BTS: Faulkner Women's Soccer Brochure Cover Shoot 2011

Here's another BTS video I shot several weeks ago, but am just now getting to post. This is a look at the setup and shoot for the cover of this year's women's soccer brochure for Faulkner University.

This is perhaps the most minimalistic setup I've ever used for a promotional product piece. It's about as easy as you can get; a Nikon SB-800 with a CTO gel fired remotely on a stand about 45 degrees to camera left.

I used the CTO gel to balance for the setting sun that was already turning orange/gold. I obviously used the sun as the main light and simply added fill from the left with the flash. The flash is set to remote mode and I believe it was set to 50mm zoom with about 1/8th output. I pushed the shutter up to 1/400th and had the ISO at 400 and the aperture parked at f/5.6. I used continuous focus tracking and simply tried to time the shot where I wanted it.

The video doesn't show the cutout process of each player like the football video, but you still get the idea. Feel free to post any comments or questions.

Enjoy!

BTS: Faulkner Football Brochure Cover Shoot 2011

Here is a behind the scenes look at the 2011 Faulkner University football cover shoot. This year the coaches decided to feature a representative from each class. The shooting order in the video is as follows: Matt Enyart, senior defensive end; Isaac Franklin, freshman safety; Josh Hollingsworth, sophomore quarterback; and Matt Nolan, junior offensive lineman.

This video is posted to show the lighting setup used for each of the shots and then the progression in post for each of the selected images. Here is a basic look at the setup used, though the lights were moved around obviously, depending on the subject orientation.

Unfortunately, none of the power settings used were recorded. I typically meter visually and the actual metered output isn't recorded. This will at least give you an idea of where the lights were placed and the effect that each was designed to create.

This was a fun project, as usual, and the guys were great to work with. Hope you enjoy the video and for the photographers out there, I hope you find the setups somewhat helpful. I hope to have the women's soccer shoot up soon.

Camera Test: Is the iPhone 4s a good option for an every day camera?

Since so many people are obviously interested in the iPhone 4s and because Apple is touting the new optics as the "you-can't-believe-it's-on-a-phone camera," I figured why not give it a real world walk around test against an ordinary pocket camera.

Top: Canon PowerShot SX230 HS, below: the iPhone 4s

As much as people like to push comparisons to the max, I find no need whatsoever to compare the iPhone's camera to anything higher up the ladder than a decent consumer level camera. If you want to see still and video samples comparing it to DSLRs which are dedicated image-making machines with sensors a hundred times larger backed by hardcore processors behind state-of-the-art lenses that total thousands of dollars - look elsewhere.

The iPhone is a phone first and foremost, hence the name. It features a camera. Just keep this in mind. The sensor in the iPhone's camera is tiny. This comparison with a point-and-shoot camera isn't even really all that fair because the sensor in the Canon is larger and again, a part of a dedicated product designed to do nothing but make images.

Keeping this in mind as we dive into this comparison will help make things "fair." In addition, this isn't a comparison to prove that one is better or worse than the other. This isn't a test to see  if the iPhone can "beat" a "real" camera, but rather to see how well the 4s can hold up as a day-to-day photo device. Basically, I wanted to know, is it worth packing the extra camera for normal shooting or can the 4s serve this purpose.

If I'm doing serious shooting, I'm suing my DSLR. For fun, random, Facebook, Twitter pics, a point and shoot is far easier to work with and less cumbersome to carry. If I can get this same, or very similar, functionality in my phone, that's even better. Taking usable images and video on a device that is constantly connected with social networking and virtually every other communication avenue on earth eliminates the middle man - the computer.

So, how does it stack up?

The devices:

The iPhone 4s has an 8 megapixel sensor, a fixed aperture of f/2.4 and fixed focal length lens and no access to manual controls. The shutter is touch screen or volume button controlled and it has an LED flash. This makes it very much an Auto-only device. It also sports full 1080p video with stabilization and has geotagging built in it's files.

The Canon PowerShot SX230 HS is, by comparison, much more feature-laden. It sports a 14x optical zoom lens, larger size 12 megapixel sensor and provides various levels of manual control including white balance, ISO, aperture and shutter speed settings. The lens has a variable aperture of f/3.1-5.9 and a built in stabilizer. The camera is also one of the newer consumer cameras that does have built in GPS, so geotagging is built in here as well. It has a standard pop-up flash and offers mini HDMI output and shoots 1080p video as well.

So, out of the gate, the Canon is heavily favored has more to offer. Remember, this isn't a battle, rather a comparison.

All images on the Canon were shot in auto mode at a comparable focal length to make things as neutral as possible. This made ISO, aperture and white balance camera selected. All images are unaltered right out of the camera. I just cropped them to the same ratio. No flash was used so that both cameras would have full access to rendering the image with the built-in features of the sensor.

PHOTOGRAPHS         

                                                                      

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/250th, f/4, ISO 250

iPhone 4s chose: 1/320th, f/2.4, ISO 64

In the above leaf images there are some noticeable differences. The Canon image is brighter and offers slightly more detail, but the iPhone's white balance is more accurate and the exposure is closer to reality. As you'll see, the iPhone offers more color saturation, which is nice for the most part, but can get it into some trouble.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/800th, f/4, ISO 100

iPhone 4s chose: 1/1500th, f/2.4, ISO 64

It's hard to tell in the smaller images, but the Canon does have a very slight edge in sharpness, but it's pretty close. The blue of the sky is more accurate on the Canon, something I'll mention more about on the iPhone as we go. The iPhone was more accurate again on white balance - with the exception of the blue - and exhibited less purple fringing than the Canon. This was most noticeable int he tree to the left of the frame. These two images are among the closest in the pool.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/2000th, f/4, ISO 100

iPhone 4s chose: 1/3200th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Again, the white balance on the iPhone is much more accurate overall. The cream stucco of the building and orange cast of the bricks are spot on in this light. The saturation of the 4s is also very good, but it is a tad strong in the blue of the sky. This saturation does bring some color pixelation/artifacts into play in a lot of sky images, where as the Canon, and most cameras, render it as a smoother tone. Even Apple's sample images on their site reveil this trate to a small degree.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS close crop of the above image

iPhone 4s close crop of the above image

Here is a close crop of the gymnasium picture from above. I chose an outdoor photo so that ISOs were at their lowest and shutter speeds at their highest to try to maximize image quality. As you can see, the Canon as slightly more resolving power, but it's close. No one would ever go this nuts on crop, but this gives some indication of the quality of image that the iPhone is capable of producing compared to a standard camera.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 11250th, f/4, ISO 320

iPhone 4s chose: 1/1151th, f/2.4, ISO 64

No, that's not a typo. The 4s' metadata indicated a bizar 1/1151th of a second shutter speed. That oddity aside these images speak volumes about how each camera rendered this image. In contrast to the building exterior above, these two images are perhaps the most unique interpretations of the same subject. The iPhone, again, was more accurate with white balance and that combined with the color saturation makes for a very good image here in my opinion. I actually had to double check and make sure I didn't label the images backward. This is a great example of how little megapixels can matter. Here, the 8MP at a better white balance and saturation produced a more pleasing image to me than the 12MP sensor.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/1600th, f/4, ISO 125

iPhone 4s chose: 1/3000th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Just when you thought the iPhone was going to win was seemingly without many flaws, you get this. This is an example of where a flat lens front and wide aperture can cause problems. Either way you dice it, the 4s is highly prone to lens flare in bright sunlight. This was taken around 1 p.m., so the sun was definitely high, but the Canon had little trouble. Also, without the ability to compose with optical zoom help, this could be an issue in many shooting scenarios. The lens flared in the upper right near the light source and in the lower left at the opposite corner. Without question the Canon did a much better job here, though the white balance on the 4s is still slightly more accurate.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800

iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250

In this lower light indoor situation, I find the Canon's white balance was more accurate, but I prefer the iPhone's warmer tones. The field is deeper on the 4s, despite the shallower aperture used - I suppose because of sensor size in relation to the aperture. Either way, both did a good job, especially considering the slower shutter speeds. Note that the ISO of 250 here was the highest selected by the iPhone in any test image I had. The same 250 was selected in the paddle image below. I'm not sure what the max is, but this might be close.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 800

iPhone 4s chose: 1/20th, f/2.4, ISO 250 

Once again, the iPhone has more accurate and pleasing white balance. The color is more saturated and arguably more pleasing, at least to me. The Canon's higher ISO selection results in a slightly noisier image, but it does render more detail in the shadow areas - note the area between the paddle and the balls.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/30th, f/3.1, ISO 160

iPhone 4s chose: 1/25th, f/2.4, ISO 64

Here is an indoor, low light, backlit scenario. Both cameras actually did a really good job considering the circumstances. The iPhone's warm white balance tendencies got sort of strong in the background near the window an did throw a gold cast on the jar. So, the warmth isn't always a plus. The Canon's cooler tendency renders a more accurate image here. The Canon shot is also slightly sharper.

Canon PowerShot SX230 HS chose: 1/160th, f/4, ISO 200

iPhone 4s chose: 1/552th, f2./4, ISO 64

Again, this is another example of an uncommon shutter speed. The iPhone popped at 1/552th, which is an odd number (well, it's even, but you get my point). This was an interesting shot. I focused on the upper left window pane so that it would throw most of the tones in the dark. The iPhone really surprised me here. The metering did a very good job of rendering for the selected area. There is more detail in the stained glass and the light levels there are very good. As a result the other elements went darker, but that's to be expected. The Canon did a good job as well, but there is less detail in the window pane. Because the camera didn't meter it quite the same, the foreground is rendered much brighter.

HD VIDEO CLIPS

10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p

10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p

The iPhone got a little bit of light creeping in the left side, so it washed the tones out a bit, but overall, I like the way the 4s rendered the scene better. The result is much sharper actually and the color is very accurate. Note that the framing is slightly closer on the iPhone due to the default crop on the camera. Both were shot from a tripod with AF engaged before recording began. Both clips were imported into iMovie and trimmed to 10 seconds. No other alterations were made.

10 second clip from Canon SX230 HS - view on YouTube for full 1080p

10 second clip from iPhone 4s - view on YouTube for full 1080p

Here is a second clip from both cameras. Again, shot from a tripod with similar framing, imported into iMovie and cut to 10 seconds with no other alterations made. Note, I did have to use some optical zoom on the Canon to try and match the framing of the iPhone. Here, the Canon has the edge with resolution and there are less artifacts in the blue of the sky than on the iphone. Both cameras were focused on the flag. The iPhone wasn't quite as sharp at the flag, but rendered more detail in the trees. Both clips here are very similar.

CONCLUSIONS:

In short, the iPhone 4s is a more than worthy go everywhere option and proves that it can hold its own under all but the most extreme conditions. Lens flare is a problem in strong sunlight and the lack of optical zoom can limit composition and, of course, your ability close to your subject if walking forward is prohibited - think sporting events, museums, etc.

The camera in the 4s also seems limited by a somewhat moderate ISO max (my samples capped at 250) and there are no options for manual control. Autofocusing is rather quick and accurate, especially for a phone, and face detection - though not directly tested here - is a nice feature.

White balance is remarkably accurate and significantly better than on the iPhone 4 and even trumps the SX230 HS under most conditions. Colors have a pleasing warm tone and are nicely saturated, though blue skys can come out mildly dark and with some artifacts. Sharpness and and detail are both very good and on par with most point-and-shoot cameras. Noise is even well controlled and aided by the ISO ceiling.

Video is exceptionally good for a phone and produces sharp, color accurate and well exposed clips. Audio is on par with consumer cameras as well.

In a nutshell, the 4s is a noticeable upgrade from the 4 in terms of the camera feature. In fact, the only area where users might notice a negative trait is in the battery life. Though not tested directly, the battery does seem to drain a little faster, but the better results make up for this easily in my view.

Will it replace your current point-and-shoot? Well, that depends. If you take tons of images and battery life for talking, texting, emailing and Facebooking (ya, apparently it's a verb) might become a casualty, then consider carrying an extra imaging device. Also, if you need optical zoom, manual controls, a plethora of gimmicky settings (like night mode, landscape or underwater), HDMI ports, and the like, then you'll also want to look to make your images elsewhere. 

If, however, you are wanting a simple, convenient, capable imaging device that you're guaranteed to always have with you, then the iPhone is a talented option. It's capable of producing very good images under most normal conditions and it's ability to post or share images and clips directly from the same device is significantly handy for the social network addicted crowd.

When you consider that the iPhone 4s runs $200-400 (with 2-year contract) and that it is first and foremost a phone and mini computer that features a camera, it's actually an affordable option. The Canon SX230 HS retails for around $330 and is a camera only. In my opinion, the manual controls and versatility of the Canon are strong options that more knowledgable shooters will enjoy, but the speed, convenience, simplicity and all around excellent quality of the 4s camera might appeal to more audiences for every day use. Keep in mind that the Canon doesn't have a monthly fee either.

I've tested both cameras under what I consider real world conditions in how the majority of shooters are going to use these devices. The results speak for themselves. The iPhone can certainly hold it's own as an every day companion and the Canon just might make it's way to eBay just to eliminate one extra gadget.

I hope this review of the iPhone 4s camera was helpful.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R

Canon's 1DX an all-in-one pro solution?

Canon announced the new EOS 1D X camera on Tuesday to seemingly mixed reviews. For some, the new system is a departure from the expected take in the 1D line, while for others its a well-thought-out successor in a long line of legendary professional imaging tools.

For those who claim the former, they seem to feel that the rather scant megapixel count doesn't seem all that more advanced than the 1D Mark IV's 16MP sensor. Besides, the IV's sensor carried a peculiar 1.3x crop so gaining the realestate of the X's full frame sensor - Canon's third body to offer this size - would allow for the additional pixels without much perceived effort. But, there's more under the hood here than pixels, and it's those added features that make this a rather significant upgrade.

For starters you've got 12 fps performance out of the box and up to 14 fps in JPEG with proper settings engaged. This is a 25-33% increase in image capture performance. This is made possible by the dual - yes TWO - Digic 5+ image processors built into the body. The double-duty processing power also helps with the ISO performance. The new X touts a max normal ISO of 51,200, up from 12,800 on the IV.

Other notable improvements are the 400,00 actuation rated shutter mechanism, full 1080p video with multiple frame rates including 24 fps and dual CF card support.

There are a host of other changes, but this covers the most significant. It will be available in March for around $7000, which is somewhat competitively priced, though I feel $6000 would be more appropriate.
 So, why the mixed reviews?

Well, for one, there are simply too many pixel counters out there. 18MP is plenty for what this camera is designed to shoot - basically everything that's not going to be on the cover of a major magazine; and even then, it's probably enough. It's target audience is going to be the the photojournalists, sports shooters and wedding photographers that are Canon loyal. The body is designed to take a beating and deliver nearly half a million shots before shutter failure. Basically, it's a do-it-all workhorse for professional photographers.

Look, 18MP is plenty of resolution, especially when high ISO performance comes into play. If you need studio quality, medium format-rivaling resolution, pick up a 5D Mark II for less than $3000 and be quiet. Or, better yet, wait for the MIII. Those in this camp should consider the minuscule difference in resolution anyway - keep reading. You're not going to get 30MP with ultra high ISO performance at 10+ fps...at least not yet.

The only direct competition with this camera is the aging Nikon D3 series which boasts 12MP and 10-11 fps. The D3's ISO performance as become legendary and at a price tage of less than $6000 it will remain a force to compete with. Rumors are churning about a D4 that should hit the market around the same time with a possible announcement around the first of the year, perhaps at PMA. This could make for an interesting race if Nikon plays its cards right.

Those that like this announcement get what it is: a slightly overpriced professional go-to body. It attempts, I think, to eliminate the multi-body-depending-on-assignment predicament that some shooters face. For some Canon shooters the question might be: "do I grab my $2400-6000 high resolution full frame camera or my lower resolution high speed work tank?" This attempts to blend the two I think. Remember, the 5D MII and 1Ds MIII are only 21MP. The X then is 2MP up from the 1D MIV and only 3MP down from the 5D and 1Ds and you're gaining full frame coverage in a body that's even faster than the MIV. The problem with this blend is the price. If you have the 1Ds (forget the 5D for a moment) at $7000 and the MIV at $5000 and you're really trying to sort of appeal to BOTH audiences, wouldn't $6000 be a more accurate figure? Make it $5500 and you've got something incredible here.

Would I buy it? If I were back to shooting Canon and I wanted a do-it-all body, then absolutely - but I might wait a bit for the price to drop. I shoot sports and weddings, so it's ideal. It's enough resolution for bridal portraits and promotional materials and enough speed, durability and ISO performance to handle the rest. Several Canon shooters won't be tempted by this, however. Many, who shoot predominantly in one field may elect to remain with their current lineup. Wedding and portrait shooters rave about the 5D series and feel it's more than capable in low light. Action shooters my feel that an extra 2MP and 2fps won't justifiably alter their workflow enough to fork over seven grand.

If nothing else, you'll see the cost of the 1D MIV and 1Ds plummet and hit the used market. So, if you've been wanting one of these, hold on until spring and you can pick up a great camera for a lot less money.

For me, a Nikon shooter, the most interesting thing about this announcement is what it will do to the Nikon  line. If there is a D4 coming in the next 6 months, how will it compare? The rumored D800 could be announced next week, but if the rumors are true, it'll be a dream machine for studio and landscape photographers, but the focus on resolution and lack of emphasis on low light and speed performance will jar a lot of loyalists. Most owners are in the D700 camp because it was a cost effective option that offered great low light performance, admirable shooting speeds and acceptable resolution in a cost-effective package. Again, it's a prosumer version of what Canon is trying to push on the professional crowd with the X. One thing's for sure, only time will tell how well the new X will be received and what competitors are cooking up to compete with it.

Be safe and happy shooting.

-R

Farewell to a visionary and icon - Steve Jobs

Today the world lost a truly magical mind. Steve Jobs, co-founder and, until six weeks ago, CEO of Apple, Inc., passed away  at the age of 56.

Jobs was behind some of the greatest technological innovations of our time. Believe it or not MP3 players weren't always collectively referred to as iPods and cell phones used to have keypads.

The question used to be, "How do we compete with Microsoft?" Now, the world is trying to keep up with Apple.

He stepped down as CEO a little over a month ago and the company held it's first major product announcement of the post-Jobs era yesterday with the unveiling of the iPhone 4s.

People have questioned how Apple would function with Jobs simply on the sideline. Now the world will watch the company progress without its founder, pioneer and, for lack of a better word, inspiration.

Apple's future will undoubtedly be strong. Jobs has left his mark on the company and industry as a whole. He taught us that it's okay to try new things and to do what others never dreamed possible. To borrow from a former company slogan, he taught all of us to "Think Different."

He gave us products we needed, products we wanted and products he promised we'd want. He revolutionized the music industry, made computers intuitive and fun, and forever changed how we connect with the world around us; and that world is a slightly dimmer place without him. 

My prayers are with the Jobs and Apple families. He will be missed.

Great Gadgets for Photographers: Kertz's Studio Lighting Setup PSD

I've decided to start blogging more, when I get the time, and one of the things I want to try and start doing regularly is posting information and links about great gadgets for the working photographer. These gadgets can range from actual equipment to setups to post production techniques to philosophy. Anything that I have found to be beneficial in my workflow, I'll try to highlight in these posts.

Though often the gadget in question might require a financial investment, I'm going to start things off with a FREE tool that is highly customizable and exceptionally handy in logging your technique with lighting setup and ultimately sharing that idea with others.

Today I'm talking about Kevin Kertz's handy Photoshop file for Studio Lighting Setups. You can download it by clicking here. The linked document is a zipped PSD file that's rather small in size, but robust in features.

The idea is simple, provide photographers with the ability to create a virtual representation of the studio or location lighting setup they've implemented. Here's an example:

Keep in mind that the tools are designed to illustrate an overview of the setup from above. Here is a mockup of how I approach my head shots for the athletic media guides. Once arranged the final product can be saved as a JPEG file and stored for future reference, emailed to a friend or coworker, or posted online.

What makes this PSD file so handy is the variety of tools that Kevin has preloaded. There are two backgrounds to choose from, three cameras (35mm, medium format and large format) subjects both with and without shadows (human and a ball for inanimate subjects) and a buffet of lighting systems and modifiers. You can choose from plain strobes or gridded or gelled or a strobe shooting through a diffusion screen. Select both gridded and non-gridded softboxes and strip boxes, beauty dishes, hair lights, gobos, reflectors, umbrellas and ring flashes. Add or remove a grid and even turn on arrows and note windows for sharing ideas, settings, etc.

Think this is only for studio pros? Think again. Although I didn't find an off camera flash graphic, using a standard strobe and turning the background paper off is a great way to illustrate outdoor shoots as well. Here's a very basic example:

Here is the lighting setup I used for the women's soccer cover shoot that I did on the football field. I used the subject with shadow to indicate the light direction and then picked the strobe with a gel for reference. I was using a Nikon SB-800 on a stand but did have a CTO gel to balance with the setting sun. For some shots I did use a second SB speedlight on a stand at a lower height, but it was only on one of the four sessions so I just left it off.

The note windows and arrows are handy for creating an all-in-one graphic for the setup. Since I typically add discussions with my illustrations and since many setups can be come bogged down with icons, etc., I tend not to use these tools as often. However, for basic reference, you can easily add these elements. Here's the same setup but with notes added followed by an image taken under the illustrated setup:

Amanda Gemmell - Faulkner University Women's Soccer

Here is the same setup, but I added the other "subject" I mentioned previously - the ball with shadow - since it was a soccer shoot. This example shows the settings and approximate distances, etc., that I basically used for the shoot. This is a way to make quick points that are self-contained in the images and require little additional explanation. As you can see the ideas and possibilities are endless.

Overall its an easy and fun tool to use. There are several options to choose from and if something isn't exactly what you wanted, you can just add a note box and explain it. If you are accustomed to using layers in Photoshop, this is an outstanding reference tool and the elements are already made for you.

My only recommendation is that you leave the white background layer on. This layer reveals Kevin's information, etc. and will give him appropriate credit for the design of the layout tools as well as direct others interested in using his tool to his website.

If you shoot portraits or still life with any type of off camera flash this is a superb archiving and learning tool. I find that I throw some ideas together before shoots with lighting setups I want to try. I can use it as a visual strategy and it helps take some guess work out of the equation and it's much easier to read than my sloppy sketches.

Give the PSD a try. It's free, just don't use it for commercial purposes. It should be a reference and learning tool. Thanks Kevin for the hard work and wonderful design.

Until next time, be safe and happy shooting.

- R