Category Archives: Equipment

Experiment #1: What do you see?

(Update July 30, 2011: Since the original test was published quite a while ago, I have added this link to the outcome of this test. Of course, if you want to give the test a try yourself, you should read the whole article, try answering the questions, and only after that come back here to follow the link to find out how your response compares.)

Yesterday I posted a series of three images in a couple forums I frequent along with a request that a few people try a little experiment with them. Here it is for anyone else who would like to participate.

Below on this page are three images presented at a typical web viewing size. The question has to do with what you see when you look at them in your browser. (Please read some additional material further down that explains why you must only look at the photos in your browser for the purposes of this exercise.) Considering all aspects of the presentation of the images, in the end there are three possibilities:

  1. all three images seem identical – e.g. there are no perceptible differences among them.
  2. all three images seem different from one another – e.g. each is visibly unique.
  3. two images seem identical but one seems unique – e.g. one is visibly different from the other two, and those two seem visibly identical

Before you give it a try, there are a few “conditions and warnings.”

  • You could easily cheat by opening the files and looking at EXIF or other data. But don’t. Or if you cannot resist, please keep your observations to yourself. I’ll stipulate that you could find differences in file parameters by looking there – but that isn’t the point in this case.
  • You should not assume that I am incapable of modifying EXIF and file size and so forth in ways designed to trick those who “cheat” and inspect the files directly. Nor should you assume that I have. Or that I have not. Or whatever… :-)
  • The question is not “are they three separate exposures or one exposure,” so if, for example, you think that the water looks exactly the same in all three images that, in and of itself, isn’t relevant to the question – and your assumptions may or may not necessarily be correct.
  • The question is not whether this is a good, bad, or indifferent photograph – I make no claims beyond the fact that it is used here as a test image.
  • The question is not “what would they look like at 100% magnification?” Interesting question, but here the question is just about what you see in the images as presented.
  • If you think that you see differences among them, the followup question concerns the nature of the visible differences. Note that the follow-up question is not “how might the differences have been produced?” Just describe what you think you see.
  • There is no “point” inherent in the exercise, though when I explain more after getting some responses you might or might not draw some of your own conclusions. For now, just compare what you see.

(Follow-up observation. Having access to server logs, it is interesting for me to note the percentage of people who share a response versus the number of page views… ;-)

(Note on 9/10/11: Especially on flat-panel monitors, the position of the image on the screen may create visible differences that are not in the source images. Try to view the samples in the same location on your screen to avoid being misled by this. Once you make your observations and read comments here and in the follow-up post, you may see that others noticed and commented on this.)

I have set this up so that clicking on each image will open it in a new window or tab – though it is a bit awkward in that you’ll need to manually return to this window after doing so. Once they are open in three tabs (best) or windows you can click between them to compare more carefully if you wish – but do stick to viewing them in your web browser since that is part of “the question.”

After viewing, leave a comment stating which option (1, 2, or 3) best describes what you see. In addition, if you select option 2 you might offer a brief explanation of differences you see. (Again, not analysis of downloaded files please! That isn’t the question and it spoils the “game” for other participants. ) If you select option 3 tell us which one is different from the other two and perhaps what you observe about the visual difference.

Here are the images (Click to open each in new windows if you would like – you’ll have to manually return to this window each time – or feel free to view them here “in line.”):

A.

B.

C.

Thanks for participating!

Dan

New Drivers (finally) Resolve Mac OS X 10.6 Epson 2200 Printing Problems

(IMPORTANT NOTE: I generally do not remove old articles from this web site since search engines and other links tend to point to them. This short article and link to Epson 2200 printer drivers was accurate when it was originally posted, but you should consult current information sources and perhaps contact Epson directly for update information. In all likelihood, based on my past experience, this printer and other older Epson printers will not be supported indefinitely by Epson. For my part, I would not get a 2200 at this point, no matter how cheap it was – and I have not owned a 2200 since perhaps 2010 or so.)

A while back I posted about serious problems with the Epson 2200 printer when used with Apple’s Mac OS X 10.6.x “Snow Leopard” operating system. I won’t recount the whole story here (that’s what links are for!) but the short version is that Epson had not updated their drivers when Apple released the OS update, and then Epson failed to communicate with their customers or update the drivers in a timely fashion – leaving photographers who used several of their printers including the 2200 “high and dry.”

The good news is that Epson did release updated drivers during the past week. The updated driver appears to resolve the very serious printing problems that rendered the 2200 essentially unusable for several months.

New Instant Rebates on Canon Lenses

A number of Canon lenses are currently eligible for a rebate (“instant savings”). Here is an updated list that includes the rebate amounts and links to the lenses at B&H Photo/Video. Given the recent increases in Canon lens list prices, this may be a good opportunity to save some money on that lens you have been waiting to purchase.

(Note: Some of these links may go to pages that also include items not eligible for the “instant savings” and it is possible that the links may change – check the pages you arrive at via these links to verify that they are the right ones before you buy!)

Highlights from this list?

  • Obviously, all four of the excellent EF 70-200mm lenses are on many photographers’ “must have” lists – and all of them are included in this program.
  • The 24-70 f/2.8 is a “core lens” for many full-frame shooters. (I shoot the 24-105, but that is a matter of personal preference, not an indication that one is better than the other.)
  • Both of the ultra-wide (on full frame, or just “wide” on cropped sensor) L  lenses are on sale. The 17-40 is a wonderful lens for stopped down landscape and similar shooting on full frame bodies, and the 16-35 is a great choice on full frame if your main need is for shooting hand held in very low light.
  • The 85mm f/1.2 L is certainly a fine lens, and for the very small number of people who actually need it this is a good savings. (Frankly, the vast majority of 85mm prime users will be at least as well served by the much less expensive non-L f/1.8 edition.)
  • For cropped sensor camera shooters looking for (what I regard as) the “best” lens for high quality general use, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS may be ideal. For most cropped sensor camera shooters – even the most “serious” – I think it is a better choice that either the 17-40 or 16-35 L lenses.
  • The EFS 10-22 is pretty much the only Canon option for those who want ultra-wide angle coverage on cropped sensor bodies, and many people (especially landscape shooters) rely on this lens.

(If you find this information and other resources posted at this site to be useful, please consider purchasing through these B&H Photo/Video links in the post. You’ll get the same price and your purchase will help support the operation of this site. Thanks!)

New Canon Instant Rebates on Lenses

It looks like new rebates are available on Canon lenses, at least via B&H Photo/Video. Given the recent increases in Canon lens list prices, this may be a good opportunity to save some money on that lens you have been waiting for. The list of eligible lenses includes some very popular ones.

If you are ready to spend over $5000 on a 200mm f/2 lens (!) you can save $500. Many other lenses offer instant rebates in the $100-$150 range with some less-expensive lenses offering smaller rebates. Lenses available under this offer include: