General

The old gang back together

I must say a massive thank you to Ibarionex Perello, host of The Candid Frame podcast, for inviting Chris Marquardt, Jeff Curto, Martin Bailey and me to join him for a special Candid Frame hangout on air today. This was the core lineup for The Focus Ring, our photography round table show from a few years back. This was our first time ever actually seeing one another but the conversation flowed as naturally as ever. We talked about how producing a podcast has affected our lives as well as getting into answering some questions from viewers about cameras, when to upgrade and which photographers have most influenced us. 

 

Ace the Currys Photo Challenge on Smoke photography!

Currys PC World here in the UK are running a series of photography challenges. They've just started with a "Smoke photography" challenge set by David Nightingale of Chromasia blog. This all fits rather neatly with the tutorial videos I made recently on this very topic so if you want to ace that competition check out my videos below and then visit the Currys PC World blog to find out how to enter.

Tutorial 14 re-released

I've been steadily moving my old shows over to YouTube. It makes sense to put the content where the viewers are. But in the process I realised that there's a lot of stuff in those shows that was timely when it was released but much less interesting now. So the new versions of the old shows will, from now on, be stripped down to just the important bit - the tutorial. I'm also increasing the video quality everywhere I can and uploading 1080p versions where possible. As always these videos will remain free and you'll be able to download them if you wish.

So in that vein I've re-released Tutorial 14 in improved quality and stripped down to just the meat of the shows. It was a long one - 8 chapters but there's a TON of good photoshop tips in there and darn near all of it is still relevant to CS6 today.  So go and check it out. Here's links to the YouTube pages or you can find Tutorial 14 in the Video Tutorials section of the site here.

 

 

Adobe killing Photoshop boxed copies

So the other shoe has dropped. Adobe have just announced that they won't be selling boxed copies of their creative suite products any more. That includes Photoshop, Premiere Pro, Illustrator, InDesign and so on. This is because they want you to use their new purchasing model, the Creative Cloud, which was launched less than a year ago. With Creative Cloud you can buy either the entire Creative Suite for £47/month or a single application for £17.49/month. Some reports are saying that Adobe have reduced the price for a single app from $20/month to $10/month but I'm not seeing any UK prices yet. Presumably they'll also drop UK prices by 50% as well making it somewhere around £9/month.

Based on the currently advertised £17.49 price you'd pay £630 over the next 3 years, which is about how often most people seem to upgrade. Under the old model you'd pay about £200 for an upgrade if you already owned a full copy of Photoshop. If Adobe do halve the single app price that'll be £315 over 3 years - still way more than the old upgrade price. And if you want more than one application from the creative suite there's no option for you besides buying everything.

[Update: the 50% off thing looks like being a limited time for existing owners that lasts just for the first year]

So what are the pros and cons of this change? Well first of all, once you get on board with the new scheme you'll have to keep paying every month forever because when you stop paying the software stops working. Not so good for those people who only use Photoshop occasionally. But on the upside you get all upgrades as soon as they're released. And as we know every version of Photoshop has included *must have* improvements that we could never live without. Right? In fact, doesn't a subscription model like this remove any incentive for Adobe to develop Photoshop at all? Right now they have to come up with new headline features to tempt people to upgrade every 3 years. But once they're collecting your cash every month - why bother?

I'm a Photoshop trainer so I talk to a lot of Photoshop users. I'd guess that about 50% of the people I talk to are using a pirated copy. Why is that? Because they feel that have to have it but they can't afford it. I answer endless questions from people about ways to get a discount like using the student version. It's clear to me that Photoshop is already way over priced. Quite out of reach of most amateur photographers. And it's also clear that with the rise of Lightroom and other, quicker processing tools Photoshop is being used less and less. So when does the price and the usefulness equation stop people wanting Photoshop at all? I'm guessing right about now - the same moment that Adobe forces everyone onto a software rental model. Adobe is killing its own sacred cow.

The most damaging thing for Adobe, I think, is discussions like this one that remind people they don't actually need Photoshop. There are lots of other, cheaper tools on the market these days that can replace Photoshop for the few remaining things we do with it. Corel's Paintshop Pro is a pretty good facsimile of Photoshop and it's got 16-bit colour support, which is the feature Photoshop Elements lacks that prevents me using it. OnOne Software's Perfect Photo Suite offers a lot of creative options including layers and it integrates with Lightroom beautifully. And there are a ton of other very affordable products coming onto the market that do one or two things really well, like SnapHeal which replicates Photoshop's spot healing and content aware features plus more. 

If you're looking at this situation and wondering what to do now I would recommend waiting. It's not clear what the future holds for Lightroom. Lightroom 5 beta just became available but I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to buy it without a Creative Cloud subscription. I'll try and find out. As for Photoshop - I'm really not sure I'll bother teaching it any more. I don't want to rent it. Not at these prices. And I'm not at all convinced there'll be much demand for Photoshop courses in the future.

[Update: Although Lightroom 5 has been included in the creative suite in the past it will continue to be available separately as a one-time purchase outside the creative cloud]

The 7 stages of Nik/Google grief

Nik software's heads must be spinning right now wondering what hit them. One moment they're on an all time high because Google just bought their company and the next the internet is filled with photographers all clearly somewhere in the 7 stages of grief about it. Check out the comments on Nik's announcement post: http://education.niksoftware.com/2012/09/17/google-acquires-nik-software/. Here are a few highlights from their comments and from Twitter:

1. Shock and denial

Comment on Nik's post: This is terrifying. You make the best plug-ins in the business. I am scared.

2. Pain and guilt

Comment on Nik's post: You just ruined my day. Sorry to see this happen to a good product line :-(

3. Anger and bargaining

Comment on Nik's post: It would be helpful to have a statement from you or Google or GooNik or Nikoogle as to what this means for your products.

4. Depression, reflection, loneliness

Comment on Nik's post: I guess this is the beginning of the end, after 12 years of using your plug-ins, probably time to move on.

5. The upward turn

Comment on Nik's post: I was planning on upgrading my complete collection, but I’m glad I haven’t done so yet. Time to look for a replacement.

6. Reconstruction and working through

Comment on Nik's post: Oh well. Snapseed was great while it lasted. Time to find an alternative app I guess.

7. Acceptance and hope

On Twitter @chrismarquardt: I see it as an opportunity to do more education around how to get great b/w conversions without the help of NIK

Ok so that's all very entertaining but seriously, should we be worried? Well I'd say yes - worried. But not necessarily in despair, yet. So far we've not seen a response from Google or Nik describing what will happen to Nik's existing product line. All we have to go on is Google's previous track record. Sadly that  hasn't been so good. The recent google acquisition, Sparrow, immediately ceased development. And before that Picnik, the web based photo editing software - was also closed down. Certainly the future looks very bleak for Nik's IOS products.

No doubt we'll see improved photo editing tools in Google's own products like Android and Google+ but what about Nik's existing product line? At the very least it seems likely that talent within Nik will be at least partially distracted into Google products. It seems like Google likes to acquire companies for the talent rather than the products. If that's the case here I believe it'll be the end of the very best plug-in products on the market - products I use very regularly. But perhaps part of the deal with Google is that the Nik plugins will go on. Or perhaps I'm just in stage 1 myself.

Those of you looking for good alternatives should look at Topaz Labs and OnOne Software. This is a huge opportunity for those guys and if they're smart they'll think about offering discounts or cross-grade deals.

[The attached picture, by the way, is one of my old black and whites which I just recently re-processed from the original RAW using Silver Efex Pro and got a very pleasing result in a fraction of the time it originally took me with Photoshop]

Pre-visualisation can be a straight jacket

Pre-visualisation can be a straight jacketIt's good to go to a shoot with an idea of what you want to achieve. Pre-visualising a shot is a valuable skill and can lead to some amazing work, especially for a technically skilled photographer. But it can also be a straight jacket. You leave the shoot with pictures that you hope will give you the raw (pun intended) materials to make the pictures you pre-visualised. So when you click through those pictures you're looking for signs that they've got the characteristics you wanted. You reject shots that don't support the idea in your head. If you're very diligent you'll process the winners at this point, publish them and archive away the shoot.

But sometimes, if you can make the time to go back to those pictures 1 month, maybe 2 months later you'll find gems in there that you didn't see before. You'll look at the pictures with different eyes. You won't have that pre-vis straightjacket on any more and hopefully you'll be able to look at the pictures with a clear head - seeing what's good and bad in each on its own merits. Once you can do that you're free to take those RAWs in directions you didn't intend and a whole new kind of art can appear. Some art is made, some is discovered. Most is a little of each.

Above is an example from my recent work. I've been getting as much practice in as I can with portraiture and studio lighting. I attended (rather than taught - for a change) a lighting academy run by Will Cheung, editor of Advanced Photographer magazine, and run by the company that organises my own workshops, Welshot Imaging. We shot 4 different models during those two days - you can see my "keepers" from this workshop in the Gallery - and this shot above was one where we were set up for a dramatic type of light. On the day I saw it as black and white without realising quite what I had in mind. I processed the images from the workshop during the following week and published all the winners. This shot never made the publishing cut because it just didn't look right and I didn't know why.

I've shot a few more model sessions since then and on a whim I was looking back through previous shoots and suddenly it struck me what was wrong here. This was clearly a film noir shot and I'd missed out some of the glow and lighting emphasis needed to make that work. A little tweak in Nik Color Efex Pro and Lightroom and voila - a shot I couldn't see before is now something I'm pretty proud of.

Turn your phone into a camera remote - if you can afford it

I've noticed a flurry of similar products appearing lately that turn an iPhone into a shutter release for your SLR. Here are links to a couple of them. The first, ioShutter, is being promoted by the excellent Photojojo which I encourage you to subscribe to. The second is a recent Kickstarter project by the name of Trigger Happy Camera Remote. But let's back up a moment. The equivalent Canon product is the TC-80N3 which allows you to not only remote trigger your camera but also program a number of shots to be taken on a timer and set the duration of bulb exposures - it's sometimes called an intervalometer. Useful stuff but the typical price here in the UK is £120 or $135 in the states. Honestly that's *way* over priced for what it is.

So the prospect of turning a camera phone into an intervalometer is intriguing, first because the "brains" of the gadget can be provided by the phone which should make construction much simpler and cheaper but also because the phone should make the interface easier, prettier and allow it to do more. I first saw the Kickstarter project and I was impressed by what a good idea it is but when I saw the price they were asking my first thought was that the creators were smoking crack. They want $70 for the Trigger Happy Camera Remote when it launches (or $50 if you get in on the Kickstarter funding). ioShutter is even worse - they want $70 just for the cable and another $10 for the app.

But hold on a minute - wasn't this idea meant to replace the complex bit of this gadget, making it simpler and cheaper? See the thing is, I've already bought an intervalometer and I didn't pay £120 for it. I didn't even pay £50 for it. I paid about £20 for it on Amazon. Just try searching for "TC-80N3" on Amazon and you'll see a load of extremely affordable alternatives to the Canon version. There are Nikon equivalents. Mine was made by a Chinese company called Yongnuo and yes it's a cheap knock-off but it's pretty solidly made. It works reliably and it's a *fraction* of the price. I've been delighted with it. Here's one for just $15 on the US Amazon store - it's identical to mine, clearly a rebadged Yongnuo.

The ioShutter and Trigger Happy Camera Remote guys think Canon and Nikon are their competition but they're wrong. Their real competition are these cheap knock offs. So tell me, how much do you want to pay? $70 or $15? I don't care how much prettier the iPhone version is, that's a no-brainer.

But that's not all!

Triggertrap Mobile cable+dongleThere is another option - Triggertrap Mobile costs $10 for the app and then $20 for the cable+dongle, so $30 for the lot. Still more than the Yongnuo but when you see what you get it's *really* worth it. The Triggertrap app does all the intervalometer stuff plus you can trigger your camera for time-lapse, distance-lapse, motion detection, sound, magnetism, vibration and even facial recognition. For $30. Sign me up - I already placed my order.

I love Kickstarter and entrepreneurs. I usually want to support them and I've backed quite a number of Kickstarter projects but I am getting mightily sick of the price gouging that goes on with photography gear. I've not used any of these products yet but on what I've seen so far the Triggertrap leads the pack by a country mile. Hurrah for sensible pricing.

Why Apple computers suck for business

Liverpool Apple StoreI've been using macs in my business for some years now but the shortcomings of Apple's offering were never clear to me until last week when my iMac hard disk died. It's my main business machine and while my data was safely on external drives I still needed a powerful computer to actually do my job (mainly video production). I've had 2 iMacs and both have had internal hard disks die within 2 years of purchase. On the first iMac I fixed it myself - I'm originally a pc guy so I thought 'how hard can it be?'. Silly me. I got it done but for my next iMac, my current one, I bought AppleCare thinking it would be easier to get Apple to take care of any problems. I was very wrong. 

First of all I booked a genius bar appointment at my nearest store which is not all that near to be honest, in the Trafford centre in Manchester. I drove up there (40 mins drive) and they confirmed what I already knew - SMART was reporting that the disk was failing. They told me they didn't have the part in stock and that it would take 5-7 days to get the work done. Not good - I have customers waiting on me to deliver. So we called around and found that the Liverpool One store had the part in stock. Ok I say, let's go. It's another long drive and Liverpool traffic is a bitch but finally I get there and I'm politely dealt with - even being taken up to the inconveniently located genius bar in the staff lift because I'm carrying an extremely heavy and sharp edged 27" iMac. No surprises - they can't fix it there and then. 3-5 days I'm told.  Disappointing when you consider they have the part, the tools and my computer all in the same place. It crosses my mind that if they'd give me some desk space I could just do it myself. But no, I am well behaved and I go home. Another long drive in heavy traffic - nearly 2 hours. I hate to think how much I've spent in petrol up to his point. Nearly as much as the cost of a new hard drive. Considerably more if you factor in the cost to the environment and a whole day of my time. 

I leave the Apple guys alone for the whole of the next day, Tuesday, only occasionally looking at my empty desk and fretting about the lost work time. But on Wednesday the lack of productivity and a weird sense of responsibility towards my customers forces me to call Liverpool to ask where they're up to with my machine. You have.. 5.. calls ahead of you in the queue. The girl who eventually answers is polite but resolute in her unwillingness to give me any idea when the work will be complete. Her best estimate is the same 3-5 days I was originally told. Here's the thing, though. When I was told that, I was hoping Apple liked to under promise and over deliver. I needed my computer and I needed it NOW. I literally had nothing I could do without it except hassle the Apple store folks. So that's what I did. After being cut off and calling again (you have.. 4.. calls ahead of you in the queue) I speak to the same lady and she tells me that she's spoken to the staff the back and my computer will be fixed today. Great! I tell her I'm driving up and I'll wait in the store until it's done. Yes I know that's going to put pressure on the store staff. That's the idea.

So I make the long drive to Liverpool again.. More petrol, another lost day of productivity, more high blood pressure. And I deal with the guys in the store. The chap running the genius bar is annoyed with me but keeps his cool and after some cajoling he nudges the guys in the back.  They promise they're now working on it. I drink coffee in Starbucks - getting out of his hair for 30 mins is my little reward to him for his compliance. Eventually I go back to the store and almost another hour later my computer is brought out. I force a smile, thank the staff for putting up with me and head home. It's another long drive and I arrive only just in time to pick up the kids from nursery. Another day is lost and all of that night and half of the next day will be taken up reinstalling but at least my destiny is back in my own hands. I resolve never to give away that control again. 

So here's the problem. Apple are rightly proud of their customer service. The staff interpersonal skills are superb. That makes dealing with Apple a very smooth ride but where the rubber meets the road is getting the damn computer fixed. Apple performs very poorly indeed on this point. What matters to me as a business when my computer has failed, especially when I've paid extra for AppleCare (my colleague jokingly suggested that perhaps I'd inadvertently purchased AppleDontCare) is that my computer is fixed fast so I can get back to work. 

I lost most of Sunday, all of Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and half of Thursday to this failure and it was only that quick because I bothered and cajoled the Apple staff. If I'd not done so I would have waited even longer. I also paid a crap ton of money in petrol and invested a lot of my own time driving around. Compare this experience with how I would have handled this failure in a PC. All I would have done there is driven to PC World, overpaid for a new SATA drive and then replaced it myself. Total lost time - 1 day tops. Even with AppleCare paying for the drive and the manpower this was much more expensive than simply swapping a drive in a PC. 

Consider that business proposition again - if I had a PC I would have paid less for the computer, less for the drive, less for the petrol and I would have been back to work in 1 day instead of 4. Tell me again how great your premium price Apple solution is?

What I've described here isn't extraordinary - a disk died, they replaced it. Nothing went wrong particularly aside from the disk itself. If anything they went faster than they typically would - because I nagged them. And yet I still consider their performance apalling. Apple don't seem to be aware of what matters to business. Paying extra for AppleCare gets you no special treatment. They don't appear to have anything like the necessary infrastructure for repairing stuff quickly and getting businesses back to work. As a result I'm considering switching away from Final Cut and onto to Premiere so that I can use PCs again. Premiere is way too expensive but the overall risk to my business is considerably less than sticking with Apple. 

Post that sucker!

I'm going to tell you to do something I think you all know in your hearts that you should do - "post the pictures you love". It sounds almost fatuous but it's harder to stick to than you might think. For example, I was lucky enough to attend a workshop with Welshot Imaging last weekend - normally I'm teaching workshops for Welshot so it's nice to attend one for a change and the teacher, Adrian Wilson, was excellent. We were there to learn about HDR photography and we'd made arrangements to visit Liverpool Cathedral for a few hours to shoot some material to process later.

I have a twisted streak that likes to subvert things so I'd been wondering how I could do something using HDR that didn't fit the stereotype of how HDRs usually look. I settled on two ideas and shot for them all day - black and white HDR and shallow depth of field HDR. I'm pretty happy with the results and you can see my complete collection of images from that day on Google+ and 500px but that's not what this article is about. I want to talk about selecting which images to show.

I've been posting the pictures one by one over a few days after spending some time with each and deciding if I really like it enough to post it. I came to the picture you see above of the staircase and I very nearly didn't post it. You see I'd been shooting HDRs inside a beautiful old cathedral all day surrounded by amazing stonework detail, high ceilings and stained glass windows. And this picture I was considering was just a wooden staircase - and a fairly modern one at that. I imagined that people would think the staircase mundane and out of place. So I vacillated for a while and eventually decided to post it. And to my surprise it gathered the most comments of any picture in the collection (on 500px).

The reason I shot that picture and the reason it was in contention for posting was simply that I find it visually pleasing with the lines that guide the eye and strong contrasts and detail. There are lots of diagonals to keep feeling dynamic and the contrast between the wooden stairs and the stonework is pleasing to me. It's one of my favourites from the day. But it's not really what you'd expect to see in a cathedral picture and I very nearly let that be my guide for what to post. So I have a simple call to action for you:

Find a picture you love but didn't post because you thought others might not appreciate it. Now post that sucker!

My thoughts on Trey Ratcliff's 3rd gen camera bombshell

Trey Ratcliff recently posted an article about why the DSLR is going to become a thing of the past. He really gets into the nitty gritty of what's good and bad about our 3rd generation camera future and I think he's mainly got it all right but there are a couple of points where he and I differ.

First of all I'm not sure I can put my hand on my heart and say I won't buy a Canon 5D mk3 when it comes out. Trey says he won't buy any more DSLR gear because this 3rd gen thing is coming in the next couple of years. I agree with his timescale - heck I think 3rd gen cameras are good enough NOW and I said so last year. I'm serious about picking and buying into a system like micro four thirds. But I think I'll need to get comfortable with that before I let go of my DSLR. Aparrently I lack Trey's bravery. ;-)

The other point where Trey and I differ is on the subject of time spent in Lightroom. He quite rightly says that in future our cameras will be able to shoot many more frames quickly and we'll be able to pick the good ones from perhaps 200 instead of 20. I fear he's right about that but I won't be thanking Nikon or Canon for the extra post processing work. I teach photoshop and lightroom so you'd expect I love doing that stuff but what I enjoy is shooting and making great images. Picking through a big batch of pictures is to find the ones I want to keep is work to me. It's not much fun. Once I've found that one I want to work on - THAT'S the fun part. So honestly I think he's right that we'll shoot many more pictures and have to spend time picking out the good ones. But Trey says he enjoys sitting in Lightroom and picking the winners. He's clearly derranged. (Just kidding Trey - you rock man).

Why the internet is devaluing art and how it's YOUR fault

I just read an article from the LA Times website where Robert Levine talks about how the internet devalues creative work and it got me thinking about how this applies to photography. I have to conclude that I agree with Robert on that hypothesis but not on much else of what he says.

It's simple supply and demand really. There's much more great work being produced for much less money now. In short, you people are getting too good at taking petter pictures and processing them to a professional shine. This is as a result of the rapid educational possibilities of the internet and technology advances that have put in the hands of the masses the same creative tools that were formerly available only to a few. And, shock horror, it turns out that there were loads more talented people out there who previously wouldn't have had the education and tools needed to produce competitive quality work.

Ironically Photoshop is a great example of one such tool. Look at the amazing wealth of superb quality photography on Google+. Even 5 years ago the typical standard of photography I saw online was markedly lower than it is today. And tools like Photoshop are partly responsible. People have always had talent but, today, more than ever in the past they also have the knowledge and tools they need to produce the images they envisioned.

My worry, though, is that Photoshop is returning to being a tool only for the 'elite'. I got a lot of feedback for my article Wave bye bye to Photoshop. Most of that feedback was agreement but of the few that disagreed the majority were basically saying,

"Photoshop *should* be expensive because it's a professional tool and there are lesser tools for the plebs who can't afford the good version".

In essence they were saying that because they could afford it they quite liked the idea of locking everyone else out - everyone else can use the less good tools that produce less good results. This is plain and simple elitism of the most unattractive kind.

The joke is on Adobe and the big media content producers, though, because this problem is going to solve itself. If Adobe don't sell a product that people can afford then smaller, hungrier companies like MacPhun, Coppertino, Realmac Software, Pixelmator and many others will just steal their lunch. The same is already true for the creative work producers. Big stock agencies are already feeling the pinch from micro stock sites like iStockPhoto. And in the music world too with millions of independent producers making and selling music direct to their fans without ever signing a record deal. Google Music is all set to capitalise on that gold rush.

The message for Adobe, Hollywood and the big content producers is simple. Make your product available to people where they want to buy it (online) and make it affordable. Cause one thing is for sure - we masses aren't going to go back to making crappy quality work. The competition is here to stay.

Should you replace your SLR with an iPhone?

The Guardian recently posted an interesting comparison of pictures taken with an iPhone and the same picture taken with a Canon 5D mk2 (lens not specified). 

A cursory inspection, especially by a non-professional, might conclude that the iPhone is nearly as good as the SLR - in some cases the exposure looks better on the iPhone. So should pros be considering iPhones as a valid alternative to their SLRs?

Sounds like an idiotic question doesn't it and, sure, you obvisouly won't want to shoot a wedding with an iPhone where looking like a pro is as important as shooting like one. But I'm not so sure the answer is as clear cut when you're just shooting for yourself.

Camera phones haven't got the pixel count or flexibility of an SLR, yet. And it'll be a while yet before they get full manual controls, large sensors, RAW recording or interchangable lenses.  But if all you want are snaps that you'll only ever view on a screen or print small then they're more than good enough - and getting better all the time.

This is a perspective issue. When I look at an iPad I see a much more limited version of my desktop computer. I think about all the things I *can't* do with it. When I look at an iPhone I see a much more limited version of a point and shoot camera. But young people don't see limitations - they see opportunities. Young people didn't look at a mobile phone and think, "I'll never be able to type on that". They just used what they had and got really good at it.

And in just the same way young people will use these new tools to make genuine art. They will become skilled in ways that we don't appreciate. We always say, "it's the photographer, not the camera", don't we? And while they're making art those "lesser" tools will improve until they're nipping at the heels of our "proper" gear. We can see that improvement happening already. That's what that The Guardian's comparison article is all about.

We have to be honest with ourselves about the state of technology or we'll end up being one of those old guys still buying 33rpm records and complaining that we don't understand how people can put up with the dreadful quality of those awful CD things.

Wave bye bye to Photoshop

I've been arguing for years that Photoshop is insanely overpriced and as the cost of software has steadily dropped the problem has become more and more pronounced. The app model that the world is clearly moving to has us paying far less for software as cheap simple apps like Pixelmator, Acorn, Fx Photo Studio, Flare, Analog and many others sell for pocket money prices. Even Adobe's own Lightroom makes spending £600+ on Photoshop hard to justify.

Despite this Photoshop has been seen as the defacto photo editing standard for years and for good reason - nothing else can do what Photoshop does. But I teach a lot of photoshop and photography courses and the dirty little secret is that a great many people using Photoshop do so illegally. Why? Because it's way too expensive. Among those that do have legal copies it's very normal for people to be one or two versions out of date.

Cue the recent announcement from Adobe's David Wadhwani that to qualify for Photoshop upgrade pricing you'll need to be on the previous version. So you'll need to own CS5 to qualify for an upgrade price to CS6. As far as I'm concerned that's putting a gun to Photoshop's head and pulling the trigger.

Until now you've been able to upgrade Photoshop from any of the 3 previous versions. Many of the people I teach who own Photoshop rely on this and upgrade every second or third version - particularly because each product version tends to add comparatively little that's compelling to the feature set.

Adobe's answer is that you can subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud which gives you access to all their creative suite apps plus some other products and services that you didn't know you needed, all for the low low price of $49.99 per month. Yes month. And here in the UK that'll probably £55 per month if Adobe's previous over seas pricing is anything to go by. Well it's the wrong side of the line for me. It's just too much and I won't pay it. I don't like software subscription services at the best of times but this is extortionate. And I'm pretty sure most of the people I teach would just laugh at the price.

Adobe seems to be moving in completely the wrong direction here. They should be giving those huge number of pirate users out there a way to go legal and stay legal. Everyone else seems to have figured out that if you make your software cheaper then you make more money. But Adobe is so caught up in corporate sales that consumers are being priced out of the market.

Time for some video reviews of affordable Photoshop alternatives.

Creativity assignments every day for a month

During the month of November I'm going to take part in #NaPodPoMo and try to post an audio podcast (using Audioboo) every day for the whole month. It's a kind of creativity exercise and that gave me the idea of bringing you folks along with me. So the first thing on my podcasts every day this month will be creativity assignments. Each day I'll give you an assignment and hopefully you'll try and at least shoot a picture each day. No SLRs required - you can use your camera phone if you like. Just try and shoot something. If you're brave then post it on Google+ too with a hash tag #creativity and we can look at each other's work and see how different people interpret each challenge.

So without further ado, below is my NaPodPoMo podcast for today which contains your first assignment - "Squares".

November creativity assignments start! (mp3)

Why I'm not that excited about the Nikon 1 cameras

Nikon announced a brand new range of cameras a few days ago - Nikon 1. There are 2 initial models, the V1, which is the higher end model aimed at more serious photographers, and the J1 aimed at a more consumer audience. Both cameras are mirrorless and have interchangeable lenses plus some unique new features that will no doubt turn a few heads. For starters they have a "motion snapshot" mode which starts recording a slow motion video when you first touch the shutter button. It'll then shoot 1 second of video during which time your still will also be captured. You can then combine the video and still into what Nikon calls a motion snapshot. The other innovative shooting mode is Smart Photo Selector. When you press the shutter the camera takes 20 full resolution shots and then automatically selects the 5 best images. It shows you the one it thinks is best. If you don't agree you can choose from the others. Both cameras also have an amazing 60 fps continuous shooting speed and of course both cameras shoot full 1080p HD video at 60 or 30 fps. There will be a new range of Nikon 1 lenses to fit these cameras but an adapter is available allowing you to fit standard Nikon lenses as well.



So far so good right? Right - I love innovative ideas and I'm delighted to see Nikon coming up with some creative new features. but I can't help feeling these cameras aren't aimed at me. For starters there's the 10 megapixel resolution which is a good bit lower than I'm accustomed to. Even camera phones are getting close to the 10 megapixel mark (the new iPhone will likely have 8 megapixels). Also the on-camera buttons and controls have been pared down to something similar to a point and shoot. No scroll wheels under your fingers here. Not even any dials for selecting aperture priority, shutter priority or manual mode - even on the big brother V1 model. Then there's those new shooting modes. Do I really want to fill my memory cards with motion snapshot video? Do I want to go through the process of picking the best shot out of 5 when I take a picture? Now I think of it those seem like they'd be more useful on a consumer focussed camera.

But then they also seem to be lacking consumer features. Neither model has a touch screen so there won't be any touch to focus or expose and neither model has a fold-out screen either. The V1 is also lacking a pop-up flash though an optional hotshoe flash is available at extra cost. They're both also very expensive compared to consumer cameras and then there's the extra expense of interchangeable lenses. They're also both lacking a built-in GPS, which is becoming an increasingly important feature. So if this camera isn't aimed at pros and it's not got the features of a consumer camera then who is it for?

Ironically it might be the video guys that find this first crop of Nikon 1 cameras most appealing. The V1 has a mic input and both cameras can use the 10-100 PD-Zoom lens with variable speed zoom. There's an optional add-on That 1080p video with great quality Nikkor lenses might be very appealing indeed.

Are you a creative person? Really

Being creative means being able to conjure an idea out of nothing. Doesn't it?

"Rebellion is the root of all creativity." - @SallyHogshead

Back when I entered the workforce with my 3rd class degree and a very limited idea of what I was good at I took a personality test. You know the sort - the ones where you read a bunch of statements and say how much you think each one is like you. One of the traits measured on that test was "creativity". I scored pretty low. This fit with my belief at the time that people were either science types or arty types and that it was nigh impossible to be both. Creativity was, obviously, an artsy person's trait. We scientists dealt in cold hard facts. 

To me creativity meant being able to invent something totally new. I knew that scientists always stood on the shoulders of giants and built on each other's work. I thought no idea could be truly creative if it was inspired by something someone else had done.

I hope the folly of my very narrow view of creativity is already apparent to you. It has taken me the last 20 years to slowly change my view to realise, first, that it is possible to be scientific *and* artistic. In fact I now realise that *most* people are both to some degree. But most importantly I've learned that creativity is so much more than just looking at a blank piece of paper and being able to pre-see the drawing you want to make on it. 

Creativity is quite simply the desire to create something - even if it's based on something you've seen by someone else. The very act of trying to recreate someone else's style is a creative act. By playing with a technique or approach you learn how it's done and in the process you inevitably put your own stamp on it. Maybe from there you find someone else's style that you like and work on emulating that. You learn a load more skills, but you don't forget your earlier ones. Without even thinking about it you combine the skills and styles of both and again you add a generous seasoning of your own taste and interest. Even just copying is a creative act. And of course the same is true in science and technology as well. Building on the work of others, adding to their ideas or refining them are all creative acts. Ironically, when I started my career as a programmer I was entering one of the most creative of all "science-types" professions. And I didn't even know it!

"Rebellion is the root of all creativity."

I saw @CC_Chapman tweet this quote by @SallyHogshead and my first reaction was to disagree. It suggests that to be creative you must buck the ideas of others and come up with something new. But I'm probably being too narrow minded again. Perhaps just wanting to create something, anything at all, is a small act of rebellion. What we're really doing when we create something is putting our heads above the parapet and trying to change our little bit of the world. Sounds like rebellion to me.

Is a camera club stifling your creativity?

Camera clubs can be an incredibly positive learning experience for new photographers. Suddenly you're surrounded by experienced people who are only too keen to show you what they've done and talk about how they did it. Horizons suddenly expand and you find yourself with a wealth of new ideas to try and teachers to help you. But there can be a catch.

Experienced photographers are often still there to learn but it's also a wonderful forum for showing off their work and hanging out with like minded people. And if someone has done particularly good work (or if they're a great self promoter) then sometimes they can become a club "star photographer". Usually they're lauded and looked up to by the other members. Sometimes they become club leaders or competition judges. And of course members often try to emulate the star photographer's style in order to learn. But this is where it becomes tricky because members might start to compare all work with the work of those stars and pretty soon other styles are out of favour. Before you know it the club has it's own house style that is fashioned after that of the star members. In extreme cases you have to emulate that style in order to do well in club competitions.

This club behaviour isn't stupid or malicious. It's just an emergent property of having people wanting to show their work and others wanting to learn. It's natural but it's important for club leaders to see what's happening and encourage diversity. The same problems occur on photography websites and other photography communities as well. We all want to be the best photographer we can and we all want to have our own personal style. Emulating the work of people we admire is a big part of how we learn and how we develop our style but just try to be aware of your influences and be choosy about what parts of those you keep for the future. And if you feel you're getting stuck in a rut or your photography is becoming more of a responsibility than a pleasure then strike out in a new direction. Try something completely different to what you've done before. Show your club mates something they've never seen from you before in so doing challenge them to appreciate different styles and approaches.

The most valuable photography skill you'll ever learn

“Become a more interesting person” – Jay Maisel responding to a student who asked him how to create more interesting photographs.

I want to tell you about the most important skill I've ever learned to improve my photography and I learned it from my dad. One of the things I most admired about him was his ability to talk to anyone, to show interest in them, make them smile and open up. In short he made friends and he made it seem effortless. But I've a suspicion, because he and I were so very much alike, that it wasn't at all easy for him as it isn't for me. Simply put, the most powerful photographic tool I have is the word, "hello". 

These days we isolate ourselves a great deal. Nowhere I've encountered is more this way than London where simply making eye contact with some people results in fear and alarm. But if we really want to make more interesting photographs we have to talk to people, find out who they are and what they're doing. Showing an interest in what interests someone else is a powerful way to strike up a conversation as it was for me today when I was out seeking pictures for an upcoming tutorial. I was wandering through the car park of a local church when I saw two chaps with interesting looking boxes they'd just taken from their van. So I went over and said good morning. Once I was close enough I could see that the boxes contained pigeons so I asked about them and we struck up a conversation. I expressed interest in their hobby and a few minutes later they were only too eager to let me take pictures of them releasing the birds. I got a picture I'm really pleased with but more importantly I got to experience something I wouldn't have if I'd not had the courage to walk up and introduce myself.

As a child I wasn't the extrovert I am now. In fact, I wasn't really confident talking to people I didn't know until I started getting interested in photography. And it wasn't an overnight thing that changed. I didn't just flip a switch in my head and suddenly I could talk to everyone. I took it slowly at first, just saying hello to anyone that caught my eye in the supermarket checkout queue or complimenting someone on their fabulous hat. It all starts with eye contact and a smile. But pretty quickly I learned that despite initial fears, people quite like it when you show interest in them. Most people *do* like to make friends. All I had to do was make the first move.

I took this to it's logical extreme recently when I was shooting video at a baby expo in Birmingham. I'd been asked to film the show in order to make a promo video and to focus on getting film of babies and children playing and having fun. I was a little nervous about that - would I have a female chaperone? Apparently not.  I was uncomfortable being the male photographer filming people's kids and I was all the more nervous when they couldn't even promise me an official photographer pass. So I bought and wore a bright yellow hi-vis vest printed with "OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHER" and I was carrying a *big* video tripod with a camera on top. There was no doubting what I was there for. Nobody could have accused me of hiding or being covert. When I wanted to film kids I would go over and talk to them and their parents first. I started by asking them about what they were playing with, what they'd liked at the show and *then* when I'd broken the ice I brought up the question of what I was obviously there to do. Out of the many people I spoke to and asked for permission to film their children not one person said no. There's so much paranoia about kids and photography lately. It was incredibly refreshing to discover that most people are very reasonable and respond well to an honest explanation of what you want to do and a polite request for permission.

I can't tell you how much of a difference being able to talk to people has made to my life overall. One thing is for sure, though, it's opened up a world of new photography opportunities.

Photojojo iPhone SLR Mount Review

Yay, my iPhone SLR mount from Photojojo arrived today and I've been busily playing with it all morning. This wacky device lets me connect my SLR Canon lenses to my iPhone. I know - crazy right? My first instinct was to try using the 100mm macro with it so I hooked it up and headed for the garden. You can see the best of the resulting shots here.

So what do I think? Well first of all, yes this thing is real. it works. You can attach any Canon EF mount lens to it (Nikon version available too) and yes you really can get shallow depth of field pictures using this system. The first thing you'll notice, though, is that the pictures are upside down, which makes aiming the lens very tricky indeed and you'll need to rotate the images in post processing. There's also a big problem with dust spots because it uses a focusing screen to project the image from your lens onto and then the iPhone shoots a picture of the focusing screen. The screen picks up dust very easily and is very fragile so cleaning it is best done very gently with a lens cloth or using compressed air. 

The other problem with the focusing screen is that you can see the ridges on the screen in the pictures.  Check out the large versions of my pictures to see what I mean. In some cases I reduced the effect and in others I emphasised it. But in all cases it was there and quite easily visible at full size.

The device comes in 2 main parts, the jacket that fits onto the phone and then the DOF unit that screws onto the jacket with a 37mm thread close-up lens in between. The whole system is designed for 37mm threads so you can take the DOF unit off and add your own 37mm lenses if you wish.

Overall I found this a fun little device. With pro lenses on it's ridiculous looking, of course, and if you're going to carry big lenses anyway why wouldn't you just use your SLR? Valid points for sure but if you're just looking for something that's a bit of fun and you have $250 (ouch!) to spare then go ahead and get one. Personally I'll be getting a wide angle 37mm lens to attach to mine and using it for video, a bit like an OWLE.

 

 

 

Is it time take Micro Four Thirds more seriously?

I had the chance to play with a Panasonic GH2 yesterday. I tried out a bunch of different lenses and the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 was a particular favourite. The point, though, is that I was struck by just how good this gear is. I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't be a smart move to leave the 5Dmk2 and the L lenses at home and start buying into the Micro Four Thirds system. 

Those lenses fit on a bunch of cameras and they're small and light. I could carry a camera bag 1/3 the size of my 5D bag that contains a camera, a couple of zoom lenses and still have room for a whole bunch of primes. Right now my bag usually contains a camera, a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. I usually carry at least one prime, either a 50mm or 100mm macro lens but I'd love to carry more (like an 85mm if I could afford it).

The only thing holding me back has been my perception that these Micro Four Thirds lenses can't be as good as my big L glass and, honestly, they're probably not. Not quite. But if I can carry a good selection of prime lenses in place of my single 24-70 f/2.8 L, well that's kinda tempting. Plus, of course, they're a lot cheaper so as well as the weight saving there's a cost saving too. 

The only point against doing this is how it would look to clients. I don't think they'd be too impressed to see me arrive with what seems to be much the same as their camera. 

I'm not placing any orders just yet but I have to admit.. I'm considering it. The shot above was just one of my snapshots while I was playing around with these lenses. It's a picture of my very old, very grumpy Devon Rex cat Elliott and it was shot with the GH2 using the Lumix 20mm f/1.7.