DxO has acquired the Nik Collection from Google

DxO has acquired the Nik Collection from Google and will continue to offer it for free until they make a new edition available in mid-2018.


DxO, makers of PhotoLab, formerly OpticsPro, and other photo editing tools which are compatible with Adobe products, has purchased the Nik Collection from Google, one of the most widely used Adobe Photoshop plug-ins tools.

DxO announced they will continue to offer the current version as a free download, for the time being. By mid-2018 DxO plans to offer a new version of the venerable software.

Protecting your images from automated watermark removal

Many who market or sell photographs online or who just want to prevent online photo theft of the images they've posted for family and friends, often use watermarks as their first line of defense. While it's not the only defensive measure photographers can and should take to protect their images online, watermark use is sensible, practical and useful.

Although its true that someone with expert Photoshop skills can eliminate a watermark in an hour or so, even if thoughtfully constructed, watermarks still stop most thieves because it's rarely worth spending an hour or more to steal an image, especially if the final product has any telltale visual artifacts shouting, “Theft!”

This past July, at the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, Google demonstrated an algorithm capable of automating the removal of watermarks from photos. Google showed that the removal of watermarks from a series of photographs that now takes hours or days, could be done in minutes.

Google's Nik Collection of plug-ins now free

If you're an Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom user, or use another compatible photo editor, you might have know about Nik Software's plug-ins which enhance the capability of these powerful photo editors.
Nik plug-ins help photo editors turn digital color images into spectacular black-and-white photographs, combine photos into a magnificent HDR images, correct color and retouch images with ease, and sharpen images perfectly.

Beginning on March 24, 2016, Google made the full Nik Collection available as a free download for both Windows and Mac based computers.

The reports of Windows 7 death have been greatly exaggerated

Mark Twain didn't say it, but he might have, had he been alive today, “The reports of Windows 7 death have been greatly exaggerated.”

Yes, yesterday, January 13, 2015, Microsoft ended Windows 7 “mainstream support,” but the deliberate fear-mongering by too many publications to increase readership is outrageous. The authors of those articles do, or at least should know better.

Those articles are confusing the public, including legions of photographers successfully using the operating system, implying Windows 7 has just entered the same graveyard as Windows XP.

Does the end of Windows XP support mean trouble for photographers using it?

Does your computer run on Microsoft Windows XP? If it does, you're not alone. As of the end of last month, NetMarketShare reported almost 30% of computers world-wide are still running Microsoft Windows XP, more than three times the total number of Apple computers running all versions of OSX.

As of April 8^th, Microsoft is ending support for Windows XP. That means Microsoft will no longer be providing security fixes, and other critical updates and patches to the 13 year old operating system.

You might ask if the end of Microsoft Windows XP support signals upcoming trouble for its users? In my opinion, it does!

Websites which strip image metadata may face future copyright liability

In the US District Court of the Southern District of California, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel is hearing the case of Steven M. Gardner, vs. CafePress Inc. (Case No. 3:13-cv-1108-GPC-JMA).

CafePress.com's website allows users to upload images for printing on items like hats, T-shirts, other clothing, mugs, home decor, etc. Mr. Gardner has alleged CafePress facilitated the storage and sale of his photographs of Alaskan Wildlife, infringing on his copyright, in large part by stripping the metadata, containing his copyright information, from his images. He has claimed that before CafePress disabled access to his images in response to his lawsuit, more than $6,000 in merchandise printed with his images had been sold.

The crux of the case is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), it's “safe harbor provisions,” and the automatic stripping of image metadata, including copyright information which some websites like CafePress perform.

Panorama Photography Part I

When you go to an exhibition of photographs, what type of photo always seems to be one remembered? It’s the sweeping panorama.


Panoramas of a scene seem to take the image to new heights. They make landscapes more dramatic and vivid. Mountains become more majestic. Horizons become more exciting. Even a panoramic style view of great architecture becomes more admirable. The above panorama, made from five photographs stitched together, taken in Monument Valley, far better represents the feeling one gets traveling among the Valley’s natural wonders than squarish photographs.

We’re used to seeing photographs in the typical 3:2 aspect ratio of width to height which started with the invention of the 35mm film format, and is carried through on today’s digital cameras, both the DSLR’s and Point & Shoot varieties. The most common print sizes of 5x7, 8x10, and 11x14, generally adhere closely to the squarish 3:2 ratio.

I think that part of the reason panoramas so appeal to the eye is their departure from the 3:2 format, and the easy way they draw your eye across their “canvas.” The appeal of Cinemascope, the first widely accepted “wide” movie format, is much the same. Cinemascope allowed movies to go to a 2.66:1 aspect ratio, twice as wide as the conventional format of 1.33:1. With Cinemascope, the breathtaking beauty of the background of some of the classic movies of the 50’s and 60’s and beyond was greatly enhanced.

Imagine what “Ben Hur” or “Lawrence of Arabia” would look like, reduced to a square screen. Without their wide screen aspect ratio, in my opinion, neither of these films would have won an Oscar for “Best Cinematography.”

You don’t have to limit your panoramas to landscapes, though they are the most familiar use of the wide aspect ratio photograph. Buildings, city-scapes, groups of people, and parades are all great subjects for panoramas. Isn’t this photograph of the Louvre in Paris at night made more dramatic by its wide aspect ratio?

There are two basic methods for producing a panorama photograph. The easiest way is to take a wide angle view of your subject and crop it to produce an image with a wide aspect ratio. This is how I produced the photograph of the Louvre above.

Some Point and Shoot digital cameras have a “Panorama Mode.” If your camera has one, use it. It will enable you to get some spectacular results with some practice.

The other method for creating a panorama photograph is to take several photos of your subject, moving your camera across the subject, being careful to overlap each shot, then stitch them together with an image editor on your computer. Both Photoshop and Photoshop Elements contain tools to stitch photos together, or you can use specialized software to accomplish this task. I use PanaVue Image Assembler for my multi-image panoramas. It allows me excellent control in creating the combination image.

While you can hand hold your camera to take multiple photographs stitched together into a panorama, I strong suggest you use a tripod. Using a tripod allows you to easily keep each photo in the panorama in the same horizontal plane. I use a special panorama head on my tripod for these shots, which makes leveling the tripod easier, and helps you rotate your camera a specific number of degrees between each photo.

While you’re looking horizontally to produce panoramas, there may be some opportunities for vertical panoramas too. Don’t loose sight of these vertical possibilities.

Don’t forget the “Rule of Thirds” when taking panoramas.

Take my word for it, or try it yourself. Placing the bay’s horizon in the lower third of this photo of the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska, close to the intersection of the lower third with the middle third, made this panorama much more pleasing to the eye, than if I placed the bay’s horizon across the middle of the photograph.

In Panorama Photography Part II, I will discuss techniques for taking your photographs for multiple image stitched panoramas.

HDR (High Dynamic Range Imaging): An Introduction

High dynamic range imaging (HDR) is a set of techniques which allows a photographer to produce a photograph displaying a greater dynamic range of luminances between light and dark areas, of  the scene to be photographed, than normal digital imaging. The idea behind HDR is to be able to accurately represent the wide range of light intensity levels found in the real world ranging from direct sunlight to shadows.

OK, so that’s what HDR is, but what we’re really seeing when we see an HDR image on a monitor, or in an HDR print, is a tone-mapped image of an HDR composite image.

Tone mapping is a technique used to process an image where we map a set of colors to an alternate set, to approximate the appearance of HDR images in media with a limited dynamic range, such as computer monitors, projectors, and printers. Each of these devices, and our digital cameras have a limited dynamic range which is inadequate to reproduce the entire range of light intensities present in many natural scenes which the human eye can discern.

In HDR/Tone Mapping the problem of contrast reduction from the scene to what can actually be displayed is handled, while preserving the image’s details and general color appearance.

So that’s the technical definition, but if you’re not familiar with HDR, I know you’re asking what the heck does that mean.

We often, as photographers, especially on bright days, come across a scene we’d like to photograph which has light intensities ranging from dark shadow to very bright whites. The photograph above is an HDR rendering of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, PA. Please note in the photo, that throughout the range of luminances (light intensities) the scene’s detail is preserved, from dark through light.

Take a look on the right. The three photos you see show the range of luminances which make up the HDR composite photo at the top of this article. In each photo, some detail has been lost.

When creating the final photo, I used the three photos on the right, plus two more, one exposed between the dark and center exposures, and one between the center and light exposures.

In order to create the five exposures I put my DSLR on a tripod and bracketed the exposure. I started with an exposure for the brightest light in the scene and kept increasing the exposure by decreasing shutter speed, until I had the right exposure for the darkest part of the scene.

The f/stop and iso remained constant for the photos which were taken within the span of just a few seconds. I set my white balance manually to the correct color temperature of the scene using an ExpoDisc.

By making these exposures, each one keeps the scene's detail for which the exposure was made, from dark to light.

To get the best results from your HDR processing, your exposure sequence must include photos which correctly expose highlights, and photos which correctly expose shadows. Exposing the shadows properly is especially important to avoid noise showing in the processed HDR image.

Then it’s off to the digital darkroom. I’m currently using Adobe Photoshop CS4 Extended for my general photograph editing and retouching. For HDR work, I use Photomatix Pro from HDRsoft, which integrates with Photoshop. I use the stand alone version of Photomatix, not the Photoshop plug-in, as it’s more powerful.

There are two steps involved in creating and processing HDR images:

In step 1 the software merges your photos taken under different exposure settings into a single 32-bit HDR image. Because of its high dynamic range, the 32-bit HDR image will not display properly on conventional monitors.

In step 2 the software processes the 32-bit HDR image via its Tone Mapping tool. Tone Mapping will reveal the dynamic range captured in the HDR image and produce an image that can be properly displayed on conventional monitors and can be properly printed.

Once the HDR/Tone Mapping processing is complete, the composite photo is ready for final editing in Photoshop.

You can surmise from the 3 photos on the right, the luminosity range limit of the DSLR’s sensor. Clearly the range of luminosity in the scene is well beyond the capability of the camera’s sensor. It’s clear that without using HDR to create the photograph of Independence Hall with such a large range from dark shadow to bright white in bright sunlight, the photo could not include all the detail of each tonal area of the scene which our eyes see.

Without the use of HDR, I would have had to use the middle exposure, which isn’t a bad snapshot, but doesn’t include the richness of the final composite photograph.

Myth exploded: Digital verus Film Photography

Travelers, still using film cameras have asked me, "Is digital photography really as good as film?" They want the best keepsakes possible of their travel memories.

In San Francisco, in March, in a museum, a man came up to me to say, "I see you have one of those expensive DSLRs. I really want to move to digital, but it's just too expensive for the camera, software, and an expensive computer to edit the photos." That statement blew me away, as many travelers, have discarded their film cameras precisely because digital photography is much less expensive than film.

I think it’s time to dispel the digital versus film photography myths.

1. Digital photographs are inferior to film photographs
   

   Early on, film was better than digital. Digital cameras in 2001 generally produced grainy, off-color images. Even a few years later with digital camera sensor improvements, the cameras’ internal computers still didn't interpret sensor output very well, and there were other problems too.

   Today, the better digital cameras in each price range, produce photos of equal quality, or better, to film. Professional digital cameras often exceed the capabilities of their film camera counterparts. Today's professional digital cameras can produce great photos, even when projected on large screens, or made into poster sized prints or larger. This isn't to say film isn't good anymore. It is good, but digital is now as good or better.

2. Digital photography is expensive
   

   If you want to, you can spent a “fortune” on top level digital photography equipment and software, but then again, it’s possible to spend a “fortune” on top level film photography equipment and chemicals too.

   In the early ‘90s, some of the first professional digital cameras cost more than $15,000. Today, you can purchase a Nikon professional DSLR, the D300, for $2,000. Nikon’s top SLR film camera, the F6, costs $2,500, while their top DSLR, the D3X costs $8,000, but don’t let that throw you. The D3X or the D300, for that matter have features that F6 owners can only drool over.
   

   My professional DSLR costs more than a typical traveler’s point and shoot (P&S) film camera, but you can get a great P&S digital cameras for less than $300. For editing and touching up, I use Adobe Photoshop CS4 ($700), but Adobe Photoshop Elements, typically overkill for most non-professionals, costs under $70. You can also use an online program like Picassa for free. Prints at your local Costco or BJ’s cost about the same for digital and film. So please, don’t tell me how expensive digital photography is, because it’s not.

3. Digital Cameras are heavy, bulky, and won’t rapid fire
   

   My DSLR with vertical grip and zoom lens is bulky and heavy, but the weight and heft is typical for pro level SLR or DSLR.

   Today's digital P&S cameras are light weight, and the majority are quite small. A typical Canon Powershot weighs 5.3oz, and is only 3.5”x2.3”x1”. It doesn’t have all the features my DSLR has, but it takes wonderful photos, to make a great pictorial travel log, share on a web site, or even print up to 8”x10” enlargements.

   As far as rapidly taking photos, DSLRs are equal to SLRs. Early digital P&S cameras had a serious shutter lag, but today, the lag is gone. Some digital P&S users complain that after they take each photo, they have to wait several seconds before they can take another. If they would turn off their multi-second photo review on the LCD, they could generally rapid fire their camera.

4. Organizing and storing digital photos is costly and time-consuming
   

   I organize my photos in folders by location and date, using a program which also renames each photo with a name combining location and date, with a sequence number. You can’t get much easier. If you’re using a P&S camera, or a consumer DSLR your file size is small enough that your photos won’t take much hard drive space. To back up, you can write them to CDs, which is inexpensive.

   My DSLR photos have a large file size, and I take thousands of photos each year. My hard drive and CDs don't have a large enough capacity. I use a 1TB (Terabyte=1,000GBs) external hard drive which only costs $130.

5. It’s hard to print digital photos, and they don’t look very good
   

   That changed quite some time ago, as the printer manufactures like HP and Epson, designed better, and more sophisticated photo printers, along with excellent professional quality photo paper and inks.

   I print my own photos up to 13"x19" with no trouble at all. Home users can make their own quality prints on inexpensive photo printers and for big enlargements send them to Costco or other companies online.