Last summer I had my first real vacation in years and I decided with my wife and son to go to Hawaii. After the initial excitement of the decision, I began to worry. Maui is no less than 10,500 miles away from where I live so we’d had to make two stops and travel for 22 hours – definitely the kind of stuff you only do once in your life.

Considering that the whole vacation was going to cost a fortune anyway, I thought I should make the best of it by taking lots of photos. When I started to pack all my camera gear (2 bodies, 8 lenses, vertical grip, spare batteries, 2 flashes, tripod and more), I realized that a. –  I’d need a very big bag for all of it, b. –  the last thing I want to do is to carry that damn thing with me along with the other luggage and c. – there’s a high chance for the equipment to get damaged in transit.

And then, thinking of Mr. Fogg who went around the world in 80 days with no luggage, just loads of cash, it hit me – when I go in a vacation, I don’t take my car with me – I rent one while I’m there. So why should I get all my expensive gear with me when I could find what I need there?

One minute later I had my answer: Maui Camera Rental is a photo rental company located in Maui (they have another office in Honolulu too). Browsing their inventory, I realized that not only I could find there all my beloved lenses, I could even try lenses I simply could not afford to buy. For example, a Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM that retails for $2,500 can be rented for just $100 for a whole week. So rather than dragging a whole bunch of lenses half the globe, it simply made more sense to take just my main camera body and the cards and rent everything else, depending on my needs.

Also, while I was preparing my gear, I realized I’d need some sort of underwater housing (Hawaii sans scuba diving? No way!) but to be honest I didn’t even know what to look for. Fortunately they have not only underwater housings for cameras and various lenses, but housings for flashes too! (I didn’t even know they exist).

Overall I was amazed by their offering. I could have made a whole photo session or a wedding with their equipment, as they have everything from Profoto lights and stands to CF cards and even Macs, including software.

So if you’re travelling to Hawaii, I think it’s worth checking them out. And even if you’re not and are going somewhere else, it’s still worth checking with the local businesses and see if you can save  time & money by renting the equipment.

Updated on January 4, 2010 with the final release of Bibble 5.

The lineup

For this test I selected:

• Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 beta;
• Bibble 5 Pro;
• Capture One 5 Pro;
• DXO Optics Pro 6.

Notable absents would be Apple Aperture and Silky Pix.

I did not select Aperture for this review because it’s older (apart from updates and patches it’s still a 2008 product) and it’s also the only Mac-only product (all the programs in this test are available for both PC and Mac; Bibble is also available for Linux). In the case of Silky Pix, I started testing it, but I felt it’s not in the same league as the others, so a direct comparison would not be fair.

Also, in the case of Lightroom 3, it is still beta software; I decided that it’s stable enough to be used in production, so it wouldn’t be unfair to it. It’s good to keep in mind however that it may add features and/or improve image quality before it is released.

Originally, this article presented the beta version of Bibble 5, once it was released I retested and included new results from it.

Test images

For this test I found myself in the difficult position of not having enough test images. I made a habit years ago to convert all my pics to DNG. Unfortunately, DXO and Bibble don’t support DNG, so for this test I had to find some RAWs. If you think that would be easy, well, I actually had to run a program to recover some pics from my cards.

Second of all, I initially had some nice architectural pictures from Milan and Paris that were taken with a compact camera (a perfect test for noise reduction, chromatic aberrations and so on). Again, some programs (DXO and Capture One) did not support it.

Third, I wanted flawed images. I believe that test images should not be perfect – how would I be able to check chromatic aberrations if the image was taken with a razor-sharp, $2000 lens? Or how could I evaluate highlight recovery for a perfectly-exposed scene? Or noise at low ISO? or… you get the picture.

So if you look at the images in the test and wonder why they’re not so good – it’s because I selected them to be like that.

Interface

All four programs have remarkably similar interfaces: dark/gray color schemes, tabs and sliders.

All interfaces look similar, but there are differences in organization and workflow

I absolutely love Capture One‘s interface. It’s polished, simple and logical. It’s very easy to find the tools and the tabs are arranged in the proper order – from capture to details.

Lightroom comes very close, but for it the keyword would be ‘customization’. You can easily customize the interface to fit your own workflow, turn panels off, even customize the “nameplate” to your company name – a nice touch for when you’re working with a client.

Bibble is more of a mixed bag. They changed the UI completely from version 4 and copied many concepts from their competitors, but it’s still a bit confusing as buttons are all over the place.

DXO suffers from the same problems as Bibble – a rather confusing interface, with options arranged not very intuitively; for example, why is White Balance (a basic setting) placed after DXO Lighting (an advanced feature)? Still, in terms of speed and stability, it’s a huge improvement over DXO5.

Import and export

Lightroom has probably the widest camera support – it can read all camera formats under then sun and it also supports DNG (obviously, they invented it). Lightroom also goes beyond the typical RAW processor, as it aims to be a full DAM (Digital Asset Manager). In two years, it still hasn’t convinced me to use it exclusively, but it’s simple enough to import photos in its database and process them. It can also handle variations, has an unlimited history, snapshots and more. New in version 3 is the export system – you can publish from it directly to a service like Flikr. For me, it would be incredible to output directly to iStock, so I can only hope a plugin will come.

Bibble also has a wide camera support, but they don’t support DNG (despite numerous customers requesting it, I might add). Import and export are very easy and I like how printing is also treated like an output option and how easy it’s to define your own presets.

Capture One has a very straightforward way for import and export, focusing on simplicity. I might add that tethered shooting is perfectly integrated in the interface, a bonus for studio photographers. Capture One is more picky about direct camera support, but it does support DNG, so you can always convert to DNG first and then import.

DXO is the most cumbersome in this regard. First you must drag-and-drop files from the file system to a project, edit them and then drag and drop files from the project to the output queue. It just feels tedious for me, without enabling any advanced behaviour. DXO is also very picky about camera support and adds lenses into equation as it provides automatic correction for known camera-lens combinations. It also doesn’t import DNG (why oh why); it can output linear DNG, a feature I never used.

Unique features

As mentioned above, Lightroom is not only a RAW converter but a complete DAM, which comes in handy when you have tens of thousands of images (I have about 16,000 DNGs since 2003). You can easily filter by multiple criteria – tip: it really helps to use keywords for all images. The unlimited history, snapshots, virtual copies help you play creatively with photos, trying different looks. On the other hand, it’s the only program in this test that does not posses any sort of lens distortion correction, which is very disappointing (I still have hopes for the final version). Since version 2, LR also has some localized corrections (color, sharpness, exposure) via a brush or a gradient.

DXO is the unchallenged master in optical corrections. If you have a supported camera and lens, the precise corrections are great, and even if the lens is not recognized, you can still apply most of the corrections – sharpness falloff, light falloff, distortion corrections, even fish-eye corrections. The most impressive feature would be the keystoning, which lets you easily correct perspective distortions – a must-have for architectural shots (not everyone has a tilt-shift lens). It also has a built-in color rendering for emulating different film looks and more.

Capture One has the best support for tethered shooting  and a very useful focus checker – it will overlay the areas that are in focus, a great way to quickly asses a collection of images without zooming in, making it almost perfect for studio work.

Bibble has an incredibly powerful feature: layers. You can make a selection on the image and make any and all settings apply only to it. You can have an image with two or more different WB settings if you want. Areas can be defined using some tools or brushes and you can easily set/change the feathering. The system goes way beyond what Lightroom can offer. Bibble also has some interesting features licensed from other companies –  Noise Ninja for image reduction and a lens distortion database from PT Lens.

Processing Quality

This is where the fun begins.

Color rendition – portraits

With each program, I did not rely on defaults, but tried to achieve the best look. Looking at the image below, you can still see that each one has a different philosophy:

I think B5 nails it best with Lr3 second; though many will prefer C1's more natural look or even DXO's vividness

White balance was set for the black+white dress. I did not enable any “creative” color settings or film emulations.

Capture One really likes to stay neutral and true to the ‘real’ colors. Besides the WB tool, it also has a ‘skin color tool’ for achieving a pleasant skin color.

Lightroom throws more contrast; at least for my camera it has the tendency for more reddish skin, which I dislike. I know I can make my own color profiles (and I have), but how many users will?

Even with the Portrait contrast setting, Bibble generated a more contrasty image, while DXO created a very punchy result – very contasty, more yellowish skin and lipstick.

DXO6 makes gets too much contrast and C1 too little.

Four programs – four interpretations of the same scene with WB set for the eye white. What’s not to love?

Capture One again favors a very bland/neutral look, while DXO goes “a little” overboard with contrast. I think I like Bibble best.

Color rendition – landscapes

I really like the way Lr3 renders colors; DXO is over the top

For this image I also used a little Fill Light to open the shadows in the flowers and fruits. WB was adjusted for the white wall. Both Lightroom and DXO produce beautiful colors – Lightroom with a great blue sky (not very realistic since it was overcast, but beautiful nevertheless); DXO has a bit unnatural grass, but I’ve seen the color in magazines and ads a thousand times. Lightroom also gets the purples right but gets the orange walls a bit wrong. But this is just nitpicking.

Capture One misses it – the grass seems dirty/muddy and the Fill Light doesn’t work nearly as well. Bibble fares better but the colors are off and the contrast and shadow/highlight details are not that great.

Dynamic Range

You could get a taste of how well Fill Light & Highlight recovery work from the previous test, but now lets try something extreme:

DXO6 obtains the best results, followed by Lr3

DXO is really amazing with this image. Beautiful colors and look how detailed the dark, shadowed part of the building looks. Lightroom comes in close.

Initially, Bibble generated a rather poor image in the Preview release 3, but in the final version I managed to get better results.

As for Capture One, it just can’t.

Detail extraction

Let’s see now how much detail vs. noise can our four contestants extract from an image (100% crop):

Excellent detail in Capture One and Lr3

DXO produces a clean but not very detailed image, with some speckles here and there. Capture One removed too much chroma and has a quite speckled look (but note how natural the skin looks). Bibble 5 puts Noise Ninja to good use, leaving a pleasing image in terms of noise and details. Lightroom 3 renders the best image in terms of details, even though it’s slightly noisier.

Noise reduction

I don’t shoot usually at high ISO, but I have for this test- a boring detail of my keyboard.

It's B5's turn to show what it can do

The image above was shot at ISO6400.

Thanks to Noise Ninja, Bibble gets the crown. Lightroom 3 has the luminance noise reduction disabled in the beta, so the final version may look different. Although very noisy, it’s not that bad – I prefer Lr3 over C1. DXO cleans the luminance nicely but leaves some coarse chroma noise. With Capture One I tried 2 different approaches but the results are still very poor. The one shown above has luminance noise reduction very low, chroma to max; also reduced sharpening to zero.

Optical corrections

Unfortunately I did not have any RAW picture to really have a need to correct the chromatic abberations or barrel/pincushion. As I mentioned in the beginning, almost all of my pictures are DNG.

Having said that, based on my past experience I can safely say that DXO is unmatched in optical corrections – especially with a supported lens, whereas Lightroom comes in last since it has no distortion correction.

Here’s something from a previous test in 2007:

DXO Keystoning in action

I was able to test for purple fringing:

DXO really saves this image

Bibble has the least effective fringing correction (I couldn’t actually see it making any difference, although the Fringing option was set to Standard). Lightroom is also largely ineffective in this area (Purple fringing was set to All Edges). Capture One corrects the purple fringing but leaves a glow. DXO corrects both the color and the luminance in the affected area, leaving a sharp image.

It’s also worth mentioning the noise – Lightroom image is noisy but detailed (look at the black lace), while Capture One’s looks clean but speckled.

Speed

Speed comparisons are not very fair, as we’re comparing apples and oranges – some programs offer more advanced corrections so it wouldn’t be fair to say that they are slow when they also offer superior quality. Also, speed is dependent on many factors and will vary greatly from image to image.

As a general statement, Bibble is the fastest, followed by Lightroom and Capture One and unsurprisingly DXO comes at the end.

Pricing

Quality is not the only factor in making a decision. Let’s see how competitive are the prices:

• Adobe Lightroom 2: $300 USD (I can only assume version 3 will be priced the same)
• Bibble 5 Pro: $200 USD
• Capture One 5 Pro: $400 USD ($130 for the standard version)
• DXO Optics Pro 6 – Elite Edition : $200 USD ($109 for Standard edition)

Some notes:

• Capture One 5 standard does not offer optical correction and tethered shooting.
• DXO differentiates Stardard and Elite based on the supported camera bodies. High-end (full frame) digital SLRs require the Elite edition.

Updates

I intend to update this article when the final versions of Lightroom 3 and Bibble 5 are released and to also add more tests – so please come back.

I will also gladly correct any factual errors that may have slipped in this review (I worked for a week on it).

Updated on January 4, 2010 with the final release of Bibble 5. I changed some three of the Bibble results and used the new sales price.

Conclusions

It should come to no surprise that there’s no “perfect” program – each one has its strengths and weaknesses and your decision on which one is better for you should be based on the type of photography you do.

Having said that, I have a hard time recommending Capture One. I really wanted to like it and I know it has its fans, but I just can’t justify its price tag vs the output quality or the workflow. The interface is nice and clean, but it has nothing worth 4 times the price of DXO or the quality and workflow offered by Lightroom. It may work well for studio photographers because of its tethered shooting features and focus checker but even then it might be worth testing it along with Lightroom.

In terms of features and quality over price, DXO 6 is an absolute steal. If your camera and lenses are supported, $110 is nothing, even if you also use a different RAW converter. If you shoot landscapes or architectural elements, HDR, ultra-wide and so on DXO is a must. DXO 5 used to be a nightmare, with frequent crashes and a very slow interface, but DXO 6 is nothing like that – it offers a solid experience and in many cases it produces beautiful results.

Bibble 5 has great potential – it’s very fast and its adjustement layers feature is truly powerful. It supports more camera models than DXO and Noise Ninja does wonders for high-ISO images (obviously, you can always purchase Noise Ninja or Neat Image separately).

Lightroom is a very good all-round program. Its image management and workflow features are very useful for professional photographers. On the other hand, it’s relatively more expensive and lacks more advanced optical corrections. Adobe has included optical corrections settings in the latest DNG standard I hopefully support will be added in Lightroom 3.

So which one is best for you?

If you’re an amateur with a compact camera that supports RAW and want to get creative, go with Bibble. It will correct noise problems and optical distortions and will let you get creative.

Landscape and architectural photographers will benefit from DXO advanced corrections.

Portrait and studio photographers who work closely with their clients and shoot thousands of photos will be best suited by Lightroom.

Capture One has its fans too. It has some very professional features but its scope is limited. I would recommend it for professional studio photographers who worry more about correct colors than high ISO performance.

Ethics? What ethics?

Without trying to justify the abuses of retouching, it does has its uses. Acne for example is something transitory, I’ve had models with a few spots now and a perfect skin a week later – what should have I done, postpone the shoot? Ask her to put a thicker layer of makeup? (have you seen how much makeup is used in film/tv?) Moreover, the camera and studio lights are unforgiving. Stuff you’ll never notice in real life, like small wrinkles, shine and so on, become painfully obvious at when captured in full 25 Mp resolution. And even before Photoshop, people were using makeup and airbrushing and favourable angles to get the most flattering look.

The moral dilemma is, obviously, where to draw the line?

Portrait Professional 9 from Anthropics is definitely not going to make the previous question any simpler because, if anything, it pushes the boundaries further, allowing one to enhance portraits so easily it’s almost ridiculous.

How it works

At a glance, it’s a stand-alone program (not a Photoshop plugin) that does face sculpting, eye recoloring, skin repair, hair repair, teeth whitening and more. What’s really cool about it is that it creates some sort of a 3D model of the face, so after you set the control points, most adjustments are fully automatic.

You start by loading a picture and choosing the gender. You then click to indicate the corners of the eyes, the tip of the nose and the mouth. After that the program will build something like a wireframe model of the head, which you can fine-tune. I found that this is the most important stage; misplacing control points can lead to poor results.

In this screen you align the wireframe model with the facial features

After the model is built, the fun begins. The program has a very simple interface based on sliders.

The main slider areas are:

• Face sculpt (head, jaw, nose, neck, eyes, mouth);
• Skin controls (spots, wrinkles, shadows, hue, shine, texture);
• Eyes (whiten &brighten, sharpen, eye color, darken pupil, remove reflections);
• Mouth (whiten & brighten teeth, lip saturation and colour);
• Hair (shine, tidy, vibrance);
• Skin lighting (shadows, relight, contrast, highlights).

Overall, there are enough sliders to keep you happy for hours.

Almost anything can be ajusted via sliders

There are some mask-painting features to restrict the skin and hair areas. The skin controls even feature a Texture selection that allows you to retexture the skin so it doesn’t appear unnaturally smooth. The Skin lighting controls seemed the least useful, at least for me, but I think it can help in bad lighting situations.

Enough theory, let’s see it in action

Scenario 1 – spots

This is an all-time favorite. So ephemeral yet so low-esteem-inducing, they appear exactly when you want them the least – like before a photo session.

Removing spots and wrinkles is a one-click process

In the original, the acne was visible even with the makeup. The image on right is the result of automatic processing in Portrait Professional. Perfect skin yet not plastic-like.

Scenario 2 – Skin shine, teeth and eyes

Here I had a beautiful model with a different – it was very hot and the lighting was pretty crappy (indoors, available light – tungsten – yuk!).

With one click, skin was cleaned up, shine removed, teeth whitened and just for fun I recolored the eyes too

Sweat on makeup is always an issue, but Portrait Professional managed to clean it nicely. Also note some subtle teeth whitening (not really needed). Just for kicks, I made the eyes wider and changed their color.

Scenario 3 – Playing God with Face Sculpting

This is THE feature that sets Portrait Professional apart from competition. In short, it uses some internal algorithms to determine the facial structure and “push” them towards an ideal. Obviously, not everyone is going to like it. I tried some face sculpting on a photo of my wife and she hated it; others have loved the results.

This is understandable because, as the program tries to alter the photo to perfection, it also destroys one’s uniqueness (as an example, look at a beauty pageant – the contestants tend to look all the same) and I mean it when I say “perfection is boring“.

There’s something disturbingly fascinating in reshaping someone’s body to fit an idealized fantasy. Perhaps Photoshop (and plastic surgery) has made us all into little Frankensteins or Doctors Moreau, always trying to undo God’s / Nature’s work. But I digress.

For the final example I chose someone with a great attitude and a small flaw. She had a rather big jaw compared with the rest of her hear. I did not have Portrait Professional when I took the photos, but decided to try it now for this review and see what would the program do in her case.

Since there are many subtle changes difficult to notice side-by-side, I included a flash animation for the Before and After.

Conclusions

It took me a while to realize it, but the makers of Portrait Professional want it to be seen as an alternative to Photoshop (one of the reasons it’s a standalone app and not a plugin) and at $69 it’s quite tempting. It can definitely turn a few hours of retouching into a 10 minute play time and if used sparingly it can do wonders.

The downsides? Well, if everybody get their hand on it, no Facebook pic will remain untouched. God help us all.

Do you know what you are getting?

A dSLR is something many hobbyists are secretly lusting for, but they don’t know exactly what it is, except a vague notion similar to “it’s like my compact, only better”.

Make sure you know the available options

If I had to describe a dSLR in one word, that would be “versatile“. A dSLR can be used for almost anything you want – from taking pictures of insects to weddings, landscapes or astronomy.

Advantages:

• interchangeable lens – depending on the type of photography you want, you can buy lenses optimized for that task, instead of the one-size-fit-all lens of a compact.
• optical viewfinder that goes through the lens via a mirror or prism – you can look through the camera lens for perfect framing and see much more detail than using the LCD screen.
• faster autofocus – the camera will focus much faster and with better accuracy.
• no shutter lag – there’s no delay in between pressing the shutter release button and taking the actual picture – you won’t miss that perfect moment.
• no delay in between pictures – you can shoot at least 3 frames per second (depending on the camera model it can be eve 8 frames per second), perfect for action shots.
• less noise in low light – you can shoot in low light and still get usable image.

Disadvantages:

• size – you can’t fit a dSLR in your shirt pocket and if you get more than one lens, be prepared for a camera bag or even backpack.
• less beginner-friendly – compacts are designed for simplicity and instant gratification, while dSLR require some learning in order to be used effectively.
• no live view – not all cameras have a live view mode, and even those that do are not optimized for it, resulting in some compromises in terms of autofocus,optical viewfinder size and so on.
• no movie mode – not all cameras have a movie mode, and even those that do have significant limitations.

The disadvantages are getting fewer with each generation as more cameras come with usable live view and movie mode and even built-in help screens.

Forget about brand

This is something guaranteed to cause controversy. When it comes to camera brands, people get religious. For some reason, people don’t argue about HP vs. Dell or Audi vs. BMW or Toyota vs. Honda, but when it comes to Canon vs. Nikon, people will defend their favorite brand to the death; if some poor soul dares to suggest another brand, like Sony or Pentax, murder ensures. I heard people saying “Nikons have the best quality“, “I trust Sony to make good electronics“, “I’m a die-hard Oly fan“, “Annie Leibovitz uses Canon“, “Pentax means value for money” and so on.

Choosing a camera based solely on brand is great if you want to show it off, but not if you intend to actually use it

There are five main dSLR manufactures (I list them alphabetically): Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony and a few smaller ones of which I will only mention Sigma because of its unique Foveon sensor. Let get this straight: in terms of quality, all of them are great. Sony got into dSLR business by buying everything from Minolta, so all of these brands have a lot of history behind them. Each of these can list innovations, awards and achievements.

When you compare two cameras in the same range (entry-level, advanced amateur, etc.) the differences in terms of quality or features are very small. I won’t attempt to debunk any myths (there are too many of them), but all manufacturers produce cameras with great reliability.

Don’t buy a camera, invest in a system

With compacts, most people would just buy the camera and that’s it. You could buy a Panasonic now and a Fuji two years later.

Choose wisely as you’ll be stuck with it

Remember how I said that the keyword for dSLR is “versatility”? It’s quite possible that in the beginning you won’t even know what type of photography you’ll want to do. As you gain more experience, chances are you’ll want to buy more stuff for it, so the system will grow with you.

A likely scenario: At first you’ll get the camera body and the included kit lens. Then you’ll buy a telephoto lens; then a flash; then a wide-angle zoom; then a polarizing filter; another flash; a remote release; a vertical grip; a prime lens; and so on. Myself, in 8 years I got 6 lenses, 3 filters, 2 flashes and a wireless flash/remote release.

So in time you’ll most likely buy new camera bodies but will want to keep the lenses and other accessories. Because of that, you’ll be less likely to “jump ship” from one brand to the other (technically you can, but you’d be wasting money).

Think ecosystem

By ecosystem I mean everything that’s available for a brand: camera bodies, lenses, third-party lenses, accessories, stuff you find on eBay, tutorials, seminars, and more.

Canon and Nikon are competitive and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, with Sony being a strong contender

While the brand may not matter, the market share does. Why? If you want just the camera and the kit lens, market share doesn’t affect you. However, if you intend to keep investing, choosing a big brand means that you can easily find all kinds of accessories for it, whereas for a small brand, you’ll have to hunt to find what you need.

Global market share data for 2008 show both Canon and Nikon at approximately 37% of the market each, with Sony coming strong at 13% (up from 7% in 2007). Source is IDC, but no link is available as official reports require hefty fees.

A wide selection of lenses always helps

In terms of market share, the safest choice would be Canon or Nikon. Both companies are widely supported and have a ton of lenses and all kinds of accessories (including many from third parties) available for them. After buying the business from Konica-Minolta, Sony invested massively, taking a bit of market share from Canon and Nikon and squeezing Pentax and Olympus into a corner. There is very high quality stuff available for Sony (does Zeiss ring any bell?), but you won’t find everything you can think of for them. Pentax and Olympus manage to bring out absolutely wonderful cameras but their future is uncertain.

A few quick searches on eBay to illustrate my point:

• “Olympus lens“: 3,085 results;
• “Pentax lens“: 3,689 results;
• “Sony lens” + “Minolta lens” : 12,030 results;
• “Nikon lens“: 14,961 results;
• “Canon lens“:19,508 results.

What features to look for

Get an entry level camera, save your money for quality glass (lenses)

All cameras boast lots of features; sometimes they offer the same thing under a different name.

Generally speaking, I advise you against buying a high-end camera as your first. The best camera money can buy will not automatically make beautiful pictures for you – if anything, the multitude of options will only confuse you. The forums are filled with people with Sony A900, Canon 5D or Nikon D3, all complaining that their cameras are crap or broken because they can’t get a decent picture out of them. Further, an entry level camera with a good lens will produce better images than a high-end camera with a crappy one.

Resolution

Megapixels. We all know bigger is better, right? Well, like all things in life, it’s not that simple. Bigger resolution is great, but the final image quality depends a lot on the sensor size. Most dSLR sensors are about 24×16 mm (APS-C size). For them, as resolution increases, noise increases too. I’d say that with the current technology, 12 Mp is the right balance. Of course, the so-called “full-frame” sensors present in high-end cameras, with a size of 36×24 mm can achieve resolutions of 24 Mp – but we’re talking about your first dSLR, right? A 12 Mp sensor can give you a 12″x16″ (approx. A3 size) picture at the highest detail and much more if you don’t need to get very close; I made a 10 feet (3m) billboard from a 6 Mp image. 15 Mpixels will give you a fraction more resolution but more noise.

Live view

A tiltable LCD may come in handy

With compact cameras, you pretty much rely on the back LCD to show what you’re doing in a WYSIWYG fashion, with the optical viewfinder (if it existed at all) being nearly unusable. Until recently, dSLRs did not have a live view on LCD at all.

LCDs can be useful, but they do lead to drawbacks in design and performance; most notably, if you use Live View, the autofocus will be again slow, negating the speed advantages of SLRs over compacts. If you feel you must have it, make sure the LCD can be tilted, so you can look at it with camera over head or very close to the ground.

Movie mode

Another feature adopted from compacts, some newer dSLRs have a movie mode, usually HD. Currently, like all first-generation features, movies on dSLR is a mixed bag. On one hand, it can get you a beautiful, film-like look; on the other hand it’s severely limited in terms of autofocus and exposure, making it useful only for controlled environments with little motion. I wouldn’t try to use a dSLR to record any fast/sports action. Personally, I’d wait for the next generation of cameras before considering it.

Optical stabilization

Shooting in low light and/or with telephoto lenses can be tricky without a tripod. Almost all dSLR cameras have some sort of stabilization. There is a trick though: Canon and Nikon provide stabilization in their lenses (“IS” lenses for Canon and “VR” lenses for Nikon), while Sony, Pentax and Olympus have the stabilization feature in camera body. The difference is very important because for Canon and Nikon you need to buy IS/VR lenses, which are quite more expensive than ‘normal’ lenses, while with the other manufacturers the stabilization will work with any lens. The effectiveness of stabilization is about the same in both philosophies (3-4 stops); the stabilized lenses have the advantage of you seeing the actual stabilized image in the optical viewfinder, while stabilized bodies enable you to save money on lenses.

In-body motor

Some Nikons do not have an in-body autofocus lens motor. This means that although the camera itself is relatively inexpensive and small, you need to spend extra on lenses with built-in motors.

Other features

Most cameras have similar features in terms of flash options, autofocus, focus points, light metering and so on. Some of them have some unique features, like in-camera image processing, HDR mode and more. If you must have any of these features, then an entry-level camera is not what you need.

Hold it in your hand

Actually holding the camera in your hand can help you decide

Even if you plan on buying your camera online, I still recommend you to actually walk into a store and hold the camera in your hand and take a few pictures. All the features in the world don’t matter one bit if you hate the way it looks or it’s not comfortable in your hand or you find the layout of the buttons cumbersome. When I bought my first dSLR (after years of using a film one), I had my eyes on a certain camera based on reviews and pictures, but in my hand it felt cheap and uncomfortable.

Don’t bother asking the salesperson for advice on what to buy; chances are they are either clueless or biased toward a brand or will try to steer you to an expensive model.

Final thoughts

I tried to keep this guide as unbiased as possible and provide you with information to help you make a decision, rather than make a decision for you. Below, I’m listing some cameras on Amazon that at this time (July 2009) I believe would be good choices for you:

6vptkmja8x

In case you are curious what I’m dealing with in this article, have a look:

HDR of Orthodox Cathedral, Sibiu, Romania

The cathedral is located here.

If you find it interesting, read on.

Introduction

Just in case you’re unfamiliar with the therm, HDRI stands for High Dynamic Range Imaging. As I’ve discussed before, a regular photo can’t capture the full range of lights and shadows that the human eye can see. Photographers have long learned to avoid high-contrast situations or to use them to create artistic effects. It all changed when Paul Devebec presented at SIGGRAPH 1997 a method for combining several images with different exposures into one single image with a much higher range of luminosity. To put things in perspective, a camera sensor can cope with contrast ranges on the order of 4000:1, while a scene of a room with an outside view in full sun (something our eyes see every day) has a dynamic range of 100,000:1.

Initially HDR was used in 3D graphics as environment maps to create realistic scenes. Because a HDR image contains 32bits per channel (in floating point, e.g. can take almost infinite values), it cannot be displayed directly on the screen or printed on paper, so a second operation is needed, called Tone Mapping. Tone Mapping consists in “compressing” the high dynamic range back into something we can see on screen. This is something easier said than done; a simple conversion results in a lifeless, murky image so there’s a whole research field in creating algorithms that present images that are realistic and pleasing for the eye.

Shooting the scene

Equipment used:

• Sony α700 DSLR;
• Sigma 10-20mm lens;
• tripod (Canon, in case you’re interested).

First, a straight JPEG of the cathedral interior is hopelessly bad. The stained glasses are blown out while many areas are pure black. Colors are muted and overall it’s not an incredibly attractive picture. Shooting with Dynamic Range Optimizer marginally improves the shadow detail, but not by much.

JPEG image lacks the needed dynamic range

So, I put the camera on a tripod and shot eight pictures, from under- to over-exposed, one f-stop apart each. I started with just enough light to see the windows and ended with an exposure long enough to see clearly in shadows. Here they are:

8 images with different exposures make the final HDR

Picturenaut

Picturenaut is a nice little FREE tool from a guy named Christian Bloch. The interface is pretty barren, but it has to be the fastest HDR tool I’ve tried. Did I mention it’s free? (some tools can cost $700)

Selecting images for HDR

Tone Mapping dialog

First step is selecting all images that will make the final exposure. Picturenaut has the option to automatically align the images, which is extremely important since even with the camera on tripod the image can be slightly different from shot to shot.

Aside from being very accurate, Picturenaut is really, really fast. It generates the HDR in no time. The HDR image displayed on screen usually looks rather flat, but that’s expected. You can save it as a 32bit TIFF if you want.

Second step is the “fun” part – tone mapping. Picturenaut offers two algorithms (Adaptive Logarithmic and Photoreceptor physiology). Which one is better depends on the actual scene.

The tone mapping is also very fast, almost real-time.

Photoshop

Image selection for HDR

Tone Mapping in Ps

You access the HDR option from File –> Automate –> Merge to HDR (rather unintuitive, but that’s me). The process is very slow, “Aligning layers based on content” message seems to take forever.

For Tone Mapping (achieved via Image –> Mode –> 8 bits/channel), Photoshop offers four options: “Exposure and Gamma“, “Highlight Compression“, “Equalize Histogram” and “Local Adaptation“. Again, depending on the scene, one mode may be more useful that the other, but I find Local Adaptation to be good, with Highlight Compression and Equalize Histogram essentially useless.

Image Quality: Photoshop vs. Picturenaut

With both programs, after tone mapping, I spent some time tweaking the image, playing with Curves to increase the contrast and Saturation to bring out the true colors I saw in the cathedral.

Here’s the side-by-side end result:

HDR result - Photoshop vs. Picturenaut

Apart from some color differences, the two images are remarkably similar. I did manage to preserve highlight detail better in Photoshop and its local contrast made everything “pop” more, but overall they are on par, so if you can’t afford Photoshop or some “pro” tool, Picturenaut will deliver good results (but you still need to tweak it, it’s not a “push the button and you’re done” kind of operation).

General information about the cameras  I’ve used in this experiment:

The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W50 is stylish in its metal ultra-compact body, and features 6.0MP resolution on a 1/2.5-in. image sensor, 3x optical zoom and an extra large 2.5-in. LCD monitor.

The Fuji S8000fd has a tempting specification. It has an 8-megapixel CCD (although not a SuperCCD), and an 18x optical zoom, f/2.8-4.5 lens with a focal length range equivalent to 27- 486 mm.

The story I like to tell you:

First of all I’m not talking about technical details, those details are for professional photographers, I’m just offering you my honest opinion about two different photo cameras in a view  that you can actually understand.

I went home in Hermannstadt and got together with an old friend of mine and decided to start to make her some photos, I had two cameras with me Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W50 and Fuji S8000fd both in a very good condition.  I’ve been using both cameras for more than 6 months so there isn’t any doubt that I don’t know their settings by heart. If you want to make your first baby step towards  digital art photography a Sony Cyber Shot is a very good choice although a Fuji might seem a wiser choice, being a semi professional camera. A small camera as the Sony I presented is more light and easy to handle, you can fallow your model pretty easy whereas the Fuji is a little bit heavier and takes a lot of time when to comes to settings (complicated at the first look but very simplistic). Although another bonus point for our little Sony is its magical auto focus which Fuji doesn’t quite have, if your hand trembles a little your beautiful photo is gone.  The quality of a picture made with small Sony stunned me the first time I’ve used it, being a photshop fan, I like my pictures to be as clear as possible at its best quality and there’s where I couldn’t believe my eyes, a photo made by Sony, all of them actually fitted better with my needs than what my old Fuji had to offer. I have to admit the fact that I am also a sepia fan,  little Sony helped me there too, Sony has the best sepia color that not even photoshop can match whereas Fuji only allows you two options:  Black and White and Normal – disappointing!

These are simple things that you can easily notice too, remember also that both cameras are at an accessible price, of course that the Fuji is a little more expensive but I suggest you to invest in a Sony because in this case the cost does not represent  quality.

Here are the photos:

Photos made with Fuji S8000fd

I had some troubles coping with the model, the camera didn’t permit me to move that freely.

Photos made with Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W50

The little Sony allowed me to move easily, crawl and even lift it above my head so I could capture the model from different angles.

Dell Adamo

With much fanfare, Dell unveiled their new ‘luxury’ laptop this week. Just 16mm (0.65in) thick and weighting 1.8kg (4 pounds), Adamo (meaning ‘falling in love’ in Latin) seems aimed at the Macbook Air market. But is it really worth the hype?
Adamo’s system specs are as follows:

• 13.3″ display;
• Intel Core Duo 1.2 GHz;
• 2 Gb DDR3 RAM;
• 128 Gb SSD;
• Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit.

How much does it cost? Two grand. ($1999 to be more exact.)

Now excuse me, but it seems like a crazy idea to me. Coming out with an underpowered and overpriced laptop in these economic times? How are they planning to sell it?

Have a look at the advertorial below:

In case you got bored watching it, here are some quotes:

• “Adamo was created to elicit desire and redefine the image of power“
• “Adamo resulted from the union of technology with pleasure“
• “Once you hold it, you won’t want to put it down“
• “Because with this ultra-thin, portable aphrodisiac at your side, lack of attention won’t be a problem.“

Excuse me? Union of technology with pleasure? Portable aphrodisiac? Are we talking about a laptop here or were the copywriters on crack? My take is that they’ve tried to copy Apple’s style and failed. I mean, have a look at the video again, the woman pulls the laptop out of a cheap & ugly cardboard. Marketing 101: if you sell something at a premium, at least make sure it’s packaged like a jewel. (Apple knows it best).

Now, I’m no Apple fanboy (I don’t own any Apple products) but it seems to me that Dell dropped the ball on this one. Advertorial aside, the laptop specs don’t justify its cost and personally I don’t even like the design. I wouln’t buy it.

Would you?

From RAW to perfection

With the new releases from Adobe, DXO Labs and Phase One, I’ve decided to put to the test some of the top RAW processors. These are:

• Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.3;
• DXO Pro Optics Suite 5;
• Capture One 4.

NOTE: This article has been updated to include the newest releases from 2009-2010 and also reviews Capture One. Read the newer article here.

I would have wanted to also test Apple Aperture 1.5, but it wasn’t possible at this time, so, I decided to postpone that test.

These programs represent the high-end segment of the RAW converters, since they are all geared (or at least marketed) as tools for professional photographers. This doesn’t mean that Bibble, Silkypix or ACDSee Pro are not capable, it’s just that they have a different market.

Of course, their features and intended uses do not overlap completely. Lightroom in particular is billed as a DAM (Digital Asset Management) software, whereas DXO has extended features in term of image geometry correction. Still, I’ve tried to judge all three of them fairly and bring the best out of each one, rather than trying to prove a point.

Interface

All three programs have similar interfaces. It would be definitely unfair to say that any of them copied the other. They all employ a dark, monochrome look that is essential in avoiding misjudging colors, and they all use collapsible side-panels.

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

Unsurprisingly, Lightroom has the most complex interface. It has five tabs on the right, called Library, Develop, Slideshow, Print, and Web as well as panels on the left and right. The nice thing about its interface is that all of them can be hidden, including with an auto-hide option, allowing for a very efficient management of screen estate. Moreover, in the “lights dim” mode, the interface is faded, allowing the user to further concentrate on the photo itself.

DXO has a more workflow-oriented interface, with four main tabs called Select, Prepare, Process and Review. Its focus is on the Prepare tab, dedicated to adjusting the image. On the right side there are a number of panels stacked one on top of the other (similar to Lightroom) that can be also quickly accessed via the icons on the top right, although I still find them a little confusing due to their number and location (e.g. the White Balance is somewhere in the middle).

Capture One takes a different approach. It doesn’t want to be a DAM, but a very fast RAW processor. It has some quick tools at the top and some tabs on the left (Library, Quick, Exposure, Color, Details, Crop, Metadata, Adj. Clipboard, Output and Batch). The first tab lets the user select the files from the drive and then the next tabsset different processing parameters. With the Quick tab and the Copy/Paste settings tools at the top, adjustinting settings is very fast and efficient.

Features

Of all three, Lightroom is certainly the most ambitious. Its image management features allow for thousands of photos to be maintained by the Library and retrieved with ease. Still, the library management is rather slow compared to dedicated programs such as ACDSee. Even with that, Lightroom has plenty of other features to keep one happy. For example, the History tool allows the photographer for unlimited undo since all edits are non-destructive while snapshots and virtual copies lets one experiment with different looks. Web Slideshow and Print Management are nice perks too, although not essential.

DXO has different strengths. Its image management features are minimal, yet it shines in a different area: geometry correction. Having separate profiles for each camera/lens combo, DXO can automatically correct distortion, chromatic aberration, purple fringe and softness. Actually, DXO will automate many things: noise reduction, shadow/highlights and more. Features like keystoning and volume anamorphosis corrections are not only impressive, they are essential especially for architectural or wide-angle shots.

Capture One represents a huge improvement over version 3, but it has a different philosophy. It reminds me a little of RAWShooter – very small, very fast, allowing for quick corrections. It has less options, but they are arranged so that it’s extremely easy to correct and process hundreds of photos. It too has a Variants feature but lacks advanced color correction, a “healing brush” and other features present in its competitors.

Color Rendition

Camera sensors differ from one model to the other; most RAW processing software use their own camera color profiles, so it’s not surprising to get different colors out of the same picture by using different programs, even when leaving the white balance, contrast and saturation to “as shot”.

In my tests I’ve tried to get the best colors out of each picture, rather than relying on defaults. Below are some photos processed with each of the programs:

Nature

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

In all nature shots, I noticed Lightroom’s tendency to produce yellowish greens. Here, without a doubt, DXO produces the best image without even trying (it was on default settings), whereas I couldn’t get the same look in the other two even after many tweaks. Capture One fared the worst with unnatural colors (see the blueish shadows on the roof).

Illustrations

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

This is a more extreme case. In order to get a nice blue sky, I’ve used the Vibrancy control to enhance the colors. Capture One doesn’t have the vibrancy feature, so I had to rely on plain old saturation, with disastrous results. Lightroom and DXO produced virtually identical photos, with DXO having a slight edge.

Portraits

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

Here DXO misses by automatically applying too much of its “lighting effects”, which is a Shadow/Highlight recovery control (it can be turned off but I left it on for this photo to illustrate how sometimes too much automatic control can degrade a picture). Capture One creates a more natural-looking image, but overall Lightroom renders the most pleasing photo. Also notable is that Capture One is the only one missing a healing brush, which was used on the girl’s face in the other two images. The absence of this tool is not really a big deal, but it would have been nice.

Sharpness, noise and dynamic range

Now lets look at the level of detail provided. Note: to avoid any compression artifacts, details are presented in PNG format.

Detail and artifacts

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

Capture One doesn’t have any chromatic aberration control, which is responsible for the vertical blue line. I was very surprised and disappointed by DXO performance; even though it boasts a new processing engine designed specifically to avoid these kind of situations, it still produces some rather ugly color artifacts while at the same time looking not sharp enough. The only way I could remove them was by increasing the color noise reduction, which in turn would have negatively affected other areas of the picture. Lightroom provides a sharp, clean and detailed image, clearly the best.

Light and shadows

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

Now here DXO gets to show its power. Its lighting control is more advanced than the Fill Light present in Lightroom and Capture One, while the perspective correction (keystoning) capabilities allow for a superior photo. The shot was made at ISO800, 1/10s handheld, f5.6. Looking at the details, Lightroom and Capture One manage to create very clean images, although Capture One leaves some specks. The DXO version features more noise (to be expected in the shadow considering the extra processing) but also more detail. Annoyingly, DXO loses detail in the stained glass, which is peculiar since the brighter area of the photo shouldn’t have been affected.

Sharpness

Going back to the portrait above, lets see a 100% crop:

Lightroom	Capture One	DXO

I have “played” considerably in each program, trying to achieve the best possible results, but Lightroom manages the best balance between sharpness, cleanliness and noise.

Speed

Processing speed is dependent on many factors, including the processor, available memory, image size and amount of processing applied to it, making perfectly objective tests rather difficult. The numbers presented here are meant just for comparison.

Still, the fastest program is, without a doubt, Capture One, which is also impressive because it seems to be written entirely in C# (DXO is also based on .NET). On my laptop, the processing speed on capture One was 10 seconds/picture. In the second place, I had Lightroom, with 32 seconds per picture. I’ve tried to make things fair for DXO by removing all advanced processing such as lighting effect, geometry correction, even chromatic aberration and vignetting. Still, DXO came in last, with an atrocious 94 seconds spent for each picture, or almost 2 minutes per picture will all options activated.

Conclusion

In terms of output quality, the differences aren’t that huge and in some cases are more related to personal preference; all three tools are very capable of high quality output.

Of the three, Adobe Lightroom is the most consistent. It has a nice set of tools and features, solid results and few weaknesses. It’s integrated features allow the photographer to do all their work, from start to finish, in one program, in many cases with no need for Photoshop or other tools.

DXO is a mixed bag. It produces great colors, especially for nature and its geometry correction tools are a real life saver. On the other hand, it’s very slow, rather very unstable and just not great in terms of processing details. [Edit: I've thought initially that there must be something wrong with my computer but then I've found out on forums that many people complain about DXO 5 stability issues; for me, it crashes 80% of the time, when doing simple things like zooming in or applying sharpness.]

Capture One seems like a very nice “quick” tool. Even though it’s a beta, it’s fast in all areas (UI, workflow and processing), polished and stable. The pricing is also very attractive – just $130 compared to about $300 for the competition.