Lightroom – Wade Tregaskis

Bipolar customer support

Thu, 18 Jul 2024 22:37:30 +0000

Consider these two examples involving Flickr, that occurred within just one day of each other.

Nice gal Amanda

I submitted the following feedback, not really expecting much of it. In fact, I fully expected some useless, boilerplate response that completely ignored the point and directed me to the upload requirements page (despite it being the very first thing I myself pointed to) or was nothing but mail-merge platitudes.

And in retrospect I could have phrased this more respectfully, too. So I wasn’t even going in as a great customer.

Per https://www.flickrhelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404079649300-Flickr-upload-requirements, Flickr still doesn’t support modern, more efficient formats like HEIF, WebP, and AVIF (for images).

It’s also unclear what video codecs are actually supported, since they’re not specified – merely container formats. e.g. does AV1 work? Or even just HEVC?

Being relegated to JPEG makes my files way larger and therefore uploads take a lot longer, and also precludes use of high-quality images featuring e.g. greater than 8-bit depths and HDR support.

(I realise TIFF is nominally supported and does at least offer 16-bit support, but the article notes that it’s degraded to JPEG anyway on the server, plus even compressed TIFFs are still huge and particularly slow to upload)

On your end, you’d save a lot of storage space if you supported and prioritised modern, more efficient formats – not to mention bandwidth costs (every browser of note supports WebP & AVIF at the very least, so you could even transcode from older formats).

What I got surprised me greatly, in the best way:

Hi Wade,

Thank you for reaching out to us! My name is Amanda and I’m happy to help you.

I understand you would like to see more photo formats accepted on Flickr (namely: HEIF/HEIC, WebP, AVIF). I’ve passed a feature suggestion along to our product development team for review regarding this. Hopefully, being able to offer support for these newer file formats is something we can address in a future site update.

While I do not have a timeframe for if/when this would be put into effect, they are aware that this is something that members of Flickr would like to see as an option.

You also mentioned some specific video codecs. As these aren’t listed in that Help Center article you linked, I’m double checking with our team to see if these are supported or not. As soon as I hear back from them, I’ll follow up and let you know here.

In the meantime, please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions. I’ll keep an eye out for your response!

Warmly,

Amanda
Flickr Support

Holy shit. A humane response from a real human. Better yet, a couple of hours later that was followed by (unprompted by me):

Hi Wade,

Thank you for your patience! I checked with our team and it appears AV1 and HEVC are not currently supported. I have added these along to the other formats you had already asked about in our feedback to the Product Development team.

If there is anything else I can help with, please do feel free to reach out!

Warmly,

Amanda
Flickr Support

Even though these responses made no conclusive promises (regarding support for these file formats), I was thrilled. Beyond the pleasant tone and clear demonstration that Amanda actually read and comprehended my feedback, just knowing that my feedback actually got to the intended recipients (the dev team) is heartening; it made me feel good about choosing to use Flickr for all these years.

But then…

Bad guy Marc

Coincidentally, while Amanda was getting back to me I ran into a bug in Flickr’s file upload API. It was apparent from the logs that Flickr was the cause of the issue, but nonetheless I took the time to first confirm that with the Photo Upload plug-in’s author. Then, I submitted the bug report to Flickr:

When trying to upload some (but not all) files, the upload ostensibly fails – it hangs for a while after the transfer is complete before finally concluding with a 504 error from CloudFront. e.g.:

Log

Lightroom could not import this catalog because of an unknown error

Fri, 07 Jun 2024 22:23:07 +0000

I don’t know why, but it’s apparently impossible to directly import a Lightroom catalog from one computer into the catalog of another. It always fails at the end of the import with the same infuriatingly useless error message.

However, I seem to have found a fairly reliable workaround:

If you’re directly plugging in a removable SSD, as your means of moving files between computers, then skip to step 2.

Copy the catalog-to-be-imported, along with all the original files it references, to local storage on the target computer. You must preserve their relative paths, so it’s easiest if you pre-arrange your source catalog’s files (the “.lrcat” file and its entourage) to be in the same root folder as your original files (images etc)¹.

Any attempt to import directly from a network drive will fail, always.

All the following steps are performed on the target computer.
Open the catalog-to-be-imported in Lightroom on the target computer.

This will automatically close whatever other catalog you have open, first.
Choose “Export as catalog…” from the File menu.
Adjust settings to suit, and export to a new catalog.

Note that this will duplicate all the files referenced by the catalog, into the new catalog. So it might take a while even though it’s all localised to the one computer (and even if it’s on the same volume – Lightroom is not smart enough to perform APFS COW clones).
Open the target catalog.
Import the catalog you just exported (“Import from Another Catalog…” in the File menu). Make sure to choose to copy the files to a new destination, not just reference them.
Delete the temporary catalog.

In my experience you must perform the export-to-an-otherwise-pointless-new-catalog after copying everything to the target computer. Somehow, something about copying Lightroom’s files from one computer to another [over a network] “breaks” them such that Lightroom will refuse to import them.

You can do this by – on the source computer – selecting all the photos in the catalog and using the “Folders” subsection of the left panel to adjust their location on disk. Typically by selecting an existing location, right-clicking, and selecting “Move Selected Photos to this Folder”. If necessary, you can first add the desired location by clicking the ‘plus’ icon to the right of the “Folders” section header, and choosing “Add Folder…”.

Yes, Lightroom’s file management UI is a pain in the arse, and badly designed. ↩︎

Z9 third impressions

Wed, 09 Mar 2022 03:35:37 +0000

More observations from my time with the Z9 (see also my first & second). It’s now been over a month and I’ve taken several tens of thousands of real photos with it (and something like fifty thousand more while doing burst performance testing 😆).

This’ll probably be my last post in this series of ‘impressions’. I’m simply running out of new things to say.

I’m quite happy with the Z9. It’s not perfect, for sure, but it’s the best camera I’ve ever used. I am curious to temporarily acquire a Sony a1 and see how they compare, but that seems pretty academic – unlike with the Z7, most of the time it’s me (or my uncooperative wildlife subjects) that’s the limiting factor with the Z9. The only other time I felt remotely like that was with the D500.

Autofocus

Animal subject detection is sometimes surprisingly good – although often it’s academically impressive, in ways that aren’t very practical. e.g. it can detect squirrels at great distances, and track them with absolute certainty as the camera wobbles & shakes around.

Tracking distant subjects is great and all, but if it has to be a trade-off, I wish Nikon had put more energy into having it track close subjects better – subject distances that are actually typical in real use and good photos.

The Z9 instantly detected this squirrel and I could not shake the AF tracking (short of reframing the squirrel out of view completely). AF accuracy was spot on – no confusion between the squirrel and the grass around it. And that’s even with a non-native lens (Sigma 150-600 C) which doesn’t have a particularly accurate nor reliable focus motor.

Subject identification and tracking is impressively robust against foreground obstructions. I’m now comfortable saying this is the best performing Nikon camera ever made, in this regard – and my opinion is still on an upward trajectory as I use it more and more. (I don’t have experience with current flagship Sony or Canon cameras, thus the Nikon-specific qualifier)

It can still struggle to find the subject if it’s out of focus or the scene is very busy, and in that case you have to give it a hand by getting it closer to correct focus first (and/or using 3D tracking to point at the target, rather than auto-area mode).

I wish there were an AF option to control whether it would exclusively focus on detectable subjects in the area AF modes, rather than falling back to picking some arbitrary focus point. The current behaviour is sensible in a lot of situations and definitely shouldn’t be discarded, but if & when I know there’s a bird hidden amongst the foliage I’d actually like it to focus hunt for it rather than throw up its hands and just focus on leaves.

The Z9 was impressively tenacious about sticking with this Anna’s Hummingbird, which it reliably detected as an animal. It didn’t really detect the eye, but it did get the head pretty consistently. Actual AF accuracy wasn’t great (I took a burst of photos with AF-C) but the variation was within the depth of subject (i.e. some were on the silhouette head feathers, some on the beak, some in-between).

…and it’s even more impressive when you realise just how obstructed this hummingbird was. To clarify, this is the same framing – with the bird in exactly the same place – but I manually focused a little closer. The Z9 couldn’t find the hummingbird by itself when focus was this far ahead of it, but as soon as I manually moved focused back a bit – such that you could see a bird-shaped blob, albeit still out of focus – the Z9 identified it and locked on.

Sometimes the Z9 really impresses me with how it recognises a subject that’s wildly out of focus.

I hadn’t really thought about it much before, but the subject recognition task for these camera AF systems is actually way more challenging than you might think. Recognising a human face in an already in-focus photo is one thing, but recognising that this vague light brown blob is actually a face – just out of focus – is another.

The Z9’s certainly not perfect here – you definitely still have to help it a lot of the time, by manually getting focus closer to the target first. Still, while of course I wish it recognised out of focus subjects more consistently, I won’t complain that it only sometimes achieves apparent miracles.

Image quality

For a while when I was first reviewing my photos in Lightroom, I was a bit confused and put off by their appearance – very crunchy, for some reason. Since I generally wasn’t comparing side-by-side with another camera’s photos, I tried to convince myself I was just being weird. But eventually I realised that Lightroom is applying heavy-handed, ugly edits to every photo by default – e.g. +40 texture and +20 clarity.

There’s no clean way to fix that, apparently – you can only work around it by creating a “preset” that does nothing but set things to their normal, neutral defaults, and then apply that preset on import.
I’m not thrilled with the noise levels I’m seeing. However, I’ve heard vague mention that Lightroom’s support for Z9 raw files is preliminary and still not great, and along with more obvious problems (like the busted default settings noted above) this seems plausible. So, while this will hopefully be fixed soon, beware if you use Lightroom.

Without any actual measurements or side-by-side comparison, just subjectively, it feels like DX levels of noise, not FX. Still, many of my favourite photos of all time were taken with DX cameras – and much older ones, with even worse noise performance – so I’m surprisingly not all that bothered about it. I certainly hope it’s just Lightroom being Lightroom, but even if it’s not, I wouldn’t give up the overall package that is the Z9.

Plus, Lightroom’s raw rendering is about the worst you can get – really, if you actually care that much about image quality that you’re bothered by DX vs FX or Z7 vs Z9 or whatever, then you definitely shouldn’t be using Lightroom to begin with. For what it’s worth, Capture One was far better – the best – last time I checked (five years ago – Lightroom definitely hasn’t gotten better in that time, I know that much).

ISO 3,600. 100% view (shown here is just 8% of the image). Minimal processing – basically Lightroom’s defaults, with sharpening 60 / 1.5 / 25 / 0 and luminance noise reduction 5 / 75 / 0 (colour noise reduction entirely off). Note that the noise is slightly reduced by the JPEG processing.

The Z9 under-exposes things a lot – I often have to lift by two whole stops just to get a normal exposure. This is in matrix metering mode (it’d be more explicable in highlight-weighted mode, but as I commented in my second impressions I immediately noticed even worse under-exposure so I switched to matrix).

I think this might be contributing to the perception that the noise performance is poor – I keep looking at a photo and thinking “what?!? ISO 360 and it’s this noisy?!” then I remember I’ve actually bumped it by at least two stops, so it’s more like ISO 1,600.

Note also that Lightroom by default applies +1 EV to Z9 photos, which I found odd. I wonder if that’s a hacky workaround for a bug in Lightroom’s rendering of Z9 raws? However, even if we presume that’s the case, that Lightroom is rendering 1 EV darker than it’s supposed to due to some bug, then there’s still at least another stop of under-exposure to account for.
I’ve not side-by-side compared the dynamic range vs e.g. the Z7, but I have had a few scenes & photos were I at least feel that the dynamic range is noticeably less. Sometimes highlights just don’t recover like they would with the Z7. But, given the exposure problems I noted in the previous point, it’s hard to say if there’s a distinct problem here or just the same one regarding metering – or just Lightroom’s current Z9 raw support being flawed.
I still see evidence of rolling shutter in some photos of still subjects, but it’s of course dramatically less-so than with e.g. the Z7.

Specifically where I notice it is in bursts with slow shutter speeds (e.g. ¼ second) – when moving between images in Lightroom there’s visible changes in scene geometry between frames; that tell-tale “jelly” effect. It’s very small, to be clear – nothing you’d ever actually care about in the finished images. Still, it’s technically perceptible.

Odd that it’s not something I ever recall seeing with DSLRs like the D500 – one would expect almost identical behaviour since the nominal shutter speed of ~1/270 is about the same as most DSLRs. It might be related to the image stabilisation systems too (or instead). I’m not sure how I might distinguish that via test.

Ergonomics

The FTZ adapter – the first version, with the tripod mount – isn’t actually a significant problem for portrait use. Yes, it does make it slightly trickier to get your fingers on and off the grip, but at least for me my fingers do fit well enough between the adapter and the camera body, and there’s no discomfort.

I presumed I was going to eventually get the FTZ II adapter, but now I see no need to.

I like that the FTZ I adapter has a tripod socket – when the lens itself doesn’t have a tripod mount, I prefer to attach my camera harness to the adapter rather than the camera body. That way there’s less stress on each of the mounts – and it tends to be better balanced that way, too. However, there isn’t enough room to actually connect anything much to it when the FTZ is on the Z9. So there’s definitely no point getting the FTZ I instead of the FTZ II, unless you expect to also use it with non-portrait-grip-equipped cameras.
As large as the camera is, it turns out my palm rests on the portrait mode controls when I’m using it in landscape mode. So it’s a good thing there’s a locking mechanism for those, to reject spurious input. Though I sometimes forget to lock it after use, and end up taking photos accidentally. And conversely having to unlock it every time is not yet an ingrained habit, so sometimes I miss photos.

I’m not sure what Nikon could realistically do about this; I think it’s just something I’m going to have to adjust to. I developed the habit of instinctively flipping the power on when going for the shutter on the Z7, so I assume I’ll eventually do the same on the Z9’s portrait controls.
Possibly also related to the portrait grip controls – since I never saw this on any other cameras, none of which had portrait grips built in – I get a lot of random shutter actuations. Typically when the camera is hanging from a harness on my hip. One or other of the shutter buttons is apparently really easy to hit, and since the camera is completely silent you don’t know about it until you get home and have to delete fifty photos of the ground, or your arse.
The top panel display flickers. I find that it’s not noticeable most of the time – mainly just on certain angles in bright light. It doesn’t impact its usability, though it doesn’t look great.
As expected, I’m now (a month or so later) completely used to the weight and it’s a non-issue. I still pick up my Z7 occasionally, and even side-by-side at this point I don’t perceive any meaningful difference. I can tell they’re different weights, it just doesn’t matter in practice.
I’m mostly used to the overall size. It’s mostly size- or shape-related side-effects that I’m still coming to grips with, like the Z9’s propensity for rolling / falling over quite easily, or how it suits some carriers less…
It doesn’t work great with a Cotton Carrier, because the addition of the portrait grip forces the camera and lens out away from the carrier. With an e.g. Z7 the camera and lens basically rest neatly against the carrier, which helps secure them and prevents any significant movement perpendicular to your torso. The Z9 sticks out and is wobblier and more awkward.

The only exception is if you have a lens with a suitable tripod foot that you can use as the mount point instead – but most tripod feet stick out a lot anyway, so it’s usually a similar problem.

Z9 second impressions

Mon, 31 Jan 2022 22:56:25 +0000

Ergonomics

You cannot use the camera at all – can’t even bring up the menus – if you have a “stowed” lens attached, like the 24-70/4 in compact form. This is not a big deal, of course, but it’s annoying that you can’t do anything with the camera and it doesn’t give any indication why – unlike the Z7, the Z9 doesn’t turn on the LCD in this situation, only the EVF, so it’s very easy to miss the dialog it’s trying to show that’s complaining about the lens.
It took a little experimentation to figure out how to manipulate the LCD screen easily. If you just grab the side and try to pivot it up or down, for example, it’s almost impossible to do so without fear of breaking something. This seems to be a consequence of its complicated multi-levered design. Fortunately Nikon have included little grabbers on the top & bottom as well, and if you use those appropriately the screen is easy enough to position.
With the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary attached, I’m finding the Z9 isn’t significantly different in weight from the Z7 (or D500). I also don’t see any meaningful difference in “balance” or any such thing that apparently lots of other people do.
One thing I hadn’t really considered is that the Z9 is a rounded square, whereas the Z7 was a less rounded rectangle. Consequently the Z9 likes to roll about, such as in a car going around corners, which is annoying – on a recent windy-road drive I had to hold the Z9 the entire time, in my lap, to prevent it attempting to commit suicide against the doors and dashboard.
Some camera harnesses are problematic with the Z9, unless you have a tripod foot on the lens that you can attach to instead.

e.g. my preferred camera harness is a Cotton Carrier, but the Z9’s big butt forces the camera and lens to stick out way more, which puts a lot more torque on the harness – I worry it’ll eventually snap from the stress (I’ve had one harness break in this way before) – and is just less comfortable all round.

Performance

Autofocus

It hasn’t completely kicked the Nikon Z habit of obsessive-compulsive behaviour regarding backgrounds. Sometimes with a clear subject front-and-centre, right there in the middle of the frame, it’ll buck all artistic conventions and seek novel compositions in the background.

This is rare, to be clear. The Z7 did this [figuratively] all the time. I think the Z9’s only really done it once, maybe twice so far. So I wouldn’t call this a big deal, even though it’s such an obvious fail when it happens. Still, it’s a bit sad that Nikon still can’t seem to figure this out.

California Condors have a wing span of nearly three metres. This makes them very hard to spot, clearly.

As others have occasionally commented in reviews, eye autofocus is easily foiled if the eye is obstructed at all, e.g. by hairs, feathers, or similar. In most cases (that I’ve seen so far) it will vacillate randomly between the eye and the obstruction.

As such, it is possible to still get the eye in focus, but you need to take a lot of pictures and hope for the best.

This is not unique to subject-detecting AF modes – the problem occurs in single-point AF as well, for example.

This behaviour in single-point mode is justifiable – in abstract there’s no way for the camera to tell which of the possibilities you actually want – but I would think that when it explicitly detects an eye it would understand how to avoid common obstructions like hairs & feathers, and similarly nearby elements like eyelashes. e.g. focus specifically on circular or oval features, or simply always prefer the furthest detected feature. Alas it does not.

For reference, Nikon, this is what an eye looks like.

This, on the other hand, is a feather. Notice the subtle distinction in how they look nothing alike.

Eye detection is sometimes wrong about what is an eye – e.g. nostrils on birds. I don’t have much data on this yet, but I get the initial impression that it’s basically just looking for a roundish feature that is darker than its surroundings, and nostrils are often darker than eyes (since eyes often have reflections and/or colour irises), or the eyes might be partially obscured. The behaviour is dependent on the bird – e.g. for California Condors it was a real bugger sometimes in trying to get it to recognise the actual eye, but for many other bird species it had no issues.

All AF modes using subjection detection – e.g. auto-area, 3D tracking – were very insistent about picking the nostril as an “eye”, ignoring the actual eye that is clearly visible. I had to switch to single-point AF to get usable focus.

For some animals – e.g. this California Condor which is apparently the Z9 AF system’s nemesis – it doesn’t recognise the actual face at all, but frequently thinks it sees a face elsewhere on the animal. In poses like the one above it mistook the nostril for an eye and prioritised that, but in the photo below it didn’t detect any eyes and instead thought it saw a face in the middle of those neck feathers.

Once again I had to switch to single-point AF in order to get usable focus, as otherwise it would stubbornly focus only on the neck feathers.

Similarly in some cases it doesn’t recognise an obvious animal at all, but thinks it sees something interesting in inanimate objects. This is compounded severely by the design flaw where 3D tracking mode will always focus on any detected subject no matter where you tell it to focus, and disabling subject detection (to work around this flaw) requires menu-diving.

Rumours of jaguars in this photo are greatly exaggerated, according to the Z9. Fortunately there’s a fascinating log that simply must be photographed.

Disclosure: I leaned into its silliness and framed this example photo deliberately, but to be clear it would not see the jaguar at all until I zoomed in significantly closer, and it consistently saw the log as a subject even when it was only just visible at the edge of the frame.

I’ve seen a small number of cases where the camera simply front-focuses for no apparent reason, in single-point AF. Sometimes it’s so severe that nothing in frame is in focus. This is with the 24-70/4 at least. When this happens it consistently misses focus across all photos in a burst (with AF-C active).

To be clear, usually the camera focuses consistently on at least something in the scene – especially with single-point AF it’s generally very reliable. Just not always.
I haven’t tested it properly yet, but I get the impression the Z9 suffers from the same flaw as the Z7 regarding autofocus performance vs exposure preview. i.e. if your subject is dim in the viewfinder – because you have accurate exposure preview enabled and you’re under-exposing (e.g. it’s an inherently dark subject, or you’re protecting highlights, etc) – the autofocus system performs worse. Simply raise the ISO, for example, and autofocus works much better (but now your actual exposure is wrong, and your photo might be unusable).

This is probably why Nikon have the “View mode (photo Lv)” setting (Custom Settings > Shooting/display > d9), so that you can choose which of these trade-offs you wish to prioritise. But with accurate preview turned off it’s all too easy to screw up the exposure, especially in non-trivial lighting situations where the rudimentary exposure meters just can’t convey what’s going on.

DSLRs didn’t have this issue per se because they had no exposure preview mode – and because the AF system was separate from the image sensor, the AF system could always operate with whatever settings it found optimal.

The crux of my frustration is that it feels like a false dichotomy. I don’t understand why it can’t use whatever ISO is best for AF, but simply adjust the image in the viewfinder to compensate. e.g. if it needs a few extra stops of gain for good AF, then just reduce the EVF / LCD preview by the same amount. Sure, it might clip highlights in the EVF preview, but I think I’d prefer that – the highlights would still be fine in the actual photos taken, and in any case if the subject isn’t in focus blown highlights are irrelevant.

Image stabilisation

I’m seeing particularly poor image stabilisation performance with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. This lens has always had poor image stabilisation, on the Z7 and the D500. But I feel like it’s worse on the Z9.

If I want the majority of hand-held images to be usably sharp at 600mm, it seems like I have to use a shutter speed of at least 1/500. I haven’t really established a baseline by turning image stabilisation off, but I can’t see how 1/500 equates to more than a stop or two of effective stabilisation, at best.

Most of my favourite wildlife photos are taken in the range of 1/10 to 1/100, so this is a big problem for me.

I’m also seeing more (vs the D500, Z7, etc) of the behaviour where the vast majority of photos are unusably blurry and then just occasionally one is actually sharp. There’s not a lot of middle ground. I mention this because with e.g. Nikon’s own 80-400 or the 100-400 you tend to get a much smoother continuum of blurry to not blurry.

It’s the only non-Nikon lens I use with its own image stabilisation, so I can’t draw any conclusions as to whether this is first- vs third-party lens compatibility or anything like that.

Metering

Ever since it was introduced (D500 era, I think?) I’ve used highlight-weighted metering almost exclusively in stills photography, because noisy midtones can be mitigated but blown highlights can be ruinous. But with the Z9 I found very quickly that it would massively under-expose sometimes in highlight-weighted mode. I switched to matrix metering and have almost exclusively used that so far. It works well most of the time, but of course it does sometimes blow the highlights.
If “Starlight view (photo Lv)” is enabled (Custom Settings > Shooting/display > d9), the EVF / LCD do not show exposure accurately, irrespective of the setting of “View mode (photo Lv)”. This is extremely surprising and caused me to massively over-expose a bunch of images.

It makes me suspect that “Starlight” mode – which is nominally about autofocus working better in low-light – is nothing more than forcing the sensor into ISO settings that are most amenable to the autofocus system rather than representative of the intended exposure (see earlier point about AF effectiveness vs exposure preview).

Addendum: why use “Starlight” mode in broad daylight? In this case, because I’d had it on the night before and forgot to turn it off. Though in any case I’m still curious as to exactly when it’s supposed to help – e.g. does it only work in extremely low light, or does it boost AF performance in any situation? Nikon’s product material, and 3rd party reviews, say very little in this regard.

This full-body portrait of a naked meerkat is apparently too saucy for the Z9, and must be censored.

Battery life

The battery lasts about six hours in my use. That’s with the camera on the whole time, GPS enabled (with standby turned off), and sporadic use in 20 FPS mode.

Battery life seems to be mostly affected by how long the camera is switched on and especially how long the EVF or LCD are active. How many photos you take doesn’t seem to be a significant factor. Though video might (I haven’t done a lot of video yet).

I assume the GPS is a significant power suck. Previously, on my Z7, I used a Solmeta GMAX hotshoe GPS because (a) it has a big internal battery that avoids draining the camera’s battery, (b) it was far more reliable than any other GPS unit I ever tried, and (c) having its own battery meant it could keep active irrespective of what the camera was doing or whether the camera was even on. I could use that on the Z9 too, but the combination would be too big for my tastes. If you’re not going to use the built-in GPS you’ll probably see a significant increase in battery life.

I could also turn the camera off between use, which might save a significant amount too – but I’m afraid to do that because I’m not convinced the GPS will work as reliably (the Z9’s manual claims the GPS will continue tracking even if the camera’s off, but frankly I’m sceptical based on past experience with earlier cameras & GPS units).

On the Z7 I’d usually get at best four hours per battery, and that’s even though I’d turn the camera completely off when not actively using it. So it’s clear the Z9 gets significantly better battery life – as you’d expect given it has 157% more capacity.

For a long day of use, or if recording significantly amounts of video, you’d definitely need at least two batteries for the Z9 (or rely heavily on USB tethering).
Battery charging in-camera officially takes 3h 40m from 0% to 100%, and I haven’t tried to precisely measure that but it seems about right for what I see in practice.

Using a USB battery brick to charge the camera seems to add about 2% every five minutes or so. If you’re out for the day and take a half hour lunch break, for example, you can only add ~12% more juice to the battery. Not all that useful. I find having a USB cable sticking out the side of the camera to be dangerous to the camera’s health (cable yanks, water ingress, etc) so power / charging while it’s in use doesn’t seem practical to me.

I haven’t tested it yet, but in theory you can use any old USB power source to charge a second battery, which will be super helpful (compared to having to use mains power as with previous Nikon battery chargers).

I’d really like to see future Nikon cameras & batteries support faster charging, like most portable electronics do. e.g. USB-PD 60W should be enough to goose the battery from 20% to 80% in just twenty minutes. That’d make it real easy to have a single battery and just top it up every time you take a bathroom break or whatever.

Reliability

Crashes

It locks up occasionally in playback mode, when reviewing images. It’ll suddenly just stop responding to all controls, and after fifteen seconds it reboots itself. It forgets everything it was doing when it reboots (e.g. the playback image position resets to the most recently recorded image).

[Addendum: some folks suggested it might be the memory card causing this. While it’s hard to definitively rule that out, this happens with at least two different cards from different manufacturers (Pergear & Angelbird).]

GPS

The GPS seems to work quite well so far, though I’ve basically just been moving to a location, preparing, then taking photos, then moving on – a more challenging test will be if I’m moving while taking photos, such as on a boat, or taken photos suddenly after moving. Those are situations in which a lot of GPS units / Nikon cameras will make mistakes, like recording wildly stale location data.

I’ve taken a bit over a thousand photos so far, with GPS enabled.

Once it’s acquired its position it seems to update it every second, as you’d expect.
It does actually work indoors (all the time so far for me, but I haven’t been indoors much). This is a pleasant surprise. Some prior GPS units I’ve used have basically not worked at all indoors.
It seems to be much more capable of actually acquiring an accurate position – when faced with obstructions etc – than most prior GPS hotshoe units I’ve tried, though I’d be [very pleasantly] surprised if it matches the Solmeta GMAX in that regard.
It’s never failed to record the location so far.
It’s never gotten the location completely wrong, so far.

It’s not super accurate, though – I see longitude and latitude inaccuracies of up to ~ten metres in some cases. It’s good to just a couple of metres most of the time, though. The Solmeta GMAX is more consistently accurate, but for my purposes ~ten metres of error – occasionally – isn’t a big deal.

Altitude isn’t accurate – its regularly off by tens of metres. e.g. at the beach yesterday it consistently thought I was 12 to 19 metres below sea level.
Even with all the standby stuff disabled and the camera left on at all times, it does lose its position if you’re not actively using the camera (according to the position read-out in the menus). That concerns me, as this mimics the behaviour of most prior [hotshoe] GPS units with Nikon cameras, and my experience with them is that they fail to correctly tag photos a lot. But, as noted above, so far it’s actually worked well despite this.

I have not yet tried enabling GPS logging – presumably that forces the camera to maintain an accurate GPS location at all times. So that might be a workaround, if there are any issues.
It doesn’t record heading like the Solmeta GMAX, but then to be honest magnetic compasses tend to be uselessly inaccurate anyway so I’m not really missing that (though if it had it, and it worked reliably, that would be nice).
There’s no way to tell at a glance if the camera actually has a GPS location fix. There’s a satellite icon that shows up in various places in the GUI, but all it seems to mean is that GPS is enabled, not that it actually has a location lock.

You can dig into the menus to find out, but that’s a bit slow.

Nominally it tells you when it doesn’t yet know its location, by blinking the satellite icon. Indeed I do see that happening when the camera is first turned on and acquiring its location initially. But, even when it stops flashing the camera doesn’t always know its position (according to its read-out in the menus).

I miss the built-in LCD of the Solmeta GMAX where I could see at a glance if it had an accurate position fix (and gauge roughly how accurate via the number of satellites acquired). Maybe Nikon could issue a firmware update that adds a little satellite count badge to the satellite icon, like most GPS units display.

Software support

Just a minor oddity, but Lightroom’s Import dialog seems to have problems with High Efficiency NEF files – it won’t reliably show thumbnails for them. You can “jostle” it by mousing over the blank spaces to get it to load the thumbnails, most of the time, but this isn’t something that’s required for Nikon NEF files from earlier cameras.

Nikon Z 100-400 centre vs Nikon 80-400G & Sigma 150-600 C

Wed, 29 Dec 2021 07:54:36 +0000

This is the second post in a series of evaluations of the Nikkor Z 100-400. Please refer to the first post for details about the test equipment & methodology.

In this post, I’m going to compare performance in the image centre between these three telephoto lenses at 400mm:

Nikkor Z 100-400 (e.g. from Amazon).
AF-S Nikkor 80-400G (e.g. from Amazon).
Sigma 150-600 Contemporary (e.g. from Amazon).

Unlike in the first post, where the focus was solely on the 100-400, I won’t provide exhaustive sample images of all apertures for all lenses – that would just be overwhelming. Instead, I’ll just provide the noteworthy cases.

30ft @ 400

The 150-600 is basically the same from wide open (f/6) through to f/8. It might be a tiny bit sharper at f/6 than narrower apertures.

The perceived sharpness of the 80-400 increases slightly when stopping down from wide open, and starts to soften again at f/7.1 and narrower. Its optimal aperture is f/6.3, vs f/5.6 for the 100-400.

Note that in practice I’ve tended to favour f/7.1 on the 80-400, including on 24 MP DX cameras which have higher pixel densities than the Z7 (and therefore should be more sensitive to diffraction, not less). That’s based on a large amount of real-world experience. There’s several possible explanations for the discrepancy, but my guess is that the increased depth of field, of f/7.1 over f/6.3, helps in practice because it:

Increases the depth of field (sometimes important at close distances or with deep subjects).
Provides a little more tolerance for focus errors.

Nikkor Z 100-400 30ft @ 400 f/6.3

Nikkor AF-S 80-400G 30ft @ 400 f/6.3

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary 30ft @ 400 f/6.3

1of3

The 150-600 is clearly the sharpest, followed by the 80-400. The 100-400 is much softer than even the 80-400. The 80-400 is sharper at any aperture than the 100-400 is at any aperture (and the 150-600 exceeds both, similarly).

This was such a surprise that I went back and took many more photos with the 100-400, in a variety of modes (various autofocus modes, manual focus, VR on & off, silent shutter on & off), but the results were consistent – the 100-400 is much softer at 400 than its eight year old predecessor, let-alone the 150-600.

Note: the difference in sharpness is partially obscured by the JPEG compression used for the images in this post, even though I used the maximum possible JPEG quality. All my written statements throughout these tests are based on comparing the NEFs in Lightroom.

12ft @ 400

The 150-600 behaves the same as at 30ft – basically the same from f/6 (wide open) through f/8. Maybe a tiny bit sharper wide open.

The 80-400 gives its best performance at f/6.3 again. As at 30ft, the difference with f/5.6 (wide open) or f/7.1 is slight. f/8 is very slightly softer again, as diffraction more clearly kicks in.

Nikkor Z 100-400 12ft @ 400 f/6.3

Nikkor AF-S 80-400G 12ft @ 400 f/6.3

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary 12ft @ 400 f/6.3

1of3

Unfortunately the comparison between the three is complicated by the fact that the 80-400 back-focused slightly while the 100-400 looks like it again front-focused a tad. After accounting for that it’s clear that the 80-400 is sharper than the 100-400. But the 150-600 is much sharper than either of them.

6ft @ 400

The 150-600 is out for this particular subject distance because it can’t focus this close.

The 80-400 is slightly sharper at f/7.1 than other apertures. Similar to the 100-400 (which still saw tiny improvement up to f/8, over f/7.1).

Nikkor Z 100-400 6ft @ 400 f/6.3

Nikkor AF-S 80-400G 6ft @ 400 f/6.3

1of2

At this point the comparison is getting tricky, because:

The 80-400 back-focused again.
The 100-400 is maintaining its nominal focal length much better than the 80-400. This change in focal length over different focus distances is typical behaviour for lenses – the stated focal length is usually only achieved at infinity; as you focus closer, their effective focal length drops.

It’s pretty close, between the two. There seems to be similar resolution on the image sensor, so the difference in subject detail is solely because of the difference in effective focal length. If you allow for that, then there’s a notable advantage to the 100-400.

MFD @ 400

Note here that the 100-400 can get down to about 3ft, while the 80-400 is not much shorter than the 6ft looked at above, and the 150-600 is way out at 10ft or so.

So unsurprisingly the 80-400 behaves the same as at 6ft – sharpest at f/7.1. Just like the 100-400. And the 150-600 is very similar from wide open (f/6) to f/8, with maybe a very slight improvement from stopping down just a tad, to f/6.3.

Note that I’ve also included the 150-600 at 600, in case you’re interested in comparing the maximum possible magnification across the three lenses.

Note: I don’t know why there’s such significant discrepancies in exposure, particularly with the 80-400. This was reproducible. The same exposure settings were used for all lenses. Possibly the differing fields of view impacted the camera’s metering?

Nikkor Z 100-400 MFD @ 400 f/7.1

Nikkor AF-S 80-400G MFD @ 400 f/7.1

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary MFD @ 400 f/7.1

Sigma 150-600 Contemporary MFD @ 600 f/7.1

1of4

Here there’s no contest – the 100-400 is sharpest on the sensor (albeit by only a small margin over the 80-400), but also offers much higher magnification – almost twice what either of the other lenses are capable of. This matches the spec sheets – a maximum reproduction ratio of 0.38x for the 100-400 vs 0.2 for the 80-400 & 150-600.

The 150-600 is the worst by far, for sharpness on the sensor as well as magnification – not only do you have to zoom in to “600” to get similar magnification as the 80-400 does at “400”, but both are basically at something more like 200 if not less.

In fact to my eyes it appears that there’s nothing but empty magnification in going from 400 to 600 on the 150-600.

Sidenote: Real-world benefits of closer focusing distances

In real-world use I’ve only occasionally felt the 80-400’s ~6ft MFD was a problem. Sure, sometimes my subject would be too close and/or small, but there’s practical challenges with getting physically closer to a lot of subjects (e.g. skittish wildlife), and for really small subjects I’d be inclined to switch to a macro lens anyway.

Plus, the 80-400 compares very favourably to many other zoom telephotos – e.g. the Sigma 150-600 C can only focus down to about 3 metres (~10ft). In theory it offers the same reproduction ratio of 0.2, but in practice I’ve often had problems with my subject being too close for the 150-600. Plus, as you see (above) it sacrifices a lot of image quality to do even that, such that the 80-400 is clearly the superior of the two when maximum magnification is required. Of course, the new 100-400 is way better than either of them.

All of which is to say: I’m impressed and intrigued by what the 100-400 can do in this regard. Almost halving the MFD while giving me 2x more effective magnification is tremendous. I still haven’t had a chance to use it in the real world, but I’m really looking forward to the possibilities – especially for small wildlife like lizards, or flora like flowers, the 100-400 looks like it’s going to be by far the superior option.

Conclusion

😧A surprise upset! I had assumed the 100-400 would be at least as sharp as the 80-400, and of course hoped it’d be even sharper. The 80-400 has always had good sharpness at 400 in my experience, so there wasn’t a lot of room for it to be surpassed. Still, that the 100-400 is much softer (at all but the very closest subject distances) is very disappointing.

The only thing the 100-400 has going for it (so far) is with very close subjects – there, the 100-400 is vastly superior, in large part because it can simply focus much closer while simultaneously retaining more of its nominal 400mm focal length. If you expect your subjects to always be less than ~10ft away, the 100-400 is clearly the better lens.

The 150-600 results surprised me, and may be tending unrepresentative, as they don’t match my real-world experience. I do think the 150-600 is a good lens – and excellent value at a quarter the price of either of the other two – but I’ve found it just doesn’t deliver results quite as good – nor as reliably – as the 80-400, except when you utilise its 50% extra reach. I strongly suspect this is mostly due to differences in image stabilisation – the 80-400 has the best image stabilisation of any lens I’ve ever used, while the 150-600’s image stabilisation is average at best.

Granted, this is only in the centre of the frame. Maybe the 100-400 has redeeming image qualities elsewhere in the frame? A subject for a subsequent post, perhaps.

Nikon Z 100-400 centre performance

Tue, 28 Dec 2021 02:19:28 +0000

Last week my Nikkor Z 100-400 arrived. I’m in principle upgrading from the AF-S 80-400G, which has been my all-time favourite lens (both sentimentally and in terms of the yielding the greatest proportion of my favourite photos).

Of course, it’d be nice to see how those two lenses actually compare – I suppose I could keep using the 80-400 and return the 100-400, if the older lens turns out to be better.

Unfortunately California has decided this “weather” thing it’s never had before is the new hotness, and it’s basically rained non-stop for weeks now. So I haven’t been able to use of the 100-400 for real yet. Luckily, I was able to conscript a wild Stitch to help me do some rudimentary tests, in the interim. That’ll be the subject of this and a couple of subsequent posts.

Meet my model, Stitch. He’s a sexy beast, and he doesn’t mind holding a pose for hours at a time.

The most important thing I want to know about any new lens is how it performs in the centre across various apertures and subject distances. That way I know what it’s capable of in the best case (the centre) and which aperture(s) to favour. So that’s what this first post is about.

Equipment

Nikkor Z 100-400 (e.g. from Amazon).
Nikon Z 7 (e.g. from Amazon).
Neewer 660-LED constant light panels (e.g. from Amazon).
Induro AT-313 (discontinued).
Movo GH800 gimbal tripod head (e.g. from Amazon).
Stitch (from outer space, via Hawaii).

Methodology

I tested five different subject distances:

MFD (minimum focus distance) at 100
MFD at 400
6ft at 400
12ft at 400
30ft at 400

I didn’t measure the actual MFD – all distances above are only approximate anyway, give or take a few inches – but it was something in the vicinity of 3ft, like the specs say. MFD is a bit closer at 100 than 400.

400 is basically the focal length that counts – that’s where this lens will spend the vast majority of its time – thus the inclusion of only one subject distance for 100, nor any intermediary focal lengths.

Stitch was lit (as shown in the photo above) by two Neewer 660-LED panels, set to maximum brightness & running off mains power. Diffusers were not used.

I chose to focus on Stitch’s nose because it has a nice fine-detailed fabric texture, that looked better as a test subject than the low-contrast threading of e.g. his eyes. I also deliberately focused only about a third down on his nose – not in the very centre – so that the centre of the nose, being the closest part to the camera, would be slightly out of focus. That way I could visually confirm that the plane of focus was where I expected and not short of the subject (in the cases where depth of field was so narrow as to matter).

I focused wide open using AF-C single-point (centred). I used a five second delayed shutter release, with pure electronic shutter (“Silent” mode). I did have to touch the camera between exposures, in order to adjust the aperture and press the shutter button, and this is why in some cases images are misaligned by a few pixels.

I used a fixed ISO of 64 in aperture-priority mode, letting the camera maintain constant exposure by varying the shutter speed (which ranged from 1/25 – 1/100). I did not normalise exposure in post – any variation you see in the images could be due to:

Differences in metering based on differing fields of view.
Error / inaccuracy in exposure by the camera.

Image stabilisation was disabled.

All the images you see embedded in this post are JPEGs with the quality set to 100%, as rendered from the raws by Lightroom Classic.

The crops are all from the exact centre, and are 1024 square.

All images were recorded as 14-bit lossless NEFs, and imported into Lightroom Classic with no modifications other than:

Reducing the exposure by 0.75 stops. I exposed-to-the-right to maximise image quality.
Setting the white balance to 4,500 with no tint. I left the camera on auto white-balance; I could have specified it as some fixed value in-camera, but I knew I could standardise it in post.

This also means that any built-in lens corrections, whether by the camera or Lightroom Classic, were performed. I left all those at factory settings, and I see no purpose in mucking with them since I – like most people – don’t muck with them in real-world use.

Lightroom Classic nominally applied some sharpening & noise reduction, per its defaults, but the settings were the same for all images (40/1.0/25/0 sharpening, 0/-/-/25/50/50 noise reduction).

Finally, I’ve provided the images for every aperture in a carousel, but also an A | B comparison of wide open vs what I feel is the most interesting juxtaposition (usually the sharpest aperture, though not always).

30ft @ 400

f/5.6

f/6.3

f/7.1

f/8

1of4

Almost no change across the apertures. This is either an excellent result or a terrible result, depending on whether it means it’s sharp from wide open or never gets sharp. That’s best judged by comparing it to other lenses – a task for a subsequent post.

There’s a very slight softening starting at f/7.1 (vs f/6.3 or wider), that’s slightly more pronounced – but still very minor – at f/8. This is most likely diffraction softening and as such is expected. On the 46 MP Z7 diffraction becomes the limiting factor in acuity beyond about f/6.3 (in theory).

12ft @ 400

f/5.6

f/6.3

f/7.1

f/8

1of4

It’s very slightly softer wide open, at f/5.6, than at f/6.3 or narrower. It’s less clear if diffraction has kicked in (as the limiting factor) by f/8 – to my eyes there’s very little difference between f/6.3, f/7.1, and f/8.

6ft @ 400

f/5.6

f/6.3

f/7.1

f/8

1of4

Perceived sharpness increases significantly from f/5.6 to f/6.3, and then only very slightly more up to f/8.

However, I don’t see any change in actual resolution – it’s entirely just about contrast. Careful post-processing re. micro-contrast might significantly reduce if not eliminate the difference in perceived sharpness.

MFD @ 400

f/5.6

f/6.3

f/7.1

f/8

1of4

Perceived sharpness improves significantly, steadily, all the way up to f/8 (which is as far as I tested).

As at 6ft, I don’t see any change in actual resolution – it’s entirely just about contrast.

MFD @ 100

f/4.5

f/5

f/5.6

f/6.3

f/7.1

f/8

1of6

Perceived sharpness increases significantly between f/4.5 (wide open) and about f/6.3. After that there’s no meaningful change.

Interestingly, unlike at 400 some portion of the perceived sharpness difference appears to be due to actual resolution differences, not just contrast. So this is the only case in any of the tests I’ve done here where stopping down might be strictly necessary for maximum possible sharpness.

Conclusion

I can’t really compare across focal lengths, because the subject changed size (in the frame). It seems to me that the achievable acuity is pretty good, and pretty similar, at all focal lengths.

There was a clear trend w.r.t. subject distance and wide-open performance, i.e. as the distance gets shorter, wide open becomes softer in comparison to narrower apertures. Thus the optimal aperture is (in my opinion):

MFD:
- 100: f/6.3 (-1 stop)
- 400: f/7.1 (-⅔ stop)
6ft: f/6.3 (-⅓ stop)
12ft: f/5.6 (wide open)
30ft: f/5.6 (wide open)

In some cases you do technically get slight improvements in perceived sharpness by stopping down further, but if you have to do so by raising ISO then it is definitely not worth it – the additional noise will outweigh the benefits.

Keep in mind, also, that at 400mm even when there was a difference in perceived sharpness, it was basically only due to changes in contrast. As such, in theory it can be fully compensated for in post-processing with e.g. micro-contrast adjustments. So I definitely wouldn’t stress if I forgot to stop down when my subject came super close.

It’d be great if wide open wasn’t slightly softer-looking at close distances, but as just noted the difference is largely correctable in post. More importantly, at most distances wide open is basically as sharp as any narrower aperture.

In a nutshell, this is an excellent result overall. At most subject distances, at 400, the only reason to stop down is if you actually want increased depth of field.

That all said, the real test is how the 100-400 compares against some of its competitors…

Truly deleting ‘removed’ files from Lightroom

Sun, 10 Mar 2019 17:29:06 +0000

When you tell Lightroom to deleted rejected photos, it pops up a dangerous dialog box:

Though it does explain itself well – i.e. if you want to actually delete the photos, you need to click “Delete from Disk” – the default option is that misleading “Remove” button, which doesn’t really remove the files at all – it merely makes Lightroom lose track of them. They’ll still be there on disk, wasting space forever.

And, you can’t directly undo this operation, so if you hit return a little too quickly, or misread the dialog at any point, you’re seemingly pretty screwed (if you have a Lightroom catalog of any significant size).

Luckily, there is a way to find these undead files – that doesn’t require you walking through every single file on disk one by one & comparing against Lightroom’s view of the world.

1In the left-side panel, under the “Folders” section, select all the folders and right-click on them (if you have multiple volumes listed under “Folders”, you’ll have to do this one volume at a time as Lightroom won’t let you select folders across multiple volumes simultaneously). You’ll get a contextual menu:

2Click “Synchronize Folder…”. A dialog will appear:

You probably want to uncheck “Remove missing photos from catalog” (if it’s not already disabled) and “Scan for metadata updates”, as those are unrelated to the purpose here and have their own ramifications. Instead, just select “Import new photos” and “Show import dialog before importing”. Then, click “Synchronize”.

3Lightroom’s standard import dialog will now appear, and will slowly sort through all the files in the folder(s) you selected, filtering them down to just those that exist on disk yet are not tracked in Lightroom – e.g. all those rejects you accidentally “Removed” but didn’t really remove previously. You can now review those and see what you’ve got – it’s possible you’ll find in there media you didn’t intend to delete, but rather were somehow misplaced by Lightroom at some point.

You might want to, in the import dialog, change your preview generation setting to ‘Minimal’ in order to minimise import time & wasted preview generation. You could also choose to add some keywords to the imports, e.g. “to be deleted” or “recovered” or “undead”, if you’re not going to just immediately delete them anyway.

In any case, you can now import some or all the undead files. Importing them might seem counter-productive, since the goal here is to delete them – but it’s necessary for the final step…

4Once they’re imported, you can now immediately mark them as rejects and delete all rejects again – this time correctly choosing “Removing from Disk”.

So while it’s a bit roundabout, it does get the job done pretty quickly and easily. Now if only Lightroom would fix that stupid dialog to make the default option the one that actually does what you told Lightroom to do to begin with. 🙄

Nikon Z7 second impressions

Fri, 26 Oct 2018 06:00:53 +0000

I’ve had much more time, since my first impressions posts, to use the Z7. I’ve used it for studio portraiture, wildlife (albeit at zoos mostly), hiking, around the house (kittens for teh win!), and more. A pretty wide range of scenarios. The scenarios I haven’t yet explored with it, but really want to soon, are timelapse & astrophotography (the latter requiring lenses I don’t currently have).

So without further ado, here are my findings thus far, and current opinion of the Z7:

Autofocus is just plain bad

Even in good light it’s unreliable. The nature of the unreliability is different to Nikon’s DSLRs, where the main problems are those intrinsic to DSLR designs with an off-sensor autofocus system, e.g. systematic back- or front-focus, inconsistent accuracy across the frame, etc. On the Z7, none of those appear to be issues, but instead they’re replaced with:

Atrocious performance relative to light levels, as I’ve covered previously. This isn’t just about “low”-light use – even in broad daylight, in direct sunlight, it can still struggle on low-contrast or backlit subjects, even with very high quality f/1.4 lenses.
Poor reliability, in that some photos will be wildly out of focus for absolutely no apparent reason, despite most others in a series being relatively fine. This really screwed me on a (well-lit) portrait shoot recently, when I later discovered that quite a number of photos were utterly out of focus and were effectively lost. In most such cases, absolutely nothing in the frame was in focus – typically the camera had front-focused wildly, well in front of anything visible in the frame. In other scenarios, I’ve seen it similarly back-focus to infinity for no apparent reason.
Inability to tell, through the EVF, if a photo is even vaguely correctly focused or not. The EVF gives a false impression of sharpness by its nature, so a lot of the time what appears to be in sharp focus through it is in fact unusably out of focus in reality (especially with the fairly demanding resolution of the Z7, wide apertures, and/or close subjects – such as in portraits).
The overly large AF regions (especially in video mode) often encompass more than just the subject of interest, and the Z7 seems to frequently favour the furthest object within the AF region, not the closest as is typical in every other camera I’ve ever used (and makes much more sense in almost all scenarios).

Beyond issues of correctness, there’s the numerous usability issues that have been raised by myself & others, such as the inability to map different AF modes to different buttons, the awkwardness involved in using subject tracking, etc. I’m still holding onto hope that Nikon will at least fix those flaws in a firmware update.

Viewfinder zoom is sluggish & not available in video mode

It took me a while to put my finger on what felt so awkward about the zoom-in mode that EVFs allow for, and almost all implement – Z7 included. It wasn’t until I happened upon someone else pointing out the obvious that I saw it clearly too – there’s huge lag in the viewfinder image when zoom is engaged. It makes it very difficult to keep up with a moving subject, or even just the movement of the camera itself (most pronounced with macro work). It also makes it a little bit more difficult to manually focus, or at least to do so quickly, since the feedback cycle is so long.

Unfortunately, zoom isn’t available at all in video mode, which is a shame.

Hard lock-ups

The camera itself is surprisingly buggy. It frequently locks up, sometimes with an error message like that shown above, but sometimes just in whatever state it happened to be at the time. Sometimes using the on/off switch actually works, but sometimes that switch does absolutely nothing and you have to pull the battery to hard reset the camera.

This is frustrating, as you’d imagine, and I can say from first hand experience is very uncomfortable & embarrassing when you’re stuck furtively trying to get your camera to work at all in front of a group of expectant portrait subjects in a professional setting.

Note: Nikon did just today release 1.0.1 firmware which fixes one lock-up problem, but the patch note’s description of the symptoms don’t match mine, or at least are only a subset of the scenarios in which I’ve seen this issue. I’ll of course apply that update, and we’ll see if the problem persists.

Charging problems?

I do enjoy being able to just plug the camera into a USB-C charger and not bother with removing the battery and finding the power plug charger etc. It also makes it much less likely I’ll find myself on site with a camera containing no battery, such as if I grab the camera in a rush out the door.

However, one time (thus far) when I had left the camera charging overnight, I grabbed it the next day to find it had only 23% battery left. It apparently didn’t charge at all. I have no idea why – it was correctly plugged in. There is a tiny LED charging light on the side of the camera, above the USB-C socket, which evidently must be scrutinised frequently to ensure charging is actually occurring – but I don’t know if it never started charging, or did but then stopped, or what.

XQD availability is a real issue

I got to drive an extra 90 minutes back home & back out last weekend, because I forgot the one XQD card I own was in the card reader attached to my computer – doh! – something that could have been likely avoided had Nikon U.S.A. included an XQD card in the box, as was done everywhere else on the planet. 😒

The reason this is practically unique to the Z7 is because it only supports XQD cards, not also SD, which is a big problem because:

XQD cards are insanely expensive (and getting more expensive over time), and therefore most people (myself included) cannot afford to have lots of them. In contrast, I have about 30 SD cards, which cost me very little all-told, and which practically-speaking means I have them everywhere, so even if I forget one in a card reader, I can invariably find numerous others wherever I am. In ~six years of DSLR photography I don’t recall ever being without a usable SD card (though I certainly recall leaving some at home by accident many times).
XQD cards are sold almost nowhere – it’s almost always impossible to buy them on the fly, currently. If I got on a plane without my one XQD card, I’d probably be screwed for the whole trip, depending on where I go – at best I could hope that Amazon or B&H or Adorama can deliver to wherever I’m travelling, but that might take days if not a week. Not that I like the insane prices tourist traps charge for ancient 8 GiB SD cards, but at least they’re there in a real pinch.

VR problems?

The electronic shutter occasionally interacts very badly with the 70-200 VR II (if not other lenses – I’ve only used a couple heavily on the Z7 thus far, and only sometimes in scenarios where this problem would manifest clearly).

It’s very weird – there will be one or more horizontal bands of significant motion-blur across the image, which looks to me like the VR system failing (or otherwise misbehaving) for only parts of the exposure (a hypothesis supported by the fact that often you can see the characteristic “double exposure” of an abrupt VR movement).

I’m guessing this happens predominately, if not exclusively, when using electronic shutters, given the relatively slow sensor scanning rate & that I’ve only seen it thus far in that shutter mode.

It’s quite frustrating not just because of what it is, but because there’s no way to tell it’s happening at the time (short of rigorous chimping) and it seems to persist for a significant stretch of time when it occurs, ruining long sequences of photos at a time.

Alas I don’t have any example photos yet that I’m at liberty to share, but I’ll try to remember to do so when the opportunity presents itself.

It could also be a fault with my 70-200 VR II. It was acquired second-hand, and there’s hints it was “well loved” previously. Nonetheless, I’ve never seen this phenomenon with that lens on a D500.

Battery life is solid

I was never really worried about battery life, given CIPA ratings are famously non-representative of any real world usage. In practice I’ve found it to not be an issue – I can easily get at least a thousand photos out of it per battery, even with heavy EVF use. Granted that’s not the 4,000 – 5,000 the D500 would manage, but it’s still enough for me most of the time. Only once did I have to swap batteries during the day (though I do feel compelled to typically carry a spare anyway, so I guess it’s not completely trustworthy in that respect).

Auto-transmission to a Mac is nice

It’s finicky to get set up, and to re-connect each time you want to use it for a session, and it never auto-reconnects such as after you’ve walked out of the room for a moment… but nonetheless I’ve found the feature to be pretty interesting and nice to have. I guess it’s been available on many Nikon DSLR’s previously, but I believe only with the ludicrously expensive Nikon wireless transmitter dongle.

Transfer speeds are obnoxiously slow – it takes several seconds for a JPEG even, let-alone the ~30 seconds for a single NEF – but in my limited use so far it does seem to at least plod along reliably. If you’re photographing rapidly, it can’t possibly keep up, but for relatively slow-paced use (e.g. studio work) it’s mostly fine.

Given the slow transfer speeds, I wouldn’t try to use it for on-the-spot image review – cabled tethering is still necessary for that. What it is perfectly suited to is periodic review during a photo session, during breaks or whatever intervals you can sneak in.

Overall it’s much faster & more reliable than SnapBridge, too, which ostensibly could do the same thing – albeit only with hand-held devices rather than real computers – but in practice has always proven unreliable (and is even harder to get working at all to begin with).

Image quality is impressive

I know on paper the Z7 isn’t the king of low-light photography vs its peers, like the Sony a7R II or III. But I know that I’ve used the a7R II, and while it also has impressively low noise, the Z7 seems even better.

With the D500, I’d typically try very hard to keep it as ISO 100, or otherwise as low as possible – even if that means having to take literally 50 photos just to get one without serious motion blur. Even at ISO 100, the D500 has very visible noise and requires substantial post-processing if you want to get a silky-smooth look.

The Z7 doesn’t. ISO 64 looks amazing w.r.t. noise, and even climbing up through the ISO hundreds I rarely feel the need to do any noise reduction. It’s not until you get into the ISO thousands, or (especially) tens of thousands, that noise reduction really becomes necessary.

In short the image quality overall, particularly w.r.t. noise, is way better vs Nikon’s DX DSLRs than it should be. Many stops better. I don’t understand how, but I’ve long noticed that photos from FX sensors seemed unusually sharp, at the pixel level, vs DX (and smaller) sensors. I’d most often presumed it was just some careful post-processing. Now, I wonder if the Z7 – perhaps intrinsic to its high-end FX nature and thus shared with the D850 & predecessors – is fundamentally substantially sharper at the pixel level, irrespective of resolution differences, than DX sensors, even those with very similarly sized pixels (e.g. the D500, at 4.22µm, vs the D850 / Z7 at 4.35µm).

Enabling flash support can be surprisingly tricky

There’s quite a few settings on the Z7, vs Nikon’s DSLRs or at least the D500 and predecessors, that preclude using flash. e.g. using fully electronic shutters, or H+ release mode, etc. There’s always been a couple of settings, on Nikon’s DSLRs, that would prevent the use of flash, but the Z7 exacerbates the problem – which is mostly just confusion. I expect in time I’ll get more familiar with this and better at relatively quickly going through the menus & switching all the things that need switching in order to permit use of flash – or if I were smart I’d just program one of the User modes for this purpose – but I felt it’s worth noting. When I attached a flash the other day, having not used one with the Z7 for a couple of weeks, it (embarrassingly) took me nearly twenty minutes to find all the settings I had to change in order to get flash to work. In fact I thought my flashes were broken, at first.

Mostly this is just reality, and not a bug or design flaw per se, but there is one failure on Nikon’s part in this – they provide absolutely no information on why flash is disabled. If I could at least tap on the greyed-out flash button and have it explain why flash was unavailable, I’d be able to very quickly rectify the situation. Instead, I have to maintain a mental checklist of all the settings I need to check, to ensure they’re set to something flash-compatible.

It’s very easy to take too many photos

I keep getting surprised when I import my photos at the end of the day, and discover I took a lot more than I thought. Despite coming from a D500 with a faster continuous shooting rate.

I’m not sure why this is, but I suspect it’s because of the completely silent operation of the camera – the loud thuds & snaps of a D500 mirror & shutters makes it very clear, including to everyone around you, that you’re taking photos. The Z7’s silence, I think, leads to a false sense of calm and inaction. 😆

I’m very much enjoying the silent operation – after some initial teething pains with artificial lighting and banding, which I’m happy to say is fairly easily & fairly effectively rectified by sticking to roughly integer multiples of the illumination frequency (typically 60Hz in the U.S., which is convenient because 1/60 & 1/125 are good shutter speeds for event photography, which is usually where both lighting is artificial and silence is golden).

Lightroom really struggles with Z7 NEFs

Lightroom’s never been mistaken for a fast application by any means, but with the Z7’s NEF files (compared to ≤24 MP ones of various Nikon DSLRs) it’s particularly slow. Just moving between adjacent images in single-image view takes almost exactly six seconds to load every image, every time. From an SSD.

Worse, it seems to not support Z7 NEFs properly. It’s hard to put my finger on what’s going on precisely, but lots of things are just weird:

Various Develop module settings are arbitrarily (and somewhat randomly) set to non-zero values by default, which I’ve never seen with any other camera’s photos before, and can’t find any way to prevent happening (nor any obvious rhyme or reason as to which settings are set & to what values, for any given photo).
The camera & lens profile support seems broken, or something… e.g. it seems to be unable to identify what lens profile to use, for lens corrections. You can still specify the profile to use manually, and lens corrections seem to work still, but it’s laborious to have to dig through the pop-up menus for every photo. Plus, Lightroom claims, for every single photo irrespective of camera settings, that the “built-in” lens profile has been applied. I don’t know what that means, but distortion & vignetting are definitely not being corrected by default, with any lenses.
White balance is interpreted incorrectly. What Lightroom calls “As shot” isn’t, not even close. e.g. when set to “Flash” in-camera, which should be something around 5200K and neutral in green/magenta, it’s interpreted by Lightroom as 6000K and 22 towards green. The result is the wrong – and a rather peculiar looking – white-balance under flash. Manually correcting it to 5200K & 0 green results in a white balance much closer to correct and the in-camera JPEGs.

ffmpeg can produce pseudo-corrupt audio when ‘copy’ing to an MP4 container

Wed, 01 Aug 2018 15:56:08 +0000

I’ve been using ffmpeg to trim clips from a trail camera, as most of the time there’s only a few seconds of anything interesting in frame out of the 30+ seconds of video it records each time, but I don’t want to re-encode them and lose video quality as a result (or balloon file sizes tremendously with a lossless video coding). Keeping the whole 30 seconds is not just unnecessary and makes viewing the videos much more tedious, but wasteful of storage space as the encoding quality from the trail camera is very inefficient (file sizes are many times larger than they should be for the quality – clearly the H.264 encoder used in the trail camera is very cheap and very bad at its job).

I was originally doing something like:

ffmpeg -ss 00:07 -t 00:03 -i "IMG_0164.MP4" -async 1 -c copy "IMG_0164_TRIMMED.MP4"

The resulting trimmed MP4s play just fine in Quicktime, the Finder – anywhere that uses Apple’s decoding libraries (though I didn’t test iOS).

However, in VLC, or Lightroom, the audio is completely corrupt – just incoherent noise. In Lightroom the video doesn’t even play correctly, because of Lightroom’s stupid habit of re-encoding the video & audio into internal caches – apparently their video decoder is somehow thrown off by the audio channel issues, too.

After much trial and error and many dead-ends (thank you completely bogus & wrong Stack Overflow threads… sigh) I eventually realised that the problem is apparently simply that Lightroom, VLC, etc get offended when you include pcm_s16le audio in an MP4. ffmpeg itself says that’s not a valid audio codec for the MP4 container, iff you explicitly tell it to use that as the codec. If you’re just copying from an existing audio / video file, however, it makes no mention at all of the concern. Sigh.

So the apparent solution is simply to switch to the MOV container format instead.

ffmpeg -ss 00:07 -t 00:03 -i "IMG_0164.MP4" -async 1 -c copy "IMG_0164_TRIMMED.MOV"

The encoded bits remain identical, but the MOV container apparently accepts PCM audio where MP4 does not. VLC, Lightroom, etc are now happy (and Quicktime et al remain happy).

(another possibility is that the ‘incompatibility’ is related to MP4 levels or some other such junk… I didn’t try deciphering or exploring that)

It’s frustrating that VLC & Lightroom can’t handle this when clearly it’s technically possible (witness Quicktime), and worse they don’t even properly recognise that they’re not handling it properly – they just play completely corrupt audio that’s literally painful on the ears.

It’s also very curious that the trail camera uses PCM audio if that’s not valid in an MP4 container. It’s downright bizarre that VLC & Lightroom can play the unmodified MP4s straight from the trail camera, even though they use the same purportedly invalid audio codec… somehow something ffmpeg is doing during its transmutation is making them angry. I was unable to determine what that might be, though, through trial-and-error with ffmpeg command line options & rudimentary examination of the input & output files.

P.S. An alternative is to bitwise-copy only the video stream (i.e. change -c copy to -c:v copy), and let VLC transcode the audio into its default AAC for the MP4 container. That probably wouldn’t be a problem for me in my case – the audio from trail cameras is pretty crappy to begin with – but at the same time the audio tracks in these files are insignificant in size, so re-encoding them (and lossy as AAC) is pointless to saving disk space.

iMac Pro first impressions

Tue, 06 Feb 2018 03:14:43 +0000

10-core w/ Vega64. Upgrading from a 2014 Retina iMac.

Relatively briefly, and in no particular order:

I don’t see why the very slightly different colour scheme, vs the regular iMacs, is such a big deal to some people. Yes, it’s fairly obviously a different colour. No, it doesn’t really look any better (nor worse) than the regular iMac’s colour.
It’s disappointing that it comes with such crappy input devices (the mouse & keyboard at least). They’re the usual ergonomic & general usability disasters that Apple’s infamous for as of recent years.

Digression: I also recently got a new MacBook Pro 13″ with Touch Bar for my work machine, which has an even worse keyboard than the iMac Pro, if such a thing is possible. It’s literally painful to type on.
According to Intel’s Power Gadget tool, it basically sits at 3.6 GHz permanently.

On the upside, it doesn’t seem to ever drop below that, despite nominally having a 3.0 GHz base frequency, even under the heaviest loads I can throw at it (including heavy, concurrent GPU use).

On the downside, it’s supposed to turbo up to 4.5 GHz, but I’ve never seen the tool report that. It does get up above 4.0 GHz if you only have one or two threads actually active, but only barely. Intel’s tool only has 20ms sampling resolution, so it’s quite possible it is bursting to 4.5 GHz in very short stints. In fairness, the regular iMacs exhibit basically the same behaviour – my 2014 Retina iMac nominally boosted up to 4.4 GHz, but in reality rarely if ever hit that. Under load, that iMac struggled to reach 4.0 GHz. Unless the ambient temperature was uncomfortably cold, it’d easily fall down to not much more than 3.0 GHz under any kind of sustained load, and sometimes even further, into the 2.x GHz range.
The fan is quite audible under any real load, even though I have some loud Thunderbolt disk bays and other things even closer to me than the iMac Pro. I have no idea what some reviewers have been talking about w.r.t. the fan being “whisper quiet” or outright “inaudible”, because it definitely is not quiet. It’s not loud, to be sure, but you can’t miss it.

Under basically no load, there is indeed very little fan noise, but that’s both an unrealistic use case and certainly no better than the regular iMacs.
It does feel dramatically faster than a non-Pro iMac. I did not expect this. Certainly I expected significant objective improvements in parallel workloads – mainly batch photo & video editing in my case – but in fact the speed improvement is very noticeable even in single-threaded workloads. I’m not sure why yet… the internal SSD is faster than the SATA SSD in my prior iMac, but the difference I’m seeing doesn’t seem plausibly explained by that [alone].

I’m also seemingly seeing it perform significantly better under load, w.r.t. user interaction. Even with all CPU cores completely busy, and the GPU likewise, interactive use remains basically as fast as when it’s idle. This is a pretty big difference – and very pleasant improvement – over the non-Pro iMacs. It’s really nice to not have to just walk away while CPU-intensive tasks are running.
The screen doesn’t immediately appear much different – in terms of colours, contrast, brightness, etc – to my old 2014 Retina iMac. But it’s very clear which is which, because the iMac Pro has no image retention issues, whereas the 2014 iMac has pretty severe ones.

Though when specifically looking at sRGB vs Display-P3 examples, the difference is quite a bit moreso than I expected, which is of course a pleasant discovery.
It’s so much better to have a proper, native VESA mount vs the hacks you had to do with prior iMacs.
iStat Menus can’t read any sensors (except CPU frequency, once Intel’s Power Gadget is installed), though I expect this is going to be fixed fairly soon, in a future version.
The ports on the back aren’t properly aligned with the case where they protrude, unlike non-Pro iMacs. Meaning when you plug a cable in, it doesn’t align relatively flatly against the curved case, but rather tilts upwards a bit. This is a really odd change – though obviously minor and practically insignificant.
I don’t yet understand why, but Lightroom Classic CC is noticeably snappier. Particularly in the Develop module as you make edits and then wait for the results to appear on screen. In some cases it’s an order of magnitude faster – e.g. less than a second instead of 5-10 seconds. It’s still not consistently fast by any means, but it’s no longer always infuriatingly slow.

I’m unconvinced, regardless, that the laws of physics will allow creation of a computer upon which Adobe’s software won’t run agonisingly slowly.
Officially it’s quite a bit heavier than the non-Pro iMacs, but I was surprised to find that it’s actually lighter for me… though that’s because with the stand removed – replaced by the VESA mount – it of course under-weighs the regular iMacs with their fixed stands still stuck in them plus a VESA mount adapter.

Lightroom “Classic” doesn’t play well with others

Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:16:57 +0000

So far the new “Classic” Lightroom looks & feels mostly identical to the prior version(s), which isn’t really a compliment, but could be worse. There’s no apparent performance improvements, that’s for sure, so as expected Adobe’s promises to suddenly learn how to write efficient & performant software, well… at least their marketing department gave it the college try.

One thing I have very quickly discovered, however, is that Lightroom “Classic” deliberately chooses not to perform some functions if it is le tired. Or it thinks your computer is le tired. By which I mean, if there is pretty much anything else running and consuming CPU time (and/or RAM?), it refuses to even attempt some operations. HDR merges is the first one I hit. I was a bit flummoxed by it just happily queuing up a number of HDR merge operations, and them just sitting there in its queue, with no indication of error – just never executing.

Only after I quit or disabled a bunch of other processes – any and all that were using any measurable CPU time – did it finally, about ten seconds later, decide that it was now willing to consider my ‘requests’.

#%@!ing fussy little turd.

It’s worth noting that it’s not the only popular app, on macOS, that does this same bullshit. Time Machine is another big one. At least in Time Machine’s case I can see a more plausible line of reasoning behind it, even if it is misguided – the user’s probably not explicitly waiting for a Time Machine backup to complete. As in, not all the time. Sometimes they are. And they certainly expect backups to happen at all, which on a consistently busy machine simply doesn’t happen. So Time Machine’s reluctance to function on a working machine is still stupid overall. But Lightroom refusing to complete a user initiated, user-interactive, and user-blocking operation, is just patently stupid by its very notion.

Update: Worse, now it doesn’t work at all. And a quick web search shows many other people having the same problem, and Adobe as usual doing nothing about it.

Incidentally, I tried to log in to Adobe’s forums in order to ‘Me too’ those issues, only it won’t let me log in anymore, falsely claiming my password is invalid. Good job, Adobe, good job.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom doesn’t support Adobe Photoshop files

Mon, 29 May 2017 05:20:31 +0000

I need a ‘facepalm’ category apparently. There’s been a lot of that lately.

You cannot import, let-alone work on, Photoshop files (“PSB” file extension) in Lightroom. It flat-out doesn’t support them. That’s such a weird limitation & oversight, for a program that Adobe now officially names ‘Adobe Photoshop Lightroom’.

See also this six year old thread on Adobe’s website, asking for this feature.

Your system has run out of application memory HUR HUR HUR

Tue, 16 May 2017 17:22:47 +0000

I hate this dialog with the fire of a thousand suns.

When this appears, it basically means one (or both) of two things:

Some application went nuts and chewed through all your memory and/or disk space.
macOS got itself into a darkly comical & embarrassing deadlock.

Quitting any of the listed applications is rarely the correct move. It’s often enough the case that none of them are the root cause, and you can kill all of them if you want, but it won’t fix the problem.

One important thing to clarify first, though, is that this dialog does not necessarily use the term ‘memory’ in the conventional sense – i.e. RAM. It can also refer to disk space. Unfortunately it doesn’t bother to distinguish between the two, which is particularly stupid of it since any possible resolution of the issue is highly dependent on which of the two cases it in fact is.

Thank goodness for iStatMenus, though, which in the most recent incident showed that I had ~20 GiB of RAM completely free (not even inactive, actually outright free). So immediately that rules out what the daft bloody dialog’s actually saying.

The worst thing about all this is when it’s #2 the occurs. For example, I had Lightroom do a 63-image panorama merge. As Lightroom is a gross memory pig when doing panorama merging, it consumed something like 40 GiB of memory. Which caused a bunch of stuff to page to disk. Which consumed all the disk space. Which led to that obnoxious dialog. Which further led to macOS in its infinite fucking wisdom ‘pausing’ (SIGSTOPing) almost all running programs, including evidently whatever daemon actually handles paging. Thus when Lightroom actually completed the panorama merge and released all that memory, I now had 20 GiB of free memory and the system refused to use any of it to page back in all that memory it’d paged out. Because it was out of disk space.

The only solution – short of hard rebooting and hoping it resolves itself – was to delete a bunch of files I actually do still want, but which will now have to be recovered from a backup. Great job macOS, thanks for all your help.

Of course, even once you do that and recover the system from the derpeche mode it put itself into, it won’t actually unpause any of the shit it broke. You have to do that manually. It pretends you can do that via that dialog that started the whole thing – assuming you left it open the entire time, blocking your view as you actually help the situation – but that only shows user-visible applications, not all the other system & background processes that it also rudely halted.

So, simple tip for resuming everything:

sudo killall -CONT -m '.'

Elegant, after a fashion. Though every time, it reminds me that whomever named it ‘killall’ was either not very friendly or not very wise.

Note that the system will probably still be a bit broken in places, as despite what macOS thinks, you can’t just blindly pause random system tasks and not have things get really, really confused. A reboot is always wise after seeing this dialog, to properly undo its fuckery.

EXIF metadata stores random gibberish for dates & times

Sun, 08 Jan 2017 19:06:19 +0000

I hadn’t ’til yesterday realised that EXIF metadata doesn’t actually store dates & times correctly. Whoever came up with the spec all those decades ago clearly didn’t know how to work with dates & times correctly. This is immensely frustrating since now we have countless images taken with timestamps that are collectively gibberish.

The problem is that the standard doesn’t specify time zones in almost all cases (the sole exception being for GPS timestamps, which are in UTC). Which means if you see the date & time “2016-02-03T10:36:33.40” in your photo, that could be any actual time give or take ~25 hours to either side of that.

I realise now, in hindsight, that programs like Aperture & Lightroom manage this by implicitly associating a time zone with photos as they’re imported (and both have controls of varying degrees for ‘correcting’ the time of the photos, in cases where the camera’s clock is set wrong – including being set to the wrong time zone). They leave it to the user to ensure the time zone that’s set for import matches what was on the camera at the time the photos were recorded.

However, if you’re processing images at scale and don’t have that explicit information from the user(s), you’re SOL.

Additionally, I don’t know anyone with a DSLR who hasn’t at least occasionally forgotten to change the date & time on their camera to account for changes in daylight savings time, or movement to a new time zone. If the time zone were recorded, this wouldn’t really matter since you could reliable change it later. But since it’s not, it’s impossible to tell programatically when and where the time zone changes, in a given series of photos.

Now, you might think that since the GPS timestamp is actually recorded as a real, definitive time, that you could just use that to determine the time zone of other dates & times in the metadata (by simply looking at the difference between them). Unfortunately, in this case, the GPS timestamp is defined as the time at which the GPS data was recorded, not when the photo was created (or edited, or any of the other types of timestamps recorded in EXIF metadata). Which means that in practice the GPS timestamp can be an unspecified & unpredictable amount of time older than the other timestamps¹.

If it were just a matter of a few minutes difference then this wouldn’t be an issue, since the vast majority of the world only acknowledges half hour increments in time zone steps² and thus you could just round and get things right most of the time. Unfortunately, at least some notable GPS implementations in popular cameras have potentially huge deltas (hours or more) – e.g. all of Nikon’s SnapBridge cameras, including the D500, D5600, & D3400.

And that’s assuming the camera’s clock isn’t set wrong anyway – it’s possible to include GPS data in your photos but not sync the camera’s clock, in at least some popular cameras like Nikon’s. ↩︎
Wikipedia reports that there are a couple of small regions of Australia & New Zealand which use 15 minute offsets, and the entirety of Nepal does too, but those are the only exceptions. And only a small minority use half hour offsets, as opposed to hour offsets, to begin with. ↩︎

Lightroom’s flaws & limitations

Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:04:55 +0000

I’m attempting to switch to Lightroom, from Aperture, given lack of better alternatives. I’ve attempted this switch a couple of times before, without success.

I’m finding that it’s still kind of annoying. Here’s the start of my laundry list against it:

It’s very slow. I am already so very tired of seeing that blasted “Loading…” floater.
- I’m running it off of a pair of SATA-connected SSDs – one for the library, one for the originals. It has enough usable bandwidth to read in dozens of photos a second. But it still takes three to five seconds to show just one.
It’s also a bit slow to actually show adjustments as you make them, a lot of the time. Aperture, despite not being updated for many years to take advantage of all sorts of new technologies, is still much more responsive and fluid, and consequently faster to use.
- I did notice that Capture One is also a bit sluggish sometimes, in this respect. Sad panda – everyone’s screwing this up, it seems.
When you scroll around in the grid view, it’s a bit janky – see prior point on Lightroom just generally being sluggish – but even worse, it doesn’t show the photo’s metadata reliably. A lot of it is invisible for a while, ‘loading in’ some time later. It’s really annoying to have to frequently wait for Lightroom to get around to actually showing me the grid view properly. And it’s also very distracting to see the metadata popping in at random intervals for random photos.
Its search & filtering tools are kinda piss-weak. e.g. you can do a text search of metadata for only one thing at a time. And you can’t even specify what metadata you want to search, with very few exceptions.
As I’d shown previously, its RAW renderer is not very good. Image quality out of the box is very poor – mainly that even bright, ISO 100 shots have unacceptably high noise visible and require strong noise reduction. This is unnecessary in every other RAW renderer I’ve ever used (Aperture wasn’t great either, granted, but at least it erred on the side of not noisy-as-heck by default; it’s much easier to add sharpening as necessary than to have to noise reduce every time).
- And its noise reduction tool isn’t great either – much like Aperture’s, it’s ham-fisted and often requires painstaking brush-work to selectively apply it to each photo.
Its sharpening tool is not very good either. It introduces grittiness and nasty edge haloes really quickly, relative to how much actual sharpness & detail it’s revealing. Now I understand why so many Lightroom users seem to use 3rd-party sharpening (and noise reduction) plug-ins.
- On the upside, vs Aperture, it does let you set a detail-sensitive ‘mask’, which helps reduce brushwork somewhat. Unfortunately it lacks the corresponding slider for its noise reduction tool, which reintroduces the need to do painstaking brushwork.
Its system for managing brush masks is surprisingly awkward. Aperture was much more straightforward (though not without its own foibles, like not letting you share masks between adjustment tools). e.g. to see an overlay of where the mask actually is, you have to however the mouse over a tiny little dot – and there may be several on the photo, if you’ve added several different masks, with no way to distinguish them other than their arbitrary locations. And worse, you have to wait a couple of seconds, every time, for the mask overlay to actually appear. And then as soon as you move off the dot – e.g. to actually modify the mask – it disappears! Ridiculous!
- Capture One has the best implementation of this that I’ve seen, so far. There’s a couple of things about Capture One’s that I find a little awkward, compared to Aperture’s, but overall it’s still the best.
It’s possible to have filters applied but the filter bar hidden. Very confusing – it took me quite some time to figure out why a bunch of photos simply weren’t showing up. It’d make much more sense, IMHO, to have the ‘hide the filter bar’ option only apply when there aren’t any filters actually applied. Though I do recognise the counter-opinion.
Deleting photos is unnecessarily difficult. If you’re viewing a collection, there’s no way to do it directly. The least sucky way I’ve found is to mark target photos as ‘Rejected’, and then go to the “All Photographs” view and hit command-delete. Lots of unnecessary steps and distracting from the workflow.
Its built-in Flickr export forces all photos to sRGB. Sad, blunt fail.
- There is a popular third-party plug-in, Photo Upload, which I’m using for now, but I keep finding it rubs me a bit the wrong way. Hopefully just a matter of getting used to it – FlickrExport for Aperture, which I’d relied on previously, wasn’t perfect either. And on the upside, the author seems very responsive and courteous, which is refreshing and encouraging.
Import from SD cards is a little sluggish. Not terrible – I’m talking ~60 MB/s on a card & reader combo capable of ≥80 MB/s – but it’s still a bit disappointing. Aperture is faster.
Its metadata editing interface is certainly better than Capture One’s horrible & buggy one, but still a far cry from Aperture’s. I miss being able to customise the metadata view, but beyond that, even basic things are a bit awkward, like the ‘Title’ and ‘Caption’ fields being tiny and thrown arbitrarily down towards the end of the list.
- Though it does have one handy thing – clicking on the field name shows a pop-up menu listing recently used values, which is actually a thoughtful touch. Auto-completion is also available, but it’s nice to avoid the keyboard <-> mouse shift.
I still don’t like its modality. I find I have to shift between ‘Library’ and ‘Develop’ modes a lot, which’d be tedious enough even without the fact that a whole bunch of keyboard shortcuts are different between the two. Super annoying. I keep hitting keys expecting some predictable result, and instead just get NSBeeps, or totally undesired effects, or worse – just a flash of a menubar item with no indication of what the #%@! just happened, or how to undo it. Gah!

And I could go on. And probably will in future – I need somewhere to vent and mind-bogglingly Adobe offer no way to actually file bug reports & feature requests with them directly.

I really get the impression that Adobe haven’t paid due attention to their [former] competition, Aperture. There’s just so many things that Aperture has done better for nearly a decade now. If they were holding off ‘copying’ it out of some sense of honour, that’s respectable, but the time for it has long passed, given Aperture’s demise.

Raw editor comparison – Shadows

Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:42:21 +0000

This is a follow-up to my previous Raw converter comparison – you can see that post for info on things like my motivation, basic processing methods, etc.

The goal in this case is just to test how well each raw editor – Aperture 3.6, Capture One 9 Pro, DxO Optics 10, and Lightroom CC 2015.3 – can lift an underexposed photo. For pedants, note that I’m specifically applying an overall exposure adjustment, not just shadow recovery, though I expect that fundamentally any ‘Shadow’ sliders in these editors are just a strict subset of their ‘Exposure’ sliders.

First, here’s the test image as it first appears when viewed in each of the contenders:

Some differences in how each raw converter operates by default, unsurprisingly. But clearly the photo is massively underexposed. In case you’re wondering, this was just setting up for a macro shoot, and for whatever reason the flashes didn’t fire in this exposure.

And below is the edited version. My goal here was to bring the photo up to a broadly ‘normal’ or ‘correct’ exposure. At first I assumed this would just mean some ‘Exposure’ adjustment applied identically between the four contenders, but it quickly became apparent that their adjustment tools just aren’t equivalent like that.

For reference, the adjustments made for each were:

Aperture 3.6 – +6 exposure
Capture One 9 Pro – +4 exposure, +35 brightness
DxO Optics 10 – +3 exposure
Lightroom CC 2015.3 – +5 exposure

The additional use of the ‘Brightness’ slider in Capture One was necessary because its ‘Exposure’ slider is hard-limited to ±4, obnoxiously.

Clearly one of these things is not like the other. Or, put another way:

Here’s a zoomed in view of a representative part of the image:

So, Aperture… enough said.

Amongst the other three, there’s lots of room for opinion. DxO Optics has applied much more noise reduction, to the point where it’s quite obvious and (in my opinion) a bit over-done. Capture One and Lightroom have done a similar job, though I think Capture One has done genuinely better at suppressing the banding, and the noise in certain areas – particularly the midtones.

Now, this section of the image is out of focus. A necessary question – given it appears the main difference is simply in the noise reduction being applied – is how well genuine detail is retained. So here’s a second 100% clipping from the image:

DxO Optics happens to have retained the highlights a bit better, which is fine but remember that I didn’t bother recovering highlights at all, which I’m sure all of them would be able to do just fine (since ‘recovery’ in this sense means merely not so massively lifting them out of shadow).

There’s not much else to say here, though. Aperture is incredibly horrible. And the other three behave much the same as we’ve seen before:

DxO Optics has gone for very strong noise reduction by default, which has actually rendered the small in-focus area not too badly. But really softened everything else, in a slightly blotchy “I’ve been noise reduced” way.
Capture One has a more subtle look, that’s actually a little crisper than DxO Optics’, but has significantly more noise and banding visible.
Lightroom goes even further, with a very noisy and very banded rendition that can perhaps give an illusion of extra detail, though there actually isn’t anything there that Capture One & DxO Optics don’t also reveal.

Again, it looks like the difference is primarily in noise reduction. I’m not going to try to ‘equalize’ their noise reduction settings – from experience that’s highly subjective – but I suspect you could ultimately get similar results, to suit your own taste, from any of Capture One, DxO Optics, or Lightroom.

But you’ll never get anything usable out of Aperture, from this kind of scenario. That one’s dead, Jim.

An update on Aperture

“noirdesir” on DPReview’s forums (and Jim M here in the comments) identified Aperture’s problem: that it’s got a fixed blackpoint which is preventing it from actually bring up any real shadow detail.

Unfortunately I wasn’t expecting to add to this post, so I didn’t save a few key tidbits like the crop coordinates for the two 100% views. But FWIW here’s broadly what you can get out of Aperture if you also adjust the ‘Black Point’ alongside ‘Exposure’:

Aperture’s rendition still isn’t as good as any of the other three – it’s much noisier, even than Lightroom’s, and the deepest shadows are still somewhat clipped. The latter may be an imperfect ‘Black point’ setting, though I did spend quite some time playing with it and this was the best that I could seem to get from it, w.r.t. both overall image quality and actually getting roughly the desired exposure.

So after all these years and many images given-up on, it turns out Aperture can actually recover underexposed images to a reasonable degree. It’s just far more fiddly than any of the other raw editors – you have to adjust the ‘Exposure’ slider a little, then the ‘Black point’, and then repeat numerous times to narrow in on the right complementary settings. But even then, the point remains that it still doesn’t do as good a job of it as Capture One, DxO Optics, or Lightroom.

Raw converter comparison

Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:38:22 +0000

Prelude

For better or worse, Aperture is dying. Abandoned by Apple many years ago now, it’s frankly amazing it hasn’t completely broken already, given the steady stream of system updates and such changes since then. Regardless, it has always had rough edges, and on top of all that I’ve grown increasingly disappointed with its image quality – both fundamental raw rendering as well as with editing. So, I need an alternative.

Staggeringly, there’s still nothing else out there quite like Aperture. Lightroom is probably the closest, but it has a lot of design flaws – particularly in its UI – and, from what I hear, perpetual & unpredictable performance issues (not that Aperture is great there either). But it is undoubtably the de facto standard, and has vastly more community – providing tutorials, presets, plug-ins, etc – which is also valuable.

There’s DxO Optics. I’ve played with it before and know that it can do an amazingly better job than Aperture (w.r.t. image quality). It’s a relatively bare-bones program, however, with minimal editing capabilities and not even the pretense of actual image management.

There’s also Capture One, which while undoubtedly the most expensive option out there today, also has a reputation for being the best w.r.t. image quality. It’s also been around longer than any of these other options. It has a reasonable set of editing capabilities. It sort of tries to do image management, though it’s clear it’s not trying very hard, and it has some pretty serious UI issues and bugs in this area.

I spent quite some time playing with each of these three alternatives, trying to develop a broad feel for their respective strengths and weaknesses. What I found is that they all require compromises compared to what I’m used to from Aperture, and it’s really a Sophie’s choice of which things I’ll miss least. That’s not a fun choice to have to make.

So I had to ask myself what really matters. I find myself thinking that I should choose first and foremost based on image quality, on the basis that I spend a ridiculous amount of money on all the other gear necessary to take a quality photographs to begin with, and inordinate amounts of my own time in managing and editing photos – the end result of which is ultimately judged almost solely by the quality of the images that I publish online & print. And for ancillary features like Flickr export and whatnot, there are other workflow options, even if it’s a few more steps to utilise them.

Thus, this comparison.

I’m presenting this in something of a reverse order, on the assumption that most readers will just want to cut to the chase and see what my findings & advice are. But I do want to also detail my methodology, so that others can understand and reproduce it – so that’s included at the end.

Note: yes, there’s also Apple’s Photos, which is just iPhoto’s younger, hipster sibling. It’s essentially DxO Optics’ inverse – a decent image management app with very rudimentary image editing capabilities. And it shares Aperture’s raw rendering engine, which I already feel to be decidedly mediocre. While there are hypothetical options involving things like the DxO Optics plug-in for Photos, along with a small army of not-entirely-existent-yet plug-ins for actual image editing, I’m defaulting that to the very last resort. Plus it’ll probably be abandoned within a couple of years anyway – as is Apple’s inevitable wont.

Though for the purposes of this comparison – of just the raw rendering engines – I expect Aperture’s results to be equivalent to Photos’.

Conclusion

TL;DR: Capture One wins by a safe margin, no matter how you look at it.

Specifically, here’s the overall ranking per photo:

Photo	Aperture 3.6	Capture One 9 Pro	DxO Optics 10	Lightroom 2015.3
The Lake	2	1	4	2
The Ceiling	2	3	4	1
The Peacock	4	1	2	3
The Cat	2	1	4	2
The Deer	2	1	2	2
The Harrier	4	1	2	3
The Gopher	2	1	1	4
The Granite	3	2	1	4
The Sunrise	2	2	1	2
The Valley	3	1	2	3

That’s seven 1st-place results for Capture One, vs three for DxO Optics, one for Lightroom, and zero for Aperture.

Or, looked at another way, the rankings by average position:

Capture One (1.4)
DxO Optics (2.3)
Aperture & Lightroom (2.6)

In short:

Capture One almost always rendered the most fine detail, while simultaneously almost always rendering the least noise. Its renditions were often lacking contrast, however, and – with a couple of notable exceptions – its colour rendition was relatively muted.
DxO Optics was often similarly sharp to Capture One – and sometimes moreso – though it achieved its results less elegantly, with an often ‘over-processed’ look and blotchy noise reduction. It was the only raw converter which corrected geometric distortion, which may have penalised it w.r.t. sharpness, which I gave more weight to.
Aperture & Lightroom often rendered very similar results, which had (typically) significantly less fine detail than the other two renderers, and often produced relatively accurate but aesthetically disinteresting colours and contrast.
1. Lightroom favours significantly greater sharpening by default, than Aperture, and this also manifests as dramatically more noise in some cases.
2. Lightroom also tended to err on the side of over-exposure, whereas Aperture was a bit more accurate generally, but occasionally under-exposed.

A few things surprised me in these results, though one above all others: that Lightroom doesn’t actually do a particularly good job of rendering raws. This is really unexpected to me because Lightroom / Adobe Camera Raw is by far the most common raw renderer out there, and has plenty of praise spoken about it. As the closest approximation to Aperture as an actual image manager and editor, I was secretly hoping it would perform well so that I could choose it, other aversions be damned. Alas, no such luck.

I was also surprised at the performance of DxO Optics – I own an older copy, version 8, and have used it from time to time. I’ve found it particularly useful – compared to Aperture – for high ISO images, where it does a much better job, at times, in minimising noise and bringing out shadow detail. But that might be the explanation – the test performed here judged only the initial raw rendering, not key edits like dramatic exposure adjustments (including highlight & shadow recovery). I strongly suspect DxO Optics would distinguish itself much more from Aperture in editing tests.

I will also add that Capture One’s results, when heavily scrutinised, sometimes felt contrary to my previous anecdotal experience with it. When toggling between Aperture and Capture One I’d previously seen a huge image quality improvement all round. Make no mistake – there is a big difference shown in this test. But my prior dabbles with it had, at the time, seemed more dramatic still. Its possible the few images I’d compared previously were especially favourable to Capture One. Or that, once you actually apply some meaningful edits, that Capture One’s advantage over Aperture only increases. I suspect that is in fact the case, much as I suspect the same for DxO Optics, but again image editing was not tested here.

Results

How to interpret these results

The methodology section, at the end, fully details how these images were processed in each of the contenders, and prepared for web presentation. Suffice then, for now, to say that:

I chose ten images that are deliberately not perfect but reflect a reasonable cross-section of my whole photo collection. I did make some effort to include specific technical scenarios (e.g. high ISO), that not much – my primary focus was on a representative set of images, not a technically diverse one.
My fundamental test is of how well each of the contending programs presents the raws straight out of the camera. Nothing more. Don’t complain. Maybe I’ll test other aspects later, and you’re certainly welcome to yourself – add a comment at the end with a link to your tests. But keep in mind the very specific scope here.
For each of the sample images, I’m using two views:
- A full view of the photo, to gauge general colour rendition, exposure, etc.
- A 100% crop clipping from a key part of the image, to really investigate acuity, contrast, and noise.

Keep in mind that if your browser window is narrow (e.g. you’re on a mobile device) you may be seeing a low-resolution view – for best results, ensure your browser window is wide enough to see the images at full size.

The actual results

The Lake

This first image is a random, flat landscape shot. It was a slightly foggy day when this was taken, with overcast skies and little wind. Cold, also – not much above freezing.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Aperture & Lightroom both render this one truer to how I actually remember the scene being – i.e. genuinely flat & dull. It’s surprising how similar they are to each other, though Lightroom’s rendition is the dullest.

Capture One has gone with a naturally vibrant look, which I find quite pleasing, even if it is technically inaccurate. It’s also clearly more detailed [than Aperture or Lightroom’s] even at this reduced viewing size.

DxO Optics is the outlier here, with a surprising, somewhat grungy look. Far contrastier than the other three, and appearing to my eye perhaps a little over-sharpened. That said, colour-wise it’s actually not that inaccurate.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

This 100% view just confirms what was already somewhat visible when zoomed out – that Capture One & DxO Optics are rendering much more detail. I find Capture One’s rendition more natural and pleasing, but I could see some people favouring DxO Optics’.

In any case, though, they both do a much better job than Aperture or Lightroom.

What really surprises me here is how uncompetitive Lightroom is. Its rendition has barely any more detail than Aperture’s, which I find very surprising given how popular Lightroom (and Adobe Camera Raw) are. Nonetheless, it still is that tiny bit sharper than Aperture’s.

Judgement

I firmly prefer the Capture One version – it just looks better to me, plain and simple. Capture One really brings out a lot of genuine detail, without any artifacting that I can see, and without looking over-processed (to my eye).

I respect Aperture & Lightroom for their ‘honest’ rendition of the scene, but would undoubtedly – were I to fully post-process this image in them – try to make them look more like Capture One’s version. And their lack of detail is very disappointing.

Note: the obvious question is whether you can dig out that same detail, that Capture One has by default, from Aperture or Lightroom. That’s difficult to answer conclusively, since there are many possible approaches with many possible fine-tuning settings.

I have extensive experience with Aperture (many years and thousands of images processed), and I am confident that I cannot get as good an image out of it, as Capture One or DxO Optics are giving by default. It simply doesn’t have the detail there in its original raw rendering.

I do not have much experience with Lightroom. I did do some quick experimentation with it, and was able to get fairly close to Capture One’s acuity, but not without introducing visible sharpening artefacts, never with quite the same really fine detail, and not without a lot of time & effort. It was nonetheless a bit more capable than Aperture in this respect, though.

And DxO Optics… overall I’m inclined to rank it below the other three, but that’s mainly on the basis that its exaggerated contrast, sharpening, and structure just don’t suite this scene. But I do feel that, if I were going to put some time into editing, then DxO Optics offers a much better starting position than Aperture or Lightroom – because, again, it has much more genuine detail available to start with.

The Ceiling

This one is intended to represent a common low-light scenario – a high ISO, plus a bit of motion blur due to hand-holding at slow shutter speeds (1/10s in this case, without VR).

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

I actually like Aperture’s colour rendition in this case. It’s getting close to over-exaggerated, particularly with the reds, but otherwise its solid saturation is pleasing to me. Lightroom’s rendition is similar to me, though ever so slightly sharper and with higher local contrast.

Capture One’s rendition disappoints me this time around. The muted colours and lower contrast do it no favours, producing an appearance of lesser detail than Aperture or Lightroom, even though objectively it renders slightly higher detail.

DxO Optics has given the whole image a bit of a red cast, for some reason, and the red walls around the sides are tending towards radioactive. However, it’s also the only one of the four which actually corrected for the lens’ geometric distortion. The effect is basically foiled in this case, though, by the circular and symmetrical subject. And is perhaps contributing to its lack of sharpness – surprisingly, given the results from the previous photo, DxO Optics’ rendition has the least detail this time around.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

The standout here is Lightroom. For good and for bad. It has appeared to render more detail than the others (with Aperture a not distant second), but this is quite possibly something of an optical illusion performed by it’s dramatically higher noise levels. If you look closely, you’ll be hard pressed to find anywhere with genuinely greater fine detail, compared to Capture One’s or even Aperture’s rendition. Just a lot of crude over-sharpening.

DxO Optics, on the other hand, has gone entirely the other direction – rendering slightly less noise than the other three, but also significantly less detail. Possibly its geometric distortion correction has contributed negatively here. Its rendition is very ‘painterly’ to my eyes, which I do not like at all.

Capture One has rendered more detail than Aperture, and some is genuinely new detail, though otherwise it looks mostly like a simple difference in sharpening defaults.

Judgement

This one surprised me. While objectively Capture One renders detail the best, at the smaller view size I find I actually prefer Lightroom and Aperture’s renditions. While I’m leery of the significant noise in Lightroom’s rendition, I personally like to err on the side of detail – and could always choose to carefully noise reduce, which looking at these images I suspect I could do better than the other three are doing with their default settings, and thus maintaining a margin of extra detail.

That said, Capture One’s only real negative is its flatter, less colourful initial rendition, which might be as simple to ‘fix’ as a quick contrast & saturation adjustment.

DxO Optics is the loser in this round, though, due to its clear lack of fine detail. It’s possible it’d be helped by turning off its geometric distortion correction, but I did not test that.

The Peacock

This one has a lot of fine feather detail, but also a lot of slightly out-of-focus feather detail, so it’s an interesting test of how detail vs bokeh are balanced.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

I see relatively little difference between the four. The Aperture one has slightly richer colours – especially compared to Lightroom’s, the most flat – and I particularly like Aperture’s rendering of the Peacock’s neck & body. In general Aperture has really deepened the blues.

DxO Optics has rendered slightly higher contrast, or at least brighter highlights – see in particular the top of the Peacock’s head. It’s also again corrected for geometric distortion. But its also produced the softest appearance at this small viewing size.

Aperture, Capture One, and Lightroom have all rendered almost identical levels of detail when compared objectively. Though to my eye for some reason Capture One’s rendition seems slightly softer.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Aperture’s is the outlier here – noticeably softer than the other three. DxO Optics’ is sharper, but a little processed looking. Furthermore, in some patches Lightroom brings out more detail – e.g. the feathers on the head – while in others – e.g. the beak – DxO Optics does a better job.

But they’re all beaten by Capture One, which produces a consistently sharp rendition (albeit with what may appear to be over-processed to some people).

Aperture has also, perplexingly, introduced what look like sharpening artefacts into the background feathers – see in particular the hair-thin (no pun intended) outline of the blue ‘eyes’ on the feathers. I slightly dislike Aperture’s rendering of the background here.

Judgement

It’s pretty close overall, but I give this one to Capture One. If I were pushed a bit, I’d rank Aperture’s rendition barely last – despite its pleasing blues – with Lightroom only slightly above, and DxO Optics in second place.

The Cat

I photograph a lot of animals. Good rendering of hair and fur is critical.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

DxO Optics has gone for a noticeably ‘stronger’, contrastier rendition. It looks ‘processed’ (in the negative sense of the word) side-by-side with the others, but I suspect if viewed on its own it wouldn’t.

I find Capture One’s rendition a tad flat, and consequently seemingly a bit soft (even though objectively it’s not). I’m starting to see a trend here, whereby Capture One could benefit from a tad more contrast by default.

I slightly prefer Aperture’s rendition to Lightroom’s. Though overall they’re very similar, and I think most of the difference comes down just to colour temperature – Lightroom’s being a truer neutral white-balance, while Aperture’s is warmer. Lightroom has also applied more contrast than Aperture, too.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Capture One’s rendition stands out to me as the best, by some margin. Capture One has done a noticeably better job of rendering the fine fur, in a detailed but still very natural way. Its rendition has genuinely more fine detail than any of the others produced.

In contrast, literally and figuratively, DxO Optics has again gone for a more ‘processed’ look. Despite its obviously stronger sharpening, it’s actually rendered slightly less detail than Capture One.

Curiously, though, Lightroom seems to have done a better job rendering the eye. There’s significantly more fine detail in there, particularly within the iris under the reflections. Capture One and especially DxO Optics have lost detail there. But it comes at the expense of visible noise, which is not present in the others’ renditions.

I’m surprised how well Aperture stands up for itself in this particular case. I’ve long been frustrated with Aperture’s poor rendering of hair & fur, but in this specific example it doesn’t do a terrible job. While not the best, it’s done just as good a job as Lightroom at bringing out genuine detail, and done so with less noise.

Judgement

Though I do like DxO Optics rendition when viewed small, at the pixel level it hasn’t done nearly as good a job as Capture One, and Capture One is a quick contrast adjustment away from the same nicely balanced look. In fact DxO Optics is probably in last in this one, due to its over-sharpened look with no more actual detail than Aperture or Lightroom.

Aperture & Lightroom are very close, with the difference really just being in the level of basic sharpening applied. Neither stands up to Capture One, though, which is the clear winner.

The Deer

The wildlife shooter’s bugbear – a cute subject too far away, in too little light, with way to much stuff going on around it, visually. This one’s got high ISOs, camera motion blur, and relies especially on fine detail because it’s invariably going to be cropped a lot. The rendering of the busy, only slightly out-of-focus background is also critical.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Frankly, with such a noisy scene – both image noise and subject noise – there’s very little in it between all four contenders. I have a very slight preference for Capture One’s colour rendition – it’s pulled down the highlights in particular, to produce slightly richer, more pleasing greens. Aperture is not not far behind. DxO Optics & Lightroom have gone for relatively dull colours – DxO Optics especially.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Worth noting is that none of the four can save this particular image.

I think overall Capture One has done the best job of balancing detail with noise. While I do like the level of detail Lightroom has rendered, it’s done so – as with The Ceiling – at the expense of much more noise than the others. That said, Capture One has done a particularly poor job of rendering the fur on the deer’s neck, such that even Aperture bests it there.

Lightroom has also rendered the background and surrounds noticeably busier – Capture One is my favourite of the four, in this aspect, followed by Aperture, and then DxO Optics.

Judgement

Capture One clearly wins, but by a small margin, and it’s a hollow victory because it’s still not good enough to compensate for the mediocre source raw. The other three are close enough to be called tied, and sensitive to personal preference (particularly w.r.t. Lightroom’s much noisier rendition).

The Harrier

A pretty typical bird-in-flight shot – which I ostensibly try to eschew as both cliché and difficult to capture, but which is nonetheless represented in its fair share of my library. There’s something in the challenge of capturing a wild animal in its fast motion.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

As with the previous image, the actual subject is so small in the frame that the differences there are insignificant.

Something about Lightroom’s rendition of the out of focus background is more pleasing to me than any of the others’, though it’s a very small difference.

And Capture One has rendered the greens noticeably richer, in a not unpleasant but still subjective way. It does make the Harrier pop much more off the background, which is a big plus in this kind of photography.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Capture One does the best job to my eye, though the differences are minor. Perhaps its biggest differentiator is the relatively low noise – the background is noticeably less noisy and thus more pleasing. Though that’s also something that’s relatively easy to selectively noise reduce, in a shot like this.

Objectively, however, Lightroom has brought out the most genuine detail. The Harrier’s breast, for example, has actual feather detail in Lightroom’s rendition, detail which is simply gone – visibly smeared out, as if by overly-aggressive noise reduction – in Capture One’s rendition. Aperture & DxO Optics actually both also do a better job of preserving that detail, though at the expense of higher noise levels than Capture One.

I do like how DxO Optics has emphasised the detail in the harrier’s head, with its slightly stronger sharpening, though it looks like a fairly straight-forward trade-off with noise, and in fact on the feathers more generally I see more detail from Capture One.

Aperture’s rendition is the worst, with both relatively high noise and relatively little feather detail – with the notable exception of around the face, where it bests Capture One. Lightroom is not much better, with more detail but also the most noise. However, Lightroom renders the noise as very even, very fine-grained. Aperture’s also high noise is a little blobier. For less than 100% viewing, Lightroom’s noise will likely average out better than Aperture’s.

Judgement

It’s a toss-up between Capture One and Lightroom – low noise vs more detail, respectively. DxO Optics comes in third, with its slightly more aggressive processing that is nonetheless still reasonable and pleasing in this case. Aperture comes in close last, mainly just on the basis that it has relatively ugly noise (and plenty of it) compared to the level of detail it brings out.

The Gopher

A very typical close-up wildlife shot. Depth of field is an issue, backgrounds are noisy, and ISO is creeping up into the midranges.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Capture One has rendered this was unusually flat, in stark opposition to DxO Optics which has gone for a highly-processed, vibrant look. Though a bit strong, I do like the general direction of DxO Optics’ rendering w.r.t. contrast & clarity – look at the teeth, for example, to see how much more attention they draw in DxO Optics’ rendition. It’s not realistic, but it does have an aesthetic I could get into (with some refining editing).

Capture One’s rendition is noticeably flatter, which can lead you to think it has less detail overall, though objectively this isn’t true.

Lightroom and Aperture are similar – colours are realistic if a bit dull by conventional standards; acuity appears reasonable. Aperture has under-exposed slightly, to my eye.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Capture One has done the best overall job, to my eye, w.r.t. fine details. It’s rendered significantly more fine detail in the gopher’s fur, to the extent that it’s made the depth of field effectively quite a bit larger. But its sharpening has started to over-emphasise the speckled highlights in the fur, which renders that part of the fur less attractive than Lightroom or Aperture’s renditions.

DxO Optics has actually done a pretty respectable job in this case. It hasn’t actually rendered any more genuine detail than Capture One, and as we’ve seen here previously, its results tend to look more artificial and ‘over-sharpened’, but its more aggressive and stylised lighting adjustments have done well here – bringing out good mid-level detail; achieving a better overall exposure than any of the other contenders; and really drawing attention to the eye.

Lightroom’s rendition is rather flat, in obvious contrast to DxO Optics’, well, contrast. In most other respects, it’s very similar to Aperture’s – the main difference being that Lightroom has more sharpening applied, for more apparent (but not genuine) detail and correspondingly more noise. In any case, Aperture & Lightroom’s renditions are obviously lacking in fine detail compared to the other two’s. Lightroom’s is also a tad over-exposed.

In regards to noise, there’s not a dramatic difference between the four of them, though the pattern seen so far repeats – Lightroom renders the most noise, DxO Optics the least – though with coarser, less attractive noise for what is left in there. Capture One does a rather good job of keeping noise fine-grained and minimal – without compromising detail – while Aperture does a notably poorer job of it, comparing favourably only to Lightroom.

Judgement

It’s a toss-up between Capture One and DxO Optics. I suspect that, with quick & minor edits, you could turn either into a nice mid-ground, with DxO Optics’ more pleasing lighting (possibly just a quick jolt of the ‘Clarity’ slider) and Capture One’s more natural fine detail & noise. The difference is certainly within the bounds of reasonable personal preference.

There’s not much in it between Lightroom and Aperture, but Lightroom’s slightly higher noise and slightly washed-out appearance punt it into last place.

The Granite

This is representing all the lazy holiday snaps. This particular one is just a single shot towards a large panorama, so ignore the disinteresting subject and awkward framing. It’s also a bit over-exposed, which is not atypical in mid-day-sun landscape photography (nor, especially, in panoramas where the dynamic range can be especially high).

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

It’s quite subjective in this case, but I am drawn to DxO Optics’ version first and foremost, despite its lower vibrance. Overall exposure is also a bit low, but it’s brought out the most detail in the over-exposed clouds, rendered the sky a pleasingly deeper blue, and the trees and granite mountains with more contrast. The underexposure & reduced vibrance (saturation & luminosity in the greens) shows up particularly in the grass in the midground, but that’s trivial to address with a quick edit.

Aperture has rendered the white clouds closer to actual white, which I prefer over the slightly duller renditions by Capture One & Lightroom. In fact it’s produced an overall higher contrast rendition than Capture One & Lightroom, which I find more pleasing overall. That higher contrast has also given the appearance of greater detail.

There’s not much going for Capture One nor Lightroom in this case. In fact Lightroom’s rendition seems noticeably softer than any of the others’ (possibly just due to the lower contrast).

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Now we can see that there’s actually a pretty dramatic difference in fine detail between the four. While Aperture’s rendition looked surprisingly good relative to the others’, it looks like that was really just a result of its higher contrast – when it comes to true fine detail, it has none. It looks positively out of focus compare to Capture One & DxO Optics’ versions. And the same goes for Lightroom, which yields very similar results to Aperture.

DxO Optics has done a rather good job in this case of bringing out detail without looking over-processed, as it has tended to in the other pictures. It beats even Capture One this time around, though the difference between those two is small compared to the big loss of detail going down to Aperture or Lightroom.

Judgement

I think DxO Optics wins this one. Not by much – as noted, Capture One’s rendition is similar and either could likely be turned into the other with quick & simple edits.

Aperture & Lightroom are clear losers here. They render dramatically less detail. Aperture at least redeems itself somewhat with a more pleasing overall look – that, when viewed relatively small, has good contrast and good apparent detail. Shoving Lightroom to clear last.

The Sunrise

This is a relatively specialised scenario – a pseudo ‘night’ scene but at base ISO – but I felt it worth including because, frankly, I’m frequently disappointed with sunset photos – both mine and those I see online. But particularly mine, which I’ve always suspected is Aperture’s fault…

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

And I think I might be onto something there. The first thing I notice is the big halo around the sun that only Aperture sees. Ugly.

DxO Optics has brought the shadows up noticeably – it shows that I was shooting this down the length of a valley, for example, with trees & rocks on the side. Consequently there’s a bit less contrast in its rendition, and the sun’s glow seems to bleed over the silhouette more than in the others, though I wouldn’t characterise this is objectively good or bad – and to my taste, I’m indifferent.

Lightroom has also tried to bring up the shadows a bit, though not so strongly.

But truly the key aspect of this type of photo is colour. And that’s also the most subjective. I can’t even decide which of the four I prefer in this respect. It’s certainly true that DxO Optics’ is the warmest rendition, and Capture One’s the coolest. If I were forced to choose I’d probably favour Aperture or Lightroom’s colour.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Looking closer just emphasises Aperture’s terrible work. And it’s noisy. In an ISO 100 photo.

In fact noise is visible in all four photos, despite this being at base ISO. Disappointing. Presumably this is actual sensor noise from the camera – no camera is perfect in this respect, even at base ISO – though given the nature of this photo, noise reduction could be applied very aggressively without detriment.

There’s also banding visible in all four photos. Aperture’s rendition appears to have the least offensive banding, surprisingly, though it’s quite possible it’s just most obscured by the higher noise. DxO Optics has done the best job in the sky, though perhaps not as good as Capture One in the silhouette, where DxO Optics’ characteristic blotchy noise rendering stands out more.

DxO Optics has done the best with the high contrast edge of the sun, though. Aperture’s rendition of this is awful, as previously noted, and even Capture One & Lightroom struggle a bit with it, adding an extra halo around the edge. Of those two, Lightroom’s is least offensive at it’s at least pretty smoothly graduated, while Capture One’s has some slight banding.

Judgement

This is perhaps why I dislike sunrise & sunset photos so much – nobody can render them well, to my eye. It’s difficult to pick a favourite from these four… but, I do find myself dislike DxO Optics’ version the least.

The Valley

A slightly higher quality landscape photo, than the touristy happy-snap style represented previously. This one’s exposed correctly, has a decent subject and framing, and is at base ISO with a high shutter speed, so detail should be good, but possibly hampered by the great subject distance.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

Not a big difference between the four. DxO Optics’ rendition stands out the most, as being brighter overall – mainly due to it lifting the shadows most. It’s also done a good job with overall contrast – producing properly white clouds without losing any detail, and presenting pleasing global contrast despite the lifted shadows. It also has notably more detail than the others’.

Capture One’s rendition has stronger colours, though you’d be forgiven for not noticing immediately. If you compare it closely with Aperture’s, though, it makes Aperture’s rendition look a bit gloomy.

DxO Optics has also corrected for geometric distortion in the lens, though again the effect is subtle and might be missed, and doesn’t really affect the photo’s aesthetics.

Lightroom’s rendition is the flattest, and least pleasing to my eye. Though Aperture’s slightly under-exposed rendition is a bit dark and unattractive too.

Aperture 3.6

Capture One 9 Pro

DxO Optics 10

Lightroom CC 2015.3

1of4

DxO Optics has brought out the most fine detail, though in doing so it’s produced an over-processed appearance. Capture One does a better job of bringing out detail which, while not quite as crisp, is much more natural looking. In any case, the difference between them appears to be just the strength of their sharpening – actual level of detail is the same.

DxO Optics’ rendition of the slightly out-of-focus foreground rocks is quite good, however. The extra contrast it’s applied has benefited it significantly, in addition to the stronger sharpening working well in this case.

Aperture & Lightroom, as per usual, bring out significantly less detail, though in this particular case Lightroom has done a better job than Aperture. In the face of the Capture One & DxO Optics versions, though, you might not notice the difference.

Judgement

Capture One wins this round. It has nice colour, and relatively pleasingly-rendered fine detail.

DxO Optics comes in a not-distant second with nicely lifted shadows and good detail, albeit at the expense of appearing over-sharpened when you look too close.

Aperture and Lightroom share last place. Aperture has a nicer rendition w.r.t. contrast if not colour too, but Lightroom has brought out slightly more detail.

Methodology

The basic process was:

For each contender:
1. Import the original ten NEFs into it.
2. Tell it to export the ‘processed’ versions by whatever process each app has (e.g. in Aperture it’s “Export Versions…”, in Capture One it’s “Process”, etc). Export as an 8-bit TIFF in AdobeRGB (1998) colour space.
Run a simple batch process in Photoshop or GraphicConverter to open each TIFF, scale it to 1024 on its longest side, and then save as an 8-bit TIFF again.
For each image, identify an appropriate 1024×1024 crop and use GraphicConverter’s batch processing capabilities to open each of the original TIFFs, crop to that area, and then save again as a TIFF.
Run another batch process in GraphicConverter to combine each set of four 1024×1024 TIFFs (both sets – the scaled down and the cropped versions) into a single TIFF, for the 2 x 2 or “four-up” views.
Batch convert all those TIFFs into JPEG2000 format (lossless) for web display.

Note: many years later, in 2023, I replaced the images on this page with WebP versions (also lossless). This increased their size slightly (WebP isn’t as efficient as JPEG2000) but meant that virtually all modern browsers can show the images, rather than basically just Safari.
Run a full calibration using a ColorMunki Display (with default settings).
Compare all those JPEG2000s or TIFFs on a 27″ 2011 iMac.

And that’s it. Pretty simple, but time consuming for the various stages of conversion.

I started doing the batch processing with Photoshop, but it was glacially slow and difficult to use, so I switched to GraphicConverter midway through. File sizes and metadata might differ, but there should be no difference in the actual visual results as both have proper colour profile support (with no conversions being performed) and the image formats in question are all lossless.

Why look at only a 1024 x 1024 section for 100% viewing?

Because I didn’t want to have to scrutinise each photo so intently – as it was I spent hours comparing the final results, in order to make my notes & judgements.

Why AdobeRGB (1998)?

It’s the colour space I work in and export my images in. Even amongst those that export in sRGB or similar, more limited colour spaces, most are working in AdobeRGB during editing (whether they realise it or not).

I briefly considered other options, like ProPhoto RGB, but aside from the fact that I use AdobeRGB today, with no plans to change, AdobeRGB (1998) appears to be the highest common standard amongst these four contenders. And I strongly wished to avoid using an external converter, as that introduces room for favouritism (colour space conversion is surprisingly complicated, and conversions from different origin spaces to the same destination might introduce unintended differences). It’s also unrealistic, as I expect the vast majority of people don’t perform an external colour conversion or adjustment step.

Why not use DxO Optics’ “PRIME” noise reduction?

Three reasons:

It’s not enabled by default, and is virtually impossible to adjust using only the tiny little preview window they give you.
It takes a really long time to render the output images. This compounds the only workaround available to problem #1, above, which is to actually export the image over and over again in order to narrow in on decent settings.
Frankly, in the brief tests I’ve run, it doesn’t actually perform better than the default noise reduction algorithm in DxO Optics. In fact, for one of my images it did noticeably worse – removing no more noise but killing significant detail.

Why not turn off DxO Optics’ geometric distortion correction?

Because it’s on by default. The same question could be asked of any and all the other options each contender offers. Granted the distortion correction seemed to have a relatively pronounced effect on DxO Optics’ output, but that’s what it feels is the best trade-off, clearly, and some people may find it a valuable feature, so I don’t want to discount it.

Why an old iMac?

Because Apple haven’t released a newer model compelling enough for me to upgrade.

I would have preferred to perform the test on a ‘Retina’ display, but I had to work with what I have. I do intend to revisit the images on some other devices – including mobile devices like an iPad – to see if there’s a meaningful difference in appearance.

Why lossless compression?

The files are quite big, despite being compressed with WebP, the most efficient lossless format broadly available across browsers in 2023. They could be made much smaller with lossy compression, but then you wouldn’t know how much of what you’re seeing is the actual raw converter’s doing and how much is compression artefacts.

Why WebP?

I also tested JPEG2000, AVIF, PNG, and TIFF – and originally offered versions in all of these except AVIF, for browser compatibility purposes.

JPEG2000 compresses best – slightly but consistently better than the next best, WebP – but is basically only supported in Safari.

AVIF surprisingly performs universally worse than WebP and JPEG2000 for lossless compression (it tends to do better for lossy compression).

PNG was a pretty distant 4th place, followed by an even more distant TIFF in last. This is expected – PNG is pretty good for low detail images, especially artificial things like screenshots or simple digital drawings, but quite bad for everything else. TIFF is barely compressed at all (arguably part of its nature as a format which prioritises ease & speed of local use on computers that are presumed to have fast storage and lots of RAM).

I switched to WebP and deleted all the others, in 2023, in order to save space – all those lossless-quality files in the varied formats were taking up gigabytes of space on my web server!

The death of Aperture

Sat, 28 Jun 2014 00:12:54 +0000

I wish I were surprised even a little. I look forward to seeing how comically under-powered “Photos” is in comparison. I hope Adobe actually fix Lightroom enough to be usable, and add support for importing Aperture libraries. Though I’m not holding my breath. I’d prefer that someone actually develop a good professional photo management and… Read more