Pentax K7

Pentax has a new digital SLR, known as the K7. The resolution is the same as the already excellent K20D, and it seems to have retained all of the cool features offered with the K20D (such as the weather-resistant design and the built-in interval timer), but they've added some very desirable new features, such as a movie mode and an optional vertical grip (very handy for portraits).

The interval timer would be very handy for self-portraits, upon which one could base paintings or drawings or digital art if one wished to do so; and it could do things a standard self timer couldn't do. (For example, I'd like to take a series of photos of myself while I'm playing an entire piece on the piano. A standard self timer would only take one shot, and then I'd have to get up from the piano bench and set up the camera to take another photo. That would pretty much negate the possibility of getting an authentic photo of a real performance.) The number of intervals (between 1 and 99 shots) and the length of time between shots (up to 24 hours, 0 minutes and 0 seconds) is more limited than the options offered by some computer software programs (such as software which comes with just about all Canon DSLR cameras) or by third party solutions such as the PClix LT or the much bulkier Mumford Time Machine), but having such features built into the camera would make it possible to take intervalometer photos in situations where one might be hindered from doing so with other solutions. (For instance, since the K7 is weather resistant, one could take intervalometer photos out in the rain. That would be much harder with other options.)

There's also a very desirable in-camera feature which merges three photos together in order to produce HDR JPEG files. For home editing, it would probably be better to create RAW files and then use a more sophisticated program to create one's HDR files, but the ability to make HDR JPEG files on the road without access to a computer would be very handy for making quick prints of exceptionally high quality at local stores equipped with photo kiosks, right after taking the photos. And since the K7 has a mode which shoots RAW and JPEG files togeter, there's no reason why one can't make such quickie HDR photos and also create better HDR versions later at home, even if the in-camera JPEG files can only be created from other JPEG files. But I'm guessing that one can create such files from RAW files as well, for higher quality.

For more information about the K7, visit this link.

AluminArte Digital Prints

I recently learned about a cool option for digital photo prints. It's known as AluminArte, and the prints are made by ImageWizards.net.

Seemingly, AluminArte isn't the best option for smaller prints, because their convenient online pricing calculator seems to offer 12" as the minimum dimension for one side, and 20" is the minimum dimension for the other side when one selects any dimension smaller than 20" for one of the two sides. So in other words, you could have a 12"x20" print, a 14"x20" print, a 16"x20" print, etc., with either portrait or landscape orientation, but you couldn't have a 12"x12" print or 12"x18" print. For a square print, the minimum size would seem to be 20"x20" judging by what I've seen there.

However, one of the photos shown online seems to suggest that they can in fact make prints considerably smaller than 12"x20". The photo shows an arrangement of 24 small prints (4 columns, 6 rows), next to a staircase. So maybe the online calculator just doesn't reflect all of the options they offer.

In any event, for larger prints, they offer extreme flexibility, since the sizes can be adjusted in 1" increments, up to a huge 48"x96" (4 feet x 8 feet).

What I like about these prints, apart from their "HDTV" image quality and the fact that they're offered with 3 different finishes (one of which is more expensive than the other two), is that it would appear that they're extremely durable, and they need no mounting, matting or framing. From the standpoint of a person selling (or wanting to sell) larger prints, that would make things much easier (as opposed to trying to arrange a complicated setup in which I'd first need to contact the lab or giclee printing company to make the prints, and then I'd need to arrange to have the prints sent to the framing company in order to have the prints framed before sending them to my customers). Provided that ImageWizards.net has the ability to drop ship prints directly to one's customers (preferably with flat shipping charges which are the same regardless of the zip code, so that I can price my products in advance without knowing who will order them or where those people will be located, and without any fancy e-commerce programming), that could make things a lot easier when selling larger prints online to customers who don't want to have to hassle with framing the prints themselves or with the help of local frame shops.

It would appear that AluminArte prints are being marketed exclusively to professionals. But any photographer attempting to sell his or her photos online would appear to qualify as a professional in their book. So it's definitely one of several options I intend to fully explore.

I'm also wondering how easy it would be to subsequently add clear acrylic gesso or primer to an AluminArte print, in order to use the print as the foundation for a mixed media work of art which would also incorporate painting mediums (e.g., pastel, acrylic, etc.). If so, I'm guessing that the sturdy aluminum would make for a great support for such works of art. The main issue would be whether or not the gesso or primer would adhere properly to the print. I'm guessing that the White Aluminum Satin or Brushed Aluminum Satin finishes would be better in that respect, inasmuch as the White Aluminum High Gloss might conceivably be too slick to hold the gesso or primer.

HDR, LucisArt and Dynamic Range for Photos and Art

One complaint which I sometimes hear from painters who base their paintings on photos is that photos typically have a limited dynamic range in comparison with the human eye. In other words, if you expose for the majority of the image, you typically lose out in terms of details, both in the shadow areas and the highlight areas.

Some painters have compensated by creating several different prints, some of which were overexposed and some of which were underexposed, and then made conscious choices based on the information found in multiple photos. Others have just compensated by making informed decisions based on personal experience, or on memories (sometimes enhanced with quick sketches and/or notes) of the way things really looked in the field, or on the way that things look in front of their eyes when actually creating paintings from life in the studio.

One reason for the success of certain film photographers such as Ansel Adams is that they've traditionally been experts at the use of dodging and burning in the darkroom in order to compensate for such defects. But most people didn't have their own darkrooms back in the days when such techniques offered the only way to effectively address the issue of dynamic range, and the few labs which offered such custom services charged very high prices.

Now, thanks to digital techniques, it's a whole new ballgame. The use of Photoshop's Levels, Curves, Layer Masks and other tools began to improve things quite some time ago. Then they introduced the Shadow/Highlight control, and that improved things even more. Finally, they introduced features (also offered in different variations by various third-party companies) pertaining to a new HDR (High Dynamic Range) technique which merged multiple bracketed exposures in order to create composite images which combined the best of all of the exposures. (When using studio lighting setups, one can do this with the use of layer masks --- the old fashioned way --- or with the HDR feature, which is more automated but with less hands-on control.)

Here's a link to one web page containing an article which will give you a better idea of the effects of HDR. I've seen better examples of the amazing results one can achieve with the HDR technique (mostly because I think he overdid the effect slightly, to the point that some of the image's drama was lost), but this page will at least help readers of this post from a conceptual point of view. If it had been me, I would have merged the HDR version with a little bit of the original "0 exposure" image, using an additional layer with significantly reduced opacity.

If you have an older version of Photoshop which doesn't yet have the HDR feature, there's a way to simulate that feature (without the need for multiple exposures, making it a great choice for subjects which are likely to move in-between exposures) using the High Pass Filter. Also, it has the effect of sharpening the image. Here's a link to an article which shows how to do this, as well as side-by-side before & after photos.

(NOTE: Some HDR software has features designed to eliminate the problems caused by trying to merge images in which certain elements move substantially. Sometimes those features work well, sometimes they don't, depending on the images.)

Another very cool option is to use LucisArt 3. When used intelligently, it can create amazing results (including some very cool special artistic effects). Like the High Pass Filter option, it can be used with single photos, with no need for bracketing. And like the other techniques, it can be overdone, so it's sometimes a good idea to blend it with portions of the original image. Here's a link to some good examples (in the form of online slide shows) of what it can do.

Lucis Pro 6.0 uses the same technology as LucisArt, but its primary application seems to be for technical (e.g., scientific) purposes, not for art. LucisArt costs less, and actually seems to be better for what I'd want to use it for.

If you view the online slide shows, you can see that some of the best artists are able to use LucisArt to produce images which look more like photorealistic paintings. In other cases, the images just look like extremely good photos. The choice is up to you.

LucisArt would seem to be a particularly good partner for another excellent program, EngraveSoft from Pixation.com, due to the maximization of details available from LucisArt. In other words, process the photo with LucisArt first, and then create excellent line art (which could be used as a basis for a variety of fine art images such as Solarplate photopolymer intaglio prints) using EngraveSoft. Consider, for example, the EngraveSoft image created from a photo of a man named Dan. Pretty nice, right? But notice that the original photo has some blown out highlights (i.e., Dan's forehead, on the left side of his face), which would almost certainly have been improved with LucisArt. Of course, when it comes to line art, a certain amount of contrast is what gives the image its drama, so one doesn't want to overdo it. But I think that the digital engraving of Dan would have been enhanced if the photo had first been processed with LucisArt.

NOTE: While intaglio printing with a process such as the SolarPlate process offers one way to create fine art prints from such digitally generated line art, another interesting option is to use what's known as polyester plate lithography. The most commonly used method is to use Pronto Plates, or a similar product offered by ZAcryl.com. Both products are designed to be run directly through toner-based laser printers, and actually used as printing plates for fine art lithography! (No need for separate exposures through digital negatives onto photosensitive materials.) The main drawback seems to be that one is somewhat limited in size. (For some strange reason, the "plates" sold for polyester plate lithography seem to exceed the maximum printable size for most toner-based copiers and laser printers, which is usually 11x17-inches or 12x18-inches at most. But maybe there are commercial toner-based imagesetters which can go larger. I'll have to ask about that.)

Anyway, I've read that Sharpie ink, applied to such polyester plates, holds the lithographic printing ink just like toner holds it (which, in turn, works roughly the same way that lithographic crayon, lithographic pencil and lithographic tusche work). I'm thinking that solvent-based markers from other manufacturers ought to also work, and that it might even be possible to make really large plates, for polyester plate lithography, by using a wide format solvent-based printer such as the Epson GS6000. That would be very cool! (LexJet.com offers a polyester film specifically designed to be printed on with dye-based and pigment-based printers such as the Epson 9900. If it also works with the GS6000, and if the inks from the GS6000 hold litho ink the same as toner, that could be a really good way to make enormous polyester "plates" for polyester plate lithography. Something worth checking out, at any rate.)

Of course, one might ask why bother, when the digital printer itself produces such great prints directly. Well, the answer, dear friends, is that there's still a ridiculous bias against digital prints in certain fine art circles (such as art contests, certain art fairs and galleries, etc.), so using digital techniques as a means of preparing to make prints with older processes such as intaglio printing, relief printing, planographic printing (lithography) or screen printing (serigraphy) offers a potential end run around such anti-digital biases. Just tell such people (truthfully) that it's an etching, an engraving, a lithographic print, a serigraphic print, etc. No need to volunteer the fact that your utilization of digital techniques enabled you to produce the print in a fraction of the time it would have taken by using older techniques involving laborious hand work. Of course, if you still want to use such techniques (possibly in conjunction with digital techniques), you're free to do that, too.


---------

Incidentally, on a separate but somewhat related note: For those who think that infinitely scalable digital vector art can never equal the appearance of photos, here's a link to a page which will blow your mind.

How did Mr. Miyamoto achieve such realism in Adobe Illustrator? Well, I'm guessing that he used the new Live Trace feature (at least in part), which does a much better job of autotracing photos than Adobe Streamline and other similar solutions did in the past. It would also help, undoubtedly, to have the best possible photo on which to base such vector art, which is where the aforementioned HDR/High Pass Filter/LucisArt/Lucis Pro techniques come in. But it's also clear that Mr. Miyamoto's expertise in the use of the Gradient Mesh filter played a big role as well. (Even the best Live Trace images can occasionally err when it comes to translating photos to vector perfectly. Sometimes they look a bit posterized. Based on what I've seen, I think that the Live Trace feature in CS4 is better than in earlier versions, though.) These images remind me of some of the best realistic airbrush art being created by Japanese illustrators (and a few Americans and others) back in the 80's. To say that there's a huge chasm between such images and the simplistic clip art images more familiar to most of us is an understatement.

Gigapixel Panoramas with Gigapan

Here's a link to a company which offers a very cool product (or rather, multiple products of the same type) designed to automate the process of producing multiple digital photos which can then be stitched together with special software in order to produce photo files which can be enlarged to enormous sizes. The Gigapan Epic (for point & shoot cameras) and Gigapan Epic 100 (for DSLR cameras) are robotic camera mounts which automatically move the camera from position to position and then take photos --- even thousands of photos! --- which are subsequently stitched together into a single high-resolution image.

Potentially, such a system could also be very useful for turning reasonably affordable DLSR cameras into repro cameras for producing giclee and photo reproductions from large paintings or even outdoor murals. To say nothing of landscape photos, city skylines, etc.

It's A Knockout!

In graphic design circles, a "knockout" is a photographic or artistic image in which an object is digitally separated from its background so that it can be placed against white, black or any solid color, or against any other background image, such as a gradient, a texture, a pattern, or even a separate photo or artistic image.

When such an image is placed in a desktop publishing program such as Adobe InDesign, one has the option of stipulating that text placed adjacent to the image will wrap around the irregular contours of the image, rather than wrapping around a square or rectangle which encloses the image. This is known as a "runaround". So if you want to create a "runaround" (which you most certainly will want to do if you love Dion DiMucci's old song "Runaround Sue"), you'll either need a vector image (such as one might create in CorelDRAW! or Adobe Illustrator or Freehand), or you'll need to create a photo with its own "clipping path" (also known as a "knockout") in Photoshop or another program capable of creating such clipping paths.

All runarounds require the creation of knockouts (except for those involving vector drawings), but not all knockouts are suitable for the creation of clipping paths. A clipping path is essentially a vector shape which delineates the boundaries of the object. But vector shapes, by definition, can't have soft edges (although one can simulate the look of such edges by creating gradients from within vector objects). A knockout, on the other hand, is any separation of the object from its background.

In Photoshop, there are multiple ways to create "knockouts". One way is to create a selection around an object, using one of the many selection tools, including painting tools which can be used in QuickMask mode or on Layer Masks (either of which which can later be saved as Alpha Channels, so that they can be applied during future editing sessions even after objects have temporarily been deselected, and so that they can also be applied to other Photoshop files). Now, those painting tools include soft-edged tools such as the Airbrush tool.

The thing is, you can convert such selections to vector objects (known as "paths" in Photoshop), and you can use those paths in order to create exportable clipping paths which can be used in programs such as InDesign for text runarounds, but they won't retain their soft edges.

One can adjust the fidelity of such conversions from selections to paths, in order to increase or reduce the total number of Bezier control points in the path. The more control points there are, the more likely it is that the resulting vector paths will faithfully replicate even the most intricate details in the original selections. That may or may not be a good thing. If you have a somewhat shaky hand when you're drawing, then creating a vector shape with a reduced number of control points can be one way to create smoother lines and curves. You may have to edit the control points slightly afterwards, though, in order to cause them to conform to the original shape as much as possible. The fewer control points there are, the greater the likelihood that the resulting shape won't precisely follow the original shape.

You should also know that vector graphics and raster graphics are different in terms of how their contents affect file sizes.

All digital photos and scanned images are considered to be "raster" graphics. The files contain detailed information about the specific pixels in the image. The file size of raster graphics is determined by the resolution and bit depth of the file, and also by whether or not compression is used, and by the type of compression and the settings used when compressing the file.

With vector graphics, such as paths, the actual number of pixels is continuously variable and infinitely scalable, since the digital file doesn't actually store information about actual pixels. Instead, it stores instructions pertaining to shapes, and the contents of those shapes, and then the actual number of pixels is determined by the settings used for displaying or printing the image and by the specific characteristics of the display device or the printing device.

Generally, vector graphics are far more efficient than raster graphics in terms of data storage, because it takes far less data to describe a shape and its contents than it takes to describe every individual pixel of which that shape is comprised. But whereas the file size of raster graphics is determined by the factors I've previously mentioned, the file size of vector graphics is determined, in part, by the number of control points. So simple vector shapes take up less data space than complex vector shapes. It is possible, using some sophisticated raster-to-vector conversion programs, to create vector illustrations which will almost (but not quite) fool you into thinking that you're looking at a photo or raster illustration. But it should go without saying that such images feature far more control points than simpler vector illustrations. They still retain certain advantages over their raster counterparts, in terms of infinite scalability, but their advantage in terms of file sizes is likely to be somewhat diminished.

It's also possible, in some cases, to produce vector illustrations which are so complex that their code causes output devices or computers to crash when attempting to perform the vector-to-raster conversions which are necessary for printing purposes. It's important to be sure that one's RIP workstation has sufficient memory for such purposes when printing such illustrations. Obviously, that isn't nearly as much of an issue as it used to be, since it isn't uncommon to see computers with several gigabytes of RAM, but it's still something to be aware of.

If you're a musician (as I am), you may compare raster graphics to digital audio files (where the digital code represents and then recreates the actual sounds), and you may compare vector graphics to MIDI files (where the code merely stores instructions which are then interpreted by the output device, such as a digital keyboard, or a MIDI sound module such as a sampler, or a "virtual instrument" which streams from a computer's hard drive during playback).

Now, the most typical use of "knockouts" may be for commercial applications, where products being offered for sale via catalogs or flyers or e-commerce websites are separated from their original backgrounds and then placed against solid white backgrounds or other similarly simple backgrounds which make it much easier to focus on the products themselves without being distracted by superfluous details.

Vector paths are particularly well-suited when it comes to creating such knockouts, because many products such as electronic devices, cars and so forth lack the soft edges which might be seen in portraiture and other images of that type. But there are exceptions. Teddy bears, for instance, are soft and fuzzy. It's unlikely that a vector selection around a soft and fuzzy teddy bear would look as good as a raster-based selection, if one were to closely inspect the edges of the image. But even in such cases, the requirements of commerce aren't usually as demanding as the requirements of fine art, so it's possible to use paths for such purposes and still get an acceptable result.

If you're accustomed to creating vector graphics and working with Bezier curves and control points on a regular basis, then creating paths in Photoshop ought to be easy. But others, such as myself, tend to prefer raster based tools because they feel more like traditional media such as paintbrushes and pencils. If one only works with vector objects occasionally, creating the appropriate paths is possible, but it can be time consuming.

That's why it's good to know about ProKnockout.com, run by a company which does virtually nothing other than to create vector paths for raster objects in Photoshop. Personally, if I were asked to create a large catalog or e-commerce website which required a lot of knockouts, I might be tempted to use their services so that I could focus on other aspects of production.

Digital Camera Resolutions Just Keep Growing

According to this article at DPReview.com (probably the most useful news source on the Web insofar as digital cameras are concerned), Hasselblad has just announced a new camera (the H3DII-50) which will offer resolution of 50 megapixels (with an 8176 x 6132 pixel array). It will use the new Kodak KAF-50100 Image Sensor, which measures 36mm x 48mm (roughly twice the size of a sensor with the same 24mm x 36mm measurements of a 35mm film frame). To give an idea of what 50 megapixel resolution means, the DPReview.com article about that sensor says the following:

At 50 million pixels, or megapixels, the sensor captures digital images with unprecedented resolution and detail. For instance, with a 50 megapixel camera, in an aerial photo of a field 1.5 miles across, you could detect an object about the size of a small notebook computer (1 foot by 1 foot).

Considering that it's possible to get a fairly high quality photo print at a printing resolution of 200 pixels per inch, that would mean that uninterpolated digital files from the new Hasselblad could be enlarged to sizes as large as 40.88 inches by 30.66 at that 200 ppi resolution. The key word here, of course, is "uninterpolated". With any number of excellent digital enlargement programs, considerably larger prints should be quite feasible.

Of course, the Hasselblad camera won't be inexpensive, by a long shot. (Somehow, that phrase "long shot" seems particularly appropriate in light of the preceding quotation.) But prices on groundbreaking digital cameras invariably go down dramatically as time goes by. (I'm old enough to remember when Kodak DSLR cameras with a mere 6 megapixels of resolution were priced at something approaching $20,000! My, how times have changed.) In any event, the days when people could say that digital photography was incapable of approaching the quality of film photography have obviously passed into the mists of history.

50 megapixels is still low resolution in comparison with the resolution of the BetterLight digital camera backs used by professional service companies specializing in giclee reproductions of art. But BetterLight backs are digital scanning backs, designed to be used with large format view cameras and tethered to computers (usually in a studio environment, although they can also be used outdoors in order to take landscape or architectural photos with incredible detail). The BetterLight backs can't be used for photojournalism or sports photography, the way that Hasselblad cameras can, since they can't take photos of sports scenes or other fast-moving subjects. So the Hasselblad is clearly yet another breakthrough. (Previously, their highest resolution was around 39 megapixels.)

The Kodak sensor used in the new Hasselblad is designed to have a wide dynamic range, but its sensitivity range of 50 to 400 is lower than the range of some other digital cameras, so it isn't necessarily the best choice for photos in extremely low light. But improvements are sure to follow as time goes by.

UPDATE: As of the beginning of September 2008, I just read about a new digital camera back, made by Phase One, with a resolution of 60 megapixels ("with 8984 x 6732 active pixels achieving 180 MB, 8 bit RGB files")! It's the P 65+. Needless to say, it's extremely expensive. Here's a link to the official web page pertaining to the product.