A PSA regarding Post-Processing

Photographers take stunning photographs (yes, I know, thank you very much).

A lot of people, especially new DSLR owners and frequent smartphone camera users, get all curious and interested in how we get our beautiful shots.

Of course, we gladly share, after all the process isn't that much of a secret anyway. "We make sure our camera settings are right (occasionally we explain deeper into technicalities and composition and stuff) and then we edit the shots in the comput-"

"You EDIT the photos? That's what makes the photos so nice???"

"Well..." That's an awkward moment over here because admitting to post-processing photos vaguely implies that we are more of good photo editors than photo takers, and that instantly shatters the charm we exude when lugging 5-kilogram gear and firing our shutters. But humility takes over and, at least for me, I explain the wonders of post-processing - how it helps us bring out hidden details and colors in the photograph, and even how it helps to save a screwed up shot sometimes.

And at the end of it, "wow, that's really amazing" is usually the reply I'll get. Sure it is.

But days or weeks later I'll get an email or a WhatsApp message - with a photo attached - saying "Hey, I screwed up this shot; please help me fix it?" And when you take a look at the photo: blown-out highlights, out-of-focus subjects, unbearable noise. Basically a lot a lot of things gone wrong. (And not like it matters now but a geek sidenote: the photo is in JPEG, half the time because it was shot on a smartphone.)

No doubt post-processing is great; it does wonders. But after the whole episode above people forget that the first step to a good photo is getting the shot right - and that's also the most important step. Post-processing can make a good picture look better, a not-so-good picture look decent, but it cannot save a bad picture.

I will post next time on how post-processing works, why it's important, and how it's not a mighty photograph repairman, so to speak.

The fundamental theory is that post-processing deals with what is already captured by the camera. Therefore if the camera fails to capture certain things, post-processing cannot recreate these things (well, actually you can, but that's crossing the boundary to some heavy photoshop work).

If you still don't understand, here's an analogy: if you don't get some nice beef, you can't make good steak however you cook it. Simple?

So to photographers out there, make sure your friends know what you can do for them in post-processing with Photoshop / Lightroom / Aperture. And to the others who didn't know of this / once misunderstood this, try now instead to take good photographs right in the camera, be it on your Nikon or your iPhone, instead of telling yourself that you can fix things in the computer later - because you can't.

Plus, why go through the trouble, when it is possible to get good pleasing shots without any enhancement?

Punggol Waterway Sunset

Just recently I visited Punggol, rented a bike, and cycled along the water (it's called a waterway for a reason). The place is really tranquil, likely because the town's not highly populated at this time, and in the area you see lots of new developments rising up (and thus a lot of cranes). What I like about Punggol is how everything is well designed and integrated - exactly because it's a new town. What's particularly cool is that there's a sunrise bridge and a sunset bridge, apparently at two ends of the river flowing through the town, facing the respective directions for sunrise and sunset.

12 mm DX, 3'', f/5, ISO 100.

Here's a shot of the sunset from sunset bridge. It's a semi-long exposure to smoothen the water and amplify the orange glow. Issue on that day was that there was a strong overcast so the sun could not be seen setting, not even the glow. But the shots were taken anyway, because post-processing may help us see more.

So with some delicate curve adjustments here's what I got as a result. The blue may be a bit too strong for my liking, but the effect and the contrast speaks a lot. And key point: the glow is visible, and that was the goal.

Essentially, if clouds decide to block the sun, you force the sun out of it.

Photo of the Week 2014: #6 One Raffles Place

No doubt it's been ages since I last posted a photo proper...

Today I share a very random shot I grabbed while wandering around Raffles Place after some school activity.

11 mm DX, 1/80, f/2.8, ISO 1600.

This is the entrance to One Raffles Place, one of the newer and more prominent office buildings in the area.

I took this photograph in the early evening. There were no clouds which made the sky look rather empty, but clouds could have been distracting as well. The effect of this photograph is mainly to show how lights stand out at night, and how they also give architecture an interesting texture. Quite unfortunately the trees, like anywhere in Singapore, were rather overwhelming, and thanks to a CCTV pole I had to crop out the bottom strip of the photograph. But I thought the angle and the texture looks cool nonetheless, together with the LED typography. Really fun (but also annoying) to play with all the lights available in this area at night.

It will probably will make a good and appropriate cover photograph for this place - I really get the commercial feels from this shot. Perhaps I need to do a bit more cropping at the sides, to remove the redundant structures.

The CBD area has a lot to explore; will share more next time, when I get the chance to visit the place and do a shoot proper, with tripods and everything!

Nikon D750: Where does it stand?

Nikon officially announced on September 12th that they're adding the new D750 to their full frame line up. Check out their official release here.

I would firstly like you to consider the following images.

Minus the model and FX labels and the shapes of the infrared receiver, you really have to scrutinize the extremely minor details such as slight shifts in button placements and differences in rubber texture to tell them apart.

Now the back panel:

D750

D610

D7100

Back panel has slightly more evident differences, particularly the vari-angle LCD of the D750. But generally the layout remains almost the same.

I'm actually quite glad that Nikon has finally come to standardize its camera layouts, and focus more on what is inside the cameras. As a D7100 user, I am happy with the current layout. Also this layout is more of a matter of familiarization than an absolute good or bad; if I am handed a Canon DSLR I'd suck at figuring out how to navigate it, not because the layout sucks, but simply because I'm not used to the layout. So it's good that more and more Nikon cameras now have similar layouts - a D810 is not much different as well except for the mode dial and the AF-ON button - and now I can easily switch bodies / work with multiple bodies and still feel absolutely comfortable with all of them.

But there's another point I'm trying to drive at by comparing these models. Take a look at the following.

The D700 is known to be the serious full frame DSLR for non-action photography pros. D800 (now D810) was rarely seen as a D700 replacement, because it is way too rich in pixels to be as versatile as the D700. There has been anticipation for a true D700 replacement, if it ever will happen.

The D600 (now D610) was perceived to be Nikon's effort to bring full frame to the consumer range. It seems like a camera targeted at strong enthusiasts who would like to take a step up to full frame. But many pros use it due to its price (especially compared to D800/D810) and how outdated D700 was.

The D7000 (now D7100) was introduced as a bridge between D90, then a prosumer camera, and D300s, a professional DX. It was never a D300s replacement, and professionals await the D400 or equivalent to arrive as an upgrade from D300s. Nevertheless the D7100 is now the top DX camera in Nikon's lineup, but still targeted at the prosumer market.

So what is the D750?

D750, based on its numbering, should fall in the D700 category. But looking at its design and specs (which you can search yourself), almost every aspect of it corresponds to the D610 and D7100, which are effectively prosumer cameras. Also given the new features it has - WiFi, and vari-angle screen, it really looks more like a consumer than a professional body.

And it lacks what a true Nikon professional camera should have - a full magnesium alloy body (D750 has a monocoque body which effectively means the body is crafted in one piece, but is a mix of carbon fibre composite and magnesium alloy; is that the new pro body Nikon is trying out?), AF-ON button (which I believe is highly useful in subject tracking, and given D750's FPS rate, it is mildly suitable for some action), and Nikon's iconic professional mode dial (which makes managing settings much more centralized). All these indicate that Nikon did not intend for this to be targeted at professionals, like D700 back then, or the current D800.

Another minor detail: I suspect that the D750 has an AA filter, which, to many professionals, is a disappointment. I observed how many photographers jumped at cameras without AA filters built in for that extra sharpness, and it is also a growing trend for camera makers to take out physical AA filters and instead beef up their digital anti-aliasing technology. Honestly, for 24.3 megapixels, I believe the AA filter will not make too much a difference unless I scrutinize the photograph with a magnifying glass. But on the other hand, as a D7100 user, sometimes I do benefit from the missing AA filter, and I guess for professionals it would matter more.

Of course, I'm not trying to stereotype here, that a professional camera must certainly have a certain design or layout or contain certain features. Perhaps Nikon is trying their prosumer formula on professionals to see how it works out.

And it is also possible that Nikon is just expanding its full frame line up, to offer more tiers of cameras for buyers to choose. Because the D750 really does not fit anywhere in the original Nikon line up despite its apparent model number relationship with D700; it seems to be a new line altogether. And if this theory is in fact true, then I can actually draw some awesome parallels here to the entry level DX line up. The D600 range is like the D3000 range, while the D750 is like the higher D5000 range. Both ranges are vaguely similar, but higher range has some bonus add-ons, like a slightly faster FPS, better metering and AF, and of course our favorite vari-angle LCD screen.

I suppose with this new camera on the market which bridges the gap between D610 and D810, there seems to be a camera to suit everyone's needs in the full frame line up. On another note, full frame photographers are now more spoilt for choice. And I do feel that the D750 is a good buy, though on Nikon's side this new camera will steal quite a bit of business from the D610 and D810, but I'm sure (and hope) that's all part of Nikon's plan.

You can get a D750 at Amazon body only, or with a 24-120 f/4 lens. Shipment starts September 23rd.

Photo of the Week 2014: #5 SoDaChe

I apologize for my long long hiatus, which was thanks to yet another batch of university admissions to deal with. I realize that I am far from catching up with my Photo of the Week series, so I will just continue and post one whenever I am able to. Let's see how many POTWs I'll have at the end of this year!

Today I hope to share a photograph I took a few months ago. It is not scenery, but instead a scene that is rather personal to me.

11 mm DX, 1/3, f/13, ISO 2000.

This is a SoDaChe session at my JC, during orientation campfire. SoDaChe is short for Song, Dance, and Cheer, the three elements that defines the school spirit and culture. While not my own orientation campfire - I'm returning merely as a graduated senior - it always reminds me of the friendships forged, the hardships endured, and the precious outcomes earned. I did not think I'd enjoy my two years here for it'll be tough. Indeed it was, but I enjoyed them nevertheless.

Once again, a starburst, from a handheld exposure. I stabilized the camera against the railing, but it still takes a bit of patience. When dealing with such spotlights and trying to get starbursts, it is always a little tricky.

One thing is the camera angle: especially with my Tokina 11-16 DX II which has a rather big 77 mm front element, flare was very common. It can add some effect to the photograph, but too much will also ruin the picture (Photoshop is. of course, an option).

Then there is controlling the aperture for the starburst. The aperture cannot be too small or the starburst will look pathetic and with some bad fringing (perhaps it's the lens), and your long exposure will simply give you motion blur. Too big an aperture, and the starburst will not be possible. I took some time to figure out my balance. The starbursts were nice, I was able to stay still for the buildings to be sharp, and there was some movement in the people but they were still relatively clear. Of course, the two spotlights were probably at different angles and brightness so the starbursts came out different. That was unfortunate.

More photographs to come; I promise.