"Oh Lord, those blues are gonna rub me raw" - Warren Zevon RIP Here follows a veritable orgy of pixel peeping. I was playing around with Aperture 1.5 earlier today, since Apple has finally decided to let people try it out for free. I might write further about Aperture later, but I got distracted by what I discovered when I tried comparing detail in Aperture output compared with my current favourite, Iridient RAW Developer.

The photo I was playing with. The green box is the area which the 100% crops are taken from

I processed a recent photo in Aperture, with default settings, and sharpening disabled. I then opened it up in Photoshop, and compared it with the same image processed with RAW Developer. At first glance, whilst it was clear that the colour balances were quite different, it also seemed that if anything, Aperture was extracting more slightly more detail than RAW Developer, especially in the highlights (you're going to have to take my word on this, but in any case, this is hardly a scientific study). At second glance, however, I was distracted by something I hadn't notice before - a rainbow pattern in a ripple in the water, which certainly shouldn't be there. Actually, I'd noticed some strange colour artefacts in water droplets in another photo from this shoot in Aperture, and was ready to denounce Apple's RAW conversion - except that I found this "rainbow" in the RAW Developer version. It's in the Aperture version as well. So, what have we here then ? The mythical E-1 moiré ?

Oil slick or moiré ? As revealed in Iridient Raw Developer

Aperture 1.5's version of events

So I decided to give Adobe Photoshop™ Lightroom™ (ahem) Beta 4 a go. And lo and behold, (almost) no rainbow.

Lightroom Beta 4 shows what it can do

So, who cares ? Can't see it in the print, right ? Well, no. You can. And once I found one example, I found lots more in rippling water in similar shots. So, shock, horror, in this particular case it seems that Lightroom, and its flavour of ACR, are in fact pretty good at handling edge-case E-1 ORFs. Since Lightroom is improving it leaps and bounds, it is beginning to look interesting. And yes, I did check in Olympus Studio, and even in CaptureOne. Neither could do better. But actually, I was following up another bit of pixel-peeping there: whilst comparing Aperture's output to Raw Developer's I noticed in looked rather cool. So I checked the white balance data, which in both cases was set to "auto", or "as captured". Aperture reported a colour temperature of 5039K, tint -7, whereas Raw Developer claimed 5495K and -5. A bit more digging revealed the following:

Software	Col. Temp	Tint
Lightroom B4	5200K	+14
Olympus Studio 1.5	5300K	0
Iridient Raw Developer 1.5.4	5495K	-5
Aperture 1.5	5034K	-7
CaptureOne 4.7.3	5700K	+3

Now, I realise that different programs have different ways of handling white balance data, but surely they read the same camera data ? Otherwise, what was the big fuss about Nikon encrypting white balance all about, if it all comes down to guesswork anyway ? I know that CaptureOne seems to actually report a colour temperature some 300K than it is actually applying, and I know that there are various different interpretations of tint, but still... Do we just take this as black magic, and consider it part of the "character" of each RAW engine ? I don't know, but manually adjusting the colour temperature in Aperture to the same value as in RAW Developer pretty much gives the same result. So who is right ? Normally, one would assume Olympus has the best crack at it, but given the general competence of Studio, one has to be sceptical. What this really underlines is the importance, if you really want to capture "true colour" (whatever that is) of using a reference like the Whibal. Otherwise just feel free to wiggle around sliders until you get something you like the look of. That's what I do. So, after all these detours, what about Aperture ? Well, it seems competent. Very different to Lightroom, to be honest. Very focused on DAM, and with much better Photoshop integration, ironically. I'm not so impressed with Apple's reinvention of various wheels in the image adjustments settings, although the results are fine, but in terms of digital photo management, it potentially blows iView MediaPro out of the water. Potentially only, however, because unless you're shooting RAW only, and a RAW that Aperture knows about (it won't touch Lumix LX1 files, even converted to DNG), then forget it. It will handle scans, but grudgingly. The Lightbox, and the Stacks, are great, good ideas with inspired implementation. The Loupe is indeed a gimmick, but an entertaining one. And despite the scare stories, it seems to run just fine on my MacBook, and feels less cramped than Raw Developer. But I've got too much legacy both in film scans, and processed RAW files, to adopt it. Maybe one day. If Microsoft screws up MediaPro, I'll be tempted. As far as RAW Converters are concerned, to be honest, they're all pretty much on a par. My advice is find one you like the feel of, where you understand the controls, and how to get the best out of it, and stick with it. But bear in mind that Lightroom and Aperture, for better or for worse, bring quite a lot of baggage along with them that you might one day regret getting locked into. And as far as E-1 moiré is concerned, well, bug*er me sideways - looks like Phil Askey was right 😊

Whenever I talk about the merits of this or that camera, I rarely get very interested in the number of pixels, frame rate, or other detailed stuff. What I get hung up on are what I consider to be the basics, the aspects that makes a camera a device to do photography with, rather than some lump of consumer electronics. And one of these basic features is the viewfinder. The photo below was taken without a viewfinder. And therefore it was pure luck that it worked out.

Massed cormorants over Lake Lugano

This photo was taken with my Lumix LX1. I was walking along the Lugano lakefront last week, and I noticed a large flock of birds in the far distance. As I watched, they came closer, and I realised I had an opportunity for an interesting shot. So I quickly pulled out the Lumix and switched it on, and tried to compose using the LCD. Unfortunately, it was impossible to see the birds on the screen! Whilst perfectly clear to the naked eye, the screen just did not have the resolution to show them. Any camera prior to digital age, and indeed any DSLR, would have no problem with this. A cardboard throwaway film point & shoot would cope fine. But an expensive high end compact digital with no optical (or even electronic) viewfinder ? Forget it. The photo is quite pleasing to me, at least. But there were other better shots I lost whilst I was coming to terms with the fact that I was going to have to point & hope. I've frequently been frustrated by the LX1's lack of an optical viewfinder, but this is the first time it has really gone from difficult to impossible to use. It really takes away much of the pleasure and satisfaction in photography. So, the LX1, by my criteria, is an interesting lump of consumer electronics, but it is not a camera.

Last week I visited the Shell BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year show in London (you can try the link, but the site seems to be almost always down - total incompetence). I've never been to any of these shows before, although I've obviously seen the books. I was struck by three things. First, although the standard is incredibly high from a technical point of view, from an artistic point of view it is pretty dull. Obviously there are some exceptions, but I really got the feeling that the jury was making awards based more on difficulty, novelty, and perhaps zoology, than photography. The winning photo, of a walrus foraging on the ocean floor off the coast of Greenland was obviously extremely difficult and dangerous to take. It is a remarkable document of animal behaviour. But is it a good photo ? I'm not so sure. There isn't much to commend it on the standard criteria of composition etc, and the photographer himself states that it was pure luck, and he didn't even realise he'd taken it - or indeed, if I understand correctly, that it was possible to take it. So as a document, it stands - like a snapshot of Elvis climbing out of crashed flying saucer - but as a photograph, especially if there was no actual intention to take this image, well I'm not exactly a highly qualified critic, but I'm uneasy. The displays showing the works of young photographers (is this a characteristically British thing ?) were impressive. But again, to be harsh, were they good photography ? Most, if analysed, seemed to be the work of highly pampered kids (how many get a Nikon D80 or similar and get taken on Safaris in Africa ?) who may, or may not, have had the shot pretty much set up for them. I'm not saying they are worthless - I'd be happy to have taken any of those photos - but they seem to say more about the ruthless efficiency of the DSLR, and the wealth of a small minority of people, than much else. The final rant follows on from this: in parallel, the British newspapers were full of Tony Blair & co. cashing in on the latest climate warnings. Now, regardless that Blair's take on this is possibly the most cynical piece of hypocrisy I've ever seen, would it not seem a bit uncomfortable that shows such as the Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year are implicitly encouraging a mass growth in worldwide tourism ? How about weighting entrants on the basis of how far they travelled to take their photos ? Andy Rouse felt compelled to enter a penguin photo - fair enough, but the most remarkable photos I've seen from him in the past year were his kingfisher studies, taken with cycling distance of his home, I believe. If the awards are to focus on Wildlife rather than Photography, then it would be nice to see some evidence that responsible behaviour towards the environment is taken into account. After, Shell spends millions on adverts convincing us of its environmental responsibility. And pays for these adverts through sales of vast amounts of aviation fuel....