The film journey continues...

I have run a roll of Fuji Superia 200 colour film through my Minolta Dynax 7 over the last couple of weeks, but haven't processed it yet. I will probably wait until I have a few to develop all at once, since I will dev-only and then scan the negs myself.

Since my last post talking about getting back into film this year, I have purchased a few more items to add to my Minolta and Canon film kits. One is a Minolta 75-300mm f4.5/5.6 D lens. Yes, I know I already have the 70-210mm f4.5/5.6. But it was a great price ($40.00NZ), and I wanted to see if it was worth getting the extra reach over the 70-210mm.

I have also branched out and made my very first purchase on AliExpress! As a hobbyist getting back into film, I shudder at the prices being asked for film here in New Zealand. One roll of standard Kodak Gold 200 is about $40.00NZ in camera stores - $40.00!!! Bugger that. So after a quick look an AliExpress, I purchased 5 rolls of Lucky Black and White 400 film for just under $48.00NZ delivered. That's basically five rolls for the price of one! 

I'll see how it goes shooting and developing it, but at that price, you can't really go wrong?

And speaking of what can go wrong.... you know that Canon EOS 5 I purchased (see last post) for $35.00? Turns out there was a very good reason for it going so cheaply. Yep, it doesn't work. Pop a fresh battery in, turn it on, and press the shutter... and nothing (except a very weird electronic grinding noise). Oh well, it was worth a shot I guess. Although having said that, these EOS 5's seem fairly dodgy, reliability-wise. All sorts of things can go wrong with them (a very weak command dial for a start). So that's it with me and the EOS 5. I'm done with them.

That's not it for me and Canon though. Far from it! Canon and me go way back with film. In fact, when I think of film photography, I really think in terms of Canon. My first camera was a Canon T70, followed by the Canon T90, and then a procession of Canon EOS cameras (100, 10, 50, 30, 1), until I changed to digital in the early 2000s and switched to Nikon. I only really shot film on Canon cameras, so to not have a Canon now that I'm giving film a serious look again would be sacrilegious!

The EOS 300v is one of the last film cameras Canon produced (the 300x was the last), and is jam-packed with modern features and up-to-date autofocus from the digital era. It's a bit of a plastic-fantastic (although it does have a metal lens mount), and because it's not a trendy, all mechanical, traditional-looking film camera, it tends to be ignored by the hipster film community. Suits me. I'm old, and so are my eyes. I need all the help I can get. So modern auto-focus with modern EF lenses will do me nicely thank you. 

It's also a bit of a love it or loath it looking camera. And actually, I quite like the look of it. If you are going to go modern, then by Jove's go all-out!

At the moment I have an early production 35-70mm EF to go with it, but I hope to rectify that in the not too distant future. It will take all Canon EF lenses (including L Pro glass), although of all the brands, Canon's EF lenses seem to retain their value the most. So it might take a while to get some truly decent glass for it.

Fun in the Snow, Arthur's Pass. Kodak Gold 200.

I thought I would finish this post with a photo shot on film - taken about 20 years ago! I don't remember what camera I used, it could have been any number of different options - but to me it brings back so many memories, and has the unmistakeable 'look' of film.

For our kids 21st, my wife and I put together photo albums of their life for them (up to 21yrs obviously). We looked through boxes and boxes of negatives and prints to fill the albums, and probably 95% of the images we used were shot on film. Yes, that's partly because digital only really became viable around 20 years ago, so a lot of their early life was documented on film. But it also had to do with how easy it was to go through them and choose the images we wanted to use. We didn't have to find x,y or z old hard-drive and go through hundreds (if not thousands) of files to find images. We literally picked up a box and flicked through the prints.

Archiving of memories is very important. And I think it could be argued quite seriously that the best way to archive images is with film. How many of us have 'lost' photos to corrupt cards/drives/computers? And how many will continue to do so? Every digital photographer will tell you it's a matter of when, not if. Sure, you can 'loose' film negatives. But baring fire (heaven forbid), if they are kept in a box in the dark, they will last forever. And will print up as good as the day they were taken. Worth thinking about...

OM Solutions Olympus OM-1 'Wow' camera - my thoughts

I feel sorry for OM Solutions (Olympus). I really do. But actually, I feel sorry for all the camera manufacturers releasing new camera models in this day and age. OM Solutions just happens to be the latest example in a long line of recent examples. And I'll tell you why...

There is an old expression - I don't know whether you've heard it - that goes: "They were on a hiding to nothing." Basically what this means is that, no matter what they released, they were going to get hate. I guess that also goes together with a more recent saying; "Haters are gonna hate."

Maybe, it could be argued, that OM Solutions (at least their marketing division) didn't help themselves by building this release up to be their 'Wow' camera. But did they really have a choice? They were hardly going to market the first release of their 'flagship' camera by calling it their new 'A bit better' camera!

And yet, as soon as it was officially released (and for weeks prior), the haters were already wading in with what was disappointing or wrong with the camera. And this includes some of the Olympus faithful! Since it's official release on Feb 15th, I've seen numerous posts on-line by people who have said "That's it. I'm selling all my Olympus gear. I'm done." Or words to that effect. Geez Louise! This camera must really suck!? Or does it?

Spec's wise, let's have a quick look, shall we?

For a start, it has a new 20MP quad-pixel AF stacked CMOS sensor with 1053 cross-type AF points and blackout-free shooting up to 50fps with AF and AE - 120fps with AF and AE locked! Wow! What is not impressive about that people?

Okay, okay - yeah I get it. It's only 20MP. I got news for you buddy - you, yes YOU. 20MP is more than enough for 99% of photographers. Period. 20MP is more than enough for large billboards. 20MP is more than enough for weddings, portraits and landscapes. 20MP is more than enough for your Instagram feed and your Facebook page. It just is. If you feel inferior, and have convinced yourself that you need 40+ megapixels, then micro four thirds was never for you in the first place. Seriously! Go and buy a full frame camera for heaven's sake. Go on... off you go...

For the rest of us mere mortals, the new 20MP stacked sensor in the OM-1 will do just fine. Actually more than just fine. And if you really want to capture more pixels, then have at it with Olympus's fantastic hi-res shooting mode, which has been significantly improved on the OM-1. Due to the new stacked sensor, and improved TruePic X Dual Quad Core processor, the OM-1 can now shoot 50MP resolution images handheld with less risk of subject movement between shots (7 seconds processing time vs 16 seconds on the E-M1 Mk3). It can also create an 80MP Tripod-mounted image as well. And it spits out a RAW image at the end of it all - not just a processed Jpeg.

Is that enough Wow for you? No? Well never mind - there's more...

The new OM-1 is one of the most weather sealed cameras in the world. Environmental sealing rated to IP53 (and no, I don't know what that actually means either. But trust me, it's a lot!). Want more? It has 7 stops of 5-axis  in-body image stabilisation, increased to an incredible 8 stops with a compatible lens. OM-D are also claiming an increased dynamic range over the E-M1 Mk3 of 2 stops (that alone is pretty impressive), and, of course, better low-light performance at higher ISO's (up to a boosted maximum of 102400).

It also has a new 5.76M dot OLED viewfinder with up to 0.83x magnification, a fully articulated 1.62M dot touchscreen, and a new menu system with a more Sony/Canonesque layout and configuration. The new battery is good for 500+ shots and will, of course, allow for a new battery grip to bring it up to the weight and size of a E-M1X.

I haven't even touched on it's new AI tracking capabilities and it's video specifications (4k 60p for 90 minutes, OM-Log - yadda, yadda, yadda).

And yet people aren't impressed.... The camera isn't 'wow' enough for them. They feel the desperate need to change systems. It's a disappointment. Not really an upgrade on what they have already... (insert other rants and moans here...). Are we not entertained?

And this is why I feel sorry for OM Solutions, and Canon, and Nikon, and Sony, and all other manufacturers who have released new products in the last few years. Who remembers the internet loosing it's mind over only one card slot in the Nikon Z6 and Z7? Or the overheating at 8k with the Canon R5? Every time a new camera model is released, the interwebs are awash with haters and nay-sayers just waiting to pounce and declare their crushing disappointment in X, Y or Z.

What a bunch of winging, moaning, self-important, self-entitled, hyper-critical, technology obsessed, narcissistic, over-opinionated a**holes we've become! Just who the hell do we think we are?

All of these cameras are phenomenal achievements in design and technology. And all we can do is bitch and moan about them. I watched a Youtuber the other day describe a single card slot in a camera as a 'deal-breaker' for him, since he shoots weddings. Really? A deal-breaker? So what, may I ask did people shoot weddings with 10 years ago when there were NO camera's with two card slots?

Ok, yes, I get that we have 'moved' on, and we do now have cameras with two card slots. If you feel better shooting a wedding with two card slots in your camera, then by all means, go for it. But a 'deal-breaker'. Really? C'mon. 

Personally, I think that today's cameras are actually a bit too good. A bit too feature-packed and technology laden. Where can they really go from here? How could OM Solutions have made the OM-1 any more 'Wow' than it already is? And before you answer that - think seriously (and I do mean seriously) about what you actually need for your photography.

AI and 'computational' photography are the new buzzwords for the future of our hobby/profession. But at what stage does it then stop being about photography and become more about computer programming?

I, for one, don't need the OM-1. And probably wouldn't use a tenth of it's features if I had one. To me it really is a WOW camera. And so is the Nikon Z9, and the Sony a9, and the Canon R5 etc... Just like most people probably don't use even 1/10th of the functionality in their phones. And yet they will 'upgrade' to a new one every other year. Heck - even my current E-M1 Mk1 is still a WOW camera, and does all I need it to without breaking a sweat.

I suspect that these people who 'need' the latest gear, and who complain the loudest whenever a new camera is released, are actually lousy photographers, who simply want to own the 'greatest' gear as a status symbol. Not for any creative endeavors. Heaven forbid they would actually use the gear to take any photos with!

Having said that, I've also seen plenty of posts on-line from people who have pre-ordered the OM-1, and who are genuinely excited about the new camera. Good on them. I'm sure they will be very happy with their new gear. I lusted after the EM1x when it first came out, and I certainly wouldn't say no if one was handed to me. But I'm also not about to go on any forums and slag it off just because it's bigger than it should be, or doesn't do this, that, or the other.

To stay in business, camera manufacturers must release new product. And said new product must be 'better' than last years model. I get that. But have we almost come to the point where they actually can't get much better? Where photography gives way to electrical engineering and computational physics? As Kodak once famously said. "You push the button, we do the rest."

Getting 'retro' with Digital - the Olympus Evolt E-300

Generally speaking I'm not one of those photographers who worries about the megapixel rating of a camera. I don't feel the need to shoot at 50, 40 or even 20 megapixels to take a 'good' image. Great photos have nothing to do with megapixels. I'll say that again in case you missed it - great photos have NOTHING to do with megapixels.

I have, from time to time, been known to take out a 6MP Nikon D70 and take photos with it. And despite its 'limitations' (tiny, low-res lcd screen ) I still really enjoy shooting with it. You can get some cracking images out of it. I even posted a video about my experiences with it on my Youtube channel here.

And why not? The D70 didn't stop being a camera when it was 'replaced' by the D80, or the D90 etc... Ok, 6MP won't let you print billboards, but it will let you print up to A3. And who but a handful are printing anything nowadays anyway?

Which leads me, I guess, to the subject of this post - the Olympus Evolt E-300. Which was also released the same year as the Nikon D70 (2004), and which also didn't stop being a camera when the newer E-330 was released  a couple of years later.

But why am I posting about it now - you ask? Well, I've only gone and bought one, haven't I! And why would you do that - you ask (again). That's a very good question, and I'm still trying to figure that out I suppose. But I have a few ideas....

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, it was darn cheap. I mean throw-away cheap. Of course there are a few reasons for that. A) its age - yes, it's an old camera from 2004 - practically a dinosaur technologically speaking (although you already know what I feel about that line of reasoning). We live in such a consumer-driven throw-away society, that any technology older than a few years is seen very quickly as redundant and un-useable. Which makes some of these old digital cameras a complete bargain. Ironically, they are even cheaper than old film cameras. But, of course, old technology does come with a few risks. That leads me nicely into point B) its condition. It's not in a good state. In fact giving it the term 'beater-camera' might be doing it a favour? So buying it as-is was a bit of a gamble. It may not even work at all? The seller made no promises - but did say that it was powering on when the battery was charged. So that's something I guess?

As you can see from the photos, which are of the actual camera I've purchased, it has had a pretty hard life by the looks. As seen above, the CF card door looks busted and held together by tape, and general overall condition is poor. I'm hoping that it's only cosmetic, and I won't mind using tape to keep the CF card door closed if I have to.

Actually what concerns me the most is the lens. It comes with the standard 14-45mm f3.5/5.6 kit lens, but there's something very wrong with it in the pictures supplied for the auction. For a start, it's on upside down! And it also appears to have some sort of adapter between it and the camera body? The guy selling it 'seems' to not know much about cameras. He's being very vague anyway - which also may not be a great sign. But, once again, I'm hoping that it's all purely cosmetic, and a functional camera will arrive in the post. Wishful thinking? I hope not.

So why did I but it then? I guess GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) had something to do with it. I just like buying and trying cameras. Despite all my reservations with the condition, auction images and seller, ultimately I suppose I smelled a bargain, and it was too good to refuse. Which takes me back to my original point - it was cheap. So even if it turns up DOA, I'm not really in it for much and can chalk it up to experience. But if it actually works...

Second reason I decided to get the Olympus E-300 is simple - I've always wanted one. I remember vividly when they first came out, and I wanted one then. Some reviewers at the time called the camera ugly, and it's certainly unconventional. But I like the look of it. I also like the fact that it's different from most other DSLR's - both then and now. I guess it reminds me a little of my Fuji X-E2, with its rectangular shape and viewfinder off to the left-hand side. And although it might look like a rangefinder styled mirrorless camera, it's certainly not.

The Evolt E-300 uses a rather unique mirror system instead of a pentaprism to create the view through the optical viewfinder. Olympus called it an Optical Porro Finder, and its sideways swinging mirror lends to the camera's flat-top profile. Instead of the image from the lens being directed upwards to the viewfinder prism it is directed rightwards and then up to the viewfinder which is offset from the lens axis. A similar system was used by Olympus in their Pen series of film cameras. To my knowledge, the Olympus E-300 and E-330 are the only DSLR's to ever use this unique mirror design (I could be wrong), so that alone makes me want to try the camera out. Some may think it's ugly. I actually think it's kinda cool looking. And it looks positively bad-ass with the optional grip attached!

It has an 8MP 4/3rds sensor from Kodak, and was the second DSLR Olympus released using the 4/3rds sensor mount (the original 4/3rds, not micro 4/3rds). ISO's go from 100 to 400, with a boost up to 1600 which isn't advisable. It has no IS - that came a little later. And there's also no live-view, but I'm not bothered by that. The lcd on the back is only 1.8" and low-res, so wouldn't be much good for live view anyway. It does have a silent-wave sensor cleaning system. shutter speeds up to 1/4000th, and a +/-5 EV exposure compensation range! It shoots in RAW, RAW+Jpeg, and Tiff - although I'll probably try to get the best out of the sensor by processing the RAW file.

The seller online described the camera as a 'project' for somebody, and that's exactly how I'm viewing it. I'll clean it up, hopefully get it to work, and then take it out and see what kind of images I can make with it. IF it's a working unit, and IF I enjoy using it, then it may just be the start of my journey into 4/3rds? Zuiko glass is top quality, and apparently some of the 4/3rds lenses are right up there with Canon 'L' series at a fraction of the price. I'm not put off by a 4/3rds sensor, just as I wasn't put off by micro four thirds. At the end of the day, they are all just tools you can use to create your own vision. I just hope that this tool actually works!?

=================================================================

UPDATE

The camera arrived not longer after publishing this post - and nope - it didn't work! DOA 😱😠

Oh well, you win some, and you loose some....

Using Fujifilm's PC AutoSave function

There's not a lot I don't like about my Fujifilm X-E2. The size, weight, form factor, ergonomics and IQ are all fantastic, and I adore the range-finderesque style of shooting (which is a complete surprise to me).

There are, however, a couple of features (or lack of in one case) that I am not all that crazy about. First, which I wrote about last post, is the X-E2's inability to set individual white balance shifts for each custom film setting. To be fair, this isn't just an X-E2 issue, and was only recently fixed with the X-Pro 3 and X100V. Still, I wish the X-E2 had this ability.

Second, due to its X-Trans II sensor, the X-E2 doesn't have the Acros film simulation, and nor does it have any Grain setting for the film recipes. If I am going to stick to shooting in Jpeg-only going forwards (which remains to be seen), these are two settings I would dearly love to have. As much as I adore the X-E2 in most other respects, these omissions have me seriously considering upgrading to the X-E3.

And third, I'm not a huge fan of the positioning of the SD card underneath the camera right next to the battery. For a couple of reasons. Primarily, it's fiddly to get the card out with the battery in place, and even worse if the extra grip is attached. Fuji's own accessory grip for the X-E2 covers the battery compartment completely and so needs to be removed every time you need to change battery or SD card. I also have a third party grip which is better, in that it does have a cut-out so the door can be opened without complete removal of the grip. However, it makes the hole quite a bit deeper and therefore even more difficult to get you fingers in to eject the card. Sigh...

While not much can be done to fix my first two gripes (other than an upgrade to the X-E3 or X-Pro 3... yes please), my final issue does actually have a work-around - especially if you're shooting jpeg-only. It's a brilliant solution called PC AutoSave, and basically uses your home wi-fi connection to transfer all the images from the card to your computer wirelessly.

I recall a couple of years ago investigating whether this could be done on my Olympus OM-D EM5 MkII. I think that I had seen on some promotional material at the time that this feature was available on the Fuji's - so I presumed that since the E-M5 MkII had wi-fi connectivity, that it could do it as well. But alas, it couldn't. I actually wrote about my frustration with this at the time here.

In the ensuing couple of years, I'd obviously forgotten about this feature on the Fuji system (I'm getting old), and haven't been utilising it at all. Something (don't ask me what) jogged my memory the other day when I had returned from a quick shoot with the X-E2 at the Cobden Lagoon (see last post). As I was preparing to fight yet again with the camera to give up its SD card I suddenly thought "Hang on a minute. Can't you download these images over wi-fi?" And the answer is 'yes', you can.

It's pretty strtaight-forward as well (thanks Fujifilm). Just download the Fujifilm PC AutoSave App on your PC or laptop, open the software on the computer, and follow the prompts. You will first have to set your camera up to 'Save to PC' in its wi-fi settings, and then connect the camera to your home wi-fi network. But once you've achieved these simple tasks (the software walks you through the process) the rest is plain sailing. Point the software to the folder you want to use as the 'download' folder, hit enter when the camera asks you if you want to transfer the files to your PC, and bingo - away it goes. Brilliant!

Honestly, this is the answer to all my prayers (in-so-far as the SD card issues are concerned). With wireless transfer of images to my computer, I need never take the 64GB SD card out of the camera ever again! And you only have to go through the (relatively painless) rigmarole of setting it up once. Next time you come back from shooting, set the camera to 'Image Preview' mode, press the wi-fi button, and the camera should pair up to the computer automatically.

It's a great system for someone shooting Jpeg-only, with 'relatively' small file sizes. I'd imagine that if you were shooting RAW + Jpeg and came back from a wedding with a full 64GB card (or two), then it might take quite some time to transfer them all over wi-fi. In that scnario, perhaps the old-fashion card reader might still be the better option? But for one or two hundred Jpegs transferred over wi-fi, the wait time isn't too horrendous.

Fortunately, after file transfer is complete, the camera disables the wi-fi connection automatically. You should, however, make sure that you have a reasonably full battery in the camera during image downloading, since the camera - not surprisingly - needs to be 'on' during the process.

This all may be old-hat to many of you who have been using Fuji cameras fro a while. But for me, it's been almost revolutionary! I've never been able to do this with any other camera that I've owned - although I wanted to with the Olympus's and couldn't understand why they didn't.

If, like me, you've been fiddling about getting the SD cards out of the slot next to the battery chamber, then fiddle no more! Download Fujifilm's PC AutoSave app and enjoy the liberating experience of wireless image transfer! What a relief.

Vlogging is HARD!

This year I’ve started vlogging on Youtube. I’ve only produced four vlogs so far (as of April 2019), so I’m hardly an expert (and probably never will be). But I do have a few thoughts on the initial experience, some on gear, and some on the technicalities of editing etc.

Firstly the gear. Because I’m just beginning, and don’t intend on becoming a ‘serious’ daily vlogger, I want to make use of the gear I’ve already got. I’m still not sure whether I’m going continue vlogging either, so really don’t want to pour a whole lot of money (that I don’t have) into expensive gear that I’m never going to use.

So, for my first vlog (which can be viewed here), I used a Canon 650D that I borrowed from work for the weekend. The 650D has a handy flip-out screen (almost essential) and Canon’s excellent Dual Pixel autofocusing. This allows the video to track focus on the subject in the viewfinder automatically, and also silently with an STM (Stepping Motor) lens attached. The 18-135mm lens that came with the 650D isn’t really wide enough for vlogging purposes when you are pointing the camera at yourself at arms-length, so I attached a Canon 10-22mm ultar-wide so I could fit everything in. Unfortunately, the 10-22mm isn’t an STM lens, and the constant focusing noise captured on the audio was an issue. To get around this I simply manual focused the 10-22mm and used an f8 aperture so that everything was going to be in focus.

And speaking of audio – anyone will tell you that good video with poor audio is a sure fire way to ruin your vlog. Fortunately, I purchased a Rhode Video Micro external microphone about a year ago for another project. I attached this to the hotshoe of the Canon 650D – which has an external microphone import – for superior audio.

I was pleased with the first vlog, but the 650D with Canon 10-22mm, Canon 18-135mm STM, tripod and Gorillapod added a whole new additional kit I had to carry around with me all afternoon. Quality was great, but weight really was an issue.

For my second vlog (posted here), I decided to lighten the load somewhat (and I no longer had the use of the Canon 650D) by using my Olympus Pen E-P3’s video mode. It shoots 1080i HD at 30fps, and I simply set it in movie mode and let the camera take care of everything. The E-P3 doesn’t have an external microphone input, so I had to use the internal microphone on the camera. Not ideal, but I built a DIY wind-shield for the E-P3 to reduce the wind-noise problem that internal microphones produce. It works surprisingly well, although it looks a bit like a Frankenstein’s monster!

For lenses, I actually used the Olympus 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens – a manual focus fixed aperture f8 lens that works surprisingly well for vlogging. The E-P3 doesn’t have a flippy-out screen so you can see yourself filming, but with the fisheye lens attached you just need the lens element pointing at you and you’re going to be in shot – guaranteed.

This lightened the load considerably, and although the clarity of the video is not in the same league as the Canon, I reckon it’s good enough for vlogging with.

With my third vlog (here) I decided to do it on shooting with my Nikon D70 DLSR, which meant my main digital camera – the Olympus OM-D E-M1 was free to shoot some video. The E-M1 has more video options than the Pen E-P3, as well as an external mic output which meant I could use the Rhode Video Micro again. I took the vertical grip off the camera to lighten the load, and once again attached the 9mm Fisheye bodycap lens for the majority of the filming. I was very happy with this combination; not as light as the E-P3, but with better video quality – and not as heavy as the Canon 650D, with similar video quality. Almost perfect.

I say ‘almost’ because there’s no doubt that the autofocusing is superior with Canon’s dual pixel technology, and if I’m using the E-M1 as my vlogging camera, I can’t use it to shoot with! So there’s my main digital camera out of action!

On my last vlog (here), I shot entirely with the E-P3 again, since the subject of the video – my Nikon F4 – is already a heavy beast of a camera. Once again I wanted to go as light as possible, and once again I was reasonably happy with the compromises I made to capture the footage with the least amount of equipment and weight.

So I guess I’ve got a fairly decent handle on the equipment side of things and am happy with the video I’m capturing. So what about the other technical aspects of creating a vlog? What about the editing?

To be honest, most recently the editing has been an absolute nightmare – and a complete disaster! For my very first vlog I took it easy and used Microsoft Movie Maker. It worked fine, but I did feel limited and wanted to learn a more fully featured editing package. So I moved on to Da-Vinci Resolve 15 for my next two vlogs and really enjoyed the experience. But then came Vlog #4…

For whatever reason, when editing my fourth vlog, Da Vinci Resolve decided not to play nicely. I kept coming up with ‘video offline’ errors all through my edit, even though the video files were linked correctly and where they should be. I looked the problem up on-line, and saw numerous other people with the same issue. There were lots of ‘fixes’ for the problem mentioned, but I tried them all and none of them worked. After a week of this, I got so frustrated I gave up on Da-Vinci Resolve and downloaded Lightworks instead.

I then proceeded to edit the entire video again in Lightworks – only to discover that this time there was a problem with the audio not syncing properly. Again I looked this up on-line, and again I discovered it was a fairly common problem. Aaarrrgghhh.

So I uninstalled Lightworks, and tried again – this time with the old standby, Window’s Movie Maker. But there was one problem with Movie Maker right off the bat – it wouldn’t read the video files from the E-P3! Slightly undeterred, I eventually found a file conveter and converted the E-P3’s video files to something that Movie maker could read (apparently). Spent another night editing the vlog (again), got half-way through, and called it a night. A few days later I opened Movie maker again to continue editing the vlog, but Movie Maker wasn’t reading the converted files this time either! What the heck is going on!?

Was almost – not quite, but almost – ready to give in, having edited the vlog from scratch at least four times over a period of about two weeks! What changed my mind (about giving up) was seeing an advert for Adobe’s Premier Rush video editing trial. I have recently signed back up with Adobe’s photography plan on the Creative Cloud, and I discovered I could download Adobe’s Premier Rush video editing software and use it to upload 3 vlogs to Youtube. After you’ve used 3 uploads you have to then start paying monthly for it 😟

Ok, long story short (too late), I enjoyed using Premier Rush, and it worked perfectly. No ‘media offline, audio synching or video format issues whatsoever. Yahoo! Was a fairly simple programme to edit in to, after I got the hang of how it works. So I’m saved – for now. Just have to figure out what I’ll use after I’ve used my 3 uploads.

So – vlogging. Why bother? Well I’m not sure I have a definitive answer to that question yet. Depending on what you use to capture the video with, it can be a pain having to carry around a lot of extra kit. And even if you go light, it takes twice as long to shoot anything, and a whole heap of creative energy coming up with the video – B-roll, and pieces to-camera. And then there’s the extra files involved, the storage issues, and the video editing. Bit of a headache for someone who has never considered himself a video guy.

But, having said all that, I look back on the final edited video with a great sense of achievement and pride. I really enjoy being able to teach others through video – it’s a powerful medium that has, in many ways, surpassed the written word, especially on-line. Is it a pain in the ass to create all this content? Yes, it is. But, when it’s all created, uploaded and ‘live’ on Youtube, was it all worth it? Yes, I think it was.

Would love to hear your comments and feedback about your own vlogging experiences – and about my vlogs. Follow the links in this post to view them on Youtube and, as they say, please ‘Like’ and Subscribe to follow me and see more content as I produce it 😊

Dual Monitor Home Office setup

My dual monitor station at work

I've always thought of a dual monitor setup as a bit of an unnecessary luxury. Throughout my design and photography career I've mostly used iMacs - with the biggest monitor size I could afford. A few years ago I had a guy try to sell me a second monitor for the iMac I was using at the time. He extolled to me the virtues of a dual monitor setup, and why I should buy his Apple monitor off him (for a horrendous price at the time). But I really got the sense that he was just trying to sell me something he didn't want, so I wasn't sold (both literally and figuratively) on a second monitor for my iMac.

Well, that was then, and this - as they say - is now. Since I started working in my present job, I've used a dual monitor PC (Windows) setup. And I have to say that I love it! Why, oh why, did it take me so long to discover the virtues of a dual monitor working environment?

My 'small' 1320 x 900mm working space

Of course when I come home, I revert back to a single monitor work station. Not the end of the world, but I definitely miss the dual monitor setup at work. So, over the Christmas holiday period, I decided to do something about it.

My son Joshua built his own gaming PC over the holidays, and wanted a computer desk to set it up on in his bedroom. The desk I was using in my 'office' (a small sun-room attached to the side of our house) was perfect for his requirements, so I said he could have it if he helped me install a purpose-built desk in my office that could accommodate two monitors.

Phase one in a dual monitor workspace, however, was getting another monitor! Fortunately I had a birthday (my 50th) just prior to Christmas. So I let it be known to the family that I'd like a new monitor to use with my exisiting Asus 20". Joshua and I had a look on-line at what was available in my price range and size, and in the end we opted for an AOC 21.5" i2280SW. At 1920x1080px it has a higher resolution than my Asus (at 1600x900px), but the Asus is a chunkier monitor, so when you place them side by side the difference in minimal and the screens themselves line-up almost perfectly. Eventually I'd like to get a second, identical AOC. But this will do in the meantime.

The 'bracing' in place for the desk top

With a second monitor purchased, all I needed now was to design the desk, purchase the wood, and have it cut to size. I opted for 18mm MDF board, and has able to get it cut to size by a work colleague in the carpentry department of the Polytech.

The design was simple - just a 1320x750mm board with a hole in the center for the computer cords, and a beveled front edge. Some bracing to hold it all in place - and with the left over boards from the sheet of MDF I designed a cube to hold the laser printer and hard drives. Easy.

I don't consider myself a 'handy man' so I kept the design as simple as possible. It really is just a board that everything sits on top of. I didn't need draws or any other fancy compartments. I just needed enough space for two monitors, keyboard, mouse and graphics tablet. Something that would maximise the available space (wall-to-wall) and give me enough working distance for comfortable viewing.

My new Dual Monitor Office space at home.

I'm thrilled with the final result, and now have my own dual monitor setup at home. My new AOC 21.5" is my main monitor on the left - where I do all the designing and Photoshop/Lightroom editing. The Asus monitor on the right is for any other documents I need open to support what I'm doing with the design and editing process. This can be anything from a full size image in Lightroom (see the first image of this blog), to a word document, web page or emails. Windows can be dragged from one monitor to the other at will, and re-size automatically according to each screens optimal resolution.

If you are a photographer, designer, or heavy multi-tasker on your computer - and you've never experienced a dual monitor setup - than I would strongly suggest you try it for yourself somehow. Find someone who has a dual monitor setup and get them to show you how it works (it's very easy). I can almost guarantee that once you try a dual monitor workstation, you'll never want to go back to working on a single monitor system again.

50 Best Nat Geo Photos Exhibition

Exhibition Advertising at Canterbury Museum, Christchurch NZ

Living as I do in a small rural town, I don't get out much. I certainly don't get to as many international exhibitions as I would like. We do, however, go to Christchurch a few times a year to see family, and this will occasionally coincide with an exhibition or show worth seeing.

Such was the case on our last visit in early February 2018, when National Geographic's "50 Greatest Photographs" just happened to be on at the Canterbury Museum. I couldn't possibly pass up the chance to see some of my favourite images 'in the flesh'. We only had an hour before heading back to the West Coast, but I was not going to miss the opportunity to see 50 of National Geographic's most iconic images.

Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl"

Of course the most famous of them all is Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl" which took pride of place at the entrance to the exhibition. It's such a simple, yet iconic portrait and it was amazing to see it printed large (about 1.5m tall) and back-lit in the darkened gallery space.

The one feature that everyone mentions in relation to the portrait are her piercing eyes. These were made even more piercing with the use of back-lighting. They practically glowed, and are so incredibly sharp (as they should be).

Steve McCurry and National Geographic are inextricably linked through this portrait - it's his modern 'Mona Lisa' - the image he will forever be known for. But, just like DaVinci, Steve McCurry has a larger body of work just as exceptional as the Afghan Girl portrait. Fortunately, other images of his were also represented in the exhibition (three in total if I counted correctly), making him the most represented National geographic photographer in the exhibition. Another of his images also happened to be my favourite in the entire show...

Steve McCurry - "Burning Oil Fields"

McCurry described his image "Burning Oil Fields" as like being in hell. Camels and other animals escaped across the Kuwait Desert through oil fields that had been set alight by retreating Iraquis - poisoning the land and the air. It's another powerful image, but for such different reasons from the "Afghan Girl" portrait.

Nick Nichols - "Jane Goodall and Jou Jou the Chimpanzee"

Another iconic image (in a room full of them), was Nick Nichols' photo of Jane Goodall's tender interaction with Jou Jou the Chimpanzee. As you can see in the shot above, many of the photos had the sequence of images taken down the side so you could get an understanding of the photographer's working of the scene that lead to the 'one' great image. The 'decisive moment' as Henri Cartier-Bresson described it. These sequences, together with the story behind the image in the photographer's own words, gave fantastic context to all the photos in the exhibition and helped bring them to life. Yes, images can, and should, be able to speak for themselves. But some background information can also be important, especially with the National Geographic's photojournalistic style where the one image itself is often part of a larger story.

Visitors to the exhibition - Canterbury Museum.

As I mentioned at the start of this post, we only had an hour to go around the whole exhibition. That wasn't really enough time to take it all in  - I could have spent three hours reading the captions, watching the videos and soaking the images in. We were there mid-afternoon on a school day, and there were still a lot of people enjoying the exhibition. I suspect because of the subject matter and the strong brand that National Geographic has, this has been an incredibly successful show that has toured all over the world. It also helps that it was free entry - although I certainly would have paid to see the exhibition.

Mitsuaki Iwago - "Brutal Fight"

The exhibition runs until February 25th 2018 at the Canterbury Museum, and is well worth a look if you are a lover of images, stories, photojournalism or photography. Basically this exhibition has something for everyone! And it's free entry! So what are you waiting for people. Go. Now...

Sometimes simple is better.

Recently I ended my love affair with the Olympus OM-D E-M5 MkII, swapping it for the Nikon D7100. I was pining for a DSLR again, and although I now do miss the mirrorless experience (more specifically the evf), I still think it was the right move to make. Just not with the D7100. Let me explain…

Many reviewers still claim that the Nikon D7100 (D7200) is the best DSLR you can buy (in terms of features for the price), and I can’t say that I disagree. It’s got everything but the kitchen sink thrown into a very well made, solid, yet compact(ish) camera. Sure, the buffer could be better. But that’s about where the complaining ends. And I expected to love using it, after enjoying cameras like the D200 and D300 which share a very similar design aesthetic. Trouble is, I didn’t enjoy using it – at all. In fact, I found it confusing and difficult to use. And this is from someone coming from the menu nightmare on the Olympus!

I don’t know what it is – I really don’t. But I just couldn’t get my head around navigation of the D7100. Every time I used it, I would find myself fumbling to access or change the most basic of settings. This came to a head recently when I went to take some photos of my daughter and her friends before their senior ball. It was tricky lighting, I’ll admit – inside, at night, with only the camera’s pop-up flash, and everyone anxious to get going to the ball. So not the easiest of shoots. But even so, it’s something that I should have handled without breaking a sweat.

Except I didn’t handle it – at all. Every shot I took looked grossly over-exposed on the back of the camera, while I frantically tried to dial back the exposure compensation on both the camera and the flash. Nothing seemed to be working, and so I forged on regardless, thinking that I could pull ‘something’ decent out later in post since I was shooting RAW. I was wrong. They are all practically useless. The first few are ok, but it goes down-hill swiftly from there.

I went home after this abysmal fiasco and had to do it all over again with my son who was also going to the ball. Perfect exposures – every time!? I still have no idea how or why it went so terribly wrong at one moment, and so easy the next. Just no idea. And that freaks me out. And the D7100 freaks me out because of it. So I have sold it. And it was probably the easiest decision I’ve ever had to make selling a camera kit. The D7100 and I did not become friends.

In the time-honoured tradition of breaking up, I’d just like to clarify that it’s not you (D7100), it’s me. I’m the one with the problem. I’m sure you will go on to have a beautiful relationship with someone who will look after you and know how to treat you right. I wish you nothing but the best, and I’m sure you’ll both be very happy together.

Me? Well, rather callously, I’ve already moved on. And, not wanting to flog this break-up analogy to death (but I’m going to anyway), I’ve gone back to an old flame. They say the first love is always the best. My first love was with Canon. I already ‘own’ a well-used Canon 50D with 10-22mm lens (on permanent loan from a friend who has gone full-frame), and I have managed to pick up a really mint 40D body for a steal on-line ($180NZ). It’s probably the third time I’ve owned this camera (as well as the 20D and 30D), and that should tell you something.

I guess many will read this and see the move from a 24MP Nikon D7100 to a 10MP Canon 40D as a HUGE step backwards. And maybe it is? But I’ve said this in my blogs often enough – and I’ll quite happily say it again – it’s NOT about megapixels! And, depending on the type of shooting you do, it’s also NOT about high ISO noise performance either! I’ve always said that, for me, the sweet spot with megapixels is about 10 to 12. Plenty enough for a crisp A3 print. I hardly ever crop in to my images. Coming from the film days, I have had the mantra of ‘compose in-camera’ firmly ingrained in my psyche. I don’t need (or want) 24MP. To be honest, all those megapixels make me nervous (yeah, I know – weird).

The Canon 40D with Grip. My 'Goldilocks' DSLR

The 40D (and 50D) is ‘my’ sweet-spot for a DSLR. The Goldilocks of cameras if you will. Not too big and not too small. Just right. As well as having 10MP, the 40D; shoots at 6.5fps with a decent buffer (I like to shoot sports occasionally), has a weather-sealed magnesium alloy body (great for landscape work), takes CF cards (I still prefer them over the flimsier SD cards), has excellent battery life (a relief coming from mirrorless), has live-view with exposure simulation, grid lines and a histogram readout (surprisingly better than the D7100 implementation), exceptional ergonomics (Canon’s control wheel and joystick are ingenious), and no video modes to get in the way (I ain’t a video guy). Everything I need, and nothing I don’t.

So no, I don’t see it as a step backwards at all. I see it as a positive affirmation of the kind of gear I like to use, to create the kind of images I like to make. Also, the great news for me is that the ‘older’ gear is always cheaper – leaving more money for what really matters – lenses.

If you really want to see a distinct improvement in your photos, then spend more money on glass and less on your camera body. Unfortunately, this equation has been flipped on its head over the last decade with the proliferation of cheap, plastic, do-it-all, slow, low-quality zoom lenses. Yes, they look pretty, and yes, they are sharp enough. But they have computer-designed everything to within an inch of its life, resulting in bland ‘good enough’ image quality. The ‘you get what you pay for’ advice is never truer than with camera lenses. I’ll take a nice piece of glass on a 40D over a cheap plastic zoom on a 1Dx any day of the week – and so should you.

As already mentioned, I have the use of a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM that will work perfectly for landscapes. Now the hunt is on for a good mid-range lens to compliment the 10-22 (something like a 24-105mm f4L), a longer telephoto (maybe the 70-200mm f4L), and a Canon Speedlite (the 430 EX II) to make the kit complete. I think I’d like to buy EF (rather than EF-S) lenses to allow a future upgrade path to full-frame (remember the EF-S 10-22 is just on-loan), as well as for complete compatibility with my Canon EOS 1 film camera (which won’t take EF-S lenses). Not sure my budget will stretch to all of the above, but I’ll give it a good go.

52 Week Project - Week 3

Blaketown Sunset - "Red". Samsung S3

Week three of the 52 Week Project and the subject is 'Red'.

The more perceptive of you will realise that I'm a little (lot) late with the third installment - it's actually more like week 6!

No excuses - but I'm also not going to beat myself up about it either. I have had a few people join me on this project (thanks Bryn and Grace) a little late, so I've stopped to let them play 'catch-up'. We are probably back on track now - and anyway, who said that the 52 weeks of the Project had to be consecutive?! :-)

Is my contribution this week really red? Or is it more orange? Or maybe Orangey-Red? There's definitely a big spike in the red channel of the histogram (if that's anything to go by) - and that's good enough for me.

This is actually another phone shot, taken a few evenings ago when I just happened to be out to witness another glorious West Coast sunset (more on that next post). If not for this chance encounter with a beautiful sunset, I probably still wouldn't have a 'Red' image?

I can tell already that the 'creative' component of theses projects is going to represent the biggest challenge to me. Why is that? Am I not a very creative person? Do I not think very creatively when it comes to photography? Or have I got into a rut from 25 years of shooting? I guess projects like this are designed to get you thinking more creatively than you otherwise would have to if you concentrated solely on landscapes or portraits (not to say that you can't or shouldn't be creative with either of those subjects).

Have I been 'creative' in my interpretation of 'Red' as a subject? If I'm honest with myself, then 'no', I haven't been. I've just taken a shot of a beautiful sunset that just happens to have red tones in it (lucky for me). That's not to say that I wasn't thinking about other ways I could interpret the colour red - because I have been, a lot. In the end though, nothing really sparked my interest, and the above shot was taken and posted almost out of sheer desperation.

And maybe that's also what these projects/challenges are good for. Exposing weaknesses. Shaking us out of habits and ruts. Blowing the cobwebs, slowly but surely, out of the creative corners of the brain. If I can achieve that this year, then the challenge will have been worth it.

Olympus Viewer 3 vs Corel AfterShot Pro 3

The great thing about deciding on new software is that you can usually download a fully functioning trial for a month to 'try before you buy'. In my last two posts, I pitted Olympus's free RAW conversion software - Viewer 3 (OV3), up against Adobe Lightroom CC (version 2015.4). I was, and still am, impressed with Olympus's proprietary software, and believe it gives a superior result with less effort, especially in colour accuracy.

But for all its good points, OV3 isn't the slickest software on the planet. It's reasonably intuitive, but very slow, clunky, and lacks a lot of the more refined selection and adjustment options of other products. So I wanted to try a few more options for RAW conversions before settling on my programme of choice.

I should also re-state for the record that the whole purpose of this search was to move away from being reliant on the subscription-based software plan that Adobe now enforces on users. Yes, it has its supporters. But I'm not one of them. So I would like to find something else that I can use/purchase outright. Of course the great benefit of OV3 is that it comes free with my camera. You can't get much cheaper than free - right?

At $95NZ currently for Corel's Aftershot Pro 3 (AP3), it won't break the bank for a fully featured RAW conversion solution. If I remember correctly, Corel purchased Bibble, and this formed the basis of Aftershot? Many complained that Corel didn't really do anything with the software other than repackage it, and has let it languish for quite a while. AP3, however, is a fairly new release. And may signal a serious intention by Corel to really go after Adobe in the Photography software sector?

Indeed, Corel are marketing AP3 as the world's fastest RAW photo editor - up to 4x faster than Adobe Lightroom. They also highlight its compatibility with Adobe Photoshop, as well as their own PaintShop Pro. Corel are a very respected name in the graphic industry. I started out using CorelDraw before Adobe's Illustrator and InDesign became the industry standards, and PaintShop Pro looks like a serious contender against Photoshop. So they are no slouches when it comes to software development, and I had high hopes for AfterShot Pro 3.

Corel's AfterShot Pro 3 Tiff on the left and Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on right

The UI for AP3 is very impressive - clean, quick and fairly intuitive to use. It reminds me less of Lightroom and more of Apple's Aperture (which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned). For the purposes of this test, I simply opened the Olympus .orf RAW files in AP3 (by pointing them to the correct folder on the HDD), and then saved them out as a 16 bit Tiff file with no modifications to the file whatsoever. I then opened them in OV3's Lightbox so I could compare the AP3 file against the OV3 file side by side.

Immediately noticeable between the two files is the warmer colour cast apparent in the AfterShot Pro 3 file. I call it a 'cast' because I believe the Olympus file to be a more accurate representation of the colours in the scene. It's not horrible - just noticeably more warmer/yellow in the AP3 Tiff. This bias towards warmer, reddy/yellow colours was to continue through all the AP3 files when compared to the Olympus (and Lighroom) conversions.

AfterShot Pro 3 on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right. The 'warmer' colour cast in AP3 is evident.

The warm cast is very obvious when looking at the example above. AP3 makes it look (and feel) like it was taken on an early autumn morning, when in reality it was taken on a cold winters afternoon. The colours in OV3 are a far more accurate representation. Even the white of the boat looks 'cleaner' in the OV3 rendered file.

What's perhaps not as apparent is the lack of sharpness in the AfterShot Pro 3 files. I've already talked about the sharpness that Olympus dial into their conversions by default (see previous post), so I made sure that I was using the OV3 files that had -2 Sharpening, -2 Contrast and -2 Saturation applied. This brings the OV3 files almost exactly in-line with the Lightroom files in terms of sharpness. The AP3 files, in comparison, look very soft - almost to the point of being blurry. Now some may argue that this is exactly how an unedited Tiff should look - with absolutely no sharpening applied whatsoever. I'm sure they would sharpen up nicely in Photoshop (or in AfterShot Pro 3 itself).

AfterShot Pro 3 on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right.

Above is a good example of the differences between the two programmes indicated thus far. The AP3 file is leaning heavily towards the warmer colours, and is 'soft' in comparison to the Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff. Yes, I'm sure you could tweak the AfterShot settings to get the conversion looking much more like the Olympus file, but I'd rather just start there in the first place. The OV3 file is where I would want to end up eventually anyway.

AfterShot Pro 3 on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right.

What sold me on OV3 over Lightroom was the extra detail and 'truer' colours I was getting with Olympus in the above sunset shot. As you can see, it's an awful lot closer when we compare the AP3 colours. Although it's also not really surprising, since we've seen an obvious colour bias with AfterShot Pro 3 towards the warmer yellows and reds. I like both renditions, but I would still give the edge to OV3. There's just a bit more detail evident in the yellow highlights - although that also may be due to the lack of overall sharpness in the AP3 file.

Overall, AfterShot Pro 3 is a RAW conversion editor that I could easily live with. Especially if a profile could be saved that applied some sharpness and a touch less warmth by default. But then we'd be back to where we wanted to be with OV3 - the free programme that comes with my camera. I know I keep coming back to that, but it really is worth repeating. Check out the software that comes with your camera (whether it's Canon, Nikon, Olympus etc). It's yours, it works (albeit sometimes rather slowly), it will save you money, and it will probably even give you superior results.

The hunt for a 'better' RAW Conversion editor continues....

Olympus Viewer 3 vs Lightroom CC Part 2

Since my last post on the comparison between Olympus Viewer 3 and Lightroom CC, I've done a little more research into OV3 (Olympus Viewer 3).

It appears that Olympus are applying a decent amount of sharpening and noise reduction to the file once it's output - even if the software settings are all set to '0' or Off. Olympus's jpegs are praised by many as being some of the best out-of-camera jpegs in the industry. Sharp, contrasty, and with great colour. It would appear that the software developers for OV3 want to make sure you get these same results when outputting from an .orf  RAW file, even at the '0' or Off settings.

So I decided to repeat the comparison, but this time I dialed in -2 Sharpness, -2 Contrast, -2 Saturation, and set the Noise Reduction to 'OFF' (from 'As Shot' - even though NR in the camera is, in fact, set to 'OFF').

Lightroom CC on right, Olympus Viewer 3 on the left.

So what's the verdict now? Well, on the sharpness front, things have definitely evened out by setting OV3 to -2 Sharpness. In fact, I'd say that now the Lightroom Tiff is maybe just a 'hair' sharper - maybe. Contrast and Saturation are also now about the same. But I have to say that I still prefer the Olympus colour rendition. Once again, it looks slightly 'truer' to my eyes.

The other difference that still remains between the two is the noise - or at least the lack of it in the Olympus Viewer 3 generated Tiff. Noise is still cleaner compared to Lightroom CC's conversion, so either Olympus are ramping up Noise Reduction regardless of what you set as the user - or they really do have the secret to their own 'special sauce' contained within the .orf file. I like to think that it's the later of the two?

Lightroom CC on right, Olympus Viewer 3 on left.

But at the end of the day, it's still the colour rendition from OV3 that stands out the most. And it's the above sunset shot comparison that is still the most telling (for me at least). With most settings dialed down to their lowest (-2) in Olympus Viewer 3, Lightroom CC and OV3 Tiffs are very close - except for their colour rendition. I happen to prefer the way OV3 renders the colour from the RAW file. I think it's a truer representation of what I was actually seeing when I took the photograph.

So given that a simple 'flattening' of the OV3 Tiff file is all it takes to bring it in-line with Lightroom CC - but that I find the colours more pleasing from Olympus Viewer 3 - then I still think it's a win for Olympus.

Besides - this all assumes that I want my Tiffs to start out looking like Lightroom's slightly flatter conversion. What's wrong with starting with sharpened, noise-reduced, colourful, contrasty Tiffs from your RAW processor? I know I can always dial down all these settings if I need to. But 99% of the time it's what I want my photos to end up looking like anyway.

I've always been the kind of photographer who tries as much as possible to get it 'right' in camera. I rarely spend more than 5 minutes editing any image, and that includes cropping. I crop 'in-camera'. A sharpened, colourful, noise free Tiff suits me just fine. I only ever do very basic edits to my RAW files before saving it out to a Tiff or jpeg, so the controls available from OV3 also suit my needs perfectly. Once I have the Tiff, I'm going to do final edits in something else anyway. So the OV3/Tiff/Photoshop workflow makes a lot of sense to me personally. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

I would also finish this off by reiterating the whole purpose of this comparison. I wanted to see if Viewer 3  - the FREE software supplied with my camera - was a worthy consideration when placed up against the industry standard Adobe Lightroom. The fact that there really is hardly anything in it - and that I actually prefer the files that are coming out of OV3 - speaks volumes for the manufacturer's software. When it comes for free and the results can be this good, what's not to like?

Olympus Viewer 3 vs Lightroom CC

I used to be an Aperture 3 user on the Mac. I preferred the Aperture user experience over Adobe's Lightroom, but alas, as we all know, Aperture is no more. So I've switched to Lightroom - right?

Well no, actually. I have played around a bit in Lightroom, and I 'own' it as part of my Adobe Creative Cloud subscription. But I don't actually have it installed on my computer at home - although it is installed on my machine at work.

Having been an Aperture user, I'm obviously not adverse to taking the less popular option when it comes to software. My workflow consists of Adobe Bridge and Camera Raw, with the final edits in Photoshop - all through my CC subscription. At the moment, I'm lucky enough to have the entire CC collection for a student rate. But that will end next year. And then I have some serious decisions to make. Because there's no way I'm going to pay Adobe around $50NZ a month to rent their software! No way.

I could go down to the 'Photography' package of just Photoshop and Lightroom for about the same as I'm paying monthly at the moment for the whole suite - but I really want to have InDesign, Illustrator and Premier as well - which bumps me back up into that $50 a month bracket. Damn.

So what's a man to do? Well if he's me, he starts looking around for alternatives. Cheaper (in the long run) alternatives. And they're out there. Adobe isn't the only kid on the block anymore.

When you're looking for 'cheaper' alternatives for a RAW converter, the first place you should really look is the manufacturers own software. After all, it comes with your camera. You don't get much cheaper than free folks!

Hang on though. Surely that means that it can't be very good? It'll be slow, and clunky, and produce fairly average images? If, like me, you thought that would be the case, then you'd be right - about two of those three assumptions. Yes, Olympus Viewer 3 is slow. Sometimes painfully slow. And yes, it's clunky. No UI design awards here. BUT - the images it produces... well that's where it gets very interesting.

When I was a Canon shooter I would occasionally come across a post from a photographer extolling the virtues of using Canon's own proprietary RAW processing software. But then you'd have responses from others saying things like 'slow' and 'clunky' and I'd quickly move on. I was using Aperture, was very happy with it, and saw no reason to change. But that was then....

Since I'm now in the market for a RAW processing programme, I though it might be time to look at Olympus's offering and compare it with the megalithic giant that is Adobe Lightroom. The results are very interesting.

Lightroom CC Tiff on the left, Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff on the right.

Obviously in any RAW software you can tweak and alter an image to your hearts desire. So all I did to compare "apples with apples" was to take the RAW .orf (Olympus Raw Format) file and 'process' it as a 16bit uncompressed Tiff file completely unaltered. Nothing was touched, nothing was changed, no slider was moved. I simply opened the RAW file in the respective programmes and saved them out immediately. I should also mention that I shoot my RAW images with everything in-camera set to neutral.

It may be hard to see from the internet resolution, so I'll tell you what I see on my computer monitor in the comparison above. First, the Tiff file from Olympus Viewer is much sharper that the one from Lightroom. Much sharper. Which is odd, and somewhat surprising, since I read somewhere recently that Lightroom adds about 25% sharpening by default to all its RAW conversions (since RAW images are 'softer' out of camera). So I was expecting that the Lightroom Tiffs would be sharper than Olympus's. But it just ain't the case.

Second, the colours of the Olympus rendered Tiff look more 'accurate' to me. And not just more accurate, but also more vibrant. Blues are bluer and whites are whiter, whereas the Lightroom Tiffs introduce a slight colour shift.

And third, and again surprisingly (to me at least), the Olympus images have a lot less noise apparent in the image. And I mean a lot. Noise in the blue of the water in the above magnified crop is practically non-existent in the Olympus Tiff (shot at ISO 200). Whereas the Lightroom Tiff had obvious noise.

Lightroom Tiff on left, Olympus Tiff on right.

Again, the above comparison shows the Olympus Viewer 3 Tiff to be sharper, punchier, and yet truer in colour rendition. And this was a trend that continued shot after shot.

Lightroom on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right.

Sometimes the differences are subtle, but they are still definitely there. Olympus Viewer 3 just produces better conversions every time. And although initially this surprised me, when you stop and think about it, it makes perfect sense. RAW files are unique for each manufacturer. They encode them with their own 'special sauce' (so to speak) to differentiate them from others. So who best to 'unlock' that code than the manufacturer themselves. Adobe (and other third party software developers) have to reverse-engineer the RAW codes each and every time a new camera is released, which is why it sometimes takes a while for new cameras to be added to the Lightroom catalogue. They get their own conversion algorithms close - but not perfect. Olympus, of course, gets it perfect.

Lightroom on left, Olympus Viewer 3 on right.

Of all the examples, the one above perhaps illustrates best the benefits of using Olympus Viewer 3 over Lightroom. Again, these are straight, unaltered conversions of the same .orf RAW file. The colours are almost night and day different, and the results speak for themselves. I know which one I'd rather be using as a starting point for any further editing.

Of course you could tweak the Lightroom file to look like the Olympus file - you can almost do anything you like with a RAW file - that's the point of shooting RAW. But the Olympus software saves you that initial hassle by getting it right out of the box.

Final image, processed with Olympus Viewer 3 and edited in Photoshop CC

The final image is exactly what I wanted to portray with this shot. Yes, I could have got there by using Adobe Lightroom, but it would have taken a lot longer to fix up the colour and noise issues inherent in the Lightroom file, that simply didn't exist in the Olympus rendered file. It makes me wonder what software camera reviewers use when they give an opinion about the noise of certain cameras/sensors? Looking at the Lightroom Tiffs I would have said that the OM-D E-M5 Mk2 had a fairly noisy sensor - even at ISO 200. But look at the Olympus Viewer 3 Tiffs and it disappears.

So I may have become a convert to using Olympus Viewer 3 for my RAW conversions from now on? Yes, it is slower, and yes, it is clunkier. But at the same time it is also fairly intuitive and usable. And at the end of the day, the time you save not having to tweak the images further in Lightroom probably cancels out the slowness of the software.

I have also downloaded Corel's AfterShot Pro 3 RAW conversion software, which I will try against Olympus Viewer 3 next. But I have a feeling it's going to need to be mighty impressive to knock Viewer 3 off the top of the RAW Software perch. Very interesting indeed.