Technology Woes, and Photo Galleries
Jun. 15th, 2009 01:48 amAs I mention on a regular basis, I love photography as an artistic medium. Not only can I appreciate an awesome photo, but it's one of the few artistic disciplines that I'm reasonably good at (that is, enough to say "check out my art" and get responses of "wow, nice work!" that are genuine). And, I have a pretty decent camera for my photoshoots. It's not an SLR, and it's not great, but it usually gets the job done.
However, one area where my camera severely cripples my work is its ridiculous sensor noise. I've been informed that this is probably a defect with my specific model, but since we're now about two years too late to actually do anything about it, the point is moot. Basically, if I use any ISO setting above 80 (the lowest it'll go), I get so much sensor noise that my pictures look like they were transmitted over a bad analog TV signal. And, even at the lowest setting, I have to tend toward overexposure to keep from having to run noise filters on every photo I take (a very slow process, for reasons outlined later in this post). But, since I lack the large sums of money required to upgrade to an SLR, I'm stuck with what I have, so I've learned to work around it. Since low ISOs require longer exposures, my camera can't be used for anything except still-life in lighting below bright daylight levels, and non-moving shots in any environment dimmer than a rainy day requires a tripod (shaky hands don't help this). The upside to this is that I've developed a fondness for long-exposure shots, but there's still something upsetting about having a nice big camera that I can't use to, say, photograph a rabbit in the backyard in the evening.
The reason I'm posting about this now is because I just finished processing a backlog of photos I'd taken, including the hiking trip where I got caught in a severe rainstorm. On that trip, when I was heading back home, I had a chance to see a sunset from the top of the ridge I was on. Since I'm almost always home well before sundown on those trips, it was a rarity for me, and the clouds made the view all the more spectacular. I tried to take a few pictures, only to find that even at the slowest shutter speed that allowed me to take a non-blurry shot, my pictures were still underexposed by almost 6 full f-stops, and kinda looked like crap. Lacking a tripod, I decided to take a few snapshots at ISO 200, which is salvageable if I reduce the image by 50% after running noise reduction (still ends up looking a bit like a bad oil painting, though). I wasn't expecting any of them to be particularly good, since I wasn't really trying, I just wanted to get some pictures of the sunset where I could actually tell what it was.
So, while processing photos today, I came across one of the shots I took of the sunset, and I was utterly blown away at how beautiful it was. The composition, the colouring, the detail, it was just amazing. Then I saw the ISO rating on the picture said 200, and I remembered what I did, and why the last few images looked so much better with the same shutter speeds as their barely-visible companions. My heart sank as I viewed the image at full-size, instead of in 800x600 preview mode. The noise was absolutely horrible. Even at 50% of original size, it was blatantly obvious, and completely killed the shot. I spent over three hours working on it, trying every tool and technique I had access to, but nothing worked without making the shot so blurry that it looked out of focus.
This isn't the first time I've had an otherwise-awesome picture ruined by my camera's shitty sensor, but it is the first time in several years that it's happened. The last time was at AC '07, where I took an entire series of shots of a gorgeous sunset over the Pittsburgh skyline. I was so excited to see how they turned out, since I was still new at this at the time, and from what I could tell in the viewfinder, the composition was some of the best I'd ever taken. But, when I got back to the hotel room to review them, I discovered that I'd accidently bumped the ISO button to "Auto", where it usually attempts to default to 400, especially in less-than-daylight conditions. Sure enough, every one of my 40 or so pictures was taken at ISO 400, and the noise levels were so bad that I could even see the grainyness on the camera's 2" display. Having tried to repair this problem prior to that trip, I knew it was no use, and the half-hour I put into the photoshoot was completely wasted.
Speaking of technology and photography, I've also been having issues with the other half of the equation, my desktop computer. When I first built it, it was the most awesome thing ever, and I spared no expense putting it together. Now, almost six years later, all of the hardware has been completely replaced over time, but it's still the same specs as in 2004 (except the video card and a couple peripherals). And, as computers tend to do when software advances, it doesn't run as well as it once did. Well, ok, that's an understatement, it runs like absolute crap. Despite my experience and training in tech support (specifically in Windows administration), it still baffles me how a computer's performance declines with time for no reason other than age. The background/constant-running applications I use now are the same ones I used when I built this system, and its idle memory load now is comparable to what it always is when I first get it set up after a reformat. Yet, it chugs along like a spyware-infested P3 half the time (and no, it's not infected with anything).
Where this is a real problem (since I don't use it for games anymore) is when I try to work with Photoshop. Unfortunately, keeping up with Adobe has led to significant increases in resouce usage for each of their applications, and that means my poor PC has to work much harder to basically do the same thing. Doing anything in Photoshop is basically a process of click-and-wait, especially when it comes to things like noise filtering, a process that takes upwards of 5-10 minutes per image (if I count opening and saving). And, now that I've added Lightroom to the mix, it's even worse. By itself, Lightroom performs quite well; it experiences caching lag at expected times (importing, switching albums, zooming), but once it gets past that, it's remarkably efficient. But, attempting to edit an image from Lightroom in Photoshop is an exercise in processor abuse. While working on the aforementioned ruined image, it took 15 minutes to apply just one noise filter. Fifteen minutes! I thought the program locked up, but it kept showing signs of activity (I will give Photoshop credit for making its busy moments look less like crashes), so I let it go. Hence why it took three hours for work that would've taken a properly-equipped user about 1, if that.
And yes, I do have an awesome laptop of doom. However, I bought it for work, and its primary job is to allow me to work away from my desk to keep from getting burned out on constantly being in the same room of the house all the time. Additionally, a 17" super-high-res screen is really bad for something like photo processing, which requires as much visible detail as possible, and while I can handle reading text on it, I'd have to put the screen within a foot of my face to see my pictures enough to work on them on it (I know this from experience, I tried it once). In order to comfortably use it to replace my desktop PC, it would have to genuinely replace my desktop by taking my monitors, keyboard, and mouse to plug into it, as well as giving it constant power. Since I lack a docking station (and I lack the $180 necessary to acquire one), this would pretty much eliminate my ability to take it anywhere other than my desk with any sort of ease. Oh, and as I discovered when I used to use my desktop for gaming, switching back and forth from dual monitors to single monitor usage on the same PC is a tedious and annoying procedure, especially when a skinned application (Trillian, MS Money, Winamp, etc) renders windows on desktop #2, and then tries to reopen them when the second monitor is not present, leaving the windows hanging in the void with no way to access or move them (again, discovered by experience on numerous occasions at LAN parties, which is why I started bringing both monitors to them).
Anyway, I mostly just needed to vent. It's so frustrating to be so held back by the available tools in my efforts to be creative. And, I know, the tools are only as good as the artist using them, but I've long since reached the limits of working around the tools I have available. I could do so much more with a better camera, even a slightly better one. I'd be absolutely thrilled with an entry-level SLR at this point. And, the usefulness of my desktop PC is noticeably declining (it wouldn't surprise me if my video card failed in the next year, too), making it hard to do the personal work I love without a major all-day commitment to doing so.
================
On a lighter note, I've decided to give Flickr a try, after a long time of avoiding it. There are things I don't like about it, but really, my core reason for not using it has always been the lack of an easy way to upload to it. Since that's now resolved, the rest of my gripes are relatively small. I'm not sure how the 100mb/month upload limit will affect me, but so far, I haven't used as much as I thought I would, so all is well.
So, here's a link to my Flickr account, as well as other relevant sites.
Lupinia Studios on Flickr (just starting)
Lupinia Studios on DeviantArt
Lupinia Studios Website Gallery (this is the largest, due to the fact that I own it 100%)
However, one area where my camera severely cripples my work is its ridiculous sensor noise. I've been informed that this is probably a defect with my specific model, but since we're now about two years too late to actually do anything about it, the point is moot. Basically, if I use any ISO setting above 80 (the lowest it'll go), I get so much sensor noise that my pictures look like they were transmitted over a bad analog TV signal. And, even at the lowest setting, I have to tend toward overexposure to keep from having to run noise filters on every photo I take (a very slow process, for reasons outlined later in this post). But, since I lack the large sums of money required to upgrade to an SLR, I'm stuck with what I have, so I've learned to work around it. Since low ISOs require longer exposures, my camera can't be used for anything except still-life in lighting below bright daylight levels, and non-moving shots in any environment dimmer than a rainy day requires a tripod (shaky hands don't help this). The upside to this is that I've developed a fondness for long-exposure shots, but there's still something upsetting about having a nice big camera that I can't use to, say, photograph a rabbit in the backyard in the evening.
The reason I'm posting about this now is because I just finished processing a backlog of photos I'd taken, including the hiking trip where I got caught in a severe rainstorm. On that trip, when I was heading back home, I had a chance to see a sunset from the top of the ridge I was on. Since I'm almost always home well before sundown on those trips, it was a rarity for me, and the clouds made the view all the more spectacular. I tried to take a few pictures, only to find that even at the slowest shutter speed that allowed me to take a non-blurry shot, my pictures were still underexposed by almost 6 full f-stops, and kinda looked like crap. Lacking a tripod, I decided to take a few snapshots at ISO 200, which is salvageable if I reduce the image by 50% after running noise reduction (still ends up looking a bit like a bad oil painting, though). I wasn't expecting any of them to be particularly good, since I wasn't really trying, I just wanted to get some pictures of the sunset where I could actually tell what it was.
So, while processing photos today, I came across one of the shots I took of the sunset, and I was utterly blown away at how beautiful it was. The composition, the colouring, the detail, it was just amazing. Then I saw the ISO rating on the picture said 200, and I remembered what I did, and why the last few images looked so much better with the same shutter speeds as their barely-visible companions. My heart sank as I viewed the image at full-size, instead of in 800x600 preview mode. The noise was absolutely horrible. Even at 50% of original size, it was blatantly obvious, and completely killed the shot. I spent over three hours working on it, trying every tool and technique I had access to, but nothing worked without making the shot so blurry that it looked out of focus.
This isn't the first time I've had an otherwise-awesome picture ruined by my camera's shitty sensor, but it is the first time in several years that it's happened. The last time was at AC '07, where I took an entire series of shots of a gorgeous sunset over the Pittsburgh skyline. I was so excited to see how they turned out, since I was still new at this at the time, and from what I could tell in the viewfinder, the composition was some of the best I'd ever taken. But, when I got back to the hotel room to review them, I discovered that I'd accidently bumped the ISO button to "Auto", where it usually attempts to default to 400, especially in less-than-daylight conditions. Sure enough, every one of my 40 or so pictures was taken at ISO 400, and the noise levels were so bad that I could even see the grainyness on the camera's 2" display. Having tried to repair this problem prior to that trip, I knew it was no use, and the half-hour I put into the photoshoot was completely wasted.
Speaking of technology and photography, I've also been having issues with the other half of the equation, my desktop computer. When I first built it, it was the most awesome thing ever, and I spared no expense putting it together. Now, almost six years later, all of the hardware has been completely replaced over time, but it's still the same specs as in 2004 (except the video card and a couple peripherals). And, as computers tend to do when software advances, it doesn't run as well as it once did. Well, ok, that's an understatement, it runs like absolute crap. Despite my experience and training in tech support (specifically in Windows administration), it still baffles me how a computer's performance declines with time for no reason other than age. The background/constant-running applications I use now are the same ones I used when I built this system, and its idle memory load now is comparable to what it always is when I first get it set up after a reformat. Yet, it chugs along like a spyware-infested P3 half the time (and no, it's not infected with anything).
Where this is a real problem (since I don't use it for games anymore) is when I try to work with Photoshop. Unfortunately, keeping up with Adobe has led to significant increases in resouce usage for each of their applications, and that means my poor PC has to work much harder to basically do the same thing. Doing anything in Photoshop is basically a process of click-and-wait, especially when it comes to things like noise filtering, a process that takes upwards of 5-10 minutes per image (if I count opening and saving). And, now that I've added Lightroom to the mix, it's even worse. By itself, Lightroom performs quite well; it experiences caching lag at expected times (importing, switching albums, zooming), but once it gets past that, it's remarkably efficient. But, attempting to edit an image from Lightroom in Photoshop is an exercise in processor abuse. While working on the aforementioned ruined image, it took 15 minutes to apply just one noise filter. Fifteen minutes! I thought the program locked up, but it kept showing signs of activity (I will give Photoshop credit for making its busy moments look less like crashes), so I let it go. Hence why it took three hours for work that would've taken a properly-equipped user about 1, if that.
And yes, I do have an awesome laptop of doom. However, I bought it for work, and its primary job is to allow me to work away from my desk to keep from getting burned out on constantly being in the same room of the house all the time. Additionally, a 17" super-high-res screen is really bad for something like photo processing, which requires as much visible detail as possible, and while I can handle reading text on it, I'd have to put the screen within a foot of my face to see my pictures enough to work on them on it (I know this from experience, I tried it once). In order to comfortably use it to replace my desktop PC, it would have to genuinely replace my desktop by taking my monitors, keyboard, and mouse to plug into it, as well as giving it constant power. Since I lack a docking station (and I lack the $180 necessary to acquire one), this would pretty much eliminate my ability to take it anywhere other than my desk with any sort of ease. Oh, and as I discovered when I used to use my desktop for gaming, switching back and forth from dual monitors to single monitor usage on the same PC is a tedious and annoying procedure, especially when a skinned application (Trillian, MS Money, Winamp, etc) renders windows on desktop #2, and then tries to reopen them when the second monitor is not present, leaving the windows hanging in the void with no way to access or move them (again, discovered by experience on numerous occasions at LAN parties, which is why I started bringing both monitors to them).
Anyway, I mostly just needed to vent. It's so frustrating to be so held back by the available tools in my efforts to be creative. And, I know, the tools are only as good as the artist using them, but I've long since reached the limits of working around the tools I have available. I could do so much more with a better camera, even a slightly better one. I'd be absolutely thrilled with an entry-level SLR at this point. And, the usefulness of my desktop PC is noticeably declining (it wouldn't surprise me if my video card failed in the next year, too), making it hard to do the personal work I love without a major all-day commitment to doing so.
================
On a lighter note, I've decided to give Flickr a try, after a long time of avoiding it. There are things I don't like about it, but really, my core reason for not using it has always been the lack of an easy way to upload to it. Since that's now resolved, the rest of my gripes are relatively small. I'm not sure how the 100mb/month upload limit will affect me, but so far, I haven't used as much as I thought I would, so all is well.
So, here's a link to my Flickr account, as well as other relevant sites.
Lupinia Studios on Flickr (just starting)
Lupinia Studios on DeviantArt
Lupinia Studios Website Gallery (this is the largest, due to the fact that I own it 100%)