Lost in…


“Lost they get, things in translation”,

as Yoda might have said, in a galaxy long, long ago and far, far away where they all had human-type vocal cords and all spoke English. And all breathed the same oxygen/nitrogen mix.

So… to your camera. Assume that you shoot in RAW or JPG format—which is the case for almost all cameras today. Let’s assume RAW.

When you translate that original file to what you see on the screen, you are doing exactly that: interpreting and translating that RAW file. And translations and interpretations always bring inaccuracies. They will rarely if ever improve your file; they may decrease the quality (and often do). When I say never improve, I mean that you cannot get extra information out of a file by interpreting it. You can’t pluck a bald chicken, as the Dutch saying goes.

When you import into Lightroom, you can change the translation. In the DEVELOP module, bottom right, you get CAMERA CALIBRATION options like these, for example:

All those are just different ways of interpreting the RAW data. “Portrait” is a little less sharp with more emphasis on skin tones; “landscape” sharper, with more greens. And according to Adobe’s best reverse engineering of what Canon or Nikon do, when you select thatsetting on your camera.

Now let’s get to the point.  Some people say “Adobe’s DNG format rocks: it is the standard”. Lightroom offers you the option to automatically change the original file into a .DNG upon import.

Here’s the problem with that, in my view: by doing this, you are throwing out the original data (this goes squarely against the face of non-destructive editing) and trusting Adobe’s interpretation of it; what’s more, you are trusting Adobe’s interpretation of it more than you are trusting your camera’s maker.

And then when exporting, you will in most cases once again make a translation, this time from DNG to JPG or perhaps TIFF, or directly to your printer driver via the printer profile, if you print directly from Lightroom.

And each translation brings with it the danger of misinterpretation. Like that game where you whisper into the ear of the person next to you, who does the same with the person next to them, etc, and by the time it comes back to you, “my mother is wearing a red coat” has turned into “why are the ancient Greeks developing antiserum in the library?”

It is nice that DNG is a standard, but it’s not a generally accepted one yet, and the advantage of that move to standard is not worth throwing away the original data that your camera produces. So until cameras themselves produce DNG files (as indeed some already do), my advice is: no, do not convert your files to DNG upon import. Leave them in your camera’s RAW format.


Manual power

The nice thing about setting flash power manually is that it responds to very simple math. Like the inverse square law. Andthat the common shutter speed, aperture and ISO numbers we know are all a stop apart. They lead to tables like this:

SB910/900 or 600/580EX flash. Zoom set to 35mm. Flash held at 2m (6.5’) from subject. Flash not modified.

So if you have a high-end Canon or Nikon flash and you set the Zoom setting to 35mm, when you set your camera to f/16 and ISO value to 100, you get a well exposed picture at about 2 metres (6.5 ft) distance.

A modifier like an umbrella generally takes around 2 stops, so the same table will hold at one metre (half the distance is 4x more light, i.e. two stops more, which would cancel the umbrella’s 2 stops less).

Simple math. And the rest follows simple math, too: increase ISO and you need less power, and open the aperture and you also need less power. As per the table above. A table that can save you a lot of time.


Full frame or crop?

You will have heard talk of “crop cameras” and “full frame cameras”. But perhaps the fine points are not exactly clear to you. Let me try to illuminate the subject a little.

First, the definitions. A “full-frame camera” is a camera whose sensor is the same size as a 35mm negative used to be. A “crop camera” is a camera whose sensor is smaller (usually 1.5x, 1.6x or 2x smaller).

Full frame cameras are generally more expensive: they include such cameras as the Nikon D800, Nikon D4, Canon 6D, and Canon 5D Mark III. Generally speaking, “bigger is better”: full frame cameras have some major advantages over “crop” cameras—but the reverse can also be true.

Available Sensor Sizes

  • Lower-end (and many higher-end!) point-and-shoot cameras usually have very small sensors. These do not make it easy to get blurry backgrounds, and they generate a lot of noise at relatively low ISOs.
  • Next, there is the “Micro four thirds” format—these sensors are almost as big as a crop camera’s sensor. Micro four third cameras are twice as small as a negative.
  • The next step up is the “APS-C” crop sensor – 1.6 times smaller than a negative for Canon; 1.5 times for a Nikon. Most DSLRs have this size sensor. Some quality small cameras also do (like my Fuji X100).
  • Next, there is a Canon-only size that is 1.3 smaller than a negative—this is the format used by the 1D (not 1Ds or 1Dx).
  • And finally, there is the full-frame sensor—it is exactly the size of a 35mm negative.

Should you save up for a full-frame camera? Maybe. Maybe not. As so often, it depends.

Pros and Cons of “Full frame” and “Crop”.

Full-frame sensors have several advantages over smaller sensors:

  • Full frame sensors generate lower noise (i.e. produce better quality photos) than crop sensors of the same generation and with the same number of megapixels (Mp). This means that, again given equally old cameras with the same number of megapixels, they are better at high ISO values, where noise can become a problem, than crop sensors.
  • The viewfinder on a full frame camera is larger and brighter than that on a crop camera.
  • In the same conditions, you can achieve blurrier backgrounds than with a crop camera.
  • Wide-angle lenses actually work as wide-angle lenses on a full-frame camera (as opposed to on a crop camera, where each lens works as though it were longer, compared to using the same lens on a full frame camera).
  • The entire lens is used. Crop cameras use only a smaller portion of the lens, so imperfections in the glass can, at least in theory, become more significant.

That’s a nice list, and it explains why most pros use full frame cameras, but there are also advantages to using slightly smaller sensors:

  • They cost less.
  • They are smaller, so cameras with a crop sensor can be slightly smaller.
  • They can use special lenses (DX lenses for Nikon, EF-S lenses for Canon, etc) that were made especially for smaller crop sensors; these lenses are therefore smaller too, so they cost less and weigh less.
  • And last but not least, a big one: lenses “appear to be longer” by the crop factor compared to the same lenses used on full frame cameras. This is an enormous advantage if you need a long lens, such as when shooting lions in Africa: your 200mm lens will now work like a 300mm (Nikon) or 320mm (Canon) lens. And if you have looked at the price of long, fast lenses recently, you will know how big this advantage can be.

Drawback of special “crop only” lenses (DX on Nikon / EF-S on Canon) : if you upgrade to full-frame, you need to replace these lenses. My strategy is to only buy “normal” lenses, those that can be used on any camera (i.e. “EF” lenses, in the Canon world).


I have heard and read many misconceptions. Misconceptions such as “full frame cameras have better colour”, or “full frame images can be edited more”. Those ideas are wrong. True, many crop cameras produce more noise at a given ISO than a full frame camera, but that does not mean that “full frame colours are better”. Also, age matters (any new camera is better than any old camera), and pixels matter (an 18 Megapixel crop camera probably produces less noise at a given ISO than an equally old 33Mp full frame camera). So a blanket statement like “full frame images can be edited more” is a half truth at best.

Effect on Apparent Lens Length

As said, crop cameras “appear to lengthen a lens”. That is, a 35mm lens works like a 50mm lens when used on a crop camera; a 50mm lens works like an 80mm lens when used on a crop camera; a 200mm lens works like a 300mm lens when used on a crop camera, and so on. (All numbers approximate). The same lens, for instance, mounted on two cameras with the same number of megapixels, one with a full-frame sensor and one with a crop sensor, might give these two images:

In this example, on the 1.6x crop sensor (the sensor that is 1.6x smaller than full frame), the same objects in the resulting image would be 1.6x larger. An advantage when you want telephoto behaviour; a drawback when you want wide angles.

“What type of camera should you buy?” The choice is up to you. Both full- frame and crop cameras have advantages and drawbacks. If you were to summarise it in just a few words, you might say “full frame usually gives better quality; crop usually gives better value”. I usually prefer full frame cameras because of the better high-ISO performance at the same pixel count and because of the blurrier backgrounds; but I own a crop camera as well, because i like the fact that without buying more lenses, I now have more focal lengths available. After all, depending on the camera it is on, each lens now has two focal lengths, effectively.

Only you can decide whether quality is most important to you, for instance, or money. “What camera should I buy” is like asking “What car should I drive”. A tough question for anyone but yourself to answer.

Either way, any modern DSLR will provide quality beyond that of good professional cameras even just a few years ago. This is a great time to be a photographer.


See spot run!

Your camera behaves in one of several possible ways when spot metering; and it behaves in one of several ways when using evaluative metering.

When spot metering (at the bottom in the graphic):

  • The camera only meters what is happening at the centre spot
  • OR the camera only meters what is happening at the focus spot you have selected.

It is easy to determine what it is on your camera. Shoot a scene with dark and light areas. Taking care not to move the camera at all between shots, shoot with the spot aimed at a light part of the shot; then shoot with the spot aimed at a dark part of the shot. If the exposure varies, your camera meters at the focus spot; if not, it meters at the centre spot.

When doing evaluative/matrix metering (a the top):

  • The camera evaluates the entire picture, and chooses the best exposure to suit the entire photo.
  • OR the camera evaluates the entire picture, and chooses the best exposure to suit the entire photo, biased to the selected focus point.

Again, it is easy enough to determine which one it is, using the same test.

My Canon 7D, for example, does the first option (centre point only) when spot metering, and the second option (bias to chosen AF point) when set to evaluative metering; while my 1Dx can be set to do either (using a custom function named “Spot meter. linked to AF pt”). The 7D, therefore, might seem to only do spot metering when it is not set to spot metering. Can you see how this can be confusing?

Did you know which it is, on your camera, before testing? If not, this will explain a lot of the “incorrect exposures” you have been seeing over the years. Yes, you need to know this stuff!

I remember a hardcover book. Pastel coloured pictures. “See Dick. See Jane. See Spot Run. Run Spot Run”. My memory is visual.


Canon myth: The Canon 7D (the original one) has the name of being not great at high ISO values. High is 800 or above.

Well… depends. This is pretty good, at 2,000 ISO:

Isn’t it? That’s what an f/1.2 lens will do. That is 1/125 sec, 2000 ISO, f/1.2. Handheld. And a little noise cancellation. Taken just now in available dark bedroom light.
Lightroom Myth: Lightroom has the name of not being very able. You can’t do this on it, for instance:

Except I just did. Not that I know why I would want to.

Anyway, my point is: when you look a little deeper, often these “truths” are just not true.

And I leave you with another cat picture. Because.