Gary’s Parries 09/07/06
Canon PowerShot SX500 IS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ40
Samsung NX1000
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS
Fujifilm X20
Canon EOS 700D Review
Ricoh GR Review
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1 Review
Nikon Coolpix S3500 Review
Sony NEX-3N Review
This week’s Gary’s Parries topics are:
1. $30 PhotoShop Equivalent
2. Carry That Weight
Introducing this week’s Gary’s Parries column. Everything you always wanted to know about digital cameras, but were afraid to ask. No question too difficult, or too easy. As a Senior Principal Software Engineer, and a former Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems, as well as a recording studio owner/operator, inventor, and now, a digital camera enthusiast, GARY has more digital camera knowledge in his entire brain than most people have in their little finger. In the unlikely event that GARY would not know the answer to your question, he will answer it anyway, true to the spirit of the word “Parries”, a fencing term which, in this context, implies “cleverly evasive answers”. So let your imagination run wild. Email all your nagging digital camera questions to: garysparries@photographyblog.com , and then, En Garde!
You may also attach to your email an ORIGINAL PHOTO of your choosing. A preview of the photo will be displayed with your question, and a full-sized version will be just a click away. No personal information will be published with your question unless you specifically include it in the text or attached photo of your email, which may be further edited for grammar, content, or other reasons.
***
*** QUESTION 1—- $30 PHOTOSHOP EQUIVALENT
***
Hello Gary,
As a novice, I am looking to buy my first image-editing software. I have heard that PhotoShop is the de facto industry standard for this, but I have also read that you are currently using the Macintosh application, GraphicConverter, for your own work. Could you please tell me how these two programs compare regarding functionality, ease of use, and cost?
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
John
***
*** ANSWER 1
***
John, comparing GraphicConverter and PhotoShop is like comparing Apples and Windows. GraphicConverter is a $30 Macintosh shareware program, while PhotoShop, depending on which version you choose, can cost more than ten times as much.
However, if you own a Macintosh, I would highly recommend that you obtain a copy of GraphicConverter and give it a try. Since it is shareware, you can download a FULLY WORKING version for FREE, and then test it out for as long as you need. And even though it is shareware, this program has some very, very powerful features, comparable to PhotoShop in many respects.
For starters, GraphicConverter is an image browser. It allows you to store all of your photos and movies, after which you can sort, catalog, and email them, as well as create a slide show from them. You can batch process your images with GraphicConverter’s more than 50 built-in functions. You can rotate your images, read and edit their EXIF data, search for images based on a host of image parameters and/or custom keywords, and much, much more.
But GraphicConverter’s true forte is its image editing capabilities. Just double-click on any photo from the browser to open it in the image editor. Once opened, you can crop, resize, resample, rotate, and/or unskew the image. You can adjust its brightness, contrast, hue, saturation, resolution, and sharpness. You can easily eliminate red-eye. And if that isn’t enough, GraphicConverter also provides a graphics tools palette as well as a host of built-in special effects with which to customize your images. You can even install PhotoShop compatible effects plug-ins to augment GraphicConverter’s built-in effects.
As I mentioned, GraphicConverter is Macintosh shareware, so you can download a full working version of the software for free (along with an extensive PDF Users Guide) at http://www.lemkesoft.com/en/graphdownload.htm . Once you’ve tried GraphicConverter and decided that you like it, you can register it for $30, after which you are entitled to full on-line support second to none. GraphicConverter is available in Mac Classic, OS X, and Universal Binary, and comes translated in 12 different languages.
[Note: Thank you Nick in Japan for submitting the accompanying photos. – Ed.]
***
*** TOPIC 2—- CARRY THAT WEIGHT
***
It’s still too soon for any major conclusions regarding my wife’s new Canon PowerShot SD700 IS, but I do have some favorable observations to report.
1. This is one good-looking camera. From its sexy shape, to its ultra-compact size, and its three-color metal housing, this camera is a real eye-pleaser, as was evidenced by my wife’s expression when she opened her anniversary gift.
2. The camera has a very sturdy feel to it, with plenty of weight for its compact size. And if you remember Newton’s Second Law Of Motion, F=ma, it takes a greater force to put a heavier object in motion than a lighter one, so this is one steady camera, even before you activate its IS.
3. The camera’s USB 2.0 “High Speed” mode is lightning fast (40x faster than USB 2.0 “Full Speed” mode), which makes downloading images a snap.
4. A precursory examination of the camera’s first 33 images showed excellent color and image quality.
5. And last but not least, this is one good-looking camera. :)
[Note: Accompanying photo of Doug MacLeod, world renowned Blues guitarist, singer, and songwriter, taken June 30, 2006 at Lucille’s Smokehouse BBQ in Long Beach, CA. – Ed.]
***
[Column photo “The Photographer” by Brenda LaFleur of Brenda LaFleur Photography .]
#1 nick in japan
If the snapshot of Mr. Macleod was taken with the Canon, you got not only a classic picture, but one of excellent quality!
Congratulations on both, and, belated anniversary "Best wishes" too!
2:03 am - Sunday, July 9, 2006
#2 Gary's Parries
Thanks Nick. The photo was taken the very night I gave the camera
to my wife. And there I was, already borrowing it.
I am very pleased with the results of the camera, thus far. The only
real negative has been susceptibility to red-eye, which I knew about
before I bought the camera, from reading the reviews.
A year ago, that would have been a deal killer, but now that my wife
has the HP 475 printer with built-in red-eye removal, it's no problem.
Besides, ever since I got GraphicConverter, she's been using that to
edit all her photos. A little Brightness/Contrast, a little Unsharp Mask,
Red Eye Pro, if needed, and then Print.
Even on the Doug MacLeod photo (which is a side profile shot), I had
to remove some red-eye, but I prefer doing it manually. I zoom in on
the eyes at 1000%, then use the Fill tool with a zero tolerance setting
to fill in small clusters of pixels with slightly varying colors rather than
replacing all shades of red pixels with the same color. That gives the
eye a more natural look (not that anyone would actually notice).
12:12 pm - Sunday, July 9, 2006
#3 nick in japan
I noticed! But the problem is that redeye is concentrated in the pupil, with some fringing, sometimes. If you want a natural look you have to replace the red with black, and replace any fringing with iris color, not that anyone would notice. Sending you an updated version that gives Mr. Macleod a non-cataract appearance.
On a side view, ensure the black is slightly eliptical
1:27 pm - Sunday, July 9, 2006
#4 Gary's Parries
You can't really see what I did in the photo accompanying the question
because the resolution is only 25% of the original resolution, and I also
think that Mark did some additional red-eye removal because I actually
left a few red pixels interspersed here and there and they are gone.
2:05 pm - Sunday, July 9, 2006
#5 nick in japan
I see exactly what you did, please check your mail. Every time a JPEG image is opened, a few pixels vanish, those red ones you left probably got lost in cyber-space.
Screenhunter captured Mr. MacLeod quite well, Photoshop interpolation got it workable, Mr. MacLeod doesn't need his cataract operation now!
10:30 pm - Sunday, July 9, 2006
#6 Gary's Parries
Nick, I checked my emails, but I do not understand your point about
needing a cataract operation. Please explain.
5:20 pm - Monday, July 10, 2006
#7 Bruce McL
I bought a Panasonic FX01 for the wide angle and I wouldn't trade it for the Canon SD700. Having said that I have recommended the SD700 to friends who aren't that interested in wide angle. I'm very impressed with the images I have seen from the Canon. It looks like their best small camera yet by a good margin.
8:18 pm - Monday, July 10, 2006
#8 nick in japan
Gary, I sent you 3 versions of Mr. Macleods image that you took, a sepia version of your original, a crop of your version showing a pupil, and an interpolated version with more accurate detail in the pupil eliptical shape and iris color. The cataract reference was "tongue-in-cheek" due to effect you created by not having a pupil in Mr. Macleod's eye.
If you did not get the images I sent, I will happily send the last one, again, in fact, I'll send it now, anyway.
10:25 pm - Monday, July 10, 2006
#9 Gary's Parries
Nick, there is a time lag between when you send me stuff and when I
get it forwarded to me. I received your first two emails on the subject
but I am still at a loss as to what you mean by 'not having a pupil'. On
my screen, the pupil is perfectly visible. Maybe you are looking at the
thumbnail rather than the full-sized image?
1:27 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#10 Gary's Parries
Bruce, the FX01 was one of the cameras I had strongly considered.
But based on my wife's previous camera experiences, she needs a
longer zoom more than a wider zoom, so the SD700 won out. After
seeing it and handling it, I'm glad it did.
1:39 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#11 nick in japan
Gary, sorry, I forgot that Mark is still sleeping and probably hasn't sent you my last submissions.
My inability to express myself sure is evident!
When I clicked on the great shot of Mr. Macleod, the resized image did not clearly define the pupil of the eye to an extent that it looked a bit like a possible medical problem, God forbid!
I captured the image with Screenhunter , and, in Photoshop, interpolated it a bit, and re-defined the eye, to have a black pupil, and distintive eye color.
Because the focal point of the image is the eye itself, a defined object is of paramount importance, therefore, my adjustments, I thought, may inhance the impact of the image.
I apologize for not discribing my ideas better.
3:02 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#12 Gary's Parries
Nick - I now understand what you are saying, but I'd have to disagree
with your assessment. I am not familiar with Screen Hunter, but to my
eyes, you couldn't ask for a more perfect pupil. Not only is it black but
it has different shades of black corresponding to the original shades of
red it replaced. Maybe you're talking about the bright white spot at the
corner of the eye that was caused by the flash?
3:36 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#13 nick in japan
" ScreenHunter 4.0 Free " will enable you to capture images on your screen with great clarity, dragging a rectangle over the subject to contain the image,and, release of the curser sends the image to a folder of your choice. I have tried various capture tools, I like this best! Free too!
Your enlarged image, after clicking it, is unsuitable to me, simply because, as I stated, the focal point isn't contrasty enough. After interpolating the image, I can see your efforts in the pupil area, to me, it's not distinct enough.
This whole dialog epitomises the subjectivity of images, what is one man's treasure is another's junk, so to speak.
You did what you thought was best, I would have made it a bit more distinct, no real problem here.
There are no "right" or "wrongs" in photography, all pictures are good, some are better than others. I appreciate your efforts in this picture, don't get me wrong, my suggestion was just something that I would have done.
When you finally get my humble attempts with Mr. Macleod, you will also notice that I removed a bit of reflection from his nose too, distractions, ever so slight, can affect the focal point too.
Looking foward to your next celebrity submission.
Maybe I should send my pictures to you via Lucille's Smokehouse BBQ, they may get to you quicker! Please check and see if she has an e-mail address I can use, or......
4:27 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#14 Gary's Parries
Nick - Something is wrong !!! The eye in the screen shot you sent me
looks nothing like the eye in the column image. The pupil in your shot
is light brown, not black.
Do me a favor, try looking directly at the PhotographyBLOG full-sized
image from the column without using your screen capture. I think the
problem is with the screen capture utility. Good thing it was free. :)
4:57 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#15 nick in japan
You are looking at the Sepia picture I sent you, be patient and wait for the image titled "blackpupilhazelirus"
I made no changes to the sepia shot other than using "sepia" from "styles" , so, of course, it has the defective eye condition.
I'll send it again to Mark, he's probably having morning coffee now!
5:18 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#16 nick in japan
Done! On it's way, 1 mb+ of black pupil !
5:33 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#17 Gary's Parries
Now you lost me again. I have not received any Sepia images? But I
did receive one called BlackPupilHazelIris. So what am I supposed to
be looking at?
6:58 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#18 nick in japan
I'm sorry, Gary, this chat is useless, if you ever get an e-mail address, let me know! (or even Skype)
7:08 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#19 Gary's Parries
I am sorry also. I was just pulling your leg, hoping you would go back
to the column photo and see that the pupil has already been corrected
as per your suggestions. :)
7:24 am - Tuesday, July 11, 2006
#20 Carl Berger
And for the rest of us who enjoyed the leg pulling as well.
12:34 am - Sunday, July 30, 2006