Review: Pentax WG-3 GPS

I spent a few weeks with Pentax's rugged 'adventure camera' with built in GPS, the WG-3 GPS. When this camera was released, I described it as cross between a toddler's teething ring and a training shoe in design. My opinion on its aesthetics hasn't changed, but what do I think of it as a picture taking machine? During testing it came out and about with me in every day life, went on a trip to Cambridge, and was subjected to 'general fiddling' at home.

Basic spec

The WG-3 GPS has a 16 megapixel CMOS sensor and a 4× optical zoom lens that has a maximum aperture of ƒ/2.0 at its widest angle packed into a body that can withstand water as deep as 14 metres, cold down to -10° Celsius, being dropped from two metres, and a crush force of 100kg. There's also GPS, a barometer, and an electronic compass.

As can probably be expected, it has more scene modes and digital filters than you've had hot dinners this year. This includes a digital microscope mode, complete with five LED lights surrounding the lens, to help capture the smallest of small subjects.

At the moment you can pick one up for £235 if you shop around.

Build and handling

It's a rugged camera. It's designed to be dropped, soaked, and frozen. When you hold it, you get the feeling that it's perfectly capable of withstanding these torments. I wasn't brave enough to drop it or stand on it, mostly because I was concerned that I might damage my wooden floors. Still, I took it in the shower with me to be assured of its waterproof sensibilities and I wasn't disappointed.

However, it hasn't strayed far from the obsession of making any and all adventure compact cameras look as if they've been designed by kindergarten pupils using crayons. I'm also inclined to think that the ruggedisation has had something of a negative impact, too. On occasions I found it quite difficult to depress the shutter release button without making the entire camera judder. There went any semblance of focus I had. Of course, this could just be me being a weakling and others might not have encountered anything similar.

If you're accustomed to recent model Pentax cameras you would not find the menus very different and even if you're not a Pentax user, they aren't difficult or complicated. You'd pick them up relatively quickly. As well as the plethora of scene modes and digital filters lurking beneath the mode and menu buttons, there's also the Green button to which you can assign your most-used functions. I opted for white balance, ISO, focus, and exposure compensation.

I was disappointed with the screen; I found it incredibly difficult to see in bright conditions, which makes me wonder how effective it would be when you're halfway up a mountain. I did appreciate the level indicator, however, as I have a prediliction to take wonky photos.

Images are recorded in 4:3 format at full 16 megapixel resolution, as well as 7, 5, and 3 megapixels. If you scale down to 12 megapixels you can choose between 16:9 and 1:1 formats. The 16:9 aspect ratio is also used for 5, 4, and 2 megapixel resolution images.

Performance

Slow autofocus is a problem that I've encountered with other Pentax cameras before now and unfortunately the WG-3 exhibited similar problems. It wasn't an issue in good light, but a hint of darkness leaves the auto-focus pecking around for its target, even with the assist beam. This was especially noticable when using the macro auto-focus or the digital microscope mode.

You have a choice of 28 different scene modes with the WG-3. They range from auto and programme through to underwater, surf and snow, and report, via landscape and food. In my opinion that's too many, especially when auto mode is intelligent enough to detect that the camera is photographing a flower and switch to flower mode, or a person and switch to portrait mode. A rugged camera would do well to provide auto and programme modes and then focus on the areas where it should be excelling: underwater and snow and bright conditions.

I gave the underwater setting a whirl in the shower, although doesn't really have the same effect as being submerged. It is meant to saturate the colours to compensate for the loss of light beneath the water's surface. However, you can see just how much it does do that. With no snow in my vicinity, I tried photographing a bright white surface in strong sunlight. I felt that it still needed exposure compensation, which rather defeats the object of the mode. You have to hope that people using it in these situations aren't relying on the camera's judgement in its entirety.

My ISO tests revealed a camera that produced no or little noise at ISO 125 and 200, but with some degredation appearing at ISO 400. There was significant graininess at ISO 800 and by ISO 1,600 I would be disinclined to make use of it. Combined with its disappointing auto-focusing ability, this doesn't bode well. However, at its widest point the lens has bright ƒ/2.0 aperture, which isn't to be sneezed at.

I was impressed by the photos the camera turned out when it used the macro auto-focusing mode, but the digital miscroscope was a disappointment. Apart from taking an age to focus, the five LEDS blew-out the white bed linen and the white flowers I tried it on. The macro focusing mode was far more effective.

The WG-3 GPS has eight white balance settings, including the auto mode that I found to be adequate. Occasionally it was a little too blue, but mostly it rendered colours accurately.

I was pleasantly surprised by the HDR function and felt that it really did make a difference in very bright situations without looking fake and over-cooked.

I didn't subject my test shot to every to every digital filter that the camera has to offer, but I did play with quite a few. It has everything that you'd expect, for example retro and toy camera, black and white and sepia, and miniature, as well as star burst and selective colour. You can see their effects over on my Flickr gallery.

Finally, I found the battery life very poor. It is supposed to manage 240 still shots on a full charge. I didn't manage anywhere near that.

The verdict

Despite it being a camera that I find ridiculously ugly and it having some shortcomings that I found disappointing, there was also plenty to like about the WG-3 GPS, for example its ƒ/2.0 lens. It does take good photos in good conditions and it has the means to overcome unfavourably bright conditions, too. There are a lot of adventure cameras out there to be bought and I wouldn't necessarily write off the WG-3. I just wish that Pentax had focused on making it a great compact camera, rather than one with lots of add-ons.

Would I buy it? To be honest, if I'm scaling a mountain or snorkelling, I'm more likely to be concentrating on staying upright or breathing than taking photos, but I would consider it if I felt that I were able to split my faculties sufficiently.

Would I recommend it? There are a lot of rugged cameras out there and the WG-3 GPS is good value for money. It's worth investigating.

---

More photos are on Flickr.

Improving Raw-to-JPEG conversion is all well and good, Google, but photographers need Raw editing power

Plenty of people seem to be excited, or at least pleased, by Google's announcement that it has improved its Raw-to-JPEG conversion process for image files created by over 70 different cameras. I, however, cannot help but feel that Google, and the Nik Photography team that worked on the project, have overelooked one of the key factors that motivates photographers to shoot in Raw: we like the flexibility that it provides us.

The Raw-to-JPEG conversion process doesn't allow photographers to make edits to the Raw file, where the majority of the data are stored and where the photographer can have the most significant impact on the final version of her or his photos. Instead, it converts the Raw file to JPEG and expects the photographer to make edits to an already adjusted image. An image that has been adjusted according to what the conversion programme deems best, not the photographer.

It's a process that rather defeats the purpose of shooting in Raw.

I might as well shoot in JPEG format and allow the camera to make the development choices if I'm going to shoot in Raw and then let a series of Google-written algorithms develop my photos for me. It'd save oodles of storage space.

If Google is anticipating that photographers are using Google+ as a back-up of Raw files and just want a glimpse of them in JPEG for identification purposes, that's all well and good, although it does strike me as a ridiculous waste of development time to produce something they believe so sophisticated for what's a relatively trivial demand. Should the aim be for Google+ to rise as a serious contender for serious image storage and processing, it needs to rearrange its cart-and-horse configuration.

---

For completeness, the cameras whose files are supported by the new conversion process are:

Canon EOS: 100D, 1000D, 1100D, 1D Mark III, 1D Mark IV, 1Ds Mark III, 1Dx, 20D, 30D, 350D, 400D, 40D, 450D, 500D, 50D, 550D, 5D, 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III, 600D, 60D, 650D, 6D, 700D, 7D, M Canon Powershot: G12, G1X, S100 Nikon: 1 J1, 1 J2, 1 J3, 1 S1, 1 V1, 1 V2, Coolpix A, D300, D300s, D3000, D3100, D3200, D4, D40, D40X, D5000, D5100, D5200, D600, D700, D7000, D7100, D800, D800E, D90 Olympus: OM-D E-M5, PEN EP1, PEN EP2, PEN EP3, PEN EPL3, PEN EPL5 Panasonic: LUMIX DMC GF1 Sony: Alpha 700, NEX-5, NEX-5N, NEX-6, NEX-7, NEX-C3, NEX-F3, RX1, RX100, SLT Alpha 55, SLT Alpha 77, SLT Alpha 99

---

(Headsup to ePhotozine; full details on Google+.)

Quality versus quantity

This instalment in the Photography Fundamentals series is a slightly cerebral departure from the norm. We're going to explore the idea of quality versus quantity. It's not a debate over the merits of digital compared to film, more a costs and benefits analysis of them both. Quality versus quantity; it's a purely digital conundrum. Back in the days of film, you had a given number of exposures per roll and that was that. Even if you kept a ready supply of film on you, having the rolls developed wasn't a cheap business, so you thought carefully about every image. You set upon the story, you nailed the composition, and you got the exposure bang-on. Or at least you tried to. The point was that you aimed for quality every time.

Now, memory is cheap—you can pick up an 8GB memory card for under £10—and you can shoot and shoot and shoot until your heart is content: I can get several hundred Raw images from my Canon 6D on said same card. If you fill up your memory card and don't have a spare, you can scan back through your files and delete those that are out of focus, horribly exposed, or just don't work. We're no longer hide-bound by physical (and economic) limitations of film, allowing us the ability to play, experiment, and get things wrong ad infinitum. The barometer has swung from quality to quantity.

This has to be a good thing, right?

Well… yes, and no.

Being able to take hundreds and hundreds of images off the reel is stupendous, especially when you combine it with the ability to shoot in high frame rate bursts. I was epically grateful for this last weekend, when I went out to photograph the final stage of the Tour of Britain. Not only did the cyclists racing around the central London circuit ten times give me ample opportunity to capture them as well as stand and cheer, so did my memory cards. I wasn't concerned that I'd waste rolls of film and not have anything to show for my endeavours; digital had me covered.

However, there's also a possibility that the ability to shoot almost endlessly is making us lazy as photographers. We don't have the over-arching need to plan our photos properly anymore, we can simply 'hit and hope'. Are there elements of the craft that are being forgotten, lost, and ignored because quantity is ruling over quality? If I'd only had one chance to capture those cyclists on Sunday, as opposed to ten, would I have been able to get the shot because I'm too accustomed to being able to go back and try again?

Does this make me sound like a curmudgeonly luddite who'd rather be shooting wet plates? Probably. But it isn't meant to. It's meant to highlight the balancing act that we need to perform between the limitations of restricted exposures and the potential for exploration and experimentation with virtually unlimited exposures. It's actually me saying that quantity is awesome, but we shouldn't worship at its altar to the ignorance of quality.

So why don't you try this as an experiment. Allow yourself 36 exposures, and no peeking at your LCD screen. How many shots from your 36 make the grade and what did you learn from the experience? Maybe you always under-expose, or perhaps you have a tendency to sloppy framing. Are you thinking about your aperture carefully enough? You might notice that your subject placement is something that you do consistently well. Perform the exercise on a regular basis and it could lead to an improvement in your photography. Then you won't need to take so many shots off the reel!

Prime lens << Photography Fundamentals >> Rule of thirds

Photographs rendered in Play-Doh

I've normally walked out of a pub quiz with some nuggets of new-found information and I've occasionally left with the victor's prize, but I've never come away with a new hobby. Obviously I'm going to the wrong class of pub quiz, unlike Eleanor Macnair. When she attended a pub quiz hosted by Miniclick by MacDonaldStrand, one round asked the participants to recreate an iconic photograph using Play-Doh. Rather taken by the process, she started doing them at home for a bit of fun. It's grown a bit, with friends requesting specific recreations and a Tumblr dedicated to her work. Now anyone can see her version of August Sander's Pastrycook, Dovima with elephants, evening dress by Dior, Cirque d’Hiver by Richard Avedon reworked in Play-Doh by Eleanor Macnair, or her rendition of Helen Tamiris by Man Ray, whether they're in Yemen or Equador.

Each postcard sized plaque is nothing more than a fleeting creation, however, and Eleanor is not amassing an archive of flour-water-salt dough representations in her living room. She crafts them in under an hour using a pint-glass rolling-pin and a blunt knife from a globally recognised homeware megalith, and they last long enough to be photographed before being broken up and the different Play-Doh colours returned to their respective tubs, ready to be reformed into another image, another day.

Eleanor says that she cringes when she sees people on the Internet debating the value of her project. It is, after all, a bit of fun. But if she can lead lead people to discover new photographers or look again at well known photographs, she's happy. And 'Sometimes it's nice to have the freedom to do something just because.'

Quite frankly I think it should be every photographer's aim to have Eleanor recreate one of their images. They'd be in hallowed company.

You can check out all of Eleanor's Play-Doh photos on her Tumblr: Photographs rendered in Play-Doh.

Can I use this photo I found on the Internet?

(Or, the non-photographer's guide to image use) It's a truth universally acknowledged that articles, newsletters, blog posts, posters, and basically anything involving blocks of text can be improved upon by the addition of an image. When you're writing about the local cycling club's criterium or producing a short introduction to crochet and macrame, you'll probably want some pictures to illustrate events or to explain techniques alongside your race report or detailed how-to. Can you take a look at the site of a local photographer and use some of his images from the cycle race? Can you conduct a Google Image Search for 'crochet' and download some photos of great examples of people's work?

The short answer is always 'No'. Just because someone has posted an image on the Intergoogles, it doesn't mean that it is free for other people to use. You can't use the china in John Lewis' window display without paying for it first, and a photo on Flickr is just the same. Images belong to the people who create them—or in some circumstances, to their employers—so they get to decide how and when they can be used and what the appropriate fee for using them is. We put them on our websites or on photosharing sites because we're proud of our work and we like to display our capabilities, but it's not an open invitation to filch them.

There are a few exceptions to this rule, but until you know better, work under the assumption that every photographer keeps the tightest control over the use of all of her or his images. Being confronted by an angry photographer wielding an invoice for unauthorised image use is not a pleasant situation, so remember: You can't use other people's photos. Mmm'kay?

For completeness, what are these exceptions you talk of?

Some people are happy to licence their images under Creative Commons terms. Creative Commons licences aren't designed as an alternative to traditional copyright, but a complement. They're easy-to-use copyright licenses that allow you permission to use a photographer's images under terms decided by the photographer. One photographer might let you modify and use his images commercially, but another might say that her images must be attributed, cannot be used commercially, and aren't to be modified. However, not all photographers use Creative Commons terms (you'll see it close to the photo if they do) and if there's no evidence of a Creative Commons licence, assume that you can't use the image.

If you receive an image in a press release or it's made available to you from the press section of a website, this will be free to use in the context of the product or situation. For example, when Olympus releases a new camera, it will make a bundle of images illustrating it available to me. Provided that I'm writing about that camera, I'm free to use them in an article. The National Portrait Gallery will supply a selection of images from each of its exhibitions so that if you're reviewing it or publicising one, you have photos to illustrate the article. But, you can only use those photos in relation to the relevant exhibition and they must be attributed under the terms set out by the NPG.

Some news agencies, for example AFP, are happy for you to use their photographers' images non-commercially and for personal use provided that you credit the photographer and agency and link back to the site. But, some agencies aren't. And you wouldn't want to face the wrath of AP or Reuters. Again, unless you're absolutely certain, assume that an image isn't free to use.

But what if you see an image and want to use it? What should you do?

Get in touch with the photographer! Most of us make it easy to send an email: do just that. We don't bite. Mostly. Tell us who you are, why and how you'd like to use a photograph that we've taken, and ask if you can come to an arrangement. The worst that we can say is 'No'.

That's not so hard, is it?

Canon launches its Student Network to get in with the pros of tomorrow

In an attempt to help the next generation of photographers build on both their creative and business skills (and maybe get their claws into them as camera users), Canon has launched the Canon Student Network in collaboration with 11 universities in the UK and Ireland. Being developed in conjunction with these universities, it's meant to act as a complement to their courses. The programme offers opportunities for students on relevant courses to see what it's really like to be a professional fashion photographer at London Fashion Week, or to turn their hands to sports, wildlife, portrait and wedding photography. There are also seminars being laid on across the country and online courses that make use of current professionals' experience and knowledge, competition prizes, and the all-important networking potential, too.

To join, first year students need to be studying photography (or its equivalent course) at Ravensbourne, Norwich University, City of Westminster College, Leicester College, Reid Kerr College, Middlesex University, Plymouth College of Art, University of the Arts London, University of East London, University College Falmouth, or Griffith College, and they must sign up to Project 1709, Canon's online image management system. Second year students also need to own a current Canon dSLR and lens (but no one says that they actually have to use it). There's no third year sign-up option at the moment. That'll come in the next academic year, which is rather unfortunate for anyone who's currently in her or his final year. But for those who're are there now, it is free and might be worth checking out.

Interested students can check out the terms and conditions and register if they fancy over on the Canon Student Network website.

Only in England: Photographs by Martin Parr and Tony Ray-Jones

The debut exhibition at London's Science Museum's Media Space also happens to be the first ever major London exhibition of work by British Photographer, Tony Ray-Jones, together with 50 rarely seen early black and white photographs, The Non-Conformists, by Martin Parr. In Ray-Jones and Parr, the exhibitions draws upon the work of two of the most incisive documentary photographers of British life. Before his untimely death from leukemia in 1972, Ray-Jones compiled an archive of work exploring English customs and identity. This in turn had a lasting influence on the work of other photographers, including Martin Parr.

The exhibition comprises 50 vintage prints as well as 50 previously unseen images from the Tony Ray-Jones archive, held by the National Media Museum. It was Martin Parr who helped to select these new prints, from a selection of over 2,700 contact sheets and negatives. As for Parr's work, it has only ever been exhibited in Hebden Bridge and at Camerawork Gallery, London in 1981.

Only in England: Photographs by Tony Ray-Jones and Martin Parr will run at Media Space, Science Museum from 21 September 2013 to 16 March 2014. The exhibition will then be on display at the National Media Museum from 22 March to 29 June 2014. Admission £8, Concessions £5.

Sleek and smooth: it's Triggertrap Mobile 2.0

It's sleek, it's smooth, it's the new Triggertrap Mobile 2.0 that allows you to trigger your dSLR in 14 ways using your smartphone and a dongle. Want to record a timelapse—that is a sunset timelapse that makes use of bulb-ramping, or timewarped timelapse that has varied intervals between shots, or an HDR timelapse? Or trigger your camera using sound or vibration? How about create a distance-lapse? Maybe record star-trails? Fancy having a go at long-exposure HDR? And do it all wirelessly? Triggertrap has you covered. There's even a wireless flash adapter you can hook it up to for high-speed photography.

The new version is available for both iOS and Android devices and has a simplified design that's not just a pretty screen: switching between triggering modes is now easier. There were a few bugs in the old version that should now be squashed and Android users will be happy to hear that the app can now run in the background, even when the phone is locked, allowing you to timelapse away until your heart is content without fatally draining your battery.

The Triggertrap team is rather proud of version 2.0: 'We saw the opportunity to combine what we learned from the first generation app with the tips we received from our diehard fans to make Triggertrap what we always envisioned it could be,' said CEO and Triggertrap inventor Haje Jan Kamps. 'It certainly helps that our fans wear the pants around here and aren’t shy about letting us know what could be improved, and as a result, Triggertrap Mobile 2.0 is the best triggering solution you’ll find anywhere.'

If you don't already use Triggertrap, you can download the app for free from Apple's App Store or Google Play. It works with your device's internal camera or can be hooked up to supported dSLRs or flashguns using hardware available from the Triggertrap shop.

And if you'd rather watch a video, Triggertrap's made you one of those, too!

CSR Pictures, a stock agency devoted to corporate social responsibility images, wants contributors

There are hundreds of stock agencies out there, so if you want to break into the market, you have be certain of at least two things; first, that you're providing a service that buyers are demanding and second, that your business model is one that photographers will be happy to supply. On the Ground Media thinks it has identified a niche and from early 2014, it hopes to be providing images specifically relating to corporate social responsibility and sustainability through its new stock agency CSR Pictures. Thinking that a stock agency devoted to corporate social responsibility images might be somewhere on the small side of niche, I asked the people behind it how they felt they might attract a client base. It's not as if the sorts of images that people compiling CSR communications are thin on the ground; type 'poverty', ''money laundering', or 'fraud' into Getty, Alamy, or Corbis and you're presented with thousands of photos. If you're looking for rain forests, polluted oceans, or chimneys belching fumes, you've an even larger selection. Furthermore, when iStockphoto has just changed its name to iStock by Getty as a reflection of people identifying with the brand names, there's a case for bigger is better.

CSR Pictures isn't concerned by either of these issues. To start: 'Our research suggests that many of the people who need to bring CSR themes to life—CSR managers, corporate communicators, even HR staff—don’t necessarily have the time or inclination to sift through endless images. They’re not traditional image buyers. They want a much more focused search experience. And they want us to work with them to understand their needs and channel to them a steady stream of top-notch images.'

As for the sorts of images CSR Pictures wants to supply, it recognises that there are plenty of generic photos, but very few that are specifically CSR-oriented, for example impact investing, compliance with anti-bribery legislation, mining industry transparency or beneficial ownership of shell companies. It's CSR Pictures' aim to 'work with some of the best image-makers around the world to come up with new and compelling ways to illustrate such areas.' In its opinion, there really is a gap in the market.

Market duly identified, it needs some photos. It is, therefore, inviting photographers the world over—including those from Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, many of whom lack outlets for their work and steady income streams—to submit their applications to contribute. If you're wondering what sorts of images it's looking for, there's an extensive list on its website. You can submit your application on the site, too.

Should everything go well, CSR Pictures aims to establish a global network of photographers and designers for bespoke photo shoots and projects that its clients can commission.

There isn't a pricing structure in evidence on the site yet, but I've been told that the cheapest royalty-free image for web use will be in the region of £20 to £30 and the website states that each sale is split 50/50 between photographer and agency. They don't demand exclusivity, either. If you've the right images and the agency will be as much in demand as it thinks it will, it could make you a few pennies.

Interested? Think it has legs? All of the details and the opportunity to sign up to contribute are on its preview website.

Adobe's Projects Napoleon and Mighty are go!

Abode mooted Projects Napoleon and Mighty at Adobe MAX in May this year. They were ideas explored by the Experience Design (XD) team: 'Mighty', a cloud pen, and Napoleon, a digital ruler. Today, they've brought them to life. Mighty, the cloud pen, was dreamed-up with a focus on the future of drawing. It's a pressure sensitive device to be used for drawing that's also connected to Adobe's Creative Cloud. This connection allows you pull up Kuler themes and create a 'cloud clipboard' so that you can save, access, and re-use things you've already drawn.

The design of Mighty was down to a team at industrial design firm Ammunition. They settled on a triangular grip with a twisted stem that's comfortable to hold and sits naturally in the hand.

Napoleon is a digital ruler that was designed to bring back some of the feeling of drawing with analogue tools like the t-square and triangle. As Michael Gough, Adobe's VP of experience design puts it: 'There is something about the confidence of drawing a line aided by a physical device—the tactile feedback you get as you move the straightedge around—as well as the fluidity and accuracy of drawing that comes from interacting with physical objects.'

Adobe will teaming up with Adonit, 'an awesome band of makers with a shared belief in the power of creative devices paired with apps and services,' to bring Mighty and Napoleon to you in the first half of 2014.

From iStockphoto to iStock by Getty Images

Seven years after Getty Images acquired the microstock agency iStockphoto, they've embarked on a name-change and rebranding programme. iStockphoto is now iStock by Getty Images, and there's a new logo to accompany it.

Dropping the 'photo' from the name was reflective of iStock's business: they don't just deal in photos, but also vectors, illustrations, video, and audio tracks. But the addition of the 'by Getty Images' was an attempt to raise iStock's profile. Lots of people know about Getty Images, but not so many knew that it owned iStockphoto. Now they will.

Embracing automatic ISO.

Recently, I find myself in more and more situations where I know what I'd like my shutter speed and aperture to be, but realising that the light situation is changing around me. In a recent round of street photography, for example, I wanted to shoot wide open (f/2.8, using my 70-200mm lens), and I knew that I wanted reasonably fast shutter speeds (I spent the day shooting at 1/800 second)... But given that I was walking down Southbank in London, where there's a lot of trees, overhangs, and rapidly changing light situations, what's a guy to do? The solution, more and more often, is automatic ISO: Select the things you care about, and let your camera adapt to the changing lighting situations by varying the ISO.

It isn't that long ago since this would have been completely impossible - Most of the camera bodies I've had so far, have had rubbish quality photos beyond ISO 3200 or so. With my most recent camera bodies, however (Canon EOS 5D mark 3, which I ended up selling because I found it too heavy for everyday street photography, and replacing with a Canon EOS 6D instead), the full breadth of the ISO range is perfectly usable.

The above photo, for example, I captured by setting my camera to f/2.8 and 1/800. The camera selected ISO 320 for this shot. Perfectly fine; there's no discernable noise in the image at all.

Going Macro

More extreme, however, was the example I experienced recently. I've done a fair bit of macro photography (I did write the book on it, after all), but I found myself in a situation that was nearly impossible: Taking photos of insects on the move, without my usual flashguns. What to do? I was shooting with my 100mm f/2.8 Macro attached to my Canon EOS 6D, and no light sources or light shapers. All natural meant that I needed a relatively high shutter speed (because I was shooting hand-held), and a relatively small aperture (to deal with the extremely limited depth of field). Even in bright sunlight, that doesn't leave an awful lot of light left... But it turns out that automatic ISO still does the trick:

So I guess the lesson here is that on modern cameras, you can in many situations leave the camera to get things right, whether you're willing to let shutter speed, aperture, or ISO to be variable. Nifty stuff.

Flickr mysteriously grows a personality

I've got to say... When the Flickr re-launch happened, I wasn't so sure... But it's really warmed on me. It's good to see that Mayer & co are taking the Flickr property seriously... And they've even been able to inject a spot of personality in the process. Take their 'sorry we are down for maintenance' screen, for example. Very cute indeed.

How NASA uses sound triggers to capture amazing rocket launches

The internet is full of a Crazy Frog (No, not that Crazy Frog, thankfully) today. This little buddy took a leap of faith in front of a photographer's sound-triggered camera at a NASA launchpad. The full story is available over on Mashable, but have you ever wondered how these photographers do their job?

For security and safety reasons, photographers aren't allowed anywhere near the launch pad at launch. For obvious reasons, they can't use remote-triggered cameras either (Think about it... Would you allow anyone with a radio transmitter near a space rocket?), and so they use other techniques instead. Specifically, sound-triggered cameras.

There are a great many different ways of doing this, of course, but over on the Triggertrap website, there's a fantastic interview with Walter Scriptunas II, who shoots NASA rocket launches using the sound triggers built into the Triggertrap v1 camera triggers. Clever stuff, and well worth a read!

What's that you say Adobe? You've updated Photoshop Express for iOS?

Amongst the bundle of app updates waiting for me this morning there was one from Adobe, for Photoshop Express. I noticed that the icon had altered, which suggested that it was a more significant update than a few bug fixes, and I wasn't wrong. There's a new look and feel to the app, as well as integration with Adobe Revel that allows you to store and share your images across the Cloud. I've already been having an explore. There are now 22 filters to choose from, ranging from a chilly 'Winter' effect, to a soft 'Dream' look, via the sepia-toned 'Memory' filter. I would say that the choice is overwhelming, but the filters take so long to process that I gave up trying to apply them and stuck with natural. The crop function provides the usual suspects of constraints and straighten, as well as the capability to rotate an image or to flip it along its horizontal or vertical axis.

In the adjustments tab you're given control over contrast, clarity, exposure, highlights, shadows, temperature, tint, and vibrance. There's also a noise adjustment, but that's a paid-for feature. I found the adjustment controls on the previous version of Photoshop Express difficult to use, with features paired up beneath a tab and one of those controlled by a vertical swipe and the other by a horizontal swipe. It was far too easy to adjust one when you wanted to change the other. The new interface dispenses with the dual-adjustment system, each adjustment is made individually using a slider and some have an auto-adjustment feature. The new sliders are a definite improvement, but they could benefit from some refinement. There's no visual indication (for example a blue line) of how far away from the mid-point you've moved the slider apart from a pop-up numerical value and the mid-point itself isn't marked. Making alterations is, therefore, a little crude.

Just as the filters are slow to render, so are the adjustments. Changes don't happen in real-time as you move your finger along the slider, making it difficult to gauge your alterations. I'm sure that more practice will yield more accurate results, but when I'm already using an app that is responsive, it doesn't inspire me to make the switch to Photoshop Express.

As well as the auto-enhance button, there's a red eye removal option, and the choice of 20 different frames for your pictures. Again, they're very slow to render and they don't encourage me to try adding a frame to my images.

My initial impressions are of a very capable editing app, and to be fair you would expect nothing less from Adobe, that provides a welcome improvement to its interface and offers some very useful features (I'm especially taken by independent highlights and shadows adjustments). However, it is excruciatingly slow, which makes me hesitant to move away from my current favoured edited solutions. If Adobe were to do something about the app's pace, I might well be tempted. It is free, though, so take a look and see what you think.

That's Photoshop and Flickr who've both upped their antes in the past few weeks. Snapseed, I think it's your move.

(I've no idea what the Android update is like, or even if there is one. If anyone wants to share - please do!)

The Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize shortlist is announced

Four photographers have been shortlisted for this year's Taylor Wessing Portrait Prize, hosted by the National Portrait Gallery in London. Anoush Abrar, Dorothee Deiss, Spencer Murphy, and Giles Price are all in the running to claim the £12,000 prize for their entries, having been shortlisted from a total of 5,410 submissions by 2,435 photographers.

My initial reaction is that all of these images feel very safe. They're gorgeous pictures, yes, but there is nothing here that makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up or leads me to believe that these photographers have pushed any boundaries or limitations. I hope that when I have the opportunity to see the images in the flesh, hanging in the gallery, I'll feel differently about them.

The competition was judged from original prints by: Sandy Nairne Director, National Portrait Gallery, London (Chair); Kate Bush Head of Barbican Art Galleries; Suki Dhanda Photographer; Tim Eyles Managing Partner, Taylor Wessing; Terence Pepper Head of Photographs Collection, National Portrait Gallery; and Rebecca Valentine Photographic Agent.

Sixty portraits have been selected for exhibition later this year, running from 14 November 2013 to 9 February 2014 at the National Portrait Gallery in London.

Google brings Snapseed to Google+

Earlier this year when Google shuttered the Snapseed for desktop app, it didn't exactly leave me heartbroken, but it did mean that I had one fewer cheap and reliable editing option that I could recommend to nascent photographers. (If they'd shuttered Snapseed for iOS, I might've gone into a raging frenzy, but thankfully that wasn't necessary.) Now, however, Snapseed is making a desktop come-back, provided that you use Google+ on Chrome.

Upload an image to Google+, select it, hit edit, and you're presented the opportunity to adjust it using Snapseed's tools. If you're already familiar with Snapseed for mobile, you'll be right at home. If you're not familiar with Snapseed, it is easy to get along with it and there's always the 'Revert' button for your edits get a little over-zealous.

It is a rolling roll out, so if you don't see it yet, you should have it soon.

Headsup to Engadget

Compare and contrast: Apple's iPhone 5s and 5c cameras

Just in case you've not had quite enough of your fill of Apple news over the past day or so, here's a run-down of the camera spec for the new iPhone 5s and 5c.

iPhone 5s

• All-new 8 megapixel rear-facing camera - I've heard plenty of people bemoaning the fact that it's 'only 8 megapixels' but do you really need any more on a sensor that's about the size of my little fingernail?
• Speaking of which, the size of the sensor has been increased - with luck that will help to improve low-light performance and noise levels
• ƒ/2.2 aperture - a touch brighter than the ƒ/2.4 of old
• The new processor in the A7 chip should help with faster auto-focusing, faster image capture (thanks-be), automatic image and video stabilisation, and increased dynamic range
• True Tone flash - a flash with in excess of 1,000 variants in colour and intensity to help produce more natural colours
• Burst mode - that's going to be reliant on the new faster image capture
• 120 frames-per-second slow-motion video

iPhone 5c

This camera is more akin to the iPhone 5's. It has an 8 megapixel sensor, but not the larger one of the 5s, and it is powered by the A6 chip so won't be as fast as the A7 version. It has an ƒ/2.4 lens, an LED flash, and no burst mode or slow-motion video.

And?

I'm not the kind of person to go out and upgrade my phone on the basis of its camera alone, especially not when you're looking at paying $199 for the 16GB 5s, $299 for the 32GB version, and $399 for the 64GB 5s (if you qualify). If you're an iPhone 4s owner, you're not looking at any major camera upgrade by hopping to the 5c, so it really isn't worth the $99 for the 16GB model or $199 for the 32GB model, again, if you 'qualify'. If you're in need of a whole new phone, however, it might be a different matter.

Photoshop + Lightroom for £8.78 ($9.99) a month

Gosh, did Adobe have some kind of epiphany? Did it actually realise that many of its customers were vexed, peeved, and felt exploited by its move from stand-alone software to the subscription-only Creative Cloud for applications such as Photoshop? Heavens is might have! Earlier today at the Photoshop World conference in Las Vegas it was announced that Photoshop CS3 (or higher) owners wil be able to subscribe to a Photoshop + Lightroom bundle that includes access to Behance, 20GB of online storage, access to Creative Cloud Learn's training resources, and ongoing updates for a fee of £8.78 (or $9.99) a month. You'll need to sign up before 31 December 2013.

According to Winston Hendrickson's blog: 'Since introducing Photoshop CC, we’ve listened to feedback from a spectrum of our customers, from advanced professionals to casual enthusiasts. One common request was a solution specifically tailored for photographers. We listened, and at Photoshop World we’re announcing a special offer for our loyal Photoshop customers.' It might be a good deal and it most certainly is a photographically oriented package, but Adobe's Creative Cloud storm left many of its loyal users feeling embittered. Sometimes a 'Sorry, we got it wrong,' can help, too.

There are more details on Adobe's blog.

Wander leads to Planett, but can these apps go any further?

In December 2011 I took a look at an app called Wander (no, not that Wander; a different one) that aimed to let you explore the world through images. It was a bit like having technologically-based pen-pal. Wander allowed you to connect with people in any one of 80 countries and you could share your lunch, your journey to work, and what you do of an evening to get to know each other and where you live, through pictures. It seemed like a fairly neat idea that allowed you to explore and learn about new places while sharing yours. It didn't, however, catch on as the developers had hoped and Wander closed down on 16 August owing to financial difficulties.

Undeterred, some of Wander's original developers have gone on to launch Planett, a Wander-esque app that allows users to discover new places and people by featuring photos tagged with 'missions' from all over the world and organising them into 'city feeds'. Wander's one-to-one element has had to take a back seat for now, but the Planett team is hoping that it can be introduced soon.

I'm impressed by the Planett team's tenacity, but I'm left with some nagging doubts about the app's viability. If it failed on financial grounds the first time around, how will the revamped version fare? There are two underpinning factors here: either Wander didn't fulfil a gap in the market and wasn't popular with potential users; or the team weren't able to monetise it effectively.

Rehashing an app that people didn't want to engage with won't necessarily make it any more popular. If that's the case, then Planett is, sadly, already on a hiding-to-nothing.

Not being able to monetise the app effectively could have been because the developers simply didn't know how to do it. They couldn't see a way to make the app economically lucrative and therefore didn't. That's fine if you're able to bankroll an app as a personal project, but not if you need to transform it into a self-sustaining business. Given that Wander closed owing to financial shortcomings, it suggests that it didn't fall into the category of a developer's part-time project. Seeing the way that Wander went doesn't fill me with confidence that Planett can be maintained as a developer's toy, either. If that were the case, then Wander would still be meandering along.

I sincerely hope that the Planett team hasn't sauntered over from Wander thinking that they can monetise it 'somehow' without having thought it through. Attempting the same scheme but expecting a different outcome is somewhere between futile and fanciful. What I would like to know then is what's the plan, Planett? I have asked Planett's developers to elaborate on the app's monetisation potential, but I'm yet to receive response. Without one, I can only anticipate Planett will head towards the same pale blue yonder of Wander.

Alternatively, the Wander team did attempt to monetise their app, but it didn't raise enough revenue. That doesn't bode well for Planett, either: it casts doubt on the monetisation potential of the app. Sure, Planett might have a different vision to Wander, but there's no evidence of it yet. Planett's developers need to consider if their app is something that plugs a gap in the market and if people will be prepared to pay for it, somehow.

Planett's selling points are that it allows you to explore your world, you can follow 'cool people' who share photos from places you want to visit, you can visit cities pictorially and explore them 'at ground level', and it provides you with photo missions to inspire you and get your creative juices flowing. As you share more images of where you live, you can unlock more images uploaded by other people.

Is this enough to tempt people to join and to share their photos? After all, you can already explore the world photographically using geolocation information with Flickr, Instagram, and EyeEm, and you can follow heaps of people with varying degrees of coolness on all three of those sites. EyeEm has the photo missions element built in, too. The real kicker for Planett is that these examples are already well-established communities with billions of photos, and that they're free. Without something to set it apart, Planett is facing an uphill struggle.

Wander's unique selling point was the one-on-one relationships that it fostered. Planett is hoping to adopt this feature but it hasn't got there yet. Without it, or another appealing and original facet, Planett is trying to establish itself amongst already settled groups that might not be willing to shift (or at least join).

There are billions of photos on the Intergoogles and hundreds, if not thousands, of different ways of sharing them. But if a new kid on the block is going to survive against already well-established communities and ensure its sustainability, it has to know to whom it is appealing, and how. Does Planett?