What's in a Megapixel? (Part 1)

If you’ve ever visited my YouTube page you may notice a flurry of comments on a few of my videos by people who take issue with my claim that film is still superior to digital. Lately there were a couple of comments made regarding my “megapixel tours”, where I claim that a scanned frame of Medium Format film produces a file equivalent to 80 megapixels of detail. Oh boy were people pissed! To see one of the videos that started it all, check it out on the Video Feed page of my website (timhaines.com).

But here’s the thing. To understand the detail superiority of film, it’s important to note that “detail” implies a couple of things:

-Pixel Resolution of Color
-Pixel Resolution of Light/Tonal Capture (color and light)
-Pixel Resolution of Dynamic Range (You may understand this as brightness, contrast, hue, and saturation, shadow, mid-tones, and highlights. It’s “how much” color/light information can be captured).

Details, Details, Details...
It’s important to understand what we’re really talking about when we’re talking about “detail”. To say that digital pictures allow you to see into the pores of your subject’s skin or read the letters of a sign 200 meters away without the obstruction of film grain does not mean that digital cameras resolve more “detail” than film. To say that a digital image looks “sharp” does not mean that it has a lot of detail. All sharpness is is measurement of contrast between adjacent edges in a picture. Your eye interprets that as sharpness, but it’s only an illusion. When talking about detail, we’re talking about a camera’s ability to capture an image in a way that resembles--as closely as possible--how your eyes see it. This includes the accuracy and range of the capture of color, and range and accuracy of the capture of light. Color, light, and to what degree they can be captured. That’s what “detail” really is.

It’s difficult to illustrate this with digital images, because we judge the quality of digital images in terms of Megapixes, rather than values of color and light capture. What’s a megapixel? It’s detail. Right? Wrong! Megapixels is a factor of 1 million pixels, and it’s a measurement of how many pixels go into the construction of the image that you see on a screen. That construction happens in two distinct forms. Image capture (which is done by the sensor in your digital camera) and image display (the pixels pushed out of your video card, to be displayed on your monitor, which also uses pixels of its own to display the image)

Digital Capture
With digital photography, the game begins at the digital capture level. And the number of pixels wired into that sensor are critical. They’re like Lego pieces. The more Lego pieces you have, the more elaborate your creations can be. You’d build a much more elaborate Lego house with 500 Lego pieces than you could with 50 Lego pieces. And you’d build a much more elaborate Lego house with 5,000 Lego pieces. Pixels on your digital sensor work the same way. Each pixel is responsible for recording color and light information. The more of them you have, the more elaborate the reproduction of the scene your’e shooting. But all pixels are NOT created equal. A pixel’s ability to capture color and light data can vary greatly. The pixels in a $5,000 16 megapixel camera are engineered to gather light and color information much more effectively and efficiently than the pixels in a $150 point-and-shoot camera. So the number of pixels as well as the quality of the pixels is an important factor in digital photography.

Once color and light information is captured by the digital sensor, that information is then sent to the camera’s image processor, which generates the image that is saved to your memory card. You now have a digital picture! The size dimensions of the digital picture corresponds to the number of pixels used to capture it. So if you have a 16 megapixel sensor, you wind up with an image that’s made up of 16 million pixels--3,264 pixels wide, and 4896 pixels wide (3264x4896). How much “detail” is represented in those pixels depends on the quality of the pixels engineered in the digital sensor that recorded the image. Again, all pixels are NOT created equal. In a $150 camera, the pixels will just be ok. In a $5000 camera, those pixels will be engineered to capture much more detail per-pixel. So you can have two cameras, both capturing 16 megapixel images, but one of those cameras is going to capture a lot more detail than the other, even though their pixel count is the same. You dig? You’re starting to see why a 30 megapixel film scan is likely going to have more quality detail than a 30 megapixel digital image, but keep reading.


Digital Display
Now that you’ve captured your image, you’re going to want to look at it. Pixels are used for this purpose, too. But the job of these pixels is completely different from that of the pixels on your camera's sensor. For displaying your image, pixels are calculated by your video card, and pushed out onto your computer monitor. Your monitor doesn’t care what camera you used to capture your image. If you ask, it will tell you “Man, I don’t care what camera you used to capture your image.” Seriously, try it.
If you open a 16 megapixel image, it’s going to employ 16 million of its own pixels to rebuild and display the image according to the “instructions” your image provides. What instructions? You guessed it. Color, light, and the dynamic range of the color and light. Let me break it down again...
Your pixels captured color, light, and range data. But once again, all pixels are NOT created equal. Depending on your digital camera, those pixels captured that information like drunken sailors, or they captured that information like Spartan warriors. It all depends on the camera you used. Now it's up to your monitor to use DISPLAY pixels (not recording pixels) to display your image.

Now your computer (video card and monitor, specifically) is going to ask your image “What color, light, and range information do you have for me?” Your image will either say “bla, bluh blue, bla....colur...bla bla.....lite...blue blah....dinamyc raynge”, or your image will say “I declare this value of Blue, this value of Red, this value of Green. And Lo! I demand the display of said colors in accordance to the following ranges and values...” Your computer will take the “bla bla” instructions and reconstruct a bla bla image. Or your computer will take the Shakespearean Soliloquy instructions and display a much more beautiful image. And, again, the quality of those “instructions” depends on which camera you used, and the quality of the pixels used to record its image.

You can probably see already that when I say “My scanned frame of film equals 30 megapixels” I’m NOT saying “My film scan is the same as the detail captured by a 30 megapixel digital camera”. Why? Because....yet again...all pixels are not created equal. The ability to capture a wide range of color and light vary depending on the medium used (A Pro Digital SLR, a consumer digital point-and-shoot, or good ol’ film). And in the case of film, the image isn’t captured on pixels to begin with. So the "pixel" argument doesn't even apply. With film photography images are captured on grains of silver, which are much smaller, and more more efficient in capturing color and light than pixels are.

For more on this, stay tuned for part two of this blog post. Or, visit my website at www.timhaines.com, click "phoBLOGraphy" and read the post there. Blogs are always uploaded to my personal site first.

Be cool. Come back soon (or, check me out on my site)

Verizon iPhone (Pt.2): Photography Apps You'll Love

Heads up, photographers! There’s a new tool with your name on it (and an Apple logo 
on the back). It’s the iPhone 4! While the Android apologists among you may argue that your platform is superior, I would beg to differ. Android always feels like an iPhone prototype to me. And when it comes to apps, the world of iPhone takes the trophy. And that’s the main difference between Android and iPhone. It’s all about the apps.
I’ve been covering just a couple of Photography (and graphics) apps that you Verizon subscribers have been kept out of the loop of. Apps that, as of February 10th, you’ll finally have access to by getting a brand spankin’ new iPhone 4.

If you're a visitor of my home site (timhaines.com - A Rendezvous With the Real), you've already read this post. If you haven't, then you're missing the early bird goodness. Blogs always appear first on my home page, along with other assorted coolness. So check it out some time. For those who aren't in the loop though, these next two apps I'll cover here are apps that pro photographers can use to become SLR super heros!

Viewfinder Pro (iTunes Link): Developed by DIRE Studio

Viewfinder Pro is exactly what you’d expect from its name; it turns your iPhone into a viewfinder monitor, simulating various focal lengths, from numerous lenses, attached to different camera bodies. If you enjoy attaching different lenses to your camera deciding which lens or focal range would frame the image you’re trying to capture, stop reading now. But if you’d like an easy, simple, versatile way to explore various framing options without even taking your big ol’ SLR out of your camera bag, buy this app...buy it right now! Viewfinder uses your iPhone’s camera and overlays translucent isolation regions in your display to simulate composition of your scene based on focal lengths you define, and camera bodies you select. Select a 50mm focal length on a Nikon D3 within Viewfinder Pro, and you’ll see exactly what will be covered inside the frame of a real Nikon D3 and 50mm lens. Maybe you also have a D300, and you want to see what that same 50mm lens would cover. Tap the screen to “change” camera bodies, and you’ll now see its coverage isolated in your viewfinder. Maybe you own a Canon 1D, and you want to decide what telephoto range you’ll need to fill 2/3 of your frame with an object/subject way out in the distance; two taps of your screen, and it’s done. I’ve actually done this very thing! I saw an old water tower on the roof of a building about 400 meters away. I didn’t have to waste time trying different lenses on different bodies to figure out what combination of lens/body I’d need to capture the image I was looking for. I previewed the scene in Viewfinder, simulating 2 different bodies, and FOUR different focal lengths, and decided that the Canon 1D and 100mm lens combination would give me EXACTLY the picture I was looking for. Now, when I went back to that spot to shoot the picture I didn’t have to take 2 bodies and a bunch of lenses. I just took my 1D, and my 100mm lens. Took the shot. Perfect! Done! This app is is a requirement for anyone with a large arsenal of optics and bodies.

LightMeter (iTunes Link): Developed by Ambertation

I’ll give you three guesses what this app does. LightMeter turns your iPhone into an exposure meter. This may sound stupid, but if you’re an old school shooter like me and you use film bodies that don’t have built-in light meters, this is an app you’re going to thank God. Sometimes when I take my Hasselblad to do some shooting I actually forget to bring my light meter. Very frustrating! If I also have a digital SLR with me I meter the scene using the SLR, then use those exposure settings for my Hasselblad. This isn’t very elegant. Lightmeter does the same job without the bulk. And since I always have my iPhone with me, there’s little to no risk of forgetting to bring a light meter with me. 
When you need to meter a scene, open LightMeter, and you’re presented with a menu screen where you select the setting you want to calculate (f-stop, Shutter, and ISO) and 3 slider columns to input the base values you’re working with. So if you want to calculate what shutter speed you’ll need to accurately expose for your scene, you first take a picture of it with your iPhone from LightMeter. Then you go into LightMeter’s interface, tap the “Shutter” button (because you want to calculate shutter speed), adjust the ISO slider to the ISO of your film (or digital camera setting), set the Aperture slider to the aperture you intend to use, and the Shutter slider will automatically slide to the value you will need for accurate exposure. I’ve used this app twice, and it saved my life (okay, not literally). The app works in coordination with your iPhone’s camera, and metering system. The iPhone’s metering system will NOT work as accurately or with the same versatility as a “real”, dedicated light meter. But I have found LightMeter gives me meter calculations that are really close to what my real light meter gives me. Expect a difference of about 1/3 of a stop under or over exposed. This is a very livable margin of error! And it’s a hell of a lot better than not getting the shot at all because you forget your light meter.

If I had to write a blog post on all of the photography apps available for the iPhone I’d wind up wearing my fingers to the bone. But there are apps that help you calculate sunrise, sunset and shadow cast, apps that help you to quickly generate release forms, and even apps that will remotely trigger your SLR! I wish I could have given you a review of one of those remote SLR firing apps, but I’ve never used them and I didn’t want to recommend an app I’ve never used in my own workflow.

So that’s the story. The iPhone definitely has it’s quirks. As an AT&T iPhone user I can honestly say I’ve never had a problem with its performance, and that’s coming from a techie in the New York market. But the iPhone, being a touch screen device, can sometimes be frustrating to operate. The nature of any touch screen device is that it isn’t as cut-and-dry as a device with buttons and dials, and so it can tend to feel like it slows you down. Personally I prefer buttons. But where the iPhone puts every other device and every touch-screen competitor in the dust is the availability, and power of the apps that run on it. Android can’t touch it. Period! Especially when it comes to photography apps. It’s just like your computer; it’s only as good as the software that runs on it. If you need a mobile computing device, and you need one that empowers you as a photographer and/or graphics artist, enter the world of the iPhone.

Verizon iPhone: Photography Apps You'll Love

Well those of you in the know of all things tech have been hearing, or speculating about this for a long time. Turning back the clock, I remember that since the release of the original iPhone in 2007, oodles and oodles of Verizon Wireless subscribers have wanted--no, DEMANDED--to know why the iPhone was released exclusively on AT&T, and not on Verizon, the so-called most reliable wireless network in America. For the past year or so tech blogs and tech junkies (okay, and occasionally the NY Times and Wall Street Journal) have been speculating that the iPhone is moving over to Big Red 'any day now' Well, Verizon Wireless fans (and disheartened contract-locked subscribers thereto), your day has come. Or...is coming. Today Verizon Wireless announced the February 10th arrival of the iPhone 4!

[pause inserted for cheers and tear drying]

But you can find out more about this all over the web. So why am I taking the time to write about it here, on a photography blog? As it happens, the iPhone is more than just a phone. In fact some would argue that it's barely a phone. The iPhone is dominating the mobile industry not as a device used to call your wife and kids during your 4 hour layover in LaGuardia, but as a mobile computing device made more and more powerful by an explosion of mobile applications. The name of the game in 2011 is Apps; and for this reason the iPhone is without peer! And, as it happens, many of those apps are made especially for Photographers. So let me highlight a few of these apps that I personally use. There are apps that empower the cell phone photog or mobile graphic artist in you, and apps that turn your iPhone into a powerful tool at your next shoot (with a real camera). Those of you finding this post on Blogger will have to find the 2nd part of this post on my main website if you want to read it sooner (www.timhaines.com

For today I thought it would be a good idea to start with the fun side of things and tell you about two of the special effects apps that I like to use. I'll save the straight-up workhorse photography apps for my next post.


CameraKit (iTunes Link): Developed by Sei Takahashi
I love this app! CameraKit is one of several apps that put graphic and photo effects in the palm of your hand...where Photoshop doesn't fit. After taking a picture, or loading a picture from your camera roll, you're able to select from a number of effects to achieve a dramatic, high-intensity look to your photo. It offers four types of "film" (Color, B&W, Sepia and Classic), Vignetting selection, Soft Focus, Cross Processing and Push/Pull Processing.
This is pretty much my favorite of the "filter apps" because it's drop dead painless and simple to use, and the look of the affects is really in tune with my taste. I wish it didn't take so long to save full-sized files, but I have to say the result is usually worth the wait. And by "wait" we're talking about 15 seconds or so. Previews are instant, so you'll be able to see what your result will look like right away. But if you're saving full sized images don't expect to be in the fast lane of things. Saving smaller sized images reduces your wait time drastically.



PhotoFX: (iTunes Link) Developed by Tiffen
Sure, Tiffen's desktop pro filter applications are over priced, and sure it's inconvenient to purchase, and sure it's an unstable operating environment (are you listening Tiffen?!?!?) but believe it or not their iPhone app is not that bad. It's not expensive, works pretty well, it's stable, and its effects engine does some beautiful things to your shots. You can choose from 76 filters, and 27 grain presets, and all of the filters can be stacked into layers, giving you the ability to really customize your look. With manual sliders you can also refine the softness or intensity of the affects if you want to really take charge of the result of your final image.
I find I don't use this app a hell of a lot. I prefer more natural looks to my images. But when I'm looking for something more intense or surreal, my pictures usually wind up in PhotoFX somewhere in my workflow.


These are great apps, but they are only two of many great applications that empower your creativity, and help you have a lot more fun with your iPhone. In the next day or two I'll post the 2nd part of this blog entry. Remember, blogs are always posted to my website first at timhaines.com. Blogger is usually used as my live blogging tool during shoots ;-)
Stay tooned! And if you already have an iPhone or an Android device, you can always take your favorite photography resource with you by visiting my mobile site.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Megapixels: Should You Care?

If you're in close enough proximity to photography enthusiasts you're bound to hear something about megapixels. The rhetoric has dimmed some in the past few years as consumers are recognizing "megapixels" as less of a measurement of a camera's quality, and more for what it is, marketing voodoo. But is there anything behind the myth that megapixels equate to mega-quality?

Its true that as the era of digital photography has progressed, digital cameras have consistently gotten better and better at capturing stunning images. Todays high end cell phones with their tiny image sensors capture better images than my first digital camera back in the 90s. But in the early days of the Hubble Space Telescope it had only a 640k pixel sensor (that's HALF of 1 megapixel) and captured incredible images.

Pixels record image data. The more of them there are, the more image data you can potentially capture. But the more of them there are, the less "elbow room" they have on the image sensor, and so they need to be smaller. And when pixels are really small they don't record image data as well. That's why the Hubble took such fantastic images. While it only had 640,000 pixels, the pixels were huge, because they were rooted into a huge image sensor.

More pixels sometimes results in nicer images, provided those pixels aren't cramped onto a tiny sensor. Those extra pixels can also come in handy for a purpose that's often overlooked; cropping images. A high megapixel count can allow you to crop out unwanted outer portions of your image, isolating your subject better, while still providing enough pixels to generate a large print. So while more megapixels may not be important to you in terms of quality, keep in mind that all those megapixels give you a lot of compositional freedom when you post process your work.



At a point though be careful about excessive pixel counts. Again, cram too many pixels onto a small image sensor, and you have a recipe for trouble. Especially with regard to dynamic range. Dynamic Range is a term that refers to a camera's ability to record detail in very bright or very dark areas. And because tiny pixels don't capture light as well as larger pixels, detail in shadow or highlight areas tend to get lost in the shuffle. Ever look at a picture and notice the sky looked white, rather than a shade of gray? Or notice that the puffy clouds in your picture look more like melted marshmallows than cotton balls? Then you have experienced the problem of diminished dynamic range capture and it can be very frustrating for shooters who want to capture an image the same way they saw it with their eyes.

Pixels are important. Lots of pixels can be good for quality to a point but they can also be bad for tonal detail. Megapixel count shouldn't be the determining factor when shopping for a camera, but you should definitely take it into account when making your decision. Lots of pixels don't necessarily make for a great camera. And "not enough megapixels" doesn't mean a camera is sub par.

Photography in the Mountains: Part 4

There was snow on the ground when I got here and now most of it is gone. It's surprisingly not that cold here.

Input together a short video montage on my iPhone but I hesitate to upload it to YouTube because it won't upload at the greatest quality. I'd rather wait and upload it the right way. Speaking of doing things the right way I'm also re-uploading some pics in this blog because it seems like they didn't upload nicely in my last post.







I still need to crank out a review or two but, as I said before, it's hard to do with too much around to shoot. I'll think of something though. I always do. I was using the canon teleconverter today at the motel shoot. Turned my 200mm into a 400mm, which was nice. Don't overestimate the conversion though. While 400mm is twice the range of 400mm, it doesn't a out to a whole hell of a lot of different in your viewfinder. I knew this already, but i thought it would be a good bit of wisdom to share. 400mm is going to get you closer to what you're shooting, but it isn't a telescope.






I shot with my range of lenses today, from 16mm all the way up to 400mm. Tomorrow I may hike light...taking only my 24-70 and my 16-35. Maybe that'll be the time to do a review. And for those of you interested in a tutorial on getting the most out of your cameras dynamic range, man I definitely employed a few tricks today that I'll have to teach you about lol. There was a wide range of highlights and shadows allover the place, from bright sky highlights, to sharp sun blasts, to deep shadows amongst what I was shooting. It was all working the hell out of my own knowledge. No big deal though.





That's all for now. I'll write another post when there is some development to tell you about. Be cool
Tim Haines


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Photography in the Mountains: Part 3

Well this was a good day! I won't know for sure if I have anything worth printing until I get back to my computer but I'm feeling good about today's run.

This place looks like it use to be a really nice motel with sone great surrounding scenery. Unfortunately it also looks like it's been closed for some time. I love the classic look of the architecture and layout. And though it looks worn down and neglected since it's closing, you can almost picture families walking the grounds, visiting the pool, new guests checking in at the front desk. I love the soul yup find in places like this. I love the stories they tell.


I ran into another photographer here. His name was Terry...another film shooter. He was shooting a stereo viewmaster; it had 2 lenses side-by-side which I think enable a sort of 3D depth of field. The film (positive film) is then processed at a lab like ordinary positive film, but then he cuts and mounts it himself to one of those round viewmaster slides. Then you can put the slide in a view master viewer just like back in the day. You youngins will have to Google Viewmaster if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about. Anyway he was a really nice guy. A kindred spirit; he loved shooting old locations like these. I was glad to meet him.



And I'm always happy to find other old school shooters with film gear in their hands. For myself I had my canon 5D but also sent about 2 rolls of 120 through my Hasselblad. Can't wait to get those developed!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Photography in the Mountains: Part 2

I have an idea for some great





shots. There's an old resort motel just a couple of miles from me. I passed it yesterday. I may get some good shots of the grounds and buildings. Very spooky stuff but there's also a romance about it that I want to capture. Looks like it could have been a place visited by celebrities in the 1950s or something. Not a Vegas hotel feel. More like a pricey motel feel. It's pretty cool.







Looking forward to showing it to you.

I don't have a computer with me so I won't be able to show you the actual pictures until I get home to my dungeon laboratory. But I'll upload a new blog post with some pictures from my iPhone to give you and idea. Maybe I can even post some video and give you a real-time look-see.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone