Sensor Size Myth – Again!

Posted on October 23, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

Sensor Size Myth – “A bigger sensor gathers more light.”

If I hear this crap one more time either my head’s going to explode or I’m going to do some really nasty things to someone!

A larger sensor size does NOT necessarily gather any more light than a smaller sensor – END OF!

What DOES gather more light is BIGGER PHOTOSITES – those individual light receptors that cumulatively ‘make up’ the photosensitive surface plane of our camera sensor.

Above we have two fictional sensors, one with smaller physical dimensions and one with larger dimensions – the bottom one is a ‘larger sensor size’ than the top one, and the bottom one has TWICE as many photosites as the top one (analogous to more megapixels).

But the individual photosites in BOTH sensors are THE SAME SIZE.

Ignoring the factors of:

Micro Lens design
Variations in photosite design such as resistivity
Wiring Substrate
SNR & ADC

the photosites in both sensors will have exactly the same pixel pitch, reactivity to light, saturation capacity and base noise level.

However, if we now try to cram the number of photosites (megapixels) into the area of the SMALLER sensor – to increase the resolution:

we end up with SMALLER photosites.

We have a HIGHER pixel resolution but this comes with a multi-faceted major penalty:

Decreased Dynamic Range
Increased susceptibility to specular highlight clipping
Lower photosite SNR (signal to noise ratio)
Increased susceptibility to diffraction – f-stop limiting

And of course EXACTLY the same penalties are incurred when we increase the megapixel count of LARGER sensors too – the mega-pixel race – fueled by FOOLS and NO-NOTHING IDIOTS and accommodated by camera manufacturers trying to make a profit.

But this perennial argument that a sensor behaves like a window is stupid – it doesn’t matter if I look outside through a small window or a big one, the light value of the scene outside is the same.

Just because I make the window bigger the intensity of the light coming through it does NOT INCREASE.

And the ultimate proof of the stupidity and futility of the ‘big window vs small window’ argument lies with the ‘proper photographers’ like Ben Horne, Nick Carver and Steve O’nions to name but three – those who shoot FILM!

A 10″x8″ sheet of Provia 100 has exactly the same exposure characteristics as a roll of 35mm or 120/220 Provia 100, and yet the 10″x 8″ window is 59.73x the size of the 35mm window.

And don’t even get me started on the other argument the ‘bigger = more light’ idiots use – that of the solar panel!

“A bigger solar panel pumps out more volts so because it gathers more light, so a bigger sensor gathers more light so must pump out better images………”

What a load of shite…………

Firstly, SPs are cumulative and they increase their ‘megapixel count’ by growing in physical dimensions, not by making their ‘photosites’ smaller.

But if you cover half of one with a thick tarpaulin then the cumulative output of the panel drops dramatically!

Also, we want SPs to hit their clip point for maximum voltage generation (the clip point would be that where more light does NOT produce more volts!).

Our camera sensor CANNOT be thought of in the same way:

We are not interested in a cumulative output, and we don’t want all the photosites on our sensors to ‘max out’ otherwise we’ll have no tonal variation in our image will we…..!

The shot above is from a D800E fitted with a 21mm prime, ISO 100 and 2secs @f13.

If I’d have shot this with the same lens on the D500 and framed the same composition I’d have had to use a SHORTER exposure to prevent the highlights from clipping.

But if bigger sensors gather more light (FX gathers more than DX) I’d have theoretically have had expose LONGER……….and that would have been a disaster.

Seriously folks, when it comes to sensor size bigger ones (FX) do not gather more light than smaller (DX) sensors.

It’s not the sensor total area that does the light gathering, but the photosites contained therein – bigger photosites gather more light, have better SNR, are less prone to diffraction and result in a higher cumulative dynamic range for the sensor as a whole.

Do NOT believe anyone anywhere on any website, forum or YouTube channel who tells you any different because they a plain WRONG!

Where does this shite originate from you may ask?

Well, some while back FX dslr cameras where not made and everything from Canon and Nikon was APSC 1.5x or 1.6x, or APSH 1.3x. Canon was first with an FX digital then Nikon joined the fray with the D3.

Prior to the D3 we Nikon folk had the D300 DX which was 12.3Mp with a photosite area 30.36 microns²

The D3 FX came along with 12.1Mp but with a photosite area of 70.9 microns²

Better in low light than its DX counterpart due to these MASSIVE photosites it gave the dick heads, fools and no-nothing idiots the crackpot idea that a bigger sensor size gathers more light – and you know what……it stuck; and for some there’s no shifting it!

Hope this all makes sense folks.

Don’t forget, any questions or queries then just ask!

If you feel I deserve some support for putting this article together then please consider joining my membership site over on Patreon by using the link below.

Alternatively you could donate via PayPal to tuition@wildlifeinpixels.net

You can also find this article on the free-to-view section of my Patreon channel by clicking this link https://www.patreon.com/posts/sensor-size-myth-22242406

If you are not yet a member of my Patreon site then please consider it as members get benefits, with more membership perks planned over the next 3 months. Your support would be very much appreciated and rewarded.

Before I go, there’s a new video up on my YouTube Channel showing the sort of processing video I do for my Patreon Members.

You can see it here (it’s 23 minutes long so be warned!):

Please leave a comment on the video if you find it useful, and if you fancy joining my other members over on Patreon then I could be doing these for you too!

All the best

Andy

Dynamic Range, Mid Tones, Metering and ETTR

Posted on September 28, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

Dynamic Range, Mid Tones, Metering and ETTR

I recently uploaded a video to my YouTube channel showing you an easy way to find the ‘usable dynamic range’ of you dSLR:

The other day I was out with Paul Atkins for a landscape session in the awesome Dinorwic Quarry in Llanberis, Snowdonia. Highly dynamic clouds and moody light made the place look more like Mordor!

Looking towards the top of the Llanberis Pass from the middle level of Dinorwic Quarry and Electric Mountain.

Here are the 6 unedited shots that make this finished panoramic view:

As you can see, the images are are shot in a vertical aspect ratio. Shooting at 200mm on the D800E this yields an assembled pano that is 16,000 x 7000 pixels; the advantages for both digital sales and print should be obvious to you!

As you can see, the bright parts of the sky are a lot brighter in the captures than they are in the finished image, but they are not ‘blown’. Also the shadows in the foreground are not choked or blocked.

In other words the captures are shot ETTR.

Meter – in camera or external.

Any light meter basically looks at a scene (or part thereof) and AVERAGES the tones that it sees. This average value value is then classed by the meter is MID GREY and the exposure is calculated in terms of the 3 variables you set – Time, Intensity and Applied Gain, or shutter, aperture and ISO.

But this leads to all sorts of problems.

All meters are calibrated to an ANSI Standard of 12% grey (though this gets a bit ambiguous between manufactures and testers). But you can get a good idea of what ‘light meter mid grey/mid tone” looks like by mentally assigning an RGB value of 118,118,118 to it.

However, we – humans – find 18% grey a more acceptable ‘mid tone grey’ both in print and on our modern monitors.

NOTE: 18% grey refers to the level of REFLECTANCE – it reflects 18% of the light falling on it. It can also be reproduced in Photoshop using a grey with 128,128.128 RGB values.

So problem number 1 is that of mid tone perception and the difference between what you ‘see’ and what the camera sees and then does in terms of exposure (if you let the camera make a decision for you).

128RGB grey versus 118RGB meter mid grey

Click on the pano image from Dinorwic to view it bigger, then try to FIND a mid grey that you could point your camera meter at – you can’t.

Remember, the grey you try to measure MUST be exactly mid-grey – try it, it’ll drive you nuts trying to find it!

This leads us to problem number 2.

Take your camera outside, find a white wall. Fill your frame with it and take a shot using ZERO exposure compensation – the wall will look GREY in the resulting shot not WHITE.

Next, find something matte black or near to it. Fill your frame with it and take another shot – the black will look grey in the shot not black(ish).

Problem number 3 is this – and it’s a bit of a two-headed serpent. An exposure meter of any kind is COLOUR BLIND but YOU can SEE colours but are tonally blinded to them to some degree or other:

Simple primary red, green and blue translate to vastly different grey tones which comes as a big surprise to a lot of folk, especially how tonally light green is.

Scene or Subject Brightness Range

Any scene in front of you and your camera has a range of tones from brightest to darkest, and this tonal range is the subject brightness range or SBR for short. Some folk even refer to it as the scene dynamic range.

If you put your camera meter into spot mode you can meter around your chosen scene and make note of the different exposure values for the brightest and darkest areas of your potential shot.

You camera spot meter isn’t the most accurate of spot meters because its ‘spot’ is just too big, typically between 4mm and 5mm, but it will serve to give you a pretty good idea of your potential SBR.

A 1 degree spot meter will, with correct usage, yield a somewhat more accurate picture (pun intended) of the precise SBR of the scene in front of you.

Right about now some of you will be thinking I’m hair-splitting and talking about unnecessary things in todays modern world of post-processing shadow and highlight recovery.

Photography today is full of folk who are prepared to forego the CRAFT of the expert photographer in favour of getting it half-right in camera and then using the crutch of software recovery to correct their mistakes.

Here’s the news – recovery of popped highlights is IMPOSSIBLE and recovery of shadows to anymore than a small degree results in pixel artifacting. Get this, two WRONGS do NOT make a RIGHT!

If the Mercedes F1 team went racing with the same attitude as the majority of camera users take pictures with, then F1 would be banned because drivers would die at an alarming rate and no car would ever make the finish line!

So, one way or another we can quantify our potential scene SBR.

“But Andy I don’t need to do that because my camera meter does that for me…….”

Oh no it does NOT, it just averages it to what IT THINKS is a correct mid tone grey – which it invariably isn’t!

This whole mid tone/mid grey ‘thing’ is a complete waste of time because:

It’s near impossible to find a true mid tone in your scene to take a reading off.
What you want as a mid tone will be at odds with your camera meter by at least 1/2stop.
If you are shooting wildlife or landscapes you can’t introduce a ‘grey card’.
Because of the above, your shot WILL BE UNDER EXPOSED.

“Yeah, but I can always bracket my shots and do an exposure blend Andy so you’re still talking crap….”

Two answers to that one:

You can’t bracket shots and blend if your MAIN subject is moving – de-ghosting is only effective on small parts of a scene with minimal movement between frames.
The popular “shoot and bracket two each end” makes you look like total dickhead and illustrates that you know less than zero about exposure. Try doing that on a paying job in front of the client and see how long you last in a commercial environment.

By far the BEST way of calculating exposure is the ETTR method.

ETTR, Expose to the Right.

If you meter for a highlight, your camera will treat that as a mid tone because your camera ASSUMES it’s a mid tone.

Your camera meter is a robot programmed to react to anything it sees in EXACTLY the same way. It doesn’t matter if your subject is a black cat in the coal house or a snow man in a snow storm, the result will be the same 118,118,118 grey sludge.

Mid tones are as we’ve already ascertained, difficult to pin down and full of ambiguity but highlights are not. So let’s meter the brightest area of the image and expose it hard over to the right of the histogram.

The simplest way to achieve this is to use your live view histogram with the camera in full manual mode.

Unlike the post-shot review histogram, the live-view histogram is not subject to jpeg compression, and can be thought of as something of a direct readout of scene tonality/brightness.

Using your exposure controls (usually shutter speed for landscape photography) you can increase your exposure to push the highlight peak of the histogram to the right as far as you can go before ‘hitting the wall’ on the right hand side of the histogram axis – in other words the camera sensor highlight clipping point.

Of course, this has the added benefit of shifting ALL the other tones ( mids and shadows) to the right as well,resulting in far less clipping potential in your shadow areas.

So back to Dinorwic again and here’s a shot that has been exposed ETTR on the live view histogram using spot metering over what I deemed to be the brightest area of the sky:

The red square indicates the approximate size of the spot meter area.

I was a naughty boy not recording this on video for you but I forgot to pack the HDMI lead for the video recorder – I’ll do one shortly!

The problem with using the Live View Histogram is that it can be a bit of a struggle to see it. your live view screen itself can be hard to see in certain light conditions outside, and the live view histogram itself is usually a bit on the small side – no where near as big as the image review histogram you can see here.

But looking at the review histogram above you can see that there’s a ‘little bit more juice’ to be had in terms of exposure of the highlights because of that tiny gap between the right end of the histogram and the ‘wall’ at the end of the axis.

Going back to the video the maximum ETTR ‘tipping point’ was centered around these three shots:

Clipped

Not Clipped (the one we allocated the star rating to). Exposure is -1/3rd stop below clipped.

Safe, but -2/3rd stop below Clipped.

The review histogram puts the Dinorwic shot highlights firmly in the same exposure bracket as ‘Safe, but -2/3rd stop below Clipped, and tells us there is another 1/3rd stop ‘more juice’ to be had!

So lengthening the exposure by 1/3rd stop and changing from 160th sec to 1/50th sec gives us this:

The red square indicates the approximate size of the spot meter area.

Live View Histogram ETTR

Live View Histogram plus 1/3 stop more juice! Highlights STILL below Clipping Point and shadows get 1/3rd stop more exposure.

That’s what it’s all about baby – MORE JUICE!

And you will not be in a position to confidently acquire more juice unless you find the USABLE DYNAMIC RANGE of your camera sensor.

The whole purpose of finding that usable DR is to discover where your highlight and shadow clipping points are – and they are very different between camera models.

For instance, the highlight clipping point value of the Nikon D850 is different from that of the Nikon D800E, but the shadow clipping point is pretty similar.

There is an awful lot more use to discovering your cameras usable dynamic range than a lot of folk imagine.

And if you do it the precise way then you can acquire a separate meter that will accept camera profiling:

You can create a dynamic range profile for your camera (and lens combo*) and then load it into the meter:

and then have your cameras usable dynamic range as part of the metering scale – so then you have NO EXCUSE for producing a less than optimum exposure.

(*)Note: yes, the lens does have an effect on dynamic range due to micro-contrast and light transmission variables – if you want to be super-picky!

AND THEY SAY HANDHELD METERS ARE DEAD, OLD TECH and of NO USE!!!

Anyone who says or even thinks that is a total KNOB.

Your camera dynamic range, the truthful one – FIND IT, KNOW IT, USE IT.

And don’t listen to the idiots and know-nothings, just listen and heed the advice of those of us who actually know what we’re doing.

NOTE: The value of grey (gray) cards and how to use them for accurate measurement is a subject in its own right and provides the curious with some really interesting reading. Believe me it’s far more expansive than the info I’ve given here. But adopting an ETTR approach when exposing to sensor that you KNOW the physical behavior of (dynamic response to light/dynamic range) can alleviate you of all critical mid-tone concerns.

This article has taken me over 8 hours to produce in total, and is yours to view for FREE. If you feel I deserve some support for doing this then please consider joining my membership site over on Patreon by using the link below.

Alternatively you could donate via PayPal to tuition@wildlifeinpixels.net

Exposure Value – What does it mean?

Posted on August 3, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

Exposure Value (Ev) – what does Ev mean?

I get asked this question every now and again because I frequently use it in the description annotations of image shot data here on the blog.

And I have to say from the outset the Exposure Value comes in two flavours – relative and absolute – and here I’m only talking mainly about the former.

So, let’s start with basic exposure.

Exposure can be thought of as Intensity x Time.

Intensity is controlled by our aperture, and time is controlled by our shutter speed.

This image was shot at 0.5sec (time), f11 (intensity) and ISO 100.

exposure value

We can think of the f11 intensity of light striking the sensor for 0.5sec as a ‘DOSAGE’ – and if that dosage results in the desired scene exposure then that dosage can be classed as the exposure value.

Let’s consider two exposure settings – 0.5sec at f11 ISO100 and 1sec at f16 ISO 100.

Technically speaking they are two different exposures, but BOTH result in the same light dosage at the sensor. The second exposure is TWICE the length of time but HALF the intensity.

So both exposures have the same Exposure Value or Ev.

The following exposure of the same scene is 1sec at f11 ISO 100:

exposure value

The image was shot at the same intensity (f11) but the shutter speed (time) was twice as long, and so the dosage was doubled. Double the dose = +1Ev!

And in this version the exposure was 0.25sec at f11 ISO 100:

exposure value

Here the light dosage at the sensor is HALF that of the correct/desired exposure because the time factor was halved while using the same intensity.

So half the dose = -1Ev!

Now some of you will be thinking that -1Ev is 1 stop under exposure – and you’d be right!

But Ev, or exposure value, is just a cleaner way of thinking about exposure because it doesn’t tie you to any specific camera setting – and it’s more easily transferable between cameras.

What Do I Mean by that?

Example – If I use say a 50mm prime lens on my Nikon D800E with the metering in matrix mode, ISO 100 and f14 I might get a metered exposure shutter speed of 1/10th of a second.

But if I replace the D800E with a D4 set at 100 ISO, matrix and f14 I’ll guarantee the metered shutter speed requirement will be either 1/13 or 1/15th of a second.

The D4 meters between -1/3Ev and -2/3Ev (in other words 1/2 stop) faster/brighter than the D800E when fitted with the same lens and set to the same aperture and ISO, and shooting exactly the same framing/composition.

Yet the ‘as metered’ shots from both cameras look pretty much the same with respect to light dosage – exposure value.

Exposure Settings Don’t Transfer between camera models very well, because the meter in a camera is calibrated to the response curve of the sensor.

A Canon 1DX Mk2 will usually generate a evaluative metered shutter speed 1/3rd of a stop faster than a matrix metered Nikon D4S for the same given focal length, aperture and ISO setting.

Both setups ‘as metered’ shots will look pretty much the same, but transposing the Canon settings to the Nikon will result in -1/3 stop under exposure – which on a digital camera is definitely NOT the way to go!

‘As Metered’ can be regarded as +/-0Ev for any camera (Note: this does NOT mean Ev=0!)

Any exposure compensation you use in order to achieve the ‘desired’ exposure on the other hand can be thought of as ‘metered + or – xEv’.

exposure compensation

Shot with the D4 plus 70-200 f2.8@70mm in manual exposure mode, 1/2000th sec, f8 and ISO 400 using +2/3Ev compensation.

The matrix metered exposure indicated by the camera before the exposure value compensation was 1/3200th – this would have made the Parasitic Jaeger (posh name for an Arctic Skua!) too dark.

A 1DXMk2 using the corresponding lens and focal length, f8, ISO 400 and evaluative metering would have wanted to generate a shutter speed of at least 1/4000th sec without any exposure compensation, and 1/2500th with +2/3Ev exposure compensation.

And if shot at those settings the Canon image would look pretty much like the above.

But if the Nikon D4 settings had been fully replicated on the Canon then the shot would be between 1/3 and 1/2 stop over exposed, risking ‘blowing’ of some of the under-wing and tail highlights.

So the simple lesson here is don’t use other photographers settings – they never work unless you’re on identical gear!

But if you are out with me and I tell you “matrix/evaluative plus 1Ev” then your exposure will have pretty much the same ‘light dosage’ as mine irrespective of you using the right shutter speed, aperture or ISO for the job or not!

I was brought up to think in terms of exposure value and Ev units, and to use light meters that had Ev scales on them – hell, the good ones still have ’em!

If you look up the ‘tech-specs’ for your camera you’ll find that metering sensitivity is normally quoted as an Ev range. And that’s not all – your auto focus may well have a low light Ev limited quoted too!

To all intents and purposes Ev units and your more familiar ‘f-stops’ amount to one and the same thing.

As we’ve seen before, different exposures in terms of intensity and time can have the same exposure value, and all Ev is concerned with is the cumulative outcome of our shutter speed, aperture and ISO choices.

Most of you will take exposures at ‘what the camera meter says’ settings, or you will use the meter indicated exposure as a baseline and modify the exposure settings with either positive or negative ‘weighting’ via your exposure compensation dial.

That’s Ev compensation relative to your meters baseline.

But have you ever asked yourself just how accurate your camera meter is?

So I’ve just stepped outside my front door and taken these two frames:

EV=15/Sunny 16 Rule 1/100th sec, f16, 100 ISO – click to view large.

Matrix Metering, no exposure compensation 1/200th sec, f16, ISO 100 – click to view large

These two raw files have been brought into Lightroom and THE ONLY adjustment has been to change the profile from Adobe Color to Camera Neutral.

Members of my subscription site can download the raw files and see for themselves.

Look at the histogram in both images!

The exposure for xxx164.NEF (the top image) is perfection personified while xxx162.NEF is under exposed by ONE WHOLE STOP – why?

Because the bottom image has been shot at the camera-specified matrix metered exposure, while the top image has been shot using the good old ‘Sunny 16 Rule’ that’s been around since God knows when!

“Yeah, but I could just use the shadow recovery slider on the bottom shot Andy….” Yes, you could, if you wanted to be an idle tit, and even then the top image would still be better because there’s no ‘recovery’ being used on it in the first place. Remember, more work at the camera means less work in processing!

Recovery of either shadows or highlights is ‘poor form’ and no substitute for correct exposure in the first place. Digital photography is just like shooting colour transparency film – you need to ‘peg the highlights’ as highlights BUT without over exposing them and causing them to ‘blow’.

In other words – ETTR, expose to the right!

And seeing as your camera meter wants to turn everything into midtone grey shite it’s the very last thing you should ever allow to dictate your final exposure settings – as the two images above prove beyond argument.

And herein lies the problem.

Even if you use the spot metering function the meter will read the brightness of what is covered by the ‘spot’ and then calculate the exposure required to expose that tonal brightness AS A MID TONE GREY.

That’s all fine ‘n dandy – if the metered area is actually an exact mid tone. But what if you were metering a highlight?

Then the metered exposure would want to expose said highlight as a midtone and the overall highlight exposure would be far too dark. And you can guess what would happen if you trusted your meter to spot-read a shadow.

A proper hand-held spot meter has an angle of view or AoV of 1 degree.

Your camera spot meter angle of view is dictated by the focal length of the lens you have fitted.

On my D800E for example, I need to have a lens AoV of around 130mm focal length equivalent for my spot to cover 1 degree, because the ‘spot’ is 4mm in diameter – total stupidity.

But it does function fairly well with wider angle lenses and exposure calculations when used in conjunction with the live view histogram. And that will be subject of my next blog post – or perhaps I’ll do a video for YouTube!

So I doubt this blog post about relative exposure compensation is going to light your world on fire – it began as an explanation to a recurring question about my exif annotation habits and snowballed somewhat from there!

But I’ll leave you with this little guide to the aforementioned Sunny 16 Rule, which has been around since Noah took up boat-building:

To use this table just set your ISO to 100.

Your shutter speed needs to be the reciprocal of your ISO – in other words 1/100 sec for use with the stated aperture values:

Aperture	Lighting conditions	Shadow PROPERTIES
f/22*	Snow/sand	Dark with sharp edges
f/16	Sunny	Distinct
f/11	Slight overcast	Soft around edges
f/8	Overcast	Barely visible
f/5.6**	Heavy overcast	No shadows
f/4	Open shade/sunset	No shadows

* – I would not shoot at f22 because of diffraction – try 1/200th f16

** – let’s try some cumulative Ev thinking here and go for more depth of field using f11 and sticking with 100 ISO. -2Ev intensity (f5.6 to f11) requires +2Ev on time, so 1/100th sec becomes 1/25th sec.

Over the years I’ve taken many people out on photo training days, and a lot of them seem to think I’m some sort of magician when I turn their camera on, switch it manual, dial in a couple of settings and produce a half decent image without ever looking at the meter on their camera.

It ain’t magic – I just had this table burnt into the back of my eyeballs years ago.

Works a charm – if you can do the mental calculations in your head, and that’s easy with practice. The skill is in evaluating your shooting conditions and relating them to the lighting and shadow descriptions.

And here’s a question for you; we know our camera meter wants to ‘peg’ what it’s measuring as a midtone irrespective of whether it’s measuring a midtone or not. But what do you think the Sunny 16 Rule is ‘pegging’ and where is it pegging it on the exposure curve?

If you can answer that question correctly then the other flavour of exposure value – absolute – might well be of distinct interest to you!

Give it a try, and if you use it correctly you’ll never be more than 1/3rd of a stop out, if that. Then you can go and unsubscribe from all those twats on YouTube who told you it was out-dated and defunct or never told you about it in the first place!

I hope you’ve found the information in this post useful.

I don’t monetize my YouTube videos or fill my blog posts with masses of affiliate links, and I rely solely on my patrons to help cover my time and server costs. If you would like to help me to produce more content please visit my Patreon page on the button above.

Many thanks and best light to you all.

Astro Landscape Photography

Posted on July 23, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

Astro Landscape Photography

One of my patrons, Paul Smith, and I ventured down to Shropshire and the spectacular quartsite ridge of The Stiperstones to get this image of the Milky Way and Mars (the large bright ‘star’ above the rocks on the left).

I always work the same way for astro landscape photography, beginning with getting into position just before sunset.

Using the PhotoPills app on my phone I can see where the milky way will be positioned in my field of view at the time of peak sky darkness. This enables me to position the camera exactly where I want it for the best composition.

The biggest killer in astro landscape photography is excessive noise in the foreground.

The other problem is that foregrounds in most images of this genre are not sharp due to a lack of depth of field at the wide apertures you need to shoot the night sky at – f2.8 for example.

To get around this problem we need to shoot a separate foreground image at a lower ISO, a narrower aperture and focused closer to the camera.

Some photographers change focus, engage long exposure noise reduction and then shoot a very long exposure. But that’s an eminently risky thing to do in my opinion, both from a technical standpoint and one of time – a 60 minute exposure will take 120 minutes to complete.

The length of exposure is chosen to allow the very low photon-count from the foreground to ‘build-up’ on the sensor and produced a usable level of exposure from what little natural light is around.

From a visual perspective, when it works, the method produces images that can be spectacular because the light in the foreground matches the light in the sky in terms of directionality.

Light Painting

To get around the inconvenience of time and super-long exposures a lot of folk employ the technique of light painting their foregrounds.

Light painting – in my opinion – destroys the integrity of the finished image because it’s so bloody obvious! The direction of light that’s ‘painted’ on the foreground bares no resemblance to that of the sky.

The other problem with light painting is this – those that employ the technique hardly ever CHECK to see if they are in the field of view of another photographer – think about that one for a second or two!

My Method

As I mentioned before, I set up just before sunset. In the shot above I knew the milky way and Mars were not going to be where I wanted them until just after 1am, but I was set up by 9.20pm – yep, a long wait ahead, but always worth the effort.

Astro Landscape Photography

As we move towards the latter half of civil twilight I start shooting my foreground exposure, and I’ll shoot a few of these at regular intervals between then and mid nautical twilight.

Because I shoot raw the white balance set in camera is irrelevant, and can be balanced with that of the sky in Photoshop during post processing.

The key things here are that I have a shadowless even illumination of my foreground which is shot at a low ISO, in perfect focus, and shot at say f8 has great depth of field.

Once deep into blue hour and astronomical twilight the brighter stars are visible and so I now use full magnification in live view and focus on a bright star in the cameras field of view.

Then it’s a waiting game – waiting for the sky to darken to its maximum and the Milky Way to come into my desired position for my chosen composition.

Shooting the Sky

Astro landscape photography is all about showing the sky in context with the foreground – I have absolutely ZERO time for those popular YouTube photographers who composite a shot of the night sky into a landscape image shot in a different place or a different angle.

Good astro landscape photography HAS TO BE A COMPOSITE though – there is no way around that.

And by GOOD I mean producing a full resolution image that will sell through the agencies and print BIG if needed.

The key things that contribute to an image being classed good in my book are simple:

Pin-point stars with no trailing
Low noise
Sharp from ‘back’ to ‘front’.

Pin-points stars are solely down to correct shutter speed for your sensor size and megapixel count.

Low noise is covered by shooting a low ISO foreground and a sequence of high ISO sky images, and using Starry Landscape Stacker on Mac (Sequator on PC appears to be very similar) in conjunction with a mean or median stacking mode.

Further noise cancelling is achieved but the shooting of Dark Frames, and the typical wide-aperture vignetting is cancelled out by the creation of a flat field frame.

And ‘back to front’ image sharpness should be obvious to you from what I’ve already written!

So, I’ll typically shoot a sequence of 20 to 30 exposures – all one after the other with no breaks or pauses – and then a sequence of 20 to 30 dark frames.

Shutter speeds usually range from 4 to 6 seconds

Watch this video on my YouTube Channel about shutter speed:

Best viewed on the channel itself, and click the little cog icon to choose 1080pHD as the resolution.

Putting it all Together

Shooting all the frames for astro landscape photography is really quite simple.

Putting it all together is fairly simple and straight forward too – but it’s TEDIOUS and time-consuming if you want to do it properly.

The shot above took my a little over 4 hours!

And 80% of it is retouching in Photoshop.

I produce a very extensive training title – Complete Milky Way Photography Workflow – with teaches you EVERYTHING you need to know about the shooting and processing of astro landscape photography images – you can purchase it here – and if you use the offer code MWAY15 at the checkout you’ll get £15 off the purchase price.

But I wanted to try Raw Therapee for this Stiperstones image, and another of my patrons – Frank – wanted a video of processing methodology in Raw Therapee.

Easier said than done, cramming 4 hours into a typical YouTube video! But after about six attempts I think I’ve managed it, and you can see it here, but I warn you now that it’s 40 minutes long:

Best viewed on the channel itself, and click the little cog icon to choose 1080pHD as the resolution.

I hope you’ve found the information in this post useful, together with the YouTube videos.

Many thanks and best light to you all.

ETTR Processing in Lightroom

Posted on June 25, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

ETTR Processing in Lightroom

When we shoot ETTR (expose to the right) in bright, harsh light, Lightroom can sometimes get the wrong idea and make a real ‘hash’ of rendering the raw file.

Sometimes it can be so bad that the less experienced photographer can get the wrong impression of their raw file exposure – and in some extreme cases they may even ‘bin’ the image thinking it irretrievably over exposed.

I’ve just uploaded a video to my YouTube channel which shows you exactly what I’m talking about:

The image was shot by my client and patron Paul Smith when he visited the Mara back in October last year, and it’s a superb demo image of just how badly Lightroom can demosaic a straight forward +1.6 Ev ETTR shot.

Importing the raw file directly into Lightroom gives us this:

But importing the raw file directly into RawTherapee with no adjustments gives us this:

Just look at the two histogram versions – Lightroom is doing some crazy stuff to the image ‘in the background’ as there are ZERO develop settings applied.

But if you watch the video you’ll see that it’s quite straight forward to regain all that apparent ‘blown detail’.

And here’s the important bit – we do so WITHOUT the use of the shadow or highlight recovery sliders. Anyone who has purchased my sharpening videos HERE knows that those two sliders can VERY EASILY cause undesirable ‘pseudo-sharpening’ halos, and they should only be used with caution.

The way I process this +1.6 stop ETTR exposure inside Lightroom has revealed all the superb mid tone detail and given us a really good image that we could take into Photoshop and improve with some precision localized adjustments.

So don’t let Lightroom control you – you need to control IT!

Thanks for reading and watching.

You can also view this post on the free section of my Patreon pages HERE

If you feel this article and video has been beneficial to you and would like to see more per week, then supporting my Patreon page for as little as $1 per month would be a massive help. Thanks everyone!

Lightroom v7.3 – Some Thoughts

Posted on April 8, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

Lightroom v7.3 – Some Thoughts

Well, I’d like to say the past week has been a blast, but Adobe screwed any chance of that happening by releasing version 7.3 of Lightroom on the 3rd/4th.

The week actually started off quite well with me uploading a Raw Therapee basic “get you started’ video:

I created that video primarily to help out anyone who has purchased my latest video training ‘Professional Grade Image Sharpening’ – click this link and get it bought if you haven’t already!

I’d planned to get out and do some photography, and do some serious SEO work on my YouTube channel.

But when I turned my machines on at 6.15am on the 4th I was greeted with some queries from clients and blog/channel viewers about some new fangled update for Lightroom.

Then the CC update panel told me I had application updates for Photoshop and Lightroom, so we clicked update on both.

I’m a bit of a Photoshop junkie, and I always look forward to any update if I’m honest, just so I can go and have a play with it!

But I’ve been a bit ‘meh..’ over Lightroom for quite a while now, for a few reasons.

Firstly, it’s trying to become some sort of pathetic 1 stop shop image processor, catering to the ‘instant gratification brigade’ INSTEAD OF what it’s meant to be – a superb digital asset management program and a raw processor designed to work in conjunction with the KING of image processors – PHOTOSHOP.

Secondly, it’s unique demosaicing algorithm is ludicrously outdated in comparison to C1, Iridient and RT, and its capture/input sharpening controls leave a lot to be desired. Anyone who has been sensible and bought my massive sharpening training knows exactly what I’m talking about here, as I demonstrate these facts more than a few times!

In point of fact, on the demosaicing front, it’s not as clever as that found in either Canon DPP or Nikon Capture.

But, with a bit of patience and effort, you can strip all the crap background adjustments away, and get back to a relatively neutral starting point; as I’ve discussed many times previously on this blog.

So, once the updates were done, and I’d had a quick look at Photoshop, I fired up the new Lightroom v7.3 – and immediately wished I hadn’t!

Heading over to the Adobe Lightroom Forum I see A LOT of very upset users.

Strangely enough though, heading over to YouTube I see the exact opposite!

But, positive or negative, all the buzz is about the new profiles.

Lightroom v7.3 Profiles

There are tens of thousands of Lightroom v7.3 fan boys out there, plus even more users with a low level knowledge base, who do NOT understand what a ‘profile’ is – and Adobe are using this as a massive marketing tool.

Lightroom v7.3 profiles are simply Lightroom v7.2 PRESETS, re-bundled into something called a profile, and shoved into a different location in the Lightroom GUI.

The subtle difference is this – if you have a preset that gives a ‘certain look’ to an image, when you apply it, the relevant sliders in the dev module move.

But if you have a ‘profile’ that gives the same visual appearance, when you apply it the relevant sliders DON”T move.

A PRESET is a visible, front GUI adjustment, and a PROFILE is a buried, background adjustment.

You’ll see this corroborated by an Adobe Forum Moderator a little later on..

A preset shows up in the control sliders, and you can easily tweak these after applying the preset.

Application of a PROFILE however, gives you no control indication of what it’s done, so you can’t tweak its adjustments because you can’t see them.

Profiles just pander to people who basically want Adobe to process their images for them – harsh, but true.

Presets – for me, the few that I make are simply to save time in applying settings to remove Adobes processing of my images.

But for years there has been a third party after-market revenue stream in preset bundles from certain photography trainers – buy these and your images will look like mine! So presets too steered their purchasers away from actually processing their own images, but at least those presets were designed by photographers!

Anyway, for those that haven’t seen the two videos I upload to YouTube about Lightroom v7.3 they are embedded below:

I was expecting a mixed response to those videos, from the sane and sensible:

Click me – good old Franky!

Click me

to the plain stupid:

Click me – I’m worth a read!

but I wasn’t expecting the raft of these, this is the tamest:

lightroom v7.3

You have to have a thick skin if you stick videos on YouTube, but what the f**k does a comment like that achieve?

Anyway, F**K all that. At the end of the first video I do say that if I find anything out about the new default sharpening amount in Lightroom v7.3 I would let you know in a blog article.

So I headed over to the Adobe Lightroom Forum to beg the question – it only took 10 minutes and an Adobe moderator addressed the question, and a bit more besides.

I’ve screen-grabbed it so please click the image below to read it:

I’m interesting so CLICK ME!

So, the important take-aways are:

nothing has changed

and

part of an effort by Adobe to offer a more pleasing “out-of-the-box” rendering

and

At the ‘base’ level nothing has changed. The demosaicing algorithm is unchanged, MelissRGB is still the default colour space within the UI, and the Adobe Standard profile (DCP) for each supported camera is also unchanged. Likewise, the Camera Matching profiles are unchanged.

and

All of the new Adobe Raw and Creative profiles are built on top of Adobe Standard (i.e. Adobe Standard remains the base profile for all supported cameras). As such, these XMP based profiles apply settings under-the-hood.

Conclusion.

So basically the whole version update is geared SOLELY towards people with a camera who want instant gratification by allowing Adobe techs to process their images for them.

As someone who’s understood the photography process, and watched it evolve over the last 40 years, I count myself as something slightly more than just a fat bloke with a camera.

Forget about all this “I care about my images” garbage – I KNOW what constitutes a technically sound image, and ever since the inception of PV2012, Lightroom has been on a slippery slope towards losing it’s full professional image maker credibility.

Like many others, I still use Lightroom, and I always will. As I said before, it excels in Digital Asset Management, and it’s Soft Proofing and Print facilities are really without equal.

Have they improved any of those features? In a nutshell, NO.

My monthly subscription has gone up by £25 a year, and for my money I’ve now got even more work to do inside the dev module to make sense of my raw files. If you’ve lost the understanding of what I mean, go and watch the 2nd video again!

Am I even remotely thinking about dropping my subs and using another application?

I might look like a cabbage, but I’m not one! My £120+ buys me access to a constantly updated installation of the finest image processor on the face of Gods Earth – the mighty Photoshop.

And for those without the required level of prior knowledge, that privilege used to cost in excess of £800+ plus serious upgrade fees every couple of years. That’s why there was such ripping ‘trade’ in torrenting and cracked copies!

So overall, I’m quids-in, and I can think of Lightroom as something of a freebie, which makes even Lightroom v7.3 good VFM.

Added to that, I can always open a raw file in RT and get a 16bit ProPhotoRGB tiff file into Photoshop that’ll kick Lightrooms version into the last millennium.

But I can’t help it, I do resent deeply the road down which the Adobe bosses are taking Lightroom.

What they should have done is make CC into an idiots version, and re-worked the Classic CC into a proper raw editor with multiple choices for demosaicing, a totally re-worked input sharpening module, and interface the result with the existing Print, Soft-Proof and DAM.

But of course, that would cost them money and reduce their profit margin – so there’s no chance of my idea ever coming to fruition.

I take my hat off to the guys in the C1 dev team, but C1 is far too hostile an environment for any of those thousands of idiots who love the new Lightroom profiles – because that would mean they’d need to do some actual processing work!

And if C1 is hostile, then RT is total Armageddon – hell, it even sends me into a cold sweat!

But photography has always been hard work that demanded knowledge before you started, and a lot of hard learning to acquire said knowledge.

Hard work never hurt anyone, and when does the path of least resistance EVER result in the best possible outcome?

Never – the result is always an average compromise.

And good image processing is all about the BEST IMAGE POSSIBLE from a raw file.

Which brings me nicely back to my sharpening training – get it bought you freebie-hunting misers! GO ON – DO IT NOW – BEFORE YOU FORGET and before I die of starvation!

DO IT!

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Professional Grade Image Sharpening

Posted on March 27, 2018 by Andrew Astbury

Professional Grade Image Sharpening for Archive, Print & Web – my latest training video collection.

View the overview page on my download store HERE

Over 11 hours of video training, spread across 58 videos…well, I told you it was going to be big!

And believe me, I could have made it even bigger, because there is FAR MORE to image sharpening than 99% of photographers think.

And you don’t need ANY stupid sharpener plugins – or noise reductions ones come to that. Because Photoshop does it ALL anyway, and is far more customizable and controllable than any plugin could hope to be.

So don’t waste your money any more – spend it instead, on some decent training to show you how to do the job properly in the first place!

You won’t find a lot of these methods anywhere else on the internet – free or paid for – because ‘teachers cannot teach what they don’t know’ – and I know more than most!

As you can see from the list of lessons above, I cover more than just ‘plain old sharpening’.

Traditionally, image sharpening produces artifacts – usually white and black halos – if it’s over done. And image sharpening emphasizes ‘noise’ in areas of shadow and other low frequency detail, when it’s applied to an image in the ‘traditional’, often taught, blanket manner.

Why sharpen what isn’t in focus – to do so is madness, because all you do is sharpen the noise, and cause more artifacts!

Maximum sharpening should only be applied to detail in the image that is ‘fully in focus’.

So, as ‘focus sharpness’ falls off, so to should the level of applied sharpening. That way, noise and other artifacts CAN NOT build up in an image.

And the same can be said for noise reduction, but ‘in reverse’.

So image sharpening needs to be applied in a differential manor – and that’s what this training is all about.

Using a brush in Lightroom etc to ‘brush in’ some sort of differential sharpening is NOT a good idea, because it’s imprecise, and something of a fools task.

Why do I say that? Simple……. Because the ‘differential factor bit’ is contained within the image itself – and it’s just sitting there on your computer screen WAITING for you to get stuck in and use it.

But, like everything else in modern digital photography, the knowledge and skill to do so has somehow been lost in the last 12 to 15 years, and the internet is full of ‘teachers’ who have never had these skills in the first place – hence they can’t teach ’em!

However, everyone who buys this training of mine WILL have those skills by the end of the course.

It’s been a real hard slog to produce these videos. Recording the lessons is easy – it’s the editing and video call-outs that take a lot of time. And I’ve edited all the audio in Audacity to remove breath sounds and background noise – many thanks to Curtis Judd for putting those great lessons on YouTube!

The price is £59.99. So right now, that’s over 11 hours of training for less than £5.50 per hour – that’s way cheaper than a 1to1, or even a workshop day with a crowd of other people!

So head off over to my download store and buy it, because what you’ll learn will improve your image processing, whether it’s for big prints or just jpegs on the web – guaranteed – just click here!

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Adobe Lightroom Classic and Photoshop CC 2018 tips

Posted on October 19, 2017 by Andrew Astbury

Adobe Lightroom Classic and Photoshop CC 2018 tips – part 1

So, you’ve either upgraded to Lightroom Classic CC and Photoshop CC 2018, or you are thinking doing so.

Well, here are a couple of things I’ve found – I’ve called this part1, because I’m sure there will be other problems/irritations!

Lightroom Classic CC GPU Acceleration problem

If you are having problems with shadow areas appearing too dark and somewhat ‘chocked’ in the develop module – but things look fine in the Library module – then just follow the simple steps in the video above and TURN OFF GPU Acceleration in the Lightroom preferences panel under the performance tab.

Adobe Lightroom Classic and Photoshop CC 2018 tips

Turn OFF GPU Acceleration

UPDATE: I have subsequently done another video on this topic that illustrates the fact that the problem did not exist in Lr CC 2015 v.12/Camera Raw v.9.12

In the new Photoshop CC 2018 there is an irritation/annoyance with the brush tool, and something called the ‘brush leash’.

Now why on earth you need your brush on a leash God ONLY KNOWS!

But the brush leash manifests itself as a purple/magenta line that follows your brush tool everywhere.

You have a smoothness slider for your brush – it’s default setting is 10%. If we increase that value then the leash line gets even longer, and even more bloody irritating.

And why we would need an indicator (which is what the leash is) of smoothness amount and direction for our brush strokes is a bit beyond me – because we can see it anyway.

So, if you want to change the leash length, use the smoothing slider.

If you want to change the leash colour just go to Photoshop>Preferences>Cursors

Here, you can change the colour, or better still, get rid of it completely by unticking the “show brush leash while smoothing” option.

So there are a couple of tips from my first 24 hours with the latest 2018 ransom ware versions from Adobe!

But I’m sure there will be more, so stay tuned, and consider heading over to my YouTube channel and hitting the subscribe button, and hit the ‘notifications bell’ while you’re at it!

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Irix Edge Filters

Posted on October 17, 2017 by Andrew Astbury

Irix Edge Filters

A few weeks ago, Irix dropped me a set of their Edge 95mm screw-in filters to try on their fabulous 15mm Blackstone lens.

Irix Edge Filters

Now before we go any further, I have to say, that filters for landscape photography can represent something of a bottomless pit of expenditure in your photography gear.

I see folk with vast numbers of filters; NDs, grad NDs, tint and temp grads, fogs and soft focus filters and all sorts of exotic bits of glass and acrylic to stick on the front of their superb (and sometimes not so superb) landscape lenses.

Some of those same folk then look inside my bag in horror when they see that I only carry 3 filters – a 10 stop ND, 6 stop ND and polarizer.

I gave up using ND grads years ago, simply because they are time-consuming, and because if your horizon is not perfectly flat they will always effect the exposure of your middle to far foreground in some way or other.

For me, I find it far faster to shoot a bracketed sequence.

When your are shooting under very transient light conditions, such as sunset and twilight, time spent choosing and lining up a grad ND is time lost.

Followers of this blog will know that I have Lee SW150 and Lee 100 systems, both with 10 stop and 6 stop NDs and a polariser – the SW150 a circular, and the 100 system is a linear. I’d have linear for the 150 system if they made one, simply on the grounds that they are normally cheaper – and I’m a tight-ass cheapskate!

When Irix sent the 15mm Blackstone for review, I purchased the Lee SW150 adapter ring for 95mm thread lenses – it works well and I can’t fault it.

But, I had the insanely expensive SW150 system holder and glass filters ALREADY, because I used them on the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor, and sometimes on my beloved Zeiss 21mm.

When I originally reviewed the 15mm Irix Blackstone there was really no other option for filtration.

But this new range of 95mm Irix Edge Filters now means that landscape photographers can have the necessary filtration without having to go with any form of 150mm filter system.

The 95mm Irix Edge Filters range.

Irix Edge Filters

The packaging is robust and keeps the filters safe. The card outer sleeve tells you what filter is inside, though if you remove/loose it then you have to open the case and examine the edge of the filter to see the same information – it’s the only niggle I have, and it’s a minor one and certainly not a deal-breaker.

Though our Richard might argue that point after sprinting along the side of Howden reservoir after one that blew away in the wind yesterday!

But it would be nice of Irix to put the information inside the case so you could see it without faffing around – it all saves time, and time can be of the essence!

The filter range consists of:

A UV/Lens Protect – you all know my attitude to these by now!

Circular Polariser – this is mounted in a low profile 5mm frame with knurled edges, and has a double-sided anti-reflective nano coating. AND – it is front-threaded to allow for a certain amount of stacking with other filters in the range – more on that shortly.

ND 8, 32, 128 & 1000 Neutral Density – these ND filters are all built in a 3.5mm metal frame, so are super low-profile. They are all front-threaded and have the Irix double-sided anti reflective coatings.

ND filter terminology:

This seems to confuse a lot of people, which I suppose is understandable because different manufacturers persist in using different, and in the case of Lee for instance, MIXED terminologies.

So let’s try and break this down for you.

A one stop drop in exposure results in HALF the amount of light reaching the sensor/film plane.

A half is represented by the fraction ‘1/2’.

Irix, and others, take the denominator (bottom number of the fraction), stick the letters N & D in front of the said denominator, and now we have the filter value of ND2.

So, an ND2 neutral density filter is a ONE STOPPER – to use one particular Lee parlance!

If we reduce our exposure by 3 stops (that’s half of a half of a half, in other words 1/8th) then an ND8 filter is a THREE STOPPER!

An ND32 is a FIVE STOPPER, and ND128 is a SEVEN STOPPER.

And finally, an ND1000 (which is actually an ND1024!) is a TEN STOPPER – of Lee Big Stopper fame.

However, an ND1000 (ND1024) can also be classed in the ‘X.Y’ system as ND3.0 – oh dear!

The ‘X.Y’ (x point y) system is most commonly encountered with ND Grads – for example the Lee Soft-edged ND Grad set featuring 0.3, 0.6 & 0.9 ND Grads.

A 0.3 ND is the same as an ND2 – a ONE STOPPER, a 0.6ND is a two stop or ND4 and a 0.9ND is a 3 stop or ND8 – don’t you just love it!!

So hopefully we’ve cleared any confusion over ND stop values, so let’s get back to the Irix Edge Filters and my thoughts on how they perform.

If you click this link HERE you will be taken to page where, if you scroll to the bottom, you can watch a video of me doing a couple of shots at Salford Quays the other day. I didn’t have my glasses on for the ‘talk to the camera bit’ and so made a slight screw up when talking about the focus scales – watch it and you’ll see! And I’ve been told that I must apologise for inferring that Salford Quays is in Manchester!

Anyway, here are the two shots we did in the video:

Media City Footbridge, Salford Quays.

Salford Quays, NOT in Manchester! Irix Edge Polariser stacked with the Irix Edge ND1000

The first image (Media City Footbridge) is shot with just the 95mm Irix Edge Filters circular polariser.

Conditions were vile with sun and rain in rapid succession and the shot will never win any prizes, but it does help show that the filter does not effect sharpness in the image, and is a lot more colour-neutral than a lot of CPLs out there on the market.

The second shot is with the ND1000 stacked on top of the CPL – and again there is no noticeable lack of sharpness.

When you stack the filters there IS a SMALL amount of vignetting as seen in the uncropped/unedited raw file below:

Irix Edge Filters But that’s easily taken care with a little bit of content aware fill in Photoshop, so you don’t HAVE to crop it out:

And just for reference, here’s the unfiltered scene:

God – how boring!

As a final testament to the stacked CPL + ND1000 Irix Edge Filters combo, here’s a shot from Howden Reservoir in the Peak District, taken yesterday directly into the teeth of ex-hurricane Ophelia:

Howden Reservoir during Ophelia.

If you look at the larger image, considering the fact that this is a 15 second exposure and that everything not nailed down is moving, then this image is plenty sharp enough – check out the fence lines on the hill, and the left tower of the dam in the distance.

Do NOT forget, this is a 15mm lens, not a more conventional 21mm to 24mm lens.

I could not pull this shot off with a Zeiss 15mm – no filters and bad edge performance. And I couldn’t pull it off as easily with the Nikon 14-24mm because the filters would have been unshaded from the sunlight off to my front right.

I was asked a couple of weeks ago ‘how neutral are the Irix Edge Filters Andy’?

It turns out the person who asked me had just read about some U.S branded CPL and ND filters that are supposed to be the most color-neutral filters on the market. This is also the same guy who still uses a Mark 1 Lee Big Stopper with its phenomenal blue/green cast.

“Do you ever change the colour balance, hue, saturation or luminance of any of your 8 colour channels in Lightroom, and the Basics Panel vibrance and saturation sliders?” I asked.

“Of course I do” came the reply.

“So why are you asking about filter neutrality then?” asks I. This was followed by a long silence, then the penny dropped…!

Yes, we all want some degree of filter neutrality because it shortens our workflow; but please remember that we are not shooting archive. We shoot creative imagery. We make shots of ice bergs have a blue tint to emphasize the cold atmospheric of the image, and we invariably warm up and saturate certain areas of every sunset image we ever take.

So to a large degree, full neutrality of of our landscape filters is not required, as long as they are neutral enough NOT to exclude certain wavelengths/colours of light from our recorded raw files.

And yes, on the neutrality front, these Irix filters are very good. The ND1000 is a little brown/warmish, but about 20% less so than the B&W screw in 10 stop I used to use – and no one ever complained about that filter.

I did a very ‘Heath Robinson’ test on the Irix 95mm CPL and got a colour shift of 2,7,5 RGB, but I’m just waiting for Paul Atkins to get back of his holiday so I can use his small colourimeter to check it more accurately – so PLEASE don’t go quoting that value or treating it as hard fact.

I’ll do an colour shift evaluation test on a range of filters at some date in the future, but for now all I can say is that I find the 95mm range of Irix Edge Filters exceptionally easy to work with both in terms of colour rendition and image sharpness.

So much so that I’m going to try and ‘bum’ an 82mm and 77mm step-down rings so I can use them on my Zeiss and Nikon lenses – apart from the 14-24 that is, which is now banished from my landscape and astro gear line-up for ever.

In the meantime, guess what? Irix have asked me to do a talk at Camera World Live on Saturday 28th October!

I’ll be doing my brief talk at 3pm and I’ll be on the Irix stand all day, so if you are there, just pop along for a chat or any advise you want.

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.

Good Contrast Control in Lightroom CC

Posted on July 18, 2016 by Andrew Astbury

Contrast Control in Lightroom

Learning how to deploy proper contrast control in Lightroom brings with it two major benefits:

It allows you to reveal more of your camera sensors dynamic range.
It will allow you to reveal considerably more image detail.

I have posted on this subject before, under the guise of neutralising Lightrooms ‘hidden background adjustments’. But as Lightroom CC 2015 evolves, trying to ‘nail’ the best way of doing something becomes like trying to hit a moving target.

For the last few months I’ve been using this (for me) new method – and to be honest it works like a charm!

It involves the use of the ‘zero’ preset together with a straight process version swap around, as illustrated in the before/after shot above and in the video linked below. This video is best viewed on my YouTube channel:

The process might seem a little tedious at first, but it’s really easy when you get used to it, and it works on ALL images from ALL cameras.

Here is a step-by-step guide to the various Lightroom actions you need to take in order to obtain good contrast control:

Contrast Control Workflow Steps:

1. Develop Module Presets: Choose ZEROED
2. Camera Calibration Panel: Choose CAMERA NEUTRAL
3. Camera Calibration Panel: Choose Process Version 2010
4. Camera Calibration Panel: Choose Process Version 2012
5. Basics Panel: Double Click Exposure (goes from -1 to 0)
6. Basics Panel: Adjust Black Setting to taste if needed.
7. Details Panel: Reset Sharpening to default +25
8. Details Panel: Reset Colour Noise to default +25
9. Lens Corrections Panel: Tick Remove Chromatic Aberration.

Now that you’ve got good contrast control you can set about processing your image – just leave the contrast slider well alone!

Why is contrast control important, and why does it ‘add’ so much to my images Andy?

We are NOT really reducing the contrast of the raw file we captured. We are simply reducing the EXCESSIVE CONTRAST that Lightroom ADDS to our files.

Lightroom typically ADDS a +33 contrast adjustment but ‘calls it’ ZERO.
Lightroom typically ADDS a medium contrast tone curve but ‘calls it’ LINEAR.

Both of this are contrast INCREASES, and any increase in contrast can be seen as a ‘compression’ of the tonal space between BLACK and WHITE. This is a dynamic range visualisation killer because it crushes the ends of the midtone range.

It’s also a detail killer, because 99% of the subject detail is in the mid tone range. Typically the Lightroom tonal curve range for midtones is 25% to 75%, but Lightroom is quite happy to accept a midtone range of 10% to 90% – check those midtone arrow adjusters at the bottom edge of the parametric tone curve!

I hope you find this post useful folks, and don’t forget to watch the video at full resolution on my YouTube Channel.

Become a patron from as little as $1 per month, and help me produce more free content.

Patrons gain access to a variety of FREE rewards, discounts and bonuses.