Tag Archives: size

Commentary, Equipment

An Itinerant Photographer and His iPad: A Second Report

Leave a comment

Some time ago I posted “An Itinerant Photographer and His iPad: A First Report” – and this is a follow-up to that post, written after a few more months of experience with the iPad. It is also an expanded version of something that I posted in a photography forum in response to a question about using the iPad as an image backup device.

One question that seems to come up a lot is whether it is possible/viable to use the iPad as a backup device for making copies of your files in the field. There at least two reasons that you might want to copy your files from your camera’s memory to an external storage. First, you may want to create duplicate backup copies of the image files on your camera memory cards for safety reasons – it is risky to have only single copies of them. Second, some might choose to do this so that they can economize by using a single memory card, transferring files from the card when it is full, erasing the card, and starting over again. I’m not convinced that this makes a lot of sense given the relatively low cost of memory cards today and the risks of having only a single copy of your files.

You can transfer raw files directly from your camera to the iPad using a USB cable and the “camera connection kit” adapter. Here are ome observations based on my experience doing this:

  • It works – you can move your raw files to the iPad and view them there.
  • The process is very slow. Thumbnail previews appear quite quickly, but downloading is a very long process during which I usually find something else to do.
  • You need to think through the memory issues carefully. Your raw files are quite large and the maximum memory in an iPad is currently 64GB. I have the maximum in mine which leaves me about 32GB for photographs. (I have a lot of music and video files on my iPad – perhaps more than the typical user.) There will be very little space for photographs if you get the 16GB model and the 32GB might be tight depending upon what else you store on it.
  • You can view the raw files directly on the iPad. They are not optimized – and raw files need some sharpening and so forth to look their best – but they are fine for previewing images and sharing with others who might want to quickly see what you came up with. Don’t underestimate the value of being able to share files this way. I notice that sharing the images with others on the iPad is often a more natural and pleasant experience than sharing them on a laptop – viewers will frequently hold the iPad and pass it to one another in ways that are rarely seen with laptops.
  • The raw files cannot display at full native resolution – there is some upper boundary currently built into the iPad – though they do  display at a resolution that is considerably larger than that of the iPad screen.
  • I may be missing something that would make the task simpler, but I don’t find it very easy to delete the files from the iPad once they are transferred to my computer.

A bottom line is that you can use an iPad for backing up files in the field, but you need to be aware of several issues before you decide to depend on this. The issues include the very slow file transfer speed and the importance of making sure that the unused memory on your iPad is sufficient for the files you will transfer. With a 64GB iPad, the vast majority of users will have more than 32GB available.

(If the speed and storage space limitations of the iPad are a problem for you, there are other options for backing up in the field. There are specialized back drive products that are designed for making backups of your camera memory cards, or you could use a regular laptop. The tradeoff its greater storage capacity and access to more photo editing applications include shorter battery life and greater size/weight.

What about image editing on the iPad? Several programs are available the provide varying levels of image editing capability.  I use Photogene. It is competent and well-worth the very tiny cost. It provides basic editing features that can let you create decent (but not stellar) jpgs for upload. It does a curve, cropping, black and white conversion, color adjustments, simple sharpening and so forth – but it most definitely is not Photoshop or Light Room. That said, I’ve used it for doing quick edits and web posts from the field. For what it is and for the very low cost, I recommend it. (iPad apps appear so rapidly that it is quite possible that other options will be available by the time you read this.)

Can an iPad replace your laptop? The iPad is only sort of a laptop replacement – I like to simply say that “an iPad is not a laptop,” though it can perform some tasks that you might otherwise use a laptop for. It is great for web browsing and OK for email, though extensive typing on the virtual keyboard is awkward and error-prone. I am fine with it for short emails and short web posts and reading the updating social media sites. You can do better with an external keyboard, but this starts to defeat the small size/weight and convenience of the iPad and makes a laptop look like less of a burden.

Battery life is excellent. Apple is not lying when they claim 10 hours per charge.

The tiny size and small weight make a significant difference. Even my small laptop seems downright large after carrying the iPad instead. It is small enough to easily slip into a side pocket of my camera bag when traveling. I left the laptop at home and carried only an iPad on a weeklong trip to New York City. I was very grateful for the size and weight savings and only mildly inconvenienced by missing some of the power of the laptop I would usually take. What with tripods, lenses, bodies, flash equipment and other gear, I welcome the smaller size/weight of the iPad when a regular laptop is not really needed.

One other reason to have an iPad is that publishing is likely to move increasingly to forms that can be distributed on devices such as the iPad. Photographers would do well to experience and understand this first hand, especially if they intend to distribute their photographs electronically and/or write about photography.

VERDICT:

It will make sense for some photographers and some circumstances, but not for others. There is no universal “right” answer to the question of whether the iPad is a useful tool for photographers – the real question is whether its features will or will not be useful to you. For my part, when I don’t have to do more than minimal editing in the field and I want to share electronic versions of photographs and travel light… I prefer to take the iPad rather than my laptop.

What do you think? Do you use an iPad for photography-related purposes? Are you wondering if it will work for you? Leave a comment via the link found below.

Commentary, Equipment, Ideas

An Itinerant Photographer and His iPad: A First Report

10 Comments

I returned last night from a week-long visit to New York City. While this wasn’t just a photography visit, enough photography was part of the plan that I had to carry a reasonable amount of equipment. Typically I would bring along my Macbook, but this time I decided to leave the laptop at home and see if I could get by with just an iPad instead.

I knew that this would necessitate some compromises in the way I usually operate on the road. For example, serious photography applications like Photoshop and Lightroom simply don’t run on the iPad, so there would be no possibility of doing real post-processing work on the road. The iPad doesn’t have a “real” keyboard, instead providing an on-screen “virtual keyboard” – more on that below. On the positive side, the iPad is positively tiny compared to any real laptop. It makes my 13″ Macbook seem terribly bulky by comparison. The iPad slips easily into the external pocket of my Crumpler Eight Million Dollar Home camera bag, and doesn’t add enough weight to the package to be worthy of note. The battery life is tremendous and the charger is very small.

What follows is an early report on certain aspects of iPad use by the traveling photographer – or at least this mobile photographer. Continue reading An Itinerant Photographer and His iPad: A First Report →

Technique

Reader question: How to add borders to online photographs

1 Comment

From time to time people ask what techniques I use to create the simple frames for versions of my photographs that I post online. A while ago I wrote about this: Creating Frames for Online Photos: My Method. The explanation involves the use of Photoshop CS3, but the technique is essentially the same in the current version of the program.

You can read the details at the link above, but the process is basically fairly straightforward. I use Image –> Canvas size to add a series of borders to the original image: a one-pixel gray border immediately around it, a larger white border beyond that with a bit more width at the bottom, and finally a one-pixel black border at the outer edge. I turn this into an action that I can apply by selecting it and clicking a button to run it.

The approach to creating the text incorporated into the web images is similar, though it requires a bit of tweaking with each photograph. Essentially, I create three text layers: one for the large type at the bottom, one for the small embedded copyright notice, and a slightly larger “watermark” that will go over the image itself. The action I recorded creates the three layers and inserts the boilerplate text, but I always have to do a bit of alignment manually, and I may also have to make some decisions about opacity and so on depending upon the characteristics of the individual image. Still, it takes less than a minute to do the whole thing even in the wost cases.

Why apply a border, “branding” text, and copyright to the photographs?

  • If people like your photograph, it makes sense to make it easy for them to find you – so I include the easily readable text with my name and web site URL. No matter where the unaltered file ends up, viewers will be able to find the source.
  • The use of consistent presentation helps to establish the photographer’s “brand.” This is true even when the image is displayed in ways that are out of your control, including search engine results.
  • Inclusion of the copyright information is a formality to remind viewers that use of my photographs requires advance permission.
  • Although the inclusion of a watermark cannot stop a dedicated image thief, I think it reduces the likelihood of misappropriation – and that is probably about all that one can really hope for on the basis of a watermark. It may tweak the conscience of the typical user, who may perhaps simply not have thought about the issues of legal usage, and it may encourage others to look for a different image that won’t expose their illegal use and/or require them to take the intentional step of trying to remove the text to cover up the source.
I also addressed these issues in a separate post at this blog.
(Occasionally a person interested in purchasing a print or licensing a photograph for some other use wonders if the embedded watermarks, copyright information, and branded borders are part of the original images. No. When you purchase a print there is nothing on the paper but the photograph itself and my signature. Photos licensed for other uses – books, magazines, web site, etc – are normally provided without added text.)
Articles in the “reader questions” series:

G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist. His book, “California’s Fall Color: A Photographer’s Guide to Autumn in the Sierra” is available from Heyday Books and Amazon.
Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email

All media © Copyright G Dan Mitchell and others as indicated. Any use requires advance permission from G Dan Mitchell.

Commentary, Equipment

Wherever We Are Headed, We Certainly Are Not There Yet

Leave a comment

Contrary to those who feel that with the introduction of multiple reasonably-priced 20+MP full frame DSLR camera there isn’t much room left for advancement and change, I think that the camera market is still truly dynamic.

One assumption that many make is that the high photosite density full-frame DSLR cameras will “take over” the part of the photographic world previously occupied by medium format (MF) film cameras. Several observations seem to support this notion. The resolution available from carefully used high end DSLRs with the best lenses certainly can compete with that of medium format film, and the arguable advantages of the larger format in terms of image quality would not be enough to convince many to give up the conveniences and lens choices of the best DSLR systems. Even those who might prefer to shoot medium format digital back systems – and I count myself as among those who are interested – are often not in a position to be able to afford the stratospheric cost of the best medium format systems, despite the fact that they compete with large format for image quality.

Some have argued that the costs of the high end systems cannot possibly come down. Some argue (falsely, I believe) that the high costs can not drop because, unlike the costs of computer memory, they are determined by factors that are not subject to scaling. Some argue that the market will never be big enough. However, these folks made the same arguments about the very types of cameras that are now becoming available in the DSLR market – the 20MP and higher full frame sensor camera. Not long ago these cameras cost roughly $8000 and were available from only one manufacturer. They now cost a third of this and are available from at least three vendors.

If you think this cannot happen in the medium format market, perhaps you need to watch a bit more closely. Recently Mamiya introduced a basic medium format digital system (admittedly not one defining the high end of this market segment) at a cost of around $14,000 if memory serves. This week Phase One announced 40 MP medium format backs at cost in roughly the upper teens ($15,000 or thereabouts) range. There are certainly higher priced backs available, but it was only a year or two ago that the 35MP MF backs were the high end – and cost perhaps two or three times this much.

It seems to me that these developments are moving toward bringing MF digital systems to a price point where some who might now get a high-end DSLR system may be able to instead think about going MF.

(Note added later: I just want to acknowledge that I do understand that there are reasons besides pixel dimensions – e.g. number of photosites/MP – to choose MF, and that I also understand that there are reasons other than cost to choose a DSLR. :-)