Updated Software Recommendation Page

Updated my software recommendation page here with a handful of new entries under the general productivity zone.

• Musicbee: my go to music player for playing back offline music and audio files, as well as using the portable version of it to make a simple music player on-the-go.

• Obsidian: a highly customizable Markdown language visualizer software, and depending on how you customize it or what plug-ins you add to it, it could assist with and handle with a huge variety of use cases, depending on the user’s needs. I have to admit I do not use the full features of it, but the backlinking ability itself is a huge help is managing my notes and sorting out my thoughts.

• Localsend: a decentralized direct peer-to-peer (or device-to-device) file transfer tool, which is useful for sending files without passing through a central server.

Hope the information helps!

Explanations about Image Resolution (DPI or PPI)

Thought of penning this down as a reference for anyone who is confused about image resolution (DPI or PPI), since I think there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding this topic, especially regarding the image resolution setting found in most image processing software when exporting.

To first lay down the basic terms for this discussion

• Image resolution refers to how many dots-per-inch (DPI) or pixels-per-inch (PPI) - effectively meaning how many dots or pixels are represented in 1-inch of display media.

• Image size refers to the dimensions of an image - for example the number of pixels of the length and height of an image.

The term PPI is a newer term, that became common from screen manufacturers’ usage to showcase how sharp (i.e. how fine the pixels were) a screen is. DPI on the other hand was a term used for a long time to discuss the image resolution of an image (either digital or printed) as well as for printer’s resolving power. However, most people or software do use these 2 terms interchangeably when talking about image resolution, so to simplify things we will just use DPI here.

Now a very common statement is: “The higher the DPI the sharper the image.”

There is no argument - this statement is true, but not for the saved “image resolution” setting within the image file, but rather the resultant DPI from printing the image.

What do I mean by that?

The DPI value itself is a ratio of the one dimension of the image size in pixels to its size in inches, and can be used for converting or calculating one or the other.

To put it mathematically,

• Image Size (pixels) / Image Size (inches) = DPI

Any two of these values are needed to calculate the third value, and specifying or locking two values would vary the third.

Here are some examples and comparisons:

1. I print an image with dimensions 3000 x 3000 pixels at 300 DPI, so the resultant print is 10 x 10 inches.
   The same image is printed at 100 DPI, and the resultant print is 30 x 30 inches.
   We know that a higher DPI is sharper, and you can imagine how a same origin image always look more pixelated when printed larger.
   In this case we have Image Size (pixels) and DPI, which controls the final print output.

2. I want to print 10 x 10 inches, and to maintain sharpness I set my image resolution to 300 DPI.
   This means that my images would be saved or exported to 3000 x 3000 pixels.
   A side note from this is that my original image size should be at least 3000 x 3000 pixels, so that it can be resized down to 3000 x 3000 pixels to maintain 300 DPI. Any smaller image (say 2000 x 2000 pixels) would be upscaled to 3000 x 3000 pixels, and thus losing some sharpness and clarity.

In these two examples, we have only the dimensions of the image size in one unit, and use DPI to convert the other unit for input or output.

Now what if we set BOTH the input size and output size?

• I have an image size at 3000 x 3000 pixels, and I know I am going to print it on a 10 x 10 inch paper.
  I have now the following options:

  • I can choose not to set the print resolution, and the resultant print would be in 300 DPI.

  • I can set print resolution at 300 DPI, and the resultant print would be the same as above.

  • I can set print resolution at 600 DPI, at which the software would upscale the image to 6000 x 6000 pixels to maintain 600 DPI for a 10 x 10 inch print, and then finally print the upscaled image at 10 x 10 inch. This image would look very similar, if not identical, to the above two options.

  • I can set the print resolution at 100 DPI, and the software would resize the image to 1000 x 1000 pixels before printing it out at 10 x 10 inches. This would lead to a softer print as compared to the previous examples.

With these explanations in place, now we can continue with the following deductions:

• By setting both the print size and the original image size, the resultant print DPI can just be determined by the ratio relationship. This resultant print DPI is what determines how “sharp” a printed image looks - the higher the better.

• If we set the print DPI to any number that does not correlate perfectly to the image size or print size, a resize (downscale or upscale) would happen and there might be loss of quality involved. While this may be useful when sending it out to a third party printing service, if printing directly from source image it is always better to leave the print DPI field empty if your resultant print DPI from the original size is above your requirements.

And with this comes the next question: “Does the image resolution field of an image mean anything?”

As mentioned, a digital image will always have its image size in pixels, and the stored DPI value is there to convert it to print size if the print size is not specified. Similarly, if you specify a print size, the stored DPI value is there to determine the image size to save as, so that when you print the image as it is it would be at the print size you previously specified.

However, just changing the “image resolution” field within an image file does not change the image at all - as mentioned it is a ratio used for conversion between image size and print size, so unless you specify a print size as well, regardless of what number you put in there the original image would not be affected at all.

You can test this out by opening an image, and changing just the “image resolution” field and saving it - the image size (and file size for that matter) should remain exactly the same.

Printing to a specific print size from an image, the “image resolution” field does not mean anything at all, and what matters is if you print it at its native resolution or you set a print DPI on the printer output.

So to summarize everything,

• The “image resolution” field within an image file is there to help convert from pixel size to print size when print size is not specified.

• Just changing the “image resolution” field within an image does not alter the image in any way, unless the print size is also specified (in this case original image would be resized accordingly).

• By specifying a print size from an image’s native pixel dimensions, the resultant resolution of the print can be used to determine how sharp a print is - this is in fact what the first statement, “The higher the DPI the sharper the image.”, refers to.

Are We Getting Too Hooked on Camera Firmware Updates?

I have been wanting to write a piece on this issue for a while now, and it just happened that earlier today a new firmware update came out for the Z6II (FW1.62 here) and Z7II (FW1.62 here), and observing the reaction online spurred me to write this piece today.

So the firmware updates this time round addressed a couple of bugs regarding the camera’s operation, and also implemented some minor changes in its wireless connectivity settings.

Definitely nothing major, but personally I appreciate the effort made by Nikon to address these glitches and improving operation stability for everyday use.

However, there is so much noise about how this firmware update is too minor, and a FW2.00 with proper AF updates should be the one being released.

Gosh, seeing how people keep repeating the same thing every time a minor update is out is really unbearable.

I, for one, definitely appreciate that issues are fixed as soon as possible in the forms of minor updates, instead of waiting for a release with a larger update.

And in this particular case, not once has Nikon promised a FW2.00 update for the Z6II/Z7II, but just speculation from users and online keyboard pros.

Would I be happy if a FW2.00 came out for my Z6II and brought about improved AF algorithms and new features? Definitely!

But I bought my Z6II knowing well its limitations and capabilities, and any other feature that is added via FW would just be a touch of nice gesture from the manufacturer.

Similarly for the Z8, I also purchased it knowing that it promised similar levels of performance of its bigger sibling, the Z9. Z8’s FW2.00 came as a surprise as it added a ton of new features and customization to the camera, and while I am in no doubt very satisfied with the new features implemented in Z8’s FW2.00, none of them were promised from the beginning.

Would a theoretical Z8 FW3.00 bring new features that we have not thought of? Very highly probable. Would Z8 end at FW2.00 and only bug fixes be released in the future? Equally probable too, I would say.

I still remember those days whereby a firmware update for DSLR was so rare that, normally only critical bugs are fixed.

Some may argue that cameras these days are more “computer” than “camera”, and to that point I agree whole-heartedly also. However feeling entitled to constant major firmware updates that would implement new major features every time is just asking for the impossible.

And at least over here in Nikon we do see some major firmware updates every now and then, and we have also seen that Nikon tries to put the best and newest software features into the flagship Z9 first before it trickles down to the other models.

Be glad for that, as over in the orange camp, their flagships are not getting that much love, and the noise due to this is even worse there.

tl;dr - Purchase a camera based on what it is capable of at the time of purchase, and be glad that the manufacturer is even making an effort to fix minor bugs. Any major firmware update that implements new features should be seen as a nice privilege, rather than feeling absurdly entitled for them.

/end rant

Hardware Monitor Calibration and ICC Profiles

Just chanced upon this video while looking for some other information regarding ICC profiles earlier on, and thought that it might be an interesting share to post here.

Q&A on Switching ICC Profiles on Hardware Calibrated Displays (opens external YouTube link)

This video talks specifically about why ICC profiles are still required even though a display is hardware calibrated and have LUTs stored within the monitor, and under what circumstances should users change the ICC profile.

While the video uses a hardware calibration capable BenQ display, the concepts and insights shared here are applicable to most, if not all, hardware calibration capable displays (like the EIZOs with Color Navigator).

Please take note that the principles and concepts shared are not applicable to software based ICC profiling with LUTs by using a hardware display calibration device, but rather for a display that is capable of saving LUTs within the display itself.

To briefly summarize the main points in the video,

• A hardware calibrated monitor should have an accompanying ICC profile, which usually contains only the gamut information of the calibrated display.

• Changing just the brightness of the display while all other gamut/color settings are kept identical do not require a change in ICC profile.

• Changing to a calibration slot with a different gamut (like from sRGB to AdobeRGB), the corresponding ICC profile has to be selected and loaded into the OS.

For EIZO users, if Color Navigator is active when you change the calibration slots, the proper ICC profile would be loaded into the OS automatically.

So to extrapolate the information from this video a little,

• When using a hardware calibrated monitor (not same model, but the exact same monitor) on multiple PCs, it is advised to load the ICC profile on all the PCs so that the OS and software know how to map the colors to the display’s gamut.

• It is simpler to just calibrate to the widest gamut the display can show (native in most cases), and let the ICC-aware software you are using handle the conversion of colors when the proper corresponding ICC profile for the native gamut is loaded.

I think Art, the author behind this video, did a wonderful job explaining and demonstrating, and this video is definitely worth your time taking a look at if you are running a color managed workflow.

Tresorit Send - Secure File Sharing Service

Before I get started, let me just say this upfront: no this is not a sponsored article, nor are there any paid ads or affiliate links in here.

Some time back, I was looking for a simple, secure file sharing service to deliver files to my clients. I might have multiple file deliveries with overlapping download durations, so typical methods like using Google Drive or Dropbox to generate shared links were not feasible unless I upgraded to a paid plan with way more storage.

In Japan the de-facto file sharing service is called Gigafile, which I shall not link here as I personally am totally not fond of it - ads are everywhere on the site, and I have never managed to find any notes on how uploaded files are encrypted or secured so I just assume it is non-existent.

That was when I stumbled upon Tresorit Send. Tresorit provides secure cloud storage solutions, with extra emphasis on security, and Tresorit Send is a free standalone product provided by them that uses similar underlying technologies in their secure cloud storage solutions.

While you do not need an account with Tresorit to use Tresorit Send, a valid e-mail address is required during upload (for admin control, more on this later).

The way to use it is pretty straightforward - simply select your files through their website or browser plugin, fill in your e-mail address, add password protection if desired, and start the upload process.

(Side note: I do recommend the browser plugin - makes the entire process more seamless)

The files are encrypted locally on-the-fly as they are uploaded, and when the upload process is completed, a URL is generated for sharing. Both the path to the files and the decryption key are embedded in the generated URL, and as a user accesses the shared URL, the files are decrypted on-the-fly as they are being downloaded.

If password protection was selected during upload, the user accessing the shared URL must key in the password before being able to start the decryption process.

An admin link is also sent to your e-mail address which allows you to check how many times the file has been accessed, as well as to revoke the link any time. It is important to note that the admin link does not contain the link to the actual file in any manner (for security reasons), and as such if you lose the original generated URL your only way is to just re-upload and get a new URL.

More in depth information on the service and its technologies can be read in their FAQ here.

Being a free service it does have certain limitations and restrictions:

• Maximum total file size is 5GB per link.

• Maximum number of files is 100 per link.

• Each link can only be accessed 10 times.

• Each link is only active for 7 days.

• Admin links only show number of downloads, not detailed statistics like IP addresses.

• The service is only available in English, which may matter to some users.

While you can circumvent the maximum file number limit by zipping up your files prior to upload, removing the other restrictions and limitations (except for the English language only restriction) would require you to subscribe to their cloud storage solutions and using it to generate a secure link.

To be fair, 5GB/link is really generous for a free service, and the duration of the active link is decent too since most of my clients would download it within a few days upon receipt.

However, a certain OS (from a certain fruit) does sometimes not show when a file is downloading, especially when using an embedded browser, so there are instances whereby my clients just spammed the download button and exceeded the 10-times download limit unknowingly within seconds.

Anyway, something to take note of is that since encryption and decryption happens locally on-the-fly, for large files it is actually a pretty resource intensive process, so depending on your machine’s/device’s specs it may take much longer than anticipated to upload or download a file.

Opinions on Using AI Generative Content in Photos

Had a discussion with some friends a while back regarding the use of AI in photographs.

Image compositing is not a new technique, and has been used by digital artists for a long time now.

With the advent of AI and improved content generation algorithms, there are many software available now that use AI generative content to aid creating the image that you have in your mind and bringing it to life.

Examples include Photoshop’s content-aware fill and text-based generation, Luminar’s sky replacement tools, etc.

I personally think that these AI tools are definitely useful and make life easier for us, but the extent of usage would really depend on each individual, together with the notion of whether or not one is setting out to create a digital artwork or documenting a scene as true as possible.

I imagine the AI tools available now as just extensions of what are available to us now, and the extent of retouching/editing/postprocessing falls on what the photographer is set out to create - as long as one does not lie and try to pass off an image containing AI generated contents as “documented straight from the camera”, then there is no right and wrong here and up to one’s creative ambition.

Personally for me, I do not use AI generated contents and composites in my photos, just because I like to keep the images as true to life as possible. Granted that during the retouching process I might use clone/healing stamps to clean up the image a little, and apply AI denoising algorithms for shots taken in bad circumstances, but that is the extent of AI I would use in my photos and would not use compositing techniques in them and pass them off as “true photos”.

Though that being said, I do play around with AI generated content and images to create memes and stuff for fun, and I can definitely see the use cases whereby such tools would greatly benefit an artist’s creative vision. I guess just as long as you do not try to label such techniques as photography I’m totally cool with it.

Now back to the discussion with my friends, one mentioned that perhaps one day we would all do our shoots in front of a green screen and just change the background to whatever the client likes.

I do not deny that I see market potential in that, and I am pretty sure there are studios around which already offer such packages now. I can also imagine pre-wedding photoshoot clients wanting such an option in order to get that picture-perfect image.

But unless it is a commercial shoot or an artistic shoot, I for one would definitely not do that for my pre-wedding photoshoot clients.

In my opinion and experience, I feel that taking part in a shoot, especially in an outdoors location, part of the fun is visiting the location itself, part of the fun is exploring the location with the clients, and last but not least, a significant sense of satisfaction when we all work together to create an image by utilizing the location and surrounding environment.

The memories created by this is one that cannot be replicated simply by standing in front of a green screen and then swapping in a background of your liking - I just find that the fun factor is lacking too much for such a shoot.

(Well I do have to admit standing in front of a green screen might make you feel like a movie star or sorts, and that itself might be a good memory too if it is your cup of tea.)

To me, a photography session encompasses so much more than just pressing the shutter button and handing the photos over - the entire process from discussion and brainstorming, going through the shoot on the actual day with each other, and then receiving the photos at the end, is an experience that I would like my clients to enjoy and remember too.

So yeah, perhaps things might change in the future, but as for now, I would very much still prefer to put my boots on the ground and get my shots the old school style.

Obsidian

Lately I’ve been using Obsidian to jot down my thoughts, as well as act as an inventory management for my equipment.

I’m definitely no power user - I just have the base Obsidian installed without any addons or extensions, but boy am I impressed with how easy it is to do backlinking and see how my thoughts are connected to each other!

Capture One Pro Lens Profiles

When images are loaded or imported into Capture One Pro, lens profiles are automatically applied if they are available.

While the profiles made by the Capture One team are pretty accurate and work well, one shortcoming of using their profiles (or the Generic Pincushion/Generic Distortion profiles) is that any form of distortion correction will cause some pixel loss, so even if no resizing is done and the images are exported at full size, there is a chance that you will end up with images with slightly varying dimensions (depending on lens used and amount of distortion correction applied).

I have found that one way to circumvent this, if your camera body allows for it, is to use the “Manufacturer Profile” option, so even if distortion corrections are applied, the dimensions would remain the same.

Keysticks + Gamepad for Image Culling

A while ago I had this idea about using my gamepad for image culling.

And after experimenting with it with various software, I have to say I am really pleased that it works really well, and has sped up my work flow quite a bit!

The key-mapping software I am using is called Keysticks, a free open-source software, and am coupling it with my Xbox One wireless controller.

My current layout is like this:

• D-pad mimics the directional arrow keys

• Right joystick mimics the mouse cursor movement

• "A" button for 1-star rating

• "B" button for 0-star rating

• "X" button for 5-star rating

• "Y" button for "Hand" tool

• Right trigger for mouse double-click

• Right shoulder button for mouse single-click

• Left trigger for mouse scroll-up

• Left shoulder button for mouse scroll-down

And my workflow for culling is as such:

• After ingesting the files into Capture One Pro, first I press "Y" to make sure the hand tool is selected

• As I go through the images using the D-pad, I use the joystick to move my mouse cursor to roughly where I want to check for critical focus. A tap of the right trigger button will zoom in to 100% at the mouse location, and another tap would send it back to fit screen mode, making it easy to quickly zoom in and out to check critical focus.

• In the first round of image culling, I tag the images that have misfocused shots/blur shots/closed eyes with 1-star rating by tapping the "A" button. In the event I accidentally tag something wrongly, I cancel it using the "B" button (0-star rating).

• These 1-star rating images are moved to a separate folder, and I go through the remaining images in the original folder to select images I want to post process. This is done by using the "X" button to give them 5-star ratings, and cancelling accidental tags with the "B" button as well.

• If I need to check on some small details around the image (without the need for 100% zoom), I can do so with the left trigger button and left shoulder button (which mimics mouse scroll functions), and panning around can be done by pressing and holding the right shoulder button and moving the joystick.

• And finally by filtering to only display the 5-star rated images, I then proceed back to my keyboard and mouse for processing the images (yea I know I know..am just not a huge fan of pen tablets)

Using the gamepad to do the culling is an enjoyable relaxing experience so to speak, as I can literally lay back with a bad posture on my chair while going through the images.

I really want to give a shoutout to Keysticks for the wonderful software!

Now I wonder if a portable version that could run off a USB drive without any installation could be developed......