I thought it would be good to review the tools (aka plugs-ins) that I use for my digital workflow. I primarily use Adobe Photoshop, the gold standard in image editing, for all of my image work. It can be intimidating to begin working with Photoshop and while it truly is an amazing application, it is also a little daunting to get the results you want. For this reason, I’ve found it much easier to go with plug-in tools that do a whole lot of work without a whole lot of work. Of course, I still use the standard repertoire of Photoshop tools, such as curves, levels, hue/saturation and so on…but for advanced functions and things that cannot easily be done within PS, it’s just easier to spend a few bucks on a plug-in.

I also have also tried not to over-do the plug-ins that I use…I definitely apply the KISS philosophy here. I require “bang for the buck”…one could spend thousands on plug-ins, and frankly, I’ll only spend money on things that will provide results. Two of my absolute requirements for any plug-in that I might use are that it works with 16 bit images and will work with automation via Photoshop’s actions.

• First up, noise reduction. Anyone that outputs to larger print sizes, has a point & shoot camera or uses a high ISO in their digital photographs needs to consider noise reduction. It’s essential when you go beyond about 8″x10″ prints as noise becomes too distracting, unless that’s the “look” you’re going for. There’s a lot of options out there, but I use Noise Ninja from Picture Code. It’s mostly automated, has plenty of tweaks for getting it just right and best of all, works on 16 bit images. I’ve tried a few plug-ins of this nature, but finally settled on this for my solution.

• Next, I absolutely fell in love with the products from PixelGenius. I didn’t care for the results of their sharpening plug-in, PhotoKit Sharpener, but both their PhotoKit and PhotoKit Color 2.0 products are top notch. The plug-ins are built with the photographer in mind and provide an array of tools that, anymore, I would be lost without.

PhotoKit Color 2.0, from PixelGenius, is probably my favorite plug-in of all. With an extensive array of tools for a color photographer, it’s amazing what one can do. Want to enhance the shadows or boost the contrast? No problem. Want to darken or lighten the blue/green/red/etc? Absolutely. Want to raise or lower the exposure? Check. Color correction? Sure. Film effects such as various chromes? Done deal. A color overlay? Cake. Split toning effects? Yep. Cross Processing? Part of the package. Burn or dodge using gradients over parts of the image? Included. It’s rather amazing what one can acheive from this plugin alone and almost every one of my images sees something out of this kit. What I like most about it, though, is that it applies the changes as a layer, which means you get much more creative control over the final effect when you play with opacities and other layering effects.

Second from PixelGenius, the PhotoKit plug-in. This is primarily designed for black and white work and provides a wide gamut of tools for B&W photography. It gives the photographer a large number of B&W conversion methods, color casts such as sepia, a standard array of contrast correction and several other tools. For B&W photography, this tool is one of the better ones I’ve found for pure flexibility and bang for the buck. Almost all of my B&W work is done with this tool. The only thing it’s lacking is a preview capability, which is found in the PhotoKit Color plug-in above. Hopefully they’ll bring this product up to par so we can preview the results without having to constantly undo/redo if we’re not happy with the results.

• Next, sharpening. After far too much time spent learning the finer points of Unsharp Mask and Smart Sharpen, I sought a sharpening plugin that was much more predictable. The tool I settled on was Nik Sharpener Pro 2.0. What I liked about it was the extensive output methods that allow one to apply just enough sharpening for the output method that will be used. Anyone that knows anything about sharpening knows that an image must be sharpened differently for the output of choice, be it the web, an inkjet printer, or a professional printing service. This tool provides all of that in one package and all I have to think about is: how sharp do I want the image to be? I’ve had some trouble with using this app in PS actions, so I’m still looking for a similar tool (or upgrade) that will provide great results with better automation capabilities. I’ve found this to be OK as sharpening is usually a manual step, anyhow, that is performed near the final stage of image output.

• Finally, I use Genuine Fractals for image enlargement. When I need to print images at a larger resolution than my camera’s output, I prefer to use a 3rd party application to resize the image. From my research, the 3rd party apps simply provide better enlargement results, although some argue that the “stair-stepping” method may be superior. While I don’t believe GF’s hype of 1000% image enlargement without loss of quality, it does a great job when I approach 100-200% enlargement, or so. Though my prints are usually 12″x18″ and below, I’ve printed up to 20″x30″ from an 8 megapixel image and the quality was superb enough for my purposes. (I started with a good image, however. Crap in, crap out very much applies here.) It does the job…there may be better stuff out there these days…but I’ve been using this for 3 years and it works for me.

That’s really it…like I said, keep it simple stupid. I only need what I can’t easily replicate in Photoshop with minimal effort. The way I see it, the more options there are, the more time I’ll spend exploring them and the further I get from the original image. I go with what works and what suits my needs…and have so far, resisted the urge to be a plug-in junkie.

So, it never ceases to amaze me when I’m out taking photos with my DSLR where someone will come up and try to argue that their $300 point and shoot (PnS) is better than my [expensive] DSLR equipment. Hmmm…I say…I guess I just threw away a lot of money. Errr…did I?

Well, I own both a DSLR and an average PnS. There’s no doubt that the cheap PnS cameras are both high quality and can produce excellent results…for most people, that’s exactly what they need. Why did I upgrade then? Well, frankly, I was hitting the ceiling of capabilities a little too often with the inexpensive PnS. What capabilities, you ask…they both take pictures, right?

I learned rather quickly when I really started picking up photography that the camera is not what makes better pictures. A crappy camera, in capable hands, can produce fantastic results and even the best gear, in the hands of an inexperienced person, will produce high quality, yet dismal results. I was aiming for “just above dismal” with extensive study of composition, exposure, lighting, and post-processing techniques. All of these items apply to all but the cheapest of digital cameras.

Yet, I still found myself cursing the PnS when it wouldn’t do what I needed it to do. So, without futher delay, here are the reasons that I abandoned the cheap PnS for a (wallet draining) DSLR camera:

• Speed. Frankly, I was getting tired of waiting around for my PnS to process images. Sometimes it took upwards of 5-10 seconds to capture an image and I was missing shots while my camera was screwing around trying to store the images. DSLR’s are built for speed. I didn’t need 12 frames per second, but the entry-level DSLR’s provide a much improved level of speed over any PnS.

• Custom glass. With a PnS, you’re stuck with the lens it comes with and maybe have the option of a couple pricey modifiers. I wanted more reach as well as well as the creative possibilities available with the wide range of lenses available for DSLR’s. With two lenses, a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm, I’ve acheived the range of the average PnS 12x zoom camera. I added a 1.4x teleconverter (max 320mm) and all of a sudden I leave the PnS behind…a 2.0x teleconverter will extend my reach to 400mm with just the minor cost of 2 F-stops. (Oh, and the associated wallet drain…)

• Fast glass. Oh, how I loathed the performance of PnS indoors. Now, even with fast f/2.8 glass, this is still a problem, but it’s *much* improved over the PnS performance. I learned an early lesson diving into DSLR’s…if you can afford it, go with the fastest glass you can buy. I’ve never regretted the decision to go with fast, f/2.8 lenses, despite the vomit-inducing price tags of the faster glass. When you need fast glass, there is simply no other equivalent replacement.

• Quality. The CCD sensor of a DSLR is about twice as large as the average PnS. This means two things: better quality images (even with the same or less number of megapixels) as well as lower noise in the images. At ISO 400, the average PnS becomes unusable…the noise just creeps in and serves up a distracting image. The DSLR doesn’t have this same noise threshhold until it breaks the ISO 800 barrier. This means faster shuter speeds (read: hand held) in low light environments are possible when combined with fast glass.

• More options. I was tired of being boxed in to the limitations of a camera with little option for growth. With the DSLR, the creative possibilities are much more extensive. From camera flashes, to lenses, to wireless addons, to battery packs and others, there’s a wide variety of 1st and 3rd party addons to extend your creative control. With a modular type approach, if you’re not happy with a DSLR body, you can upgrade just the body. If you want a wider range, you can get a different lens. If you want to play with off-camera lighting, a DSLR is designed to work with that. It just came down to more flexibility.

• Better ratio. I never got why the PnS cameras used a 4×5 ratio as opposed to a 2×3 ratio. Almost all photographic storage and image presentation materials are made for a 2×3 ratio. Admittedly, one could crop a 4×5 image down to 2×3, but you’re just wasting megapixels and it screws with image composition when you have to compensate for the differences in ratios.

Now, for what I miss about the PnS cameras in my move to the DSLR. After owning a very decent, prosumer level, 8 megapixel PnS, I found myself missing some features in the jump to DSLR. I’ve managed to get by and “see the light”…but there’s still some features that I’d love to see enter the DSLR market.

• Live LCD Preview. I liked being able to hold the camera at arm’s distance to get the framing of a picture. It allowed much more flexible framing as it didn’t require you to become a contortionist just to get a creative angle. The newest DSLR’s have this feature, so it’s just a matter of time until the trickle-down effect occurs and I can get this in a reasonably priced DSLR body.

• Rotating LCD. Again, just like the live LCD preview, the rotatable LCD is a God-send to the photographer that desires creative angles. Whether it’s taking group photos by pointing the camera towards you at arm’s length to ground-level shots, I miss being able to rotate the LCD so I can see what the camera is going to capture. DSLR’s work on a TTL (through the lens) concept, so your only option is look through the view finder or simply experiment until you get it right.

• Composition assistance. My last PnS had a feature called composition assistance. It would throw up a grid, allowing one to quickly visualize composition and aim for adherence to the “rule of thirds.” Though composition has become somewhat second nature for me, it was still nice to know exactly where the “rule of thirds” were. This was nice, though it’s forced me to constantly think about this when using a DSLR.

• Compactness. What good is a camera if you don’t take it with you? Frankly, there are some times where the size of my DSLR is prohibitive and I’d much rather pack a small PnS. Well, I guess this isn’t so much of a drawback as I have both for this very reason.

• Cheapness. Well, ’nuff said…you can get a decked out PnS camera for much, much, much less than a pimped out DSLR. Heck, with what I’ve invested into my DSLR setup, I could’ve had five PnS cameras and enough bacon cheeseburgers to cause a heart attack.

• Less time at the computer. DSLR’s are designed to require manual post-processing to get the best quality image. PnS cameras do in-camera post processing and can provide fantastic results with minimal computer time. For a person that doesn’t want to screw around in Photoshop, the PnS will give you better “straight out of the camera” results than a DSLR. If you’re not prepared to do post-processing, the DSLR will likely disappoint you when you find out your images are neither as sharp, nor as vivid as your run-of-the-mill PnS.

Well, so what’s to learn here? It doesn’t take a DSLR to make great pictures. You can get quality results with all but the cheapest of digital cameras. If you’re considering a DSLR and you’ve never used a digital PnS, definately start with the PnS…your wallet will thank you. A capable DSLR setup will set you back quite a few bones, so if you’re just entering photography, it’s better to cut your teeth for a fraction of the cost.

If, after you’ve taken thousands of images on a PnS and you find yourself constantly banging against it’s capabilities, I’m afraid you only have one choice. For me, my level of interest could justify the expense…but for the average joe that just wants to grab some pictures, I would be hard pressed to recommend a DSLR. It just comes down to where you’re at with photography and what you want to be able to do.

I recently got an opportunity to do some work for the company Flowmaster – they manufacture and install vehicle exhaust systems and mufflers. I was out in Hayden, ID doing some work for Flowmaster on my “real job” – but it just so happened that the days that I was out, they were doing some testing on three vehicles to measure performance increases. They had a small handful of professional freelance automotive magazine photographers on site to catch the action for upcoming articles.

After my work was completed, I got an opportunity to chat with Mike Chase (mikechasephoto.com) about various photography topics. I noticed he was using an Omnibounce diffuser on his Nikon DSLR’s flash. I happened to have my gear with me – so I showed him my Gary Fong photojournalist diffuser. It was rather amusing when I brought it out – several of the other photographers noted it and said, “Hey, it’s Gary Fong!” I guess Gary’s got a name for himself – and rightfully so…his diffuser products are excellent, though disgustingly expensive for what it is. Mike made some test shots, comparing his Omnibounce against the Photojournalist. Though the test shots were just simple shots of a thermostat on a wall – comparatively, the Fong shots were much more diffused. Mike said that the chance to check it out caused enough interest that he intended to purchase two for his flashes – and was quite appreciative of checking it out.

We discussed other things as well – spent time talking about Photoshop and techniques that can be used. I learned an interesting post-processing concept that struck me as absolute genius. I’ve often struggled with the the idea of “when am I done?” with post-processing. It seems, with powerful tools such as Photoshop, there are limitless possibilities when it comes to a photo. I could easily spend hours on a single photo trying all the various combinations. These guys use a technique which makes perfect sense – they conceive what they want the photo to look like based on their criteria (such as vivid colors, fidelity to film, or possibly even “how it will look” when it goes to press) and then work from there. It’s kind of funny…I think this way when I’m taking the photograph, but when I go to post-processing I was just kind of tweaking until I found what I liked.

Overall it was great to meet some of these guys. Mike really has an eye for quality work and is a wealth of information about automotive photography. He’s developed techniques to get the “flecks” in sparkling paint and has a good understanding of how to expose his shots for the best possible overall exposure. He’s also a really nice guy – very helpful and friendly to a complete stranger. I was very pleased to meet his acquaintance and will hopefully run into him again someday!

I have never really had much of an interest in wedding photography – there is just far too much relying on skill, luck, timing and equipment. Not to mention – the thought of having to attend weddings for people I don’t know on even a semi-irregular basis frightens me. I was recently proposed an opportunity to photograph a friend’s wedding in Portland in a totally informal way. The expectations were not set high, but I figured it would be a good way to dip into the “field” of wedding photography with no pressure and total freedom to do whatever I want. I decided I’d give it a shot and brought my Sigma f2.8 70-200mm and my Sigma f2.8 24-70mm with my flash and Gary Fong diffuser.

The conditions were just horrible – I arrived later than desired and went to the wrong building…consequently, I arrived just barely in time to unpack my gear. Something’s gone awry with the air conditioner and it’s about 104 degrees outside – oh yeah, we’re on the 3rd floor of a 3 story building – probably a healthy 90 degrees inside. There’s about 80 people, children are running everywhere. Immediately I notice the super dim lighting provided by small lamps and Christmas lights and I remember to be thankful for the wisdom of the people who preach saving to get better glass. I can hardly squeeze my large f2.8 24-70mm Sigma lens through the tight maze of people. The whole thing was just a touch insane for photography. I was bound and determined to have fun and at least give it a shot.

Due to lack of preparation, I forgot to take off my circular polarizer – I probably lost 2 stops for the entire ceremony and 15 minutes of the reception. That’s what I get for being a part time, multi-subject photographer with a busy lifestyle. Once I removed the polarizer and got my diffuser from the truck, I was in much better shape.

Fortunately I had brought my Sigma 70-200mm – positioning in the area of the ceremony was less than ideal due to the number of people in the room – the lens allowed me to get right up on the action without getting in everyone’s way. It also allowed to me to get up close when the rings were exchanged and quickly back out to get the reaction and “overall” view. I would have appreciated a better flash for the recharge times. Though my flash did a good job – a higher power unit would have made a difference.

For the reception, in the same location as the ceremony, I switched to my 24-70. As I wandered about the crowd, I snapped photos of the many people conversing, congratulating, hugging and various things that people do at a wedding. This made up the bulk of my overall 400 photos taken during the wedding.

I do have to say…under the circumstances, I got some incredible images. I can think of at least 3 images that are a hairline shy of perfect, in my self-critical opinion. The kids were a lot of fun to photograph with all their energy. There were challenges, mistakes and a whole lot of learning that took place. Overall, I’d say it was a good experience. I’m still reluctant to furthering an interest in wedding photography – but I think I’d do it again.