Plugin-ins developed by "Nik", purchased by Google, and presently owned by DxO, are some of my favorite pieces of photo-editing software. Here are a couple of non-standard ways to use the Nik Plug-ins that you probably aren’t aware of. Most people think of plug-ins as being hosted inside applications like Photoshop or Lightroom or maybe Zoner Photo Studio. Did you know that Nikon’s free Capture NX-D can also use them? Did you know that they can also be used without any hosting program at all? The Nik plug-ins require input files converted into jpeg or (preferably) 16-bit TIF format; they can’t use raw-format files. If you want to use Capture NX-D, you can stick with RAW (NEF) format, and have it automatically convert them into 16-bit TIF as it invokes the plug-ins. If you’re interested in quality results, please skip using either jpeg or 8-bit TIF files. You can always use Capture NX-D to convert the 16-bit TIF results into jpeg as a final step before display. The plug-ins are of course compatible with photos from other camera manufacturers, once they're converted into the neutral TIF format. Be aware that all of the plug-ins except HDR Efex Pro 2 will overwrite the input TIF file when you save the results via their “Save” button. Although I’d recommend that you use a plug-in from within the host program (such as Capture NX-D), I’ll also go over the necessary steps if you want to use your plug-ins as stand-alone programs. Capture NX-D with Plug-ins Nikon’s Capture NX-D is a somewhat limited, but free program. Because Nikon keeps Capture NX-D current, it knows how to use Raw-format files from its most recent cameras, unlike Capture NX2. Although version 1.5.1 (and beyond) can now support “control points” and a healing brush to increase its power, the plug-ins such as Silver Efex Pro, Viveza 2, Dfine 2, Sharpener Pro 3, and HDR Efex Pro 2 can greatly expand its power. Register your plug-in first I am assuming you have already installed your plug-ins. As of this writing, the plug-ins are available from DxO. Prior to DxO, they were offered by Google. Prior to Google, they were offered directly from Nik. Next week, who knows? I wonder if their employees are afraid to unpack their bags. But I digress. You’ll need to locate where the plug-ins were installed. On my computer, they are installed into folders beneath “C:\Program Files\Google\Nik Collection”. Before you can start using the plug-ins, you need to register them in Capture NX-D. As shown above, begin with File | Open With | Register… Add a new plug-in Highlight “Open With Application”, click “Add…” and then “Other” Specify where to have the TIF file saved for the plug-in to locate it Define where you want to have your file saved by Capture NX-D after automatic conversion from NEF into TIF. This TIF file will have all of your edits that have already been made. In this way, Capture NX-D handles converting the RAW file into the format needed by the plug-in, and then calls the plug-in with the passed-in TIF file. Notice the “Conversion Format”, which should be “TIFF (16 bit)” for best quality. Once again, be aware that the TIF file auto-created by Capture NX-D will be overwritten by the called plug-in when you click the plug-in “Save” button. Plug-in has been added, but ‘restart’ is needed first The dialog above shows the successful addition of the plug-in “Viveza 2”. It still isn’t available for use, however. You need to click the “Ok” button in the dialog and then close/open Capture NX-D. Calling a plug-in after Capture NX-D restart After Capture NX-D is restarted, the added plug-in is ready for use. Now, after you have completed any edits in your (RAW) file, you can call the plug-in using “File | Open With | Viveza 2” or whatever plug-in you wish. You can also call the plug-in via the “Open With” icon located at the top-right of Capture NX-D. The edited raw file will get auto-converted into TIF and the plug-in will be invoked. Now you can use the plug-in from within Capture-NX D You can now use the plug-in as if you’re using Photoshop or Lightroom or whatever application that supports plug-in technology. When you finish, just click “Save”, which will save into the same file as the input file, and it will then close and return you to Capture NX-D. The rule exception here is when you use HDR Efex Pro 2 and Silver Efex Pro. There are always exceptions. They’re more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules. For those plug-ins, I’d recommend that you avoid the “Save” button, and instead use the top-left option of “File | Save Image As…”. Here, you can specify the output file format of jpeg or tiff, and also browse to where you want the destination to be. The procedures will need to be repeated for each plug-in to be added to Capture NX-D. Use your plug-in as a stand-alone program This discussion applies to all of the plug-ins except HDR Efex Pro 2 and Silver Efex Pro. The general rule for a plug-in is that you can’t specify where to save the results; it will simply overwrite the input file. For the special case of HDR Efex Pro 2 and Silver Efex Pro, you can tell it where to save the results, and even specify the output file format. Use drag-drop onto the plug-in executable For any plug-in, you can just mouse-drag/drop a file (or even a collection of files) onto the plug-in executable. The plug-in will open up, and you can edit and finally hit the “Save” button to save the results and automatically close the plug-in. In the sample picture above, the plug-in name is “Analog Efex Pro 2.exe”. Multiple files dropped onto plug-in executable If you drop a collection of files onto the suitable plug-in, then use the “Previous” and “Next” buttons to edit each file in the collection. When ALL edits are complete for all files, hit the “Save All” button. All files will be saved (overwriting the originals) at once, and the plug-in will automatically close. Notice in the above image that the dialog says “1 of 2 Images”; the plug-in lets you know how many files you dropped onto it. Run HDR Efex Pro 2 without drag-drop For the special case of HDR Efex Pro 2 and Silver Efex Pro, just double-click its executable and run it as a stand-alone program. Don’t worry about drag-and-drop for these plug-ins. Use the File dialog to manage input and output files Use the top-left “File | Open Images…” to browse to the source image(s). Select the set of exposure-bracketed files (or a single file) to edit. The Merge dialog If you chose more than a single input file for HDR Efex Pro 2, you’ll get the “Merge” dialog, to specify any special input handling. Use the “File | Save Image as…” when done After the final edits, use the upper-left “File | Save Image as…” dialog to decide where to save the file, and in what desired image format. Use the “File | Quit” (or Control-Q) to exit the plug-in. Incorrect way to save and quit the plug-in Don’t save and exit the HDR Efex Pro 2 or Silver Efex Pro plug-in by using the “Save” button. This won’t give you the ability to specify the output file image format or where to save the results, either. If you save/exit this way, the output will be placed into the “Documents” folder as 16-bit TIF. Conclusion The Nik plug-ins are more generally useful and flexible than most people think. They make a great combination with Capture NX-D, particularly since it’s a bit limited in the editing feature set that it natively offers. You might want to explore the convenience of being able to use HDR Efex Pro 2 as a stand-alone program for a set of bracketed exposures, as long as you have them pre-converted into 16-bit TIF. #howto

Have you ever had a lens that you’d swear you had perfectly focus-calibrated, only to experience lots of missed-focus shots? It might not be your fault. Many zoom lenses change focus at different focal lengths, yet you can only perform a focus fine-tune calibration at a single focal length. Lenses with really fast apertures (like f/1.4 and f/1.2) typically have significant spherical aberration, which causes the focus to shift as you stop down the aperture. The MTFMapper program lets you measure how much your lens shifts its focus, if you use the proper chart. You can even do this evaluation at different color wavelengths, if you desire. I’m using MTFMapper version 0.7.11 in this article. This program is available here . The program author is Frans van den Bergh, and he has a very firm grasp on this problem. Focus shift caused by spherical aberration The picture above shows what you’re fighting with most high-speed lenses. As you change the aperture, the focus shifts. The best you can do is to focus-calibrate your “phase detect” autofocus system to correct for focus errors at a single selected f-stop (typically wide open). If your camera could focus at the stopped-down aperture, then you wouldn’t notice any focus shifting. Most cameras keep the aperture wide-open while focusing, however, and only stop down the instant you take the picture. If you use “live view” at the working aperture, then focus shifting isn’t a problem; it’s just a “phase detect focus” problem. If you use a mirrorless camera that is only focusing with the aperture wide-open, then this problem can still plague you. Some mirrorless cameras actually focus at the stopped-down aperture, and thus avoid this problem. To perform the focus-shift test, you’ll need to start by printing out a “focus” chart. Mount the printed chart on flat stock, or else tape it to a wall. Your lens should be pointed at the exact center of the chart, while the chart is rotated at 45 degrees relative to your camera sensor. This way, some of the chart both in front and behind its centerline will be out of focus. The “focus” chart in its vertical orientation The chart side with the taller slanted bars should be oriented farther away from the camera. If you print the chart at the right size (e.g. A3) and mount it at the correct distance, then perspective distortion will make the bars appear to be the same size. You can choose either horizontal or vertical format. The chart shown above (focus_a3.pdf) comes from the downloaded zip file called “mtfmapper_sample_test_charts_0.5_v4.zip”. The exact center of the chart lies along the dashed lines with the pair of black circular fiducials (with the tiny white centers). Typical focus chart result The Measurement Recipe Steps Place your camera on a tripod, pointed directly at the center of the rotated chart. Set your camera to “manual focus”, and RAW capture. Start with the widest aperture (camera in aperture priority or manual), like f/1.4. Set your exposure to get about +0.7 stops compensation (whiter chart whites). Enable “live view” at maximum magnification. Manually focus the lens on the exact center of the chart. Disable “live view”. Take the picture. Close down the aperture by a stop, like f/2.0. Don’t touch the focus! Take the picture. Repeat taking shots at smaller apertures, like 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, if desired. Analyze the results Run mtf_mapper_gui.exe. Click on “Settings | Preferences” The Preferences Dialog Set the correct preferences for your camera. Note that the “Output types” selections will be ignored by this program for these focus tests. You can select “none” (luminosity) or “red”, “green”, or “blue” for the focus measurements; I’d recommend the “none” option here. Click the “Accept” button to leave the Preferences dialog. Click on “File | Open Focus Position image(s)…” Browse to the folder with your (RAW) shots of the “focus” chart. Select the desired picture(s) to analyze. Measurement results up close f/1.4 with focus at +9.7 mm The screen capture above shows a typical measurement result. The highest resolution was located at +9.7 mm from the chart centerline, with an MTF50 reading of 0.145 cycles per pixel. The left side of the chart was nearer to the camera, so the shot was taken with the sharpest focus nearer to the camera by +9.7 mm. It’s actually pretty tough to manually focus better than within about 10 mm at this distance (1.19 meters). By comparing the “+9.7 mm” result with another shot at a different aperture, the focus shift can be directly measured. I was a little curious if the millimeter measurements from the MTFMapper were accurate. The focus test chart here is printed at 11.7” X 16.5” (A3), and vertical blue “sharpest focus” line is located about 7 hash marks from the chart centerline. Those 7 hash marks were measured to be 14 mm along the surface of the chart. Since the chart was rotated to 45 degrees, where cos(45) = 0.7071, then the image measurement should be about 14 * cos(45) or 9.9 mm. Pretty close to the reported 9.7 mm! Same setup, but f/2.0 causes focus to move to +5.1 mm With the exact same setup as the f/1.4 shot, the f/2.0 shot has shifted focus away from the camera by +4.7 mm, landing on +5.1 mm from the chart centerline. The camera was in manual focus, and I didn’t touch the focus ring as I stopped the lens down. The focus shift is purely a result of spherical aberration. f/2.8 shot, now focus is now at -1.7 mm Stopping down to f/2.8, the focus shifted again, now landing on -1.7 mm. It has shifted a total of +11.4 mm from the f/1.4 focus. When continuing on to f/4.0, the focus position went to -5.0 mm and then at f/5.6 it went to -8.1 mm. It didn’t shift appreciably when stopping down further. The total focus shift was about 17.8 mm from f/1.4 to f/5.6! This is more than enough to throw an eye out of focus and ruin the portrait shot at this distance. I always set my focus fine-tune calibration setting at the widest aperture, except when I don’t. Let me explain… I determine what focus fine-tune setting is required at each (full) aperture from f/1.4 through f/5.6 for my fast lens, and then I’ll set the fine-tune setting for which aperture I expect to typically shoot at. I keep a little cheat sheet with calibration settings taped inside my lens cap, since I tend to forget them. These settings are “per-camera-body”. Once a fast lens that has spherical aberration gets stopped down to about f/5.6, the focus doesn’t seem to measurably shift anymore. Believe it or not, many lenses focus different colors of light quite differently. This is what’s known as longitudinal chromatic aberration, when it lies along the axis of the lens. The MTFMapper program lets you conduct the tests shown with just the red or green or blue pixels on your camera’s Bayer sensor. With this analysis, you can see how longitudinal (axial) chromatic aberration works. In the “Preferences” dialog, just select the desired Bayer channel color to use with the focus chart photos you already have. For zoom lenses that have a focus shift at different focal lengths, I use a similar scheme to compensate for focal length instead of aperture setting. This problem is solved by Sigma and Tamron on their lenses that allow focus calibration adjustments at multiple distances and focal lengths via a dock. No such luck with other manufacturers so far. Even Sigma and Tamron don’t help you with compensating for aperture focus-shift, however (at least not yet). Conclusion This analysis might sound like nothing more than nit picking. If you’ve tried close-up portraiture, however, you know how crucial a few millimeters of missed focus can be. A fuzzy eye shot is a ruined shot. It’s better to know how your lens performs than not. #howto

Lens resolution measurement is a combination of software and special flat targets that get photographed and then measured by the software. It’s very important that you properly align a lens resolution target. Otherwise, it’s the old adage of “garbage in, garbage out”. Alignment falls into two categories: parallel to the camera sensor and no rotation error. Rotational alignment is the easy part; you can use the edge of your viewfinder to align with the target markings. I always use “grid view” in my viewfinder for easy alignment. So how do you ensure that your camera sensor is parallel to your target? Easy; you use a mirror. A couple pieces of rolled-up (removable) painter’s tape behind the mirror will hold a small mirror flat against the middle of your focus target. Make sure you press it flat, so there aren’t any gaps between the mirror and the target. Manually focus your lens at twice the distance from your target, and then move the camera around until you see your reflection through the lens. You probably want to test your tape on the edge of your target to verify it peels off without damaging your chart. I have found that inkjet works much better than laserjet; the tape can strip off the toner in laserjet prints. Semi-gloss is probably the best surface for the charts, too. The heavier paper weights work better, as well. Around 600 dpi printer resolution is ideal. If you have a flat surface like a wall behind the chart and don’t want to put any tape on your chart itself, you can try sticking the mirror to the surface until you align the camera, and then clamp the chart over the spot where you had temporarily stuck the mirror. I had experimented with hanging a mirror like a necklace on a string, but it didn’t work very well. Another technique that does work well, however is to sacrifice getting measurements in the middle of the chart and cut a hole to mount a mirror with glue behind the chart, with the mirror showing through the hole. This works best if your chart is either glued (spray glue) or dry-mounted to mounting board, and you cut the hole through both the chart and its mounting board. If you use the “lensgrid” chart shown later in this article, the middle of the chart (an hourglass pattern) doesn’t get measured anyway. Update 3-24-2019 I got a suggestion from Frans van den Bergh (the author of the MTFMapper program) to try using magnets to hold a mirror in place, so that the chart surface isn't harmed. I did some research, and found some outrageously strong neodymium magnets (32 mm diameter and 3mm thick) that are nickel/copper coated. These babies hold with a direct-contact force of 18 pounds! The thickness of my chart with its backing is 9.6 mm, so I knew I'd need really strong magnets to be able to hold the mirror with that big of a gap. Lo and behold, a magnet behind my chart and one stuck to the back of my mirror (with double-stick tape) keeps the mirror perfectly in place to align the chart. It is easy to remove the mirror when photographing the chart, and leaves no marks. I actually stuck a pair of magnets (side-by-side) behind the mirror to guarantee it's completely parallel to the chart; only one of the mirror magnets is stuck to the rear chart magnet. Thanks, Frans! You can also glue little bubble levels to the edges of the chart, particularly if your chart is mounted in a frame. If your tripod also has bubble levels, then you can get the chart and camera into pretty close alignment. Find your reflection Notice in the shot above that you can barely see the chart itself. That’s because the lens is focused at twice the distance of the chart to see the mirror reflection. It should go without saying that you need a sturdy tripod. If there’s any vibration, you can easily see it in your reflection. Focus on the chart Now, focus on the chart. Your reflection basically disappears! You can be confident, however, that the camera sensor is parallel with the mirror, and therefore parallel with the chart, too. Once aligned, you can then peel the mirror off of the target. Note that the chart shown above is an older design, but is still supported for resolution measurements. A newer chart design is shown below. I’d also recommend that you clamp the resolution target into position, so that it won’t move when you touch it (or when you peel off the mirror). Align a Chart Using Fiducials The MTFMapper program can use a chart design (“lensgrid”) that can measure any chart rotations in 3-D space. This doesn’t help you align beforehand, but at least you can tell how well you aligned the camera to the chart after the fact. Their website has resolution chart and focus chart downloads in PDF format. The latest as of this writing is called “mtfmapper_sample_test_charts_0.5_v4.zip”. The LensGrid Resolution Chart with Alignment Fiducials If you use the chart shown above, you can not only measure lens resolution, but you can also get feedback about how well you aligned the chart via rotation measurements in yaw, pitch, and roll axes. Select the Chart Orientation option Before you can see the chart orientation measurements, you need to select the correct option. This option is paired with the “lensgrid” chart type. When you get the resolution measurements of the chart, you’ll get an extra plot result, called “chart orientation”. Chart Orientation results The MTFMapper program uses standard math rules, with the “X” axis horizontal and positive to the right, “Y” is vertical and positive up, and “Z” is using the “right hand rule” being positive out of the screen. The “Pitch” is rotation about the horizontal X axis, “Yaw” is rotation about the vertical Y axis, and “Roll” is rotation about the Z axis. In the shot above, the Roll value is +0.91 degrees. To reduce the roll error, I would need to rotate the chart about the Z axis (this axis is out of the screen) in a clockwise, or negative rotation direction. You might notice that the left side of the shot above shows a narrower gap at the top than the bottom, so chart rotation in the clockwise direction to get it vertical makes sense. Many cameras have a feature in Live View called “Virtual Horizon” to help get the camera aligned on the “roll” axis, which is mainly intended to get horizons level. This can be used to decide if the camera or the chart (or both) isn’t level. Chart rotated clockwise to reduce “Roll” error The chart was rotated a little clockwise and then re-clamped. The Roll error was reduced from +0.91 to +0.12 degrees. The next problem to fix in the chart shown above would be to fix the “pitch”. Pitch is sometimes referred to as “nose up” (as in aircraft). When you get within about a degree on each axis, then you can be confident that the resolution measurements will be reliable. So, what happens if you analyze chart shots that aren’t parallel to your camera sensor? You’ll get one or two sides of the chart with poor resolution readings. If you get poor readings, you won’t know if it’s your lens or the chart or both of them. You still need to use a remote release and use “live view” with contrast-detect focus for maximum focus accuracy. Remember to turn off lens vibration reduction when your camera is locked down on the tripod, or it will actually add vibrations. I’m using the MTFMapper program for my resolution testing software, but these same precautions are required for whatever analysis program you use. You can get the software from this site. #howto

Adobe stopped updating the standalone versions of Lightroom long ago. A feature they added to their Creative Cloud version called “DeHaze” caused extreme feature envy for us cloudless users. Guess what? There’s a way to get this functionality in the standalone version of Lightroom after all. There’s a free Lightroom plug-in you can get from here. It works with Lightroom version 6.1 through 6.14. The website also provides instructions for how to install it, but I’ll summarize the installation process here. Installing the Dehaze Lightroom Plug-in Begin by un-zipping the downloaded file into the folder of your choice. Run Lightroom. File | Plug-in Manager… Click “Add…” button in the lower-left of the dialog Navigate to the directory with the “LRHazeFilters.lrplugin” folder and select it, such as: C:\DehazeLightroomPlugin\LRHazeFilters_2_2\LRHazeFilters.lrplugin Click the “Select Folder” button The “Plug-in Manager” window should now show “Status: This plug-in is now enabled” You use the Dehaze plug-in while in the Develop module. When selected, a window with a dehaze slider opens: What’s so great about Dehaze? This plug-in produces an effect akin to tone-mapping, except that it can also work in reverse, by adding extra haze. To get the best effect, you need to stick with RAW format when using this filter, and you need to be in the Lightroom “Develop” module. This plug-in can also produce a nice effect for black and white pictures. Hazy Shot Select the Dehaze plug-in When you’re ready to try Dehaze on your photo, click “File | Plug-in Extras | Dehaze Control”. When the Dehaze dialog opens up, you can drag the control with your mouse to wherever it’s most convenient for you. Rid the haze by a moderate amount Drag the Dehaze slider until you see the effect you want. I generally like the effect I get at a setting around +50. The total adjustment range goes from -100 to +100. Going a bit too far with Dehaze Since you don’t know what’s going too far until you do it, try going beyond what looks good, and then back off from there. Keep in mind that you can always make a “virtual copy” of a shot, and then Dehaze the copy. You can combine the “Dehazed” copy with the original with Lightroom’s “Photo Merge” feature. This can work well when you like the Dehaze sky effect, for example, but you don’t like what happens to the foreground. As with most editing features, you’re given ample opportunities to abuse the controls. Please, please don’t go overboard. Don’t be guilty of giving Dehaze the same kind of reputation that HDR has gotten. The final shot You can see in the “before” and “after” versions that the sky is vastly improved. As-shot. Too hazy for my taste. Enhanced with DeHaze I wouldn’t say that this plug-in is Earth-shattering, but it definitely has earned its place in my Lightroom bag of tricks. It’s simple to invoke and use, and it works. You don’t have to feel left out any more, even though Adobe might have abandoned you. #review

Here’s a little trick to get your lens focus-calibrated quickly. This discussion is only relevant for phase-detect focus. It’s well known that “Live View” focus is quite accurate, since the camera sensor itself is used, bypassing any mirrors and separate phase-detect sensors. This article doesn’t, of course, have any relevance to mirrorless cameras. There are some cameras that can focus-calibrate themselves, so this doesn’t apply to those cameras, either. Pay attention to that focus distance! The main requirement for this calibration trick is to have a lens with a focus distance scale on it. You should also use a tripod, if possible, to get reliable results. Pick a focus target that is easy for your camera to use, so that it will focus at the same distance each time. Do yourself a favor, and make sure that you have sufficient illumination so that your camera focus system doesn’t have to struggle and hunt to find focus. Set your camera’s aperture (typically wide-open), and then activate Live View. Now, focus your camera on the target. Note the precise distance on the lens focus scale. Repeat this exercise several times, in case your lens can only focus within a range of distances. Between each focus, manually change the focus distance, to force your camera to re-focus each time. It should only take seconds to find out the focus distance reading to use. Now, you know the “real” focus distance setting that is accurate, since it was done using Live View. Next, turn off Live View, to switch over to phase-detect focus, ideally with single (versus continuous) auto-focus. Auto-focus the camera. Note the reading on the focus scale. If the phase-detect focus distance value matches the Live View focus distance, then you’re done. If there’s a difference in the distance reading, however, then you’ll need to enter a focus calibration value into your camera. If the phase-detect reading was as a shorter distance than the Live View distance scale setting, then you’ll need to calibrate with a “+” setting, to push the focus further from your camera. If phase-detect focused farther than Live View did, then obviously enter a focus calibration value that’s smaller than what you had previously set for the calibration setting. In this fashion, you can iterate on focus calibration settings that will quickly get your lens into perfect calibration. You don’t need to fuss with trying to view photos at high magnification to determine if you got the focus right; all you need to concern yourself with is to match the distance that Live View got. Simple. #howto

If this idea hasn’t occurred to you, it’s possible to make a rugged and perfectly functional flash diffuser for free. It won’t even take much time. What have you got to lose? Flash diffusers are a really good idea to soften your harsh flash output. Even with a diffuser, it’s a good idea to still tilt the flash head for a bounce flash. You can buy diffusers that are essentially a plastic bottle, but why not just try a plastic bottle instead? I kept my eye out for the right-sized bottle for my (Nikon SB-600) flash, and it wasn’t that hard to find. Your own flash may take a different size, though. It should go without saying that you want a bottle that’s white. I found the perfect diffuser at Costco: a bottle of antacid tablets. It’s pretty thick plastic, so it won’t readily break or even deform. It has a pretty neutral color, and it doesn’t block too much light. You might find some “Tupper Ware“that you like for the job. Use plastic that isn’t too clear, or it won’t diffuse the light enough. All you’ll need to make this diffuser is a utility knife, a permanent marker, and maybe some gloves. Please don’t blame me if you cut yourself. Use some good common sense about how you hold the bottle while you perform surgery on it. After you’ve found a properly-sized bottle and cleaned it up, then use the marker to draw where you need to cut it. If you’re fanatical about this, you might want to even measure the flash dimensions to mark more accurate dimensions. You’ve probably heard the motto “measure twice and cut once”… I actually cut my bottle a little small, and then shaved off a few slivers at a time until I got the fit nice and snug. When I shot a gray card, the color balance proved to be a little warm with the diffuser, so I had to use a custom white balance to get totally neutral lighting. I guess you have to pay a teeny price for using this cheap diffuser. Bottle diffuser slips over the flash head This is a really simple piece of gear. You don’t need any straps or glue or anything to keep the bottle snug for a flash like mine, since it has a slight taper along the head. If you have an inconveniently-shaped flash head, you might need some Velcro to keep it snug. The naked flash Flash diffuser disguised as an antacid bottle Bounce flash, no diffuser, pointed at a fairly high ceiling In the shot above, the ceiling was too high for the bounce flash; it had little effect on the subject. Sometimes you encounter paneled or colored ceilings which can also defeat the use of bounce flash. Bounce flash with diffuser, pointed at ceiling The first thing that jumps out at me in the above comparison shots is the bounce flash level of illumination. With no diffuser, and a fairly high ceiling, the flash didn’t have enough effect. If you’re in a fast-paced situation, it’s a pain to have to worry about angling your flash to bounce off of the nearest wall instead of a ceiling. If the ceiling is really high and you aren’t near a wall, then you basically can’t use bounce flash. With the diffuser, enough light gets to the subject even if the ceiling/walls are too far away. Light gets through the sides of the diffuser, so the subject gets both diffuse direct light and bounced light. Gray card, direct flash, no diffuser, with auto white balance Gray card, direct flash, with diffuser, custom white balance There’s a plus and a minus to using this diffuser with direct flash. The lighting is definitely more even with the diffuser. The downside is that the color balance is a little warm, so a custom white balance is required to achieve the same color temperature with the diffuser. As you can see above, the correct custom white balance completely neutralized the warm color. I actually wrote the correct Kelvin temperature (with a permanent marker) onto the diffuser in an inconspicuous place; it makes a good reminder to set the white balance when I use the diffuser. I used the histogram of the gray card photo to see how the R,G,B peaks aligned. With a gray card, the peaks should completely overlap. I adjusted the white balance Kelvin temperature and re-shot the gray card until I got the R,G,B peaks to perfectly overlap. Conclusion Using a diffuser means that you will have fewer things to worry about when using a flash. It softens the light when using direct flash. It gets more illumination onto your subject if you’re using bounce flash and you get too far from walls or a too-high ceiling. You don’t have to be as careful about the angle of the bounce flash, either. My cheap diffuser slightly altered the color balance, compared to a bare flash, but it’s easy to correct for this. This kind of diffuser can’t substitute for the quality you get from a large umbrella reflector, but it’s not a fraction as cumbersome to use, either. I’m not trying to endorse being lazy or cutting corners, but there are times when you just can’t transport elaborate lighting gear. I have to admit that this diffuser looks a little homely, but it’s easy enough to get over that. It makes flash photography a little simpler for me than using a bare flash, and as I said before, the price is right. #howto

There’s a Lightroom mask called “Radial Filter” that seems like something that is of little use. There are times, however, when it is exactly what you need. Have you ever seen something that was essentially in silhouette, and you wished you had a giant spot light to illuminate it? The “Radial Filter” may be for you. Washington Monument with a giant fake spotlight The shot above shows my vision of the Washington Monument, although it isn’t at all what I saw while I was there. The lighting looked terrible, with the monument looking more like a black obelisk against a nearly-featureless cloudy sky. I took the shot anyway, envisioning what Lightroom post-processing magic could do with it. This is one of those cases where I desperately needed some breathtakingly huge lighting equipment to flip the lighting ratios between the sky and the monument. Lightroom to the rescue. I don’t use it very often, but I think that the “radial filter” can sometimes be just the ticket. If a shot calls for it, there’s nothing stopping you from using multiple radial filters, either. For this shot, though, I only wanted the Washington Monument lit up. The starting point. A throw-away shot. The shot above shows you what I started with. The monument was a featureless dark blob. What I wanted was essentially the opposite, where the monument was lit and the sky was darker and textured. For my desired “spot light” effect, I’d typically adjust the global exposure of the shot at this point, so that the spot light added in later would have the desired brightness. In this case, the rest of the shot already had roughly the (low) exposure I wanted. Make the shot really small, to make room for a big radial filter I wanted to illuminate only the Washington Monument. I knew I could do it with the “Radial Filter”, but the size of the filter I wanted meant I needed to first really shrink the picture, using the “Zoom Level” adjustment. After zooming, I selected the Radial Filter mask. The default settings for this filter are virtually never what is required, however. Starting point for the Radial Filter Mask I selected the Radial Filter mask, and made some initial guesses about what I would need. Since I was after a “spot light” effect, I clicked on “Invert Mask”. I increased the feathering, to make its effect a little more subtle. I initially set the exposure slider to +1, which I would then later adjust to taste. Fit the radial filter to the subject To better see the feathering effect of the filter, I went to the Tools | Adjustment Mask Overlay | Show Overlay. I left the “red” mask color, since it would show up fine in the shot. Now, I adjusted the center, shape, and size of my overlay to be a skinny ellipse with a slight rotation to match my subject. Once the mask was set the way I wanted it, I turned off the red overlay. Fine-tune the exposure of the subject inside the mask Next, I scrolled up to the mask “Exposure” slider, and decided I wanted an even brighter subject. It’s easy to overdo the exposure, so be careful. Adjust the sky: Dehaze Filter I decided at this point that I wanted to adjust the sky and give it more drama. My two go-to choices at this point are the Nik HDR Efex Pro and the Dehaze filter. I always start by trying the Dehaze filter, since it’s really quick to try it out and later cancel it if desired. I discuss getting this Dehaze filter for older versions of Lightroom in a previous post. In this case, I decided that the Dehaze filter was just what I needed and therefore didn’t resort to using the HDR Efex Pro plug-in. The finished shot You can argue all day about the honesty of using fake lighting, but I know what I like. This shot shows what I was after, and I think that the radial filter added just what was missing from the original scene. The radial filter doesn’t just apply to landscapes. You might find that portrait lighting can be vastly improved after the fact with this same technique. As with everything, please don’t overdo it. #howto

The more you understand about how stuff works, the more amazing it is. I had heard long ago that lenses with optical stabilization use “gyros”, but I never gave it much thought. I had heard of “gyroscopes”, but spinning wheels aren’t what we’re talking about. The name gyro has the Greek root gyros, meaning rotation. A typical lens optical stabilization unit (a Canon lens) The picture above shows a stabilization unit, which moves a compensating lens group to keep the image on the sensor (and in the viewfinder) from moving. The question to ask is how the lens knows the photographer is jiggling the lens, and what to do about it. In a DSLR, it can’t use the camera sensor to help figure out image movement, since the shutter is hiding the sensor. Let’s start with something called the Coriolis Effect. Coriolis comes from a French mathematician named Gaspard-Gustave de Coriolis. On a big scale, it’s what causes large-scale weather patterns in the northern hemisphere moving north to have an east-word velocity, and the opposite effect in the southern hemisphere. On a smaller scale, it’s the force required to keep walking in one direction as you try to move from the center to the edge of a rotating merry-go-round. When a photographer hand-holds a lens, the lens invariably starts to rotate a bit in various directions. This rotation results in the Coriolis Effect, which can be sensed and then compensated for. A really smart person envisioned a gyro design that could notice rotation by jiggling a weight in one direction and sensing a force that was perpendicular to the direction of that jiggle. As shown above, when the weight was moving up, the force would push the weight to the left. The same weight would get pushed to the right if it was moving down. The forces would all reverse when the rotation switched from clockwise to counter-clockwise. This design is known as a vibratory rate-measuring gyro. It’s common to jiggle these weights at about 10,000 cycles per second (or 10 kHz). The “rate-measuring” here is the rotation rate, usually expressed as degrees per second. Using MEMS technology (micro-electrical-mechanical-systems), the miniature weight, the springs, a drive motor, and position sensors could all be built on a microscopic scale. Power requirements scale down with the size of the parts being used, so a camera battery could drive this system easily. Even with low-power requirements, cameras will typically turn off the stabilization when you take your finger off of the focus button. This type of gyro design was introduced in 1991. The typical name for these units is “Coriolis vibratory gyroscope”. It finally found its way into lenses in 1995. The gyro concept shown above can only sense rotation along one axis, so two of them would be needed in a lens to handle the yaw (left-right) and pitch (up-down) axis of potential rotation. A photographer typically wouldn’t be rotating the lens along its optical axis (roll axis), so that motion isn’t compensated for. Typical hand-held rotation rates being counteracted are around ½ degree per second to 20 degrees per second. The center of rotation is roughly the rear of the camera (or the photographer’s eye). The Analog Devices, Inc. description of their gyro design The picture above shows a little bit more detail. The “Coriolis Sense Fingers” in the drawing are little capacitors that sense the gap distance between their little parallel fingers as the “resonating mass” shifts left or right, according to the direction of rotation of the device. The tiny signal from these capacitors can be converted into a voltage that varies according to the rotation. What the “sense capacitors” look like in the silicon design The Sense Capacitors (via a scanning electron microscope) The whole silicon design of the gyro Getting into even more detail, the picture above shows “Comb-Drives”. These little guys are given an alternating positive and negative voltage, to force them to have a net positive or negative charge. The moving “Active Mass” has little fingers that fit in-between these Comb-Drive fingers. The active mass is alternately pushed away or pulled toward the stationary comb drive fingers, since its electric charge is either attracted to or repelled by the comb drive fingers as their voltage is switched between positive and negative. Comb-drive actual silicon, via scanning electron microscope The shot above is a close-up of the little silicon comb-drive fingers. They push and pull the “active mass” to keep it vibrating. The “active mass” is suspended on silicon beam “springs” to greatly increase the magnitude of its motion when it vibrates, which enhances the signals produced by the gyro. The whole gyro needs to keep the “active mass” vibrating back and forth in its “drive direction”. The mass will get a sideways vibration (the sense direction) when the device (lens) is rotated, due to that Coriolis Effect. When a sideways vibration happens, that’s when those “sense capacitors” mentioned earlier produce a signal to indicate the device is rotating, and in which direction it’s rotating. The signal coming from the gyro is typically a low current, which is converted into a digital count that is proportional to the rotation rate. These little gyros are so small that even air becomes a problem. When they’re manufactured, they have to install them into a package that maintains a vacuum. How small is that gyro, anyway? Small. The lens optical stabilization unit needs a separate little gyro to sense rotation about each axis being controlled (e.g. yaw and pitch). Once the stabilization unit gets the gyro signals to indicate that the lens is rotating, then its microcomputer commands little actuators to move the compensating lens group in the stabilization unit to counteract that rotation. There are other kinds of gyro designs that are much more complicated than the “simple” one I have described. In fact, they can get mind-numbingly complex. Better-quality vibratory gyros are actually able to detect rotation rates of less than 10 degrees per hour. If that isn’t enough to bring tears to your eyes, I don’t know what will. You also probably have MEMS gyros in your smartphone. The next time you complain about having to spend extra money for a lens that has optical stabilization, just think about the technology that goes into it. And try to imagine the brilliance of the people that invented it. By the way, in-lens stabilization is generally preferred over in-camera stabilization. With a DSLR, lens-based stabilization lets you see a steadier viewfinder image and it makes it easier for your camera to focus on a non-moving target. One downside, however, is that the moving stabilization optics can make for slightly worse bokeh. A big thanks to Canon, Analog Devices, Inc. et al. for the visuals used in this article. I don’t yet have my own scanning electron microscope. #howto

Did you ever wonder how they decided upon camera lens f-stop numbering? Are there any other numbering schemes that could be useful? And did you know that the ‘F’ stands for “focal ratio”, which is “the ratio of the system's focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil”. Nikkor Noct f/1.2 (half-stop faster than f/1.4) F-stops by the numbers F-stop progression Did you know that the standard F-stop numbering scheme comes from a math sequence? Most people know that full stops are based upon doubling or halving light intensity, but not where the actual numbering scheme comes from. Now you know. If you wanted to calculate “standard” F-stop ranges, here’s what you would do: F-stop full scale calculation For the above, the progression solving the above sequence would be: 1, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11.0, 16.0 … You can actually go the other direction, too, if you use (-1 x 0.5), (-2 x 0.5), … for the exponent sequence above! This gets you F-stops like 0.5 and 0.707 for those lenses few mortals will ever be able to afford. F-stop half-scale calculation For the above, the progression solving the above sequence would be: 1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, … F-stop third-scale calculation For the above, the progression solving the above sequence would be: 1, 1.12, 1.26, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, … If they ever made them, you should now be able to see how lens manufacturers could mark lenses in fourth-stop, fifth-stop, sixth-stop etc. using fractions in the exponents like 4, 5, 6. You’d think that could be useful for something like cinema lenses, where they like finer exposure control, but instead they go one better and offer step-less aperture control. Speaking of cinema lenses, those lenses are marked in “T” stops, where the T is for “transmission”. I think all lenses should be marked this way, because what really counts is how much light gets to your camera sensor. The F stops can be off by up to a whole F-stops’ worth of transmission, depending upon the lens design and how good the lens multi-coating is. Zoom lenses are particularly dishonest about their transmission. It doesn’t make you a better photographer, but its fun to know how things got to be the way they are. By the way, did you know that early camera shutter speeds had sequences like 1/400, 1/200, 1/100, 1/50… ? That actually seems more logical to me than what they have today. Also, did you know that speeds like 15 and 30 seconds are actually 16 and 32 seconds, respectively? The camera makers just lie about these values. Time them for yourself to see. #howto

Many people have a fundamental confusion about Nikon memory banks on their “pro” model cameras. Nikon keeps the distinction as clear as mud. The “Photo shooting menu bank” is found in the “Photo Shooting Menu” (the little camera icon). You can assign up to four of these (A,B,C,D) to have unique settings in each. You can also name these banks to be something meaningful. I have settings for “Sports”, “Landscape”, “Manual”, and “Live View”, so that’s what I named them. Here’s where you save your unique setups that you configure for things like Auto-ISO, default ISO, Manual shooting mode, picture controls, shutter speed, aperture setting, etc. The “Custom settings bank” is found in the “Custom Setting Menu” (the pencil icon). What you save here are things like custom button assignments. You also get four of these (also named A,B,C,D). This is where the confusion sets in. Fortunately, you can give these banks names, too. If you give these banks different names than the “photo shooting” banks, then it will help eliminate confusion. Both banks are added into "My Menu" for fast access Photo shooting bank Custom settings bank I have the names “Focus buttons” and “Live View” in my custom settings banks. The “Focus buttons” save the way I have configured my AF-ON, joystick, Fn1, Fn2, and PV buttons. These button assignments prevent focusing in Live View unless I use the touch-screen, which I find enormously irritating. The bank I named “Live View” rids the various “AF-ON plus area mode” features I assign to other buttons. Once these custom button assignments are cleared (by selecting my “Live View” custom settings bank), then my “AF-ON” button can once again be used to get Live View to auto-focus. In the “Setup Menu” (the little wrench icon), there’s a “Save/load settings” option to save the shooting configuration (all shooting banks and all custom settings banks). To get at the two memory banks quicker, I assign my “Fn2” button to go to “My Menu”. Inside “My Menu”, I added the “Photo shooting menu bank” and the “Custom settings bank”. Even if I don't select a different bank here, it's a very fast way to verify how my camera is presently configured. I still wish Nikon would just stick the “U1”,”U2”, etc. dial on all of their cameras, which is infinitely faster than menu-diving. And just try menu diving if you're half blinded by bright sunshine. #howto

Competitor #1: Sony XQD I tried to look up the D850 camera shot buffer numbers on the internet. All over the map. Either terrible or stunning, depending on who you ask. Nikon claims it should have a 51 shot buffer with the settings I shoot with. I felt compelled to conduct some testing of my own, using a couple of different memory card types, since I’m a natural born skeptic. The manufacturers of those memory cards seem to completely fabricate their numbers. Going by “the specs” is a fool’s errand. So here’s my testing scenario. I set my D850 to ISO 64 (least noise and therefore smallest picture memory) with large-14-bit-lossless-compressed RAW format. I used continuous-high shooting speed, which the “specifications” rate at 7 frames per second. I only populated the camera with a single memory card at a time. I shot landscape pictures in the sunshine with “typical complexity”. Noisy, complex pictures take up more memory and will therefore decrease the buffer numbers. I use a battery grip, but I just use the standard “EN/EL 15-a” battery in it, so no 9 frames per second for me. The first card I tested is the “Sony G-series 400MB/s write speed“ 32GB XQD card. I have read that in actual reality it writes at very roughly “113.84 MB/s”, according to this site when tested in the Nikon D850 camera. This sounds like a case of “the large Sony print giveth and the small reviewer’s print taketh away”. The second card I tested is the “Lexar Professional 1000X 64GB 150MB/s” card, which the fine print states as being capable of writing at 75MB/s. Competitor #2 fits in the SD card slot. For both cards, I formatted them just prior to testing, so that storage fragmenting wouldn’t be an issue with the timing. Results So here’s what I got. The Sony XQD card managed 37 shots before it hiccupped and slowed down. The Lexar card (Laxar?) got me 24 shots before slowing down. Yikes. Pretty underwhelming. If I were shooting on an NFL sideline or an Olympic track, this camera setting probably wouldn’t be my first choice. For most other stuff, I probably couldn’t care less. I have to give credit where credit is due, however: I got a little faster than 7 frames per second. Actually, I got 37 complete (XQD) frames in 5.06 seconds, or 7.31 frames per second. I used the sound track timing from a video to “visualize” each shutter/mirror slap. Nikon wasn’t lying there; they were actually a bit conservative. Next, I set the D850 to 12-bit lossless compressed raw, and voila, the XQD got 200 shots at full speed! The ‘Laxar’, however, only got me 34 shots with this 12-bit setting. I could change the scene 'complexity' and brightness and get fewer shots; typically about 193 shots in 27.5 seconds (7.02 fps). For a really complex scene, I once got only 101 shots in 13.2 seconds (7.65 fps). Now you can see why people argue about the real buffer size. Addendum 9-21-2019: I got more interested in 'scene complexity' and did a lot more testing. There were times where I got an average of 43 shots in 6.1 seconds (7.05 fps) using the lossless compressed 14-bit. Still not Nikon's 51 shots, but maybe there's a super-fast XQD card out there that can squeeze out the extra 8 shots. The more I test, the murkier the results... Since the D850 is all about quality, why on earth would I ever be willing go down to 12-bit shooting? I read an article here by ‘Verm’ Sherman that changed my mind about 12 bits. He tried and tried to demonstrate how inferior the 12-bit files are, compared to 14-bit, but was unable to do so. The shots just kept looking spectacular and equal in his tests. I did some tests myself, and I have to agree; I can’t tell the difference. But I did notice the difference of about 15MB smaller file sizes, which really adds up over time. On my own camera, I have a “Sports” photo shooting bank that uses the 12-bit lossless compressed setting, to 'guarantee' that I get the 200-shot buffer. I have a separate “Landscape” photo shooting bank that is set to 14-bit lossless compressed mode, but it’s mostly for “insurance” just in case in the future there may be displays that can possibly show a difference. Spending an extra 15MB per shot does seem like a painful insurance premium, however. I have to admit that I feel a lot less guilty about having my “Sports” mode on 12-bit, though. The quality to my eye is stunning, and there is still a ton of elbow room in the dynamic range. I can’t resist mentioning that my Nikon D500, using the exact same “Sony G-series 400MB/s write speed“ 32GB XQD card, has a 200-shot buffer, and it shoots 10 frames per second to boot using 14-bit lossless compressed (or any other setting except uncompressed 14-bit). Smokin. And verified. And no excuses. There are just so many variables when it comes to shot buffer capacity that I have to recommend that you verify yours before you try shooting that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. You never know when the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot might happen to show up in that forest clearing at the same instant, and you’re the only witness. #review

There’s been a lot of talk about using crop sensor cameras for subjects that need that “effective focal length” increase, for distant subjects like birds. For example, a 600mm lens has an effective focal length of (600 X 1.5) or 900mm. This may be close to the truth if both the full-frame and the crop sensors have the same overall resolution, but what about an FX camera that has more resolution than the DX camera, like the D850 versus the D500? Does the Nikon D500 beat the D850 if you crop the D850 picture down to the same field of view as the D500? I decided to find out for myself just how good the D850 sensor is, and see if it can match the D500, even if you crop the D850 shots down to the same view you get with the D500. I know that the D500 can shoot faster and has a bigger frame buffer, but the D850 is no slouch, either. Both cameras are just as sensitive to light and can focus at the same speed, too. I’m not here to talk about the merits of one camera over the other; I’m only interested in knowing if I lose any quality using the D850 and crop the shots, when compared to un-cropped D500 shots. If you like wide-angle shooting, there is of course no substitute for a full-frame camera. There are multiple “full-frame advantage” topics I could talk about, but I want to focus strictly on cropping here. To get some answers, I set up a resolution target and then shot it from the exact same position and with the same lens; I just swapped camera bodies. After running it through my image analysis software, I took a look at the shots up close. The shootout: D850 versus D500 I used my Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 lens at 70mm and f/2.8 for these tests. I shot in raw format, and I didn’t post-process the shots in any way before analyzing them in my image analysis software. I wanted to mention that I shot the chart with an exposure compensation of +0.7 stops with both cameras. The D500 meter consistently ended up with slightly darker images than the D850, but the image analysis software measurements are unaffected by that small difference. The shot above is the MTF50 2-dimensional resolution plot from the D500. The measurements are in units of line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm). The 20.9 megapixel D500 sensor pixels are 4.22 microns, compared to the 45.7 megapixel D850, with pixels of 4.35 microns. The resolution chart is filling the frame left-to-right, and some of the chart goes outside of the frame top-to-bottom. The shot above is the D850 using the same lens at the same distance. The plot looks a little funny, because the resolution chart no longer fills the frame. The actual resolution measurements of the little trapezoids in the target chart are unaffected by the framing difference, however. There are essentially the same number of sensor pixels on each little target trapezoid for each camera. The resolution results between the D500 and D850 look quite close. Given the different pixel dimensions between the cameras, the D500 is expected to have slightly higher MTF50 lp/mm resolution numbers than the D850, if the little target trapezoids have the same “cycles per pixel” resolution. The resolution results are remarkably similar, here, and the D500 numbers are a tiny bit higher, but generally within experimental error. D500 target center The D500 edge measurements of the little trapezoids are in the range of 0.27 c/p to 0.32 c/p. For this sensor, a measurement of 0.31 c/p is equivalent to an MTF50 of 73.3 lp/mm. The peak value of 0.32 equates to an MTF50 of 75.7 lp/mm, which matches the maximum value shown in the D500 MTF50 chart above. D850 target center The D850 edge measurements of the little target trapezoids are in the range of 0.28 c/p to 0.31 c/p. For this D850 sensor, a measurement of 0.31 c/p is equivalent to an MTF50 of 71.6 lp/mm. At least in the lens center, then, there’s essentially no difference between the cameras. Next, let’s take a look at the sensor right edge. D500 right edge D850 right edge Comparing the cameras on the right edge, the D500 fared a little bit better on most of the target edges, but the measurements aren’t hugely different. D500 top edge D850 top edge The readings between the D500 and D850 on the top of the frame are also comparable, but here I’d give the ‘edge’ to the D850 results. Without the little blue measurement values to guide me, I would have a hard time telling which shot was from which camera. Conclusion If I were to take a bunch of shots with both cameras and crop the D850 shots to match the D500 and then hand them to somebody to choose which was which, I’ll bet they couldn’t tell. The bottom line is that cropping the D850 shots gets me the same quality as the D500; there is no DX “effective focal length” advantage to be seen here. I have always been on a big guilt trip when I crop a shot; this is definitely going to make me feel better about myself in that regard. At least with the D850. #review