to go with fast, f/2.8 lenses, despite the vomit-inducing price tags of the faster glass. When you need fast glass, there is simply no other equivalent replacement.

• Quality. The CCD sensor of a DSLR is about twice as large as the average PnS. This means two things: better quality images (even with the same or less number of megapixels) as well as lower noise in the images. At ISO 400, the average PnS becomes unusable…the noise just creeps in and serves up a distracting image. The DSLR doesn’t have this same noise threshhold until it breaks the ISO 800 barrier. This means faster shuter speeds (read: hand held) in low light environments are possible when combined with fast glass.

• More options. I was tired of being boxed in to the limitations of a camera with little option for growth. With the DSLR, the creative possibilities are much more extensive. From camera flashes, to lenses, to wireless addons, to battery packs and others, there’s a wide variety of 1st and 3rd party addons to extend your creative control. With a modular type approach, if you’re not happy with a DSLR body, you can upgrade just the body. If you want a wider range, you can get a different lens. If you want to play with off-camera lighting, a DSLR is designed to work with that. It just came down to more flexibility.

• Better ratio. I never got why the PnS cameras used a 4×5 ratio as opposed to a 2×3 ratio. Almost all photographic storage and image presentation materials are made for a 2×3 ratio. Admittedly, one could crop a 4×5 image down to 2×3, but you’re just wasting megapixels and it screws with image composition when you have to compensate for the differences in ratios.

Now, for what I miss about the PnS cameras in my move to the DSLR. After owning a very decent, prosumer level, 8 megapixel PnS, I found myself missing some features in the jump to DSLR. I’ve managed to get by and “see the light”…but there’s still some features that I’d love to see enter the DSLR market.

• Live LCD Preview. I liked being able to hold the camera at arm’s distance to get the framing of a picture. It allowed much more flexible framing as it didn’t require you to become a contortionist just to get a creative angle. The newest DSLR’s have this feature, so it’s just a matter of time until the trickle-down effect occurs and I can get this in a reasonably priced DSLR body.

• Rotating LCD. Again, just like the live LCD preview, the rotatable LCD is a God-send to the photographer that desires creative angles. Whether it’s taking group photos by pointing the camera towards you at arm’s length to ground-level shots, I miss being able to rotate the LCD so I can see what the camera is going to capture. DSLR’s work on a TTL (through the lens) concept, so your only option is look through the view finder or simply experiment until you get it right.

• Composition assistance. My last PnS had a feature called composition assistance. It would throw up a grid, allowing one to quickly visualize composition and aim for adherence to the “rule of thirds.” Though composition has become somewhat second nature for me, it was still nice to know exactly where the “rule of thirds” were. This was nice, though it’s forced me to constantly think about this when using a DSLR.

• Compactness. What good is a camera if you don’t take it with you? Frankly, there are some times where the size of my DSLR is prohibitive and I’d much rather pack a small PnS. Well, I guess this isn’t so much of a drawback as I have both for this very reason.

• Cheapness. Well, ’nuff said…you can get a decked out PnS camera for much, much, much less than a pimped out DSLR. Heck, with what I’ve invested into my DSLR setup, I could’ve had five PnS cameras and enough bacon cheeseburgers to cause a heart attack.

• Less time at the computer. DSLR’s are designed to require manual post-processing to get the best quality image. PnS cameras do in-camera post processing and can provide fantastic results with minimal computer time. For a person that doesn’t want to screw around in Photoshop, the PnS will give you better “straight out of the camera” results than a DSLR. If you’re not prepared to do post-processing, the DSLR will likely disappoint you when you find out your images are neither as sharp, nor as vivid as your run-of-the-mill PnS.

Well, so what’s to learn here? It doesn’t take a DSLR to make great pictures. You can get quality results with all but the cheapest of digital cameras. If you’re considering a DSLR and you’ve never used a digital PnS, definately start with the PnS…your wallet will thank you. A capable DSLR setup will set you back quite a few bones, so if you’re just entering photography, it’s better to cut your teeth for a fraction of the cost.

If, after you’ve taken thousands of images on a PnS and you find yourself constantly banging against it’s capabilities, I’m afraid you only have one choice. For me, my level of interest could justify the expense…but for the average joe that just wants to grab some pictures, I would be hard pressed to recommend a DSLR. It just comes down to where you’re at with photography and what you want to be able to do.

No related posts.

I recently got an opportunity to do some work for the company Flowmaster – they manufacture and install vehicle exhaust systems and mufflers. I was out in Hayden, ID doing some work for Flowmaster on my “real job” – but it just so happened that the days that I was out, they were doing some testing on three vehicles to measure performance increases. They had a small handful of professional freelance automotive magazine photographers on site to catch the action for upcoming articles.

After my work was completed, I got an opportunity to chat with Mike Chase (mikechasephoto.com) about various photography topics. I noticed he was using an Omnibounce diffuser on his Nikon DSLR’s flash. I happened to have my gear with me – so I showed him my Gary Fong photojournalist diffuser. It was rather amusing when I brought it out – several of the other photographers noted it and said, “Hey, it’s Gary Fong!” I guess Gary’s got a name for himself – and rightfully so…his diffuser products are excellent, though disgustingly expensive for what it is. Mike made some test shots, comparing his Omnibounce against the Photojournalist. Though the test shots were just simple shots of a thermostat on a wall – comparatively, the Fong shots were much more diffused. Mike said that the chance to check it out caused enough interest that he intended to purchase two for his flashes – and was quite appreciative of checking it out.

We discussed other things as well – spent time talking about Photoshop and techniques that can be used. I learned an interesting post-processing concept that struck me as absolute genius. I’ve often struggled with the the idea of “when am I done?” with post-processing. It seems, with powerful tools such as Photoshop, there are limitless possibilities when it comes to a photo. I could easily spend hours on a single photo trying all the various combinations. These guys use a technique which makes perfect sense – they conceive what they want the photo to look like based on their criteria (such as vivid colors, fidelity to film, or possibly even “how it will look” when it goes to press) and then work from there. It’s kind of funny…I think this way when I’m taking the photograph, but when I go to post-processing I was just kind of tweaking until I found what I liked.

Overall it was great to meet some of these guys. Mike really has an eye for quality work and is a wealth of information about automotive photography. He’s developed techniques to get the “flecks” in sparkling paint and has a good understanding of how to expose his shots for the best possible overall exposure. He’s also a really nice guy – very helpful and friendly to a complete stranger. I was very pleased to meet his acquaintance and will hopefully run into him again someday!

No related posts.

I have never really had much of an interest in wedding photography – there is just far too much relying on skill, luck, timing and equipment. Not to mention – the thought of having to attend weddings for people I don’t know on even a semi-irregular basis frightens me. I was recently proposed an opportunity to photograph a friend’s wedding in Portland in a totally informal way. The expectations were not set high, but I figured it would be a good way to dip into the “field” of wedding photography with no pressure and total freedom to do whatever I want. I decided I’d give it a shot and brought my Sigma f2.8 70-200mm and my Sigma f2.8 24-70mm with my flash and Gary Fong diffuser.

The conditions were just horrible – I arrived later than desired and went to the wrong building…consequently, I arrived just barely in time to unpack my gear. Something’s gone awry with the air conditioner and it’s about 104 degrees outside – oh yeah, we’re on the 3rd floor of a 3 story building – probably a healthy 90 degrees inside. There’s about 80 people, children are running everywhere. Immediately I notice the super dim lighting provided by small lamps and Christmas lights and I remember to be thankful for the wisdom of the people who preach saving to get better glass. I can hardly squeeze my large f2.8 24-70mm Sigma lens through the tight maze of people. The whole thing was just a touch insane for photography. I was bound and determined to have fun and at least give it a shot.

Due to lack of preparation, I forgot to take off my circular polarizer – I probably lost 2 stops for the entire ceremony and 15 minutes of the reception. That’s what I get for being a part time, multi-subject photographer with a busy lifestyle. Once I removed the polarizer and got my diffuser from the truck, I was in much better shape.

Fortunately I had brought my Sigma 70-200mm – positioning in the area of the ceremony was less than ideal due to the number of people in the room – the lens allowed me to get right up on the action without getting in everyone’s way. It also allowed to me to get up close when the rings were exchanged and quickly back out to get the reaction and “overall” view. I would have appreciated a better flash for the recharge times. Though my flash did a good job – a higher power unit would have made a difference.

For the reception, in the same location as the ceremony, I switched to my 24-70. As I wandered about the crowd, I snapped photos of the many people conversing, congratulating, hugging and various things that people do at a wedding. This made up the bulk of my overall 400 photos taken during the wedding.

I do have to say…under the circumstances, I got some incredible images. I can think of at least 3 images that are a hairline shy of perfect, in my self-critical opinion. The kids were a lot of fun to photograph with all their energy. There were challenges, mistakes and a whole lot of learning that took place. Overall, I’d say it was a good experience. I’m still reluctant to furthering an interest in wedding photography – but I think I’d do it again.

No related posts.

The popular buzzword around digital photography today is DAM or Digital Asset Management. The concept of using DAM is to be able to integrate image cataloging and organization into one’s digital workflow to make it easier to find a photo amongst thousands. For a photographer that has over 10,000 images and hasn’t implemented DAM, this is a daunting task. I’ve been thinking about it and researching it for months, and only recently found THE resource on the subject. Peter Krough, a photographer, has written a book on DAM that brings many ideas to the table. While it’s certainly written with the idea of the professional photographer in it’s focus, it certainly can be adapted to any higher end amateur that needs a way to manage their data.

Conceptually, the organization starts at the fundamental level of “physical” data structure. I would liken this to a filing cabinet where one has different sub folders in larger folders. Peter makes the argument that this structure should be designed more to work with current backup methodologies and logical structures, rather than the subject or other contextual information. I have thought about this and wanted to argue with his points in the beginning, but after reading his arguments and thinking about the scalability of any other structure, it’s a no brainer. I’m currently working on re-archiving my images in a more accessible and scalable architecture.

The next key to DAM comes into play with what is called “metadata” or “keywording.” Every digital image has the ability to append various data about the image into the structure of the image – and in fact, every digital capture has this data immediately captured into the file when the picture is taken. The camera will record data such as shutter speed, ISO, aperture, the lens that was used and other highly useful information. Software can then read this data, called IPTC data, and can display or use this information to give us more information about what the image contains. This is where DAM software, such as IView Media Pro, comes into play. DAM software is specially designed to provide two functions – the first is to rapidly input specific information that “describes” the image and the other is to catalog what images you have and make those images more accessible by allowing you to search for any IPTC field.

So, for example, if I wanted to find all images of a particular person – I can simply search for that person’s name and find every picture of that person. As you can see, when you have a catalog of thousands of images, this is invaluable. I can also rate images on a 1 to 5 scale that will allow me to separate the cream from the crop, as it were. This is extra handy as I can now modify my search to find all “good” images of a particular person. Then if I wanted to get more specific and search for such and such person with a certain rating at a certain location, I can really narrow down my search.

While the task is daunting with over 15,000 images in my collection from the last three years, it’s going to be absolutely essential moving forward. There will come a day when that will likely reach over 100,000, in which case, I’ll be lost if I don’t implement DAM when it’s still manageable and can maintain it going forward.

I would encourge all to read Peter Krough’s book and check out his website. He is a good photographer that has spent much time thinking about the concepts and challenges associated with DAM. He also has a rather impressive amount of involvement in the photography industry and, as such, is still heavily involved in a forum about the subject of DAM that can be found on his website.

No related posts.

Well, this last weekend a bunch of guys (and a gal) from NPORA headed out to the Spokane ORV park for a little diggin’ & 4-wheelin. A blast was had by all. We found mud, small lakes, giant hills, and overall great fun. There were five rigs (4 Nissan Pathfinders & one Dodge Dakota) but the Dodge couldn’t quite keep up. About a minute into the park, the Dodge buried itself down an embankment and was one stuck puppy. It took two Pathfinders to pull him out – quite an amazing feat. Sure enough, not ten minutes later, the Dodge owner slammed his rig into a dirt embankment and took out his front bumper. He’d had enough and the Pathfinders ruled the day!

You can check out the images here

And a video slide show of the events (Right click / Choose “Save Target As”)

No related posts.

My 1995 Nissan Pathfinder is getting some upgrades this season. The folks out at NPORA (Nissan Pathfinder Offroad Association) have been tremendously helpful in providing gads of information regarding available upgrade options to the Pathfinders.

It recently seen brand new tires – Toyo Open Country A/T 31—10.5. These are hands-down the best tires I’ve ever run – road noise is extremely low, handling is great, rain performance is awesome. Only thing I’m waiting to see is how they handle in snow on this truck. I just recently put on Monroe Sensa-Trac shocks and a Monroe steering stabilizer – a welcome replacement to the aging (120K mile) stock shocks that were installed. The stabilizer is great as well and provides a lot better control when traversing Spokane’s particularly nasty roads. I’m looking forward to getting her off on some light trails to see how the ride has truly improved.

I’ve got new Thorley headers on order at the moment and should have them installed in the first part of November. This is in an effort to repair the common exhaust manifold problem – and should ultimately cost me about $200 less than it would cost me to replace the manifolds. (With engine performance & MPG increase to boot!) Along with this project, I’m planning a complete exhaust build out by taking the tubing up to 2-1/4″ with a Dynomax Super Turbo muffler and a Dynomax Hi-Flow Catalytic Converter on the back end and a convenient O2 sensor replacement. With this upgrade, I am expecting to see about a 2-5% increase in gas mileage and a HP gain of around 10-20 ponies.

While the Pathfinder isn’t known for great performance in any particular category – it’s been a fine ride for the last year and I feel is worth these upgrades. At 120K miles, I should see at least twice that out of the engine with a possible transmission rebuild to keep her going. Other than that, it’s been relatively maintenance free besides the typical recommended maintenance schedules.

No related posts.

One of the by-products of digital photography is image noise. “Noise” is a consistent pattern of interference that occurs when an image is imprinted into a digicam’s CCD or CMOS sensor. It would be akin to the (sometimes) intentional noise that occurs when using high ISO based film, though tends to be persistent in digital photography even at a low ISO.

When printing images at 4×6 or 5×7 – the noise inherent in a digital photo is hardly perceptible. This changes dramatically when enlarging digital images to larger sizes – such as 8×10 and beyond. The noise becomes extremely noticeable in areas where there is a consistent color – such as a blue sky or the petal of a flower. To add to this problem, when one sharpens an image in the final phase of post-processing, the noise is sharpened right along with the rest of the image.

To combat this, many denoise tools have been introduced on the market – with one of the leaders being Noise Ninja by PictureCode. This tool does an excellent job at intelligently removing the noise in an image and allows you to import custom profiles for your specific digital camera (or scanner). The results from the default profile and using automatic noise removal is excellent and allows one to comfortably print enlargements in the 12×18 and 16×20 range with very little perceptible noise. Using a noise filter will also increase the quality of smaller prints as well.

There are two drawbacks to using a noise filter on an image. Many times I have seen the filter remove shadow details within an image and can sometimes be too extreme in that regard. Also, on several images with very fine detail (such as an image with tall grass in the foreground) I have seen a loss of edge detail and a blending of the images that, in my opinion, detracts from the crispness of the image. Despite these drawbacks, it is still an essential function within the digital workflow.

The big question – where does one apply “denoise” within their digital workflow. The accepted methodology is to denoise near the very beginning of the workflow. Not one to accept what’s generally accepted, I conducted my own tests and arrived at the same conclusion. The noise filter is better at removing noise before the image has been heavily modified and also prevents further post-processing from applying the effects to an all ready noisy image. I did find that in very few images that it was desired to do another low-impact pass of noise filtering after I do my final sharpen to clear up any noise artifacts that weren’t caught in the process.

No related posts.

This debate has been raging on ever since 8MP cameras were within your standard consumer’s reach. While I will admit, hands down, that there is really no way even the best digital camera out there can rival a medium-format camera when it comes to massive enlargements – in the 4×6 to 16×20 realm – I would say there is relatively no difference. Resolution enlargement tools, such as GenuineFractals and sharpening tools such as Nik’s Sharpener can certainly achieve great results when dealing with enlargements that exceed the capabilities of the digital camera.

Some would argue that the color saturation of film will out-match a digital camera. With advances in color-control in the digital realm (through refined Photoshop usage and a properly calibrated monitor), I would argue that saturation levels and color accuracy are equally matched – and ultimately limited by nearly identical printer gamut’s in the actual printing process. If anything, the digital realm allows one to explore the full range of the printer’s gamut range and tweak the results around this limitation.

I will be the first to admit that in order to get great results in printing with digital – you have to become comfortable with tools such as Adobe Photoshop and the learning curve for your own digital workflow is a mile long. You will spend far more time in front of a computer editing images – time, which should ultimately have a cost when comparing with the relatively quick film processing available today. If you count time as part of the cost of digital photography, it’s certainly cheaper to go the route of film.

When it comes to the final result of comparisons between my digital photos that have been carefully edited through a refined digital process and “out-of-the-box” printing from an equally matched 35MM film camera, the resultant quality is would certainly give film a run for it’s money.

No related posts.

Well, I’ve been well on my way to getting digital images into print. I’ve learned a few things about preparing images for print and would like to share them. Post-processing has been fully brought into the photographer’s control – and it’s important to establish a semi-consistent digital workflow to prepare images for print. I have a couple new tools that I have added to my repetoire – Photokit Color and Photokit, both by a company called PixelGenius. These tools give a photographer a quick way to make substantial image corrections and have become part of my regular workflow.

To give an overview of my digital workflow, I first have to select the image I desire to have in print. Using the RAW format exclusively, I have an opportunity to correct minor exposure issues and straighten an image before opening it. Working in RAW format has definitely had a significant advantage with the introduction of Adobe’s Photoshop CS2.

The first decision I have to make is whether the image would have more impact as a full color, partial color, or black & white image. Whether black & white or color – generally the first tool that gets applied to the image is Nik’s RAW presharpening. After that, a quick pass is done with Photokit’s Contrast Mask tool – this does a good job at establishing a good balance between highlights and shadows. If the image is to be black and white, it’s converted after pre-sharpening with Robb Carr’s B&W conversion action, a standard desaturate, Photokit’s color contrast B&W conversion, or hue reduction via a PS layer. From there, it’s on to Photoshop’s curves. This establishes a contrast level that I am pleased with – usually it doesn’t take much but it removes any “haze” that is inherent to digital photography and present after the Contrast Mask.

From there, I will use Photokit to dodge shadows or burn highlights to further even out the contrast balance and help any underexposed or overexposed parts of the photo. This is entirely subjective and occasionally further tweaking of curves is necessary. If necessary, I apply the tweaks as layer masks to allow partial image correction. If the image is color, I’ll adjust the hue intensity with another layer. I’ve been experimenting with very green/yellow images to boost the “master” saturation way up (i.e. +20 – +40) and then reducing yellow saturation (to around -15 to -50) to keep things in balance. This increases saturation of blues, reds, and other colors – while keeping the relatively strong yellow/green to a non-overpowering saturation. This creates vibrant color saturation in many images. Further tweaks are made with various tools at this point to bring the image to where I want it.

At this point, I have decided to save the image as a very high quality JPEG to keep the native resolution of the post-processed image. When preparing for print, I will use Genuine Fractals to increase the resolution if printing at a large print size and then will use PS’s crop tool to bring final print resolution to where it’s necessary. I’ve noticed my printer (Costco) expands the image and cuts off the very edges – so I have to be careful with my crop point on images with edge detail. At this point, my image is converted to my printer’s color profile and any last-minute tweaks are performed if the color profile significantly alters the image color – which is very likely in vivid, colorful pictures such as flowers. Following this, Nik’s Lab Photographic sharpener is used and set to 300DPI, proper viewing distance, and around 50-100% sharpening to minimize noise while maximizing edge contrast.

Overall, my images are coming out extremely crisp, vivid, and will certainly rival standard film. I have very pleased with this final output that I am able to get when in control of all the elements of post-processing.

No related posts.