Nick Miners Photography

Adobe finally released Lightroom 3 today, after an extensive beta testing period during which we were shown tantalising glimpses of the new features. However, by far the most impressive of the added goodies is the improved noise reduction. I’ve included some examples below.

Borough Market, EOS 5D Mark II, ISO 3200

This photo was taken at ISO 3200 on my Canon EOS 5D Mark II, shortly after I bought it, as part of a series of photos of Borough Market in London. All the photos in the set were taken at the same ISO, which allowed me to capture much of the activity and goods on sale without having to use flash.

Borough Market, EOS 5D Mark II, ISO 3200 (no noise reduction - 100% crop)

Here is a 100% crop of the same shot with no noise reduction applied (all sliders set to zero); for ISO 3200 it’s pretty good, showing off the low-light capabilities the 5DII is famous for.

Borough Market, EOS 5D Mark II, ISO 3200 (after noise reduction - 100% crop)

After applying noise reduction, the chroma noise has all but vanished, and only a hint of luminance noise remains, with (in my opinion) suggestions of film grain.

Borough Market, EOS 5D Mark II, ISO 3200 (after noise reduction)

The full photo, after noise reduction has been applied. It’s hard to tell the difference at this size, so here’s an example of an ISO 6400 shot that has been adjusted with Lightroom 3:

Starry night, ISO 6400, no NR

The chroma noise, even at this smaller size, is obvious, especially in the cloud and on the right-hand illuminated tree at the bottom of the picture.

Starry night, ISO 6400, after NR

The difference here is plain. A huge improvement over the original.

I now feel I can more confidently use ISO 6400 more on my camera now; technically it does go up to ISO 25,600 but I would have to try that out in Lightroom before deciding whether it’s a realistic option.

A Belgian couple pose for the camera outside the Concert Hall in Bruges.

One of the most striking aspects of my recent trip to Bruges with my friend Mark was the strikingly different attitude to photographers that we experienced compared to that in the UK. You can’t open the paper these days without reading about yet another photographer being harassed by police for taking (legitimate) photographs in a (public) location. However in Bruges, despite the fact that the majority of people walking about were tourists taking photographs, the locals appeared to actively welcome the chance to appear in a photograph (see above). We both felt that we were free to go wherever we pleased, whenever we pleased, even as far as the industrial docks to the north of the city where photographers with large lenses in the UK would probably be accosted by officious staff or police almost as soon as they stepped on the premises. Wandering round the streets and canals at midnight has never been so much fun.

Whilst I don’t want to use my blog to make political points, the Conservative party did promise prior to the election to stop the abuse of stop-and-search powers granted to police under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, and the newly published coalition agreement also makes the same promise. I will be watching closely and hopefully we will see an end to the nonsense that innocent photographers have been subjected to for far too long.

As I write, I’m about to check out of the Hotel Notre Dame in Mariastraat in the historic Belgian city of Bruges. The city (Brugge in Flemish) used to be an important hub of trans-European trade until its port silted up in the middle of the 16th Century, but it has retained many of its medieval buildings and all of its charm. Probably unfairly, Belgium isn’t top of the list for many visitors to mainland Europe, but Bruges is certainly one of the most beautiful and friendly cities I’ve visited. Here is a selection of some of my photos of the many faces of this wonderful little place.

My friend and fellow photographer Mark Casey will have his photos online soon. I will link to them here when they’re online.

UPDATE: They’re up. Please go here.

1234►

The long line is here.

Just an experiment.

One of the questions you may ask yourself when deciding to buy a digital SLR for the first time is ‘Full Frame or cropped sensor?’ Even if it isn’t, it should be. The obvious next question is: what’s the difference? Well, it’s more complicated than you might think.

A full frame (‘FF’ hereafter) camera has a sensor that is the same size as a frame of 35mm film (36mm x 24mm); so-called ‘cropped sensor’ (‘CS’) cameras have smaller sensors, though there is no single standard, for example the sensor in a Canon EOS 550D measures 22.3mm x 14.9mm whereas in a Canon EOS 1D mk IV it’s 27.9mm x 18.6mm. Generally, FF cameras cost considerably more than CS models, however you might be able to pick up a second hand Canon EOS 5D or Nikon D700 for a reasonable price.

Many people talk about the ‘magnifying effect’ of a CS body. I find this term misleading; any magnification is done by the lens, and a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens on any camera. The image projected onto the sensor plane is identical, but the smaller sensor means only a part of the image is captured compared to a FF camera. To physically print the image would require more magnification but this is applied after the photograph is taken, and so is not technically a function of the sensor.

This also means that to get the equivalent field of view in a CS camera to a 50mm lens on a FF model, you would need to user a wider lens, eg 35mm, though the exact focal length would depend on the physical dimensions of the sensor. Using a lens with a shorter focal length means you get more depth of field, so this is one of the first things you need to think about when choosing sensor size; does your style of photography require narrower or wider DoF? Below 35mm though, it must be said, DoF is generally so wide that it makes little difference.

Cropping the image also means it is easier to fill the frame with a subject, especially useful in wildlife photography where small animals are shot using telephoto lenses of 300mm or more. This is where it is beneficial to use a smaller sensor; while it is also possible to crop a FF photo in post processing to achieve the same effect, you end up wasting pixels and losing detail as the resulting resolution is so much lower.

Using a full frame sensor it can be harder to fill the picture with your subject

Using a cropped frame sensor, your subject fills the picture more often

Of course the converse applies to wide angle lenses. Much of the drama of a good landscape comes from using lenses of 20mm or less, and when the extremes of a photograph are cropped out, this added drama can be lost. Unlike with telephoto lenses however, you cannot reverse the effect in PP.

With a full frame sensor, the full effect of using a wide angle lens is attained.

Using a cropped sensor, the dramatic extremes are lost

The one final consideration is image quality. Generally, except for the most expensive lenses, this deteriorates towards the edge of the picture, so by using a cropped frame sensor you are eliminating the less well defined areas of your image meaning you don’t necessarily need to spend as much on good quality glass. On the other hand (though this is less true with the latest developments in sensor technology), the high ISO performance of CS cameras is not as strong as that in FF cameras. This is because the pixels are more densely packed in a CS camera, and so are smaller and more sensitive to non-optical factors, such as electronic interference caused by the camera’s own circuits.

It is not my intention to say what is right or wrong, as I don’t believe there is such a distinction. But if you are fully aware of the consequences of your choice of sensor size, hopefully it makes it easier for you to make the decision that works for you.