dBC-Channel.com

Like many people who?ve made the switch from film cameras to digital, I’ve discovered that the lens tools I once used so effectively on my cameras to soften, diffuse and vignette my images for quality ?finished? professional results won’t do for digital what they did for film.

I’m sure it’s arguable by some that their diffusers still work fine, and I too have discovered that some tools still work okay under some circumstances; my Ziess Softar #1 seemed to offer decent results when photographing a single subject in the studio but I knew that the black netting diffuser that I used with my Lindahl Bell-o-shade no longer worked on the Nikon D70 zoom lens at the wider angles without showing lines in the image. Not a risk I was willing to take professionally so I just stopped using the Lindahl shade and drop-down filters for a while.

Then it happened. A savvy carriage trade-minded customer brought in a wall portrait that she had purchased several years ago by a photographer obviously using medium format lens tools like I was used to using in the past with my film camera. She wanted her new wall portraits to have that same ?softened? look. So I arrived at the portrait session armed with my digital camera equipped with the very mild Softar Filter that works at any aperture on any lens thinking that this was good insurance at getting the kind of ?softness? she could live with.

Understand that I knew any diffusion used on an entire family group portrait would be more exaggerated by their relative head sizes but I had explained that to her and she assured me she liked her portrait images ?very soft?.

While the images looked good on the small camera monitor, once I opened them up in Photoshop and printed them out as proofs I knew they were too soft. I called a colleague who is a digital expert and explained to him what I had done. He told me that you simply cannot use on-lens filters anymore for professional softening and diffusion without creating mush on 35mm type digital camera images. This leaves the special effects job now to the computer and not the camera. ?But I?ve tried using Photoshop CS for their diffusion tools and what I get doesn?t look like real photography,? I complained, ?The results are terrible.? He agreed that Photoshop?s filters weren?t the right tools either to mimic the professional photography filters of the past but told me that there is a company that has a software program that is a plug-in for my Photoshop and has filter tools to recreate believable results for various levels of softening and diffusion.

The software is called ?PhotoKit? and is available from Pixel Genius for only $49.95. I bought the Mac version and it is wonderful. I have played around with it now and have found that you can get varying degrees of whatever you want that looks similar to what you used to be able to do with your old lens filters and drop-down tools. Even more possibilities are now available to you. One of my favorites is the ability to lasso areas and ?clear? the results of diffusion keeping eyes and teeth sparkly and sharp.

If there is a downside to doing your diffusion this way it?s that the customer can?t really see the results on the proof, so they have to ?trust? your artistic license. But it was like this with retouching too so there will be a short new education curve for your clientele to learn, or to save yourself from disaster you might offer a second proof appointment to show the customer a proof of their selected images with the added softening or diffusion. It?s going to take more time and you?ll end up with having to rework some things more than you want so I?d only recommend this for customers like mine who?s initial concern was the diffusion issue.

In summary, softening and diffusion can be done effectively and professionally but it?s not as easy as it used to be when you?d just pick the filter you wanted and pop it over the lens. Your old on-camera lens filters will often turn your digital images to ?mush? or images of weak contrast that may or may not be salvageable.

Tom Ray is a Certified Professional Photographer through the Professional Photographers of America. If you are interested in his full story please go to: http://www.rayphotography.com/HomeBiz2info.html - Professional Photography: Success Without School!

If you use a digital camera (I use a Canon EOS Digital Rebel/300D myself) and that camera is an SLR, then it most likely can record images in RAW format. In general, you should record your images at the highest resolution possible. If you only have a small memory card and are worried that you can only record a few RAW images on it, then it’s time to buy a bigger card! [They don't cost much these days]. You can always shrink an image after it’s taken but you can’t enlarge a small one without introducing artifacts. At the very least, you should have your camera record images in Hires JPG format but RAW format is even better.

Any kind of JPG written to your camera’s memory card will be processed in some way. JPGs, by their very nature, lose information in an image. If you repeatedly save a JPG, you’ll lose more and more detail in it and see more artifacts appearing. Also, if you’ve set your camera up to do some image manipulation (e.g. contast/brightness adjustments), these will also be applied before your camera writes the image out to the memory card. In such cases, you could end up with images that have burned out highlights or shadows that are so deep that they contain no detail. Such areas of an image may be irreparable even with the likes of Adobe PhotoShop.

RAW images, on the other hand, are simply that - raw. What the camera sees is dumped (without any image manipulation whatsoever) onto the memory card. RAW images also tend to contain more information and detail and have larger file sizes than similar resolution JPGs. The problem with RAW files is that they’ve not been the easiest to work with; for example, Windows Explorer cannot show RAW files as thumbnail images so, unless you’ve renamed your image files with meaningful names, you won’t know what the images are when you come back to them a couple of months later.

This is where software such as RAWShooter Essentials [http://www.pixmantec. com/index2.html] (RSE) comes in. This software lets digital photographers of all abilities import, view, edit and convert large batches of RAW files (to TIF files). RSE is currently free - it won’t be for too long - so grab a copy now. Having used it (i have no association with the company who produce it), I can say it makes working with RAW files a doddle; much easier than using the software that came with my Canon EOS Digital Rebel.

With your converted RAW files, you have full control over what manipulations will be carried out to produce the final image, using packages such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Elements or Paint Shop Pro. The better RAW conversion packages also include basic contrast, brightness and color management controls, so you may not even need a separate image manipulation package. Some even provide tools for compensating for over- or under-exposed images.

By shooting RAW images, you give yourself complete control over color and exposure and it’s you, rather than the camera, that decides what adjustments are applied to reproduce the tones and contrast of the original scene. It also lets you maximize the quality of your final image for whatever output you want, whether that’s on a monitor, as an inkjet print or sent to one of the digital photo labs for printing.

Various RAW conversion software is available (I’ve already mentioned RAWShooter Essentials) to allow you to process digital images to the highest quality possible. “Capture One” and “Breezebrowser” are both highly regarded, although you have to pay for these. A demo version of Capture One is available so you can try before you buy.

Probably like yourself, I shot all my photos in hires JPG mode until I got switched on to recording my images in RAW mode. Yes, I had to buy a larger capacity memory card, but even 1Gb cards are pretty cheap these days, and with image files being about 6Mb a piece, that still lets me record well over 200 images on the card - that’s equivalent to over 6 rolls of 35mm film (at 36 frames per roll)!

So, if you’re not already recording in RAW mode, make the switch today and take full creative control of your photographs.

Just after I’d finished this article, I was looking around the websites of some professional photographers who use digital cameras to see if what they had to say on the topic of RAW Vs JPG. What I learned surprised me. Quite a number of them shoot in JPG mode rather than RAW. The reason is time. Professionals expect to get “the image” in camera using compositional techniques, filters and a knowledge of their subject and they simply don’t have the time to manipulate images to achieve a desired result. Any such time would cost them money by taking time away from being out there taking photos and earning a living.

The amateur photographer is in a more luxurious position. Our livelihoods don’t depend on our results and, if a photo isn’t quite up to spec. we have the time to tweak it and bring out its hidden attractions, rather than junking it and moving on the the next photo. The lesson to be learned is that we should always try to get the best picture possible on the day with the camera rather than becoming lazy and assuming sloppy pictures can always be corrected, cropped and manipulated when we get home. Post-processing of photos should be about making good pictures even better rather than so-so or bad pictures just acceptable.