Technology Tales

All that was needed was a trip to a local shop

In the end, I did take the plunge and acquired a Sigma 50-200 mm f4-5.6 DC OS HSM lens to fit my ever faithful Pentax K10D. After surveying a few online retailers, I plumped for Park Cameras, where the total cost, including delivery, came to something to around £125. This was around £50 less than what others were quoting for the same lens, with delivery costs yet to be added. Though the price was good from Park Cameras, I was wondering still about how they could manage to do that sort of deal when others don't. Interestingly, it appears that the original price of the lens was around £300, but that may have been at launch and prices do seem to tumble after that point in the life of many products of an electrical or electronic nature.

Unlike the last lens that I bought from them around two years ago, delivery of this item was a prompt affair, with dispatch coming the day after my order and delivery on the morning after that. All in all, that's the kind of service that I like to get. On opening the box, I was surprised to find that the lens came with a hood but without a cap. However, that was dislodged slightly from my mind when I remembered that I neglected to order a UV or skylight filter to screw into the 55 mm in front of it. In the event, it was the lack of a lens cap needed sorting more than the lack of a filter.

The result was that I popped into the local branch of Wildings where I found the requisite lens cap for £3.99 and asked about a filter while I was at it. Much to my satisfaction, there was a UV filter that matched my needs in stock though it was that cheap at £18.99 and was made by a company of which I hadn't heard before, Massa. This was another example of good service when the shop attendant juggled two customers, a gentleman looking at buying a DSLR and I. While I would not have wanted to disturb another sales interaction, I suppose that my wanting to complete a relatively quick purchase was what got me the attention while the other customer was left to look over a camera, something that I am sure he would have wanted to do anyway. After all, who wouldn't?

With the extras acquired, I attached them to the front of the lens and carried out a short test (with the cap removed, of course). When it was pointed at an easy subject, the autofocus worked quickly and quietly. A misty hillside had the lens hunting so much that turning to manual focussing was needed a few times to work around something understandable. Like the 18-125 mm Sigma lens that I already had, the manual focussing ring is generously proportioned with a hyperfocal scale on it, though some might think the action a little loose. In my experience, though, it seems no worse than the 18-125 mm, so I can live with it.

Both lenses share something else in common in the form of the zoom lens having a stiffer action than the focus ring. However, the zoom lock of the 18-125 mm is replaced by an OS (Optical Stabilisation) one on the 50-200 mm and the latter has no macro facility either, another feature of the shorter lens though it remains one that I cannot ever remember using. In summary, first impressions are good, but I plan to continue appraising it. Maybe an outing somewhere tomorrow might offer a good opportunity for using it a little more to get more of a feeling for its performance.

Sometimes, a firmware update is in order

After a recent trip to Oxford, I have started to mull over adding a longer lens (could make more distant architectural detail photos a possibility) to complement my trusty Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC HSM zoom lens that now is entering approaching its third year in my hands. While I have made no decision about the acquisition of another lens, there are some tempting bargains out there, it seems. However, the real draw on my attention is the lack of autofocus with the aforementioned Sigma, and I now find it difficult to believe that I was blaming the manufacturer for not keeping up with Pentax when it really was the other way around. A bit of poking around on the web revealed that all that I needed to do was download a firmware update from the Pentax website. While being slowed down by the lack of autofocus cannot have done bad things for my photography, I still wonder at why I didn't try updating the camera for as long as I have.

In the file for updating my K10D, there was a README file containing the instructions for carrying out the update with the included binary file that was set to take the camera from version 1.00 to 1.30 (hold down the Menu button while starting the camera to see what you have). In summary, both files were copied onto an SD card that was inserted into the camera and it turned off. The next step was to power up the camera with the menu button held down to start the update. To stop erroneous updates, there is an "Are you sure?" style Yes/No menu popped up before anything else happens. Selecting Yes sets things into motion, and you have to wait until the word "COMPLETE" appears in the bottom-left corner before turning the camera and removing the card. Now that I think of it, I should have checked the battery before doing anything because the consequences of losing power in the middle of what I was doing would have been annoying, especially with my liking the photographic results produced by the camera.

Risk taking aside, the process was worth its while, with HSM now working as it should have done all this time. It seems quiet and responsive too from my limited tests to date. Even better, the autofocus doesn't hunt anywhere near as much as the 18-55 mm Pentax kit lens that came with the camera. The next decision is whether to stick with my manual focussing ways or lapse into trusting autofocus from now on, though my better reason is to stick with the slower approach unless the subjects are fast. Now that I think of it, train and bus photos for my transport website have become much easier, as have any wildlife photos that I care to capture. Speaking of the latter brings me back to that telephoto quandary that I mentioned at the beginning. Well, there's a tempting Sigma 50-200 mm that has caught my eye...

An avalanche of innovation?

It seems that, almost despite the uncertain times or maybe because of them, it feels like an era of change on the technology front. Computing is the domain of many of the postings on this website, and a hell of a lot seems to be going mobile at the moment. For a good while, I managed to stay clear of the attractions of smartphones until a change of job convinced me that having a BlackBerry was a good idea. Though the small size of the thing really places limitations on the sort of web surfing experience that you can have with it, you can keep an eye on the weather, news, traffic, bus and train times so long as the website in question is built for mobile browsing. Otherwise, it's more of a nuisance than a patchy phone network (in the U.K., T-Mobile could do better on this score, as I have discovered for myself; thankfully, a merger with the Orange network is coming next month).

Speaking of mobile websites, it almost feels as if a free for all has recurred for web designers. Just when the desktop or laptop computing situation had more or less stabilised, along came a whole pile of mobile phone platforms to make things interesting again. Familiar names like Opera, Safari, Firefox and even Internet Explorer are to be found popping up on handheld devices these days along with less familiar ones like Web 'n' Walk or BOLT. The operating system choices vary too, with iOS, Android, Symbian, Windows and others all competing for attention. It is the sort of flowering of innovation that makes one wonder if a time will come when things begin to consolidate, but it doesn't look like that at the moment.

The transformation of mobile phones into handheld computers isn't the only big change in computing, with the traditional formats of desktop and laptop PC's being flexed in all sorts of ways. First, there's the appearance of netbooks, and I have succumbed to the idea of owning an Asus Eee. Though you realise that these are not full size laptops, it still didn't hit me how small these were until I owned one.  They are undeniably portable, while tablets look even more interesting in the aftermath of Apple's iPad. Though you may call them over-sized mobile photo frames, the idea of making a touchscreen do the work for you has made the concept fly for many. Even so, I cannot say that I'm overly tempted, though I have said that before about other things.

Another area of interest for me is photography, and it is around this time of year that all sorts of innovations are revealed to the public. It's a long way from what, we thought, was the digital photography revolution when digital imaging sensors started to take the place of camera film in otherwise conventional compact and SLR cameras, making the former far more versatile than they used to be. Now, we have SLD cameras from Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung and Sony that eschew the reflex mirror and prism arrangement of an SLR using digital sensor and electronic viewfinders while offering the possibility of lens interchangeability and better quality than might be expected from such small cameras. Lately, Sony has offered SLR-style cameras with translucent mirror technology instead of the conventional mirror that is flipped out of the way when a photographic image is captured.  Change doesn't end there, with movie making capabilities being part of the tool set of many a newly launched compact, SLD and SLR camera. The pixel race also seems to have ended though increases still happen as with the Pentax K-5 and Canon EOS 60D (both otherwise conventional offerings that have caught my eye, though so much comes on the market at this time of year that waiting is better for the bank balance).

The mention of digital photography brings to mind the subject of digital image processing and Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 is just announced after Photoshop CS5 appeared earlier this year. It almost feels as if a new version of Photoshop or its consumer cousin is released every year, causing me to skip releases when I don't see the point. Elements 6 and 8 were such versions for me, so I'll be in no hurry to upgrade to 9 yet either, even if the prospect of using content aware filling to eradicate unwanted objects from images is tempting. Nevertheless, that shouldn't stop anyone trying to exclude them in the first place. In fact, I may need to reduce the overall number of images that I collect in favour of coming away with only the better ones. The outstanding question on this is: can I slow down and calm my eagerness to bring at least one good image away from an outing by capturing anything that seems promising at the time? Some experimentation but being a little more choosy can save work later on.

While back on the subject of software, I'll voyage in to the world of the web before bringing these meanderings to a close. It almost feels as if there are web-based applications following web-based applications these days, when Twitter and Facebook nearly have become household names and cloud computing is a phrase that turns up all over the place.  In fact, the former seems to have encouraged a whole swathe of applications all of itself. Applications written using technologies well-used on the web must stuff many a mobile phone app store too and that brings me full circle for it is these that put so much functionality on our handsets with Java seemingly powering those I use on my BlackBerry. Then there's the spat between Apple and Adobe regarding the former's support for Flash.

To close this mental amble, there may be technologies that didn't come to mind while I was pondering this piece, but they doubtless enliven the technological landscape too. However, what I have described is enough to take me back more than ten years ago, when desktop computing and the world of the web were a lot more nascent than is the case today. Then, the changes that were ongoing felt a little exciting now that I look back on them, and it does feel as if the same sort of thing is recurring though with things like phones creating the interest in place of new developments in desktop computing such as a new version of Window (though 7 was anticipated after Vista). Web designers may complain about a lack of standardisation, and they're not wrong, yet this may be an era of technological change that in time may be remembered with its own fondness too.

A tendency for overexposure?

A recent trip to Sweden saw my Canon PowerShot G11 being put to rather more use than was expected. If I had known what might have been coming my way, I may even have eschewed the principle of lightweight packing to bring along my Pentax DSLR. Nevertheless, the little Canon did whatever was asked of it when light was plentiful.

Once thing that I have noticed in comparison with the Pentax is the Canon's tendency to overexpose a scene. To a point, this can be explained by the former having proper spot-metering and the latter having the less specific partial metering. In fact, that might explain why a Canon EOS 10D SLR in my possession has the same tendency. Maybe it's time to make more use of the Sekonic light meter that I have, but that adds bulk that doesn't fit in with the idea of carrying a compact camera around with you.

That leaves getting more practice with exposure corrections at processing time (I do capture all my photos in raw format). Going further, I am finding that the same consideration appears to apply to image sharpening too. It's almost as if you need to develop a feeling for the results produced by a camera before satisfaction with any acquired photos will follow. Having decent lighting at capture time and not having muck on the sensor helps too, as I have discovered with the photos made used my Pentax K10D on a recent visit to Arran and Argyll. The state of the sensor needs sorting (even if it has an anti-dust system on board) but I sometimes wonder if my judgement of lighting is what it used to be or whether my aspirations have gone too high. Maybe I need to slow down a little to set aside time for working on getting better results and with the right light, a quantity that should come with autumn and winter. Meanwhile, I'll stick with making the best of the British summer.

Why the manual step?

One of the consequences of buying a new camera is that your current photo processing software may not be fully equipped for the job of handling the images that it creates. This especially manifests itself with raw image files; Adobe Photoshop Elements 5 was unable to completely handle DNG files made with my Pentax K10D until I upgraded to version 7.

As things stood, Elements 7 was unable to import CR2 files from my Canon PowerShot G11 into the Organiser, so it was off to the appropriate page on the Adobe website for a Camera Raw updater. Thus, I picked up the latest release of Camera Raw (5.6 at the time of writing) even though it was found in the Elements 8 category (don't be put by this because release notes address the version compatibility question more extensively).

Strangely, the updater doesn't complete everything because you still need to copy Camera Raw.8bi from the zip archive and backup the original. Quite why this couldn't have been more automated, even with user prompts for file names and locations, is beyond me, yet that is how it is. However, once all was in place, CR2 files were handled by Elements without missing a beat.

A new acquisition

Back in the early days of this blog, I mulled over the idea of having a high-end digital compact camera to complement a DSLR that then was delivering very dusty images; that Canon EOS 10D was cleaned since then and comes in for occasional use to this day. That was nearly three years ago, and a first generation Ricoh GR Digital was the item that then was catching my eye. At the time, I failed to justify spending that much money on such a thing and ended up acquiring a new Pentax K10D DSLR instead. The question that rattled about my head was this: what was the point of spending DSLR money on a compact camera? It is one that never really went away and comes to mind when you see the prices of interchangeable lens compacts like Olympus' Pen and equivalent offerings from Panasonic and Ricoh (there, it's interchangeable lens units rather than actual lenses).

The strongest counterpoint to the cost conundrum is the little matter of size. SLR (film or digital) cameras are sizeable things, and there is a place for having something that drops into a pocket. It is that which has propelled me into taking delivery of a Canon PowerShot G11. It may need a good-sized pocket but, unless you are going out with no jacket, it shouldn't be a problem most of the time. For those shorter sorties when I don't fancy bringing an SLR out, it is well-built and looks the business, though some acclimatisation is to make the best of the knobs, buttons and menus. Nevertheless, the included manual will help with this process (there's a paper quick start guide and more detailed documentation on CD).

The camera hasn't seen extensive use just yet, so here are a few early impressions. Firstly, there's the matter of size: it's even smaller than the first camera that I ever bought (more than fifteen years ago) and that was a Ricoh 35 mm compact film camera. That comparison is even more striking when you consider the feature sets. The Ricoh was a fixed 35 mm lens affair with things like date and time stamping, ISO choice and a nod towards scenic mode selection. In contrast, the much newer Canon is loaded with the sorts of things that normally are found almost exclusively on SLR's, starting with its effective 28-140 mm focal length range.

Exposure modes such as manual, aperture priority and shutter priority complement scene-based modes and another for movies (not a concern of mine, it has to be said). As if that weren't enough, there's exposure compensation too. It came as a surprise to me to find a form of manual focussing included, though it is not as convenient as turning a focussing ring on a lens. While you can see the inbuilt flash above, there's also a hot shoe and a place to attach a tripod too. Settings like white balance and file format are accessed using the Function/Set button, with the lever underneath the shutter release button controlling the focal length of the lens. In addition, there's also image stabilisation, and that's important when you're using live view to compose a photo. Spot metering and focal point selection are other things that find their way into the package. Some may be excited by other things, but exposure and focussing are essential for any photographic efforts.

An optical viewfinder is included, and it has diopter settings too, but my first impressions are that live view through the rear screen trumps it and I see no need for such things on SLR's. That also flips out from the camera body and can be rotated either for self-portraiture or for folding back in on the camera body for use like a non-articulated screen. Another use is with those occasions when the subject means holding the camera in positions that would be impossible with a conventional screen; holding the camera over your head or down low on the ground are the sorts of situations that come to mind.

Of course, there's more there than those features that I have listed, and the specifications on the Canon website are as good a place to start as any. So far, my only testing has taken the form of cursory checks and to make sure that the thing works properly. Still, this has given me more of a feel for the camera and how it operates. As you'd expect, high ISO settings are noisy, only for a bigger surprise to be that the smallest aperture setting is f/8. Being used to SLR's, I was expecting to get the likes of f/16 on there, but a spot of internet investigation indicated that I should have been taking the size of the sensor into account with my expectations. Any trials so far have been in dull weather, so I'd need to use it in a wider variety of conditions before giving it the sort of wider appraisal that you'd find in the likes of Outdoor Photography (who liked it, it has to be said). For what it's worth, I have found no major criticism so far, though I cannot see it usurping my SLR's not as if that ever was the intention anyway.

A certain lack of speed

A little while, I encountered a problem with ImageMagick processing DNG files in Ubuntu 9.04. Not realising that I could solve me own problem by editing a file named delegates.xml, I took to getting a Debian VM to do the legwork for me. That's where you'll find all the commands used when helper software is used by ImageMagick to help it on its way. On its own, ImageMagick cannot deal with DNG files, so the command line variant of UFRaw (itself a front end for DCRaw) is used to create a PNM file that ImageMagick can handle. The problem a few months back was that the command in delegates.xml wasn't appropriate for a newer version of UFRaw and I got it into my head that things like this were hard-wired into ImageMagick. Now, I know better and admit my error.

With 9.10, it appears that the command in delegates.xml has been corrected, only for another issue to raise its head. UFRaw 0.15, it seems, isn't the speediest when it comes to creating PNM files and, while my raw file processing script works after a spot of modification to deal with changes in output from the identify command used, it takes far too long to run. Since GIMP also uses UFRaw, I wonder if the same problem has surfaced there too. However, it has been noticed by the Debian team, with the outcome being that they have a package for version 0.16 of the software in their unstable branch that looks as if it has sorted the speed issue. However, I am seeing that 0.15 is in the testing branch, which tempts me to stick with Lenny (5.x) if any successor turns out to have slower DNG file handling with ImageMagick and UFRaw. In my estimation, 0.13 does what I need, so why go for a newer release if it turns out to be slower?

Temptations, temptations...

The last time that I went out and bought a new camera was over two years ago, and I am minded not to make another purchase for a while. Apart from damage to the battery cover arising from a fall, my Pentax K10D has survived so far without a problem and I admit to being satisfied with the photos that it makes. Following a professional sensor clean, my Canon EOS 10D has been pressed into service over the past few months, too. Meanwhile, 6 and 10 megapixel sensors generate nowhere near the attention that might have been the case a few years back, but that's by the by. In fact, the megapixel race seems to have stalled, with features like video being added to photographic cameras over the last year and live screens coming to prominence as well. Neither would make me rush out to buy a new DSLR anyway, perhaps because having things the old way suits me just fine and megapixel counts never ever moved me in the first place either.

That's never to say that the likes of Pentax's K-7 or Canon's EOS 50D and 5D Mark II don't capture my attention with their promises of better quality. However, with things the way that they are in the world, I am more likely to retain my cash or maybe invest in new photo processing software for making the most of what I already have. Ideas for photography projects creep into my head when I get to looking over my online photo gallery and realise that not have my tastes changed, while my photographic eye has developed too. That seeing of things in a new light may mean that old subjects get revisited, and I don't need a new camera to do that.

High-end compact cameras such as Canon's G11 and Ricoh's GR Digital III do detain attention for a while but a brief look at their prices proves that you really got to need the portability and I never can justify the outlay when a DSLR will do all that I want from it, and perhaps even for less money. While I admit to pondering the purchase of a GR Digital to cover for the EOS 10D while it was away for cleaning, the Pentax came to be acquired when I realised that the versatility of a DSLR was too much to lose, even for a while. Olympus' E-P1 may have bridged the gap, but the old question of going miniature for the price of a full sized article recurs.

All in all, I am going to stick with what I have right now. We are coming to a time of year when things appear more golden and that combination of lighting and colour are what really matters, not how many megapixels are in your camera sensor unless you are making large prints or supplying stock libraries. As long as my cameras continue to deliver pleasing results, I'll stick with elevating my skills and taking my time over that task, even with all the announcements of new cameras at various exhibitions and shows.

Taming raw images with ImageMagick: A virtual workaround for Ubuntu 9.04

While using a command line tool like ImageMagick for image processing may sound a really counter-intuitive thing to do, there's no need to do everything on a case by case interactive basis. Image resizing and format conversion come to mind here. Helper programs are used behind the scenes too, with Ghostscript being used to create Postscript files, for example.

The subject of helper programs brings me to an issue that has hampered me recently. While I am aware that there are tools like F-Spot available, I am also wont to use a combination of shell scripting (BASH & KSH), Perl and ImageMagick for organising my digital photos. My preference for using Raw camera files (DNG & CRW) means that ImageMagick cannot access these without a little helper. In the case of Ubuntu, it's UFRaw. However, Jaunty Jackalope appears to have seen UFRaw updated to a version that is incompatible with the included version of ImageMagick (6.4.5 as opposed to 3.5.2 at the time of writing). The result is that the command issued by ImageMagick to UFRaw - issue the command man ufraw-batch to see the details - is not accepted by the included version of the latter, 0.15 if you're interested. It appears that an older release of UFRaw accepted the output device ppm16 (16-bit PPM files) but this should now be specified as ppm for the output device and 16 for the output depth. In a nutshell, where the parameter output-type did the lot, you now need both output-type and output-depth.

While I thought of decoupling things by using UFRaw to create 16-bit PPM files for processing by ImageMagick, it was to no avail. The identify command wouldn't return the date on which the image was taken. Though I even changed the type to 8-bit JPEG's with added EXIF information, no progress was made. In the end, a mad plan came to mind: creating a VirtualBox VM running Debian. The logic was that if Debian deserves its reputation for solidity, dependencies like ImageMagick and UFRaw shouldn't be broken, and I wasn't wrong. To make it work well, I needed to see if I could get Guest Additions installed on Debian. Out of the box, the supported kernel version must be at least 2.6.27 and Debian's is 2.6.26, so additional work was on the cards. First, GCC, Make and the correct kernel header files need to be installed. Once those are in place, the installation works smoothly and a restart sets the goodies in motion. To make the necessary shared folder to be available, a command like the following was executed:

mount -t vboxfs [Shared Folder name] [mount point]

Once that deed was done and ImageMagick instated, the processing that I have been doing for new DSLR images was reinstated. Ironically, Debian's version of ImageMagick, 6.3.7, is even older than Ubuntu's, but it works and that's the main thing. Since there is an Ubuntu bug report for this on Launchpad, I hope that it gets fixed at some point in the near future. However, that may mean awaiting 9.10 or Karmic Koala, so I'm glad to have this workaround for now.

No autofocus?

Recently, I recently treated myself to a Sigma 18-125 mm f/3.8-5.6 DC HSM zoom lens for my Pentax K10D. There was a wait for the item to appear, only then for me to find that the lens' autofocus facility wasn't compatible with the body when it arrived. Standard wisdom would have it that I sent the thing back and ask for a replacement or a refund.

Perhaps inexplicably, I did neither. In fact, I came to the conclusion, that since I make photos of landscapes anyway, that been slowed down by the lack of autofocus was no bad thing except perhaps when appealing light makes fleeting appearances. While it is true to say that a used Pentax manual focus lens would have been cheaper, I did what I did.

The camera's autofocus indicator still works and the 18-55 mm zoom that came with the camera wasn't impressive anyway, so taking matters into my own hands was something that happened a lot. Now, I have better quality glass in front of the sensor and with a metal mount and longer range too. The lens comes with a petal hood too, though I keep that for when I really need it rather than keeping it on the lens and stopping myself focussing the thing.

Speaking of zooming and focussing, the controls work well and smoothly without being at all loose. The AF setting gets used to lock the focus and the zoom can be locked at the wide end so that the lens doesn't get into the habit of zooming under the influence of gravity, not a bad thing. For future lens purchases, I might be more inclined to ask about compatibility next time around (I may have been spoiled by the Canons that I used to use) but I remain content for now.

All in all, it feels like a quality item, so it's a pity that Pentax saw fit to make the changes that they made, or that Sigma didn't seem to have kept up with them. Saying that, my photographic subjects usually don't run off so being slowed down is no bad thing at all, especially if it makes me create better photos.