For a long time I’ve wanted to show a before and after editing session in more detail but I’ve just never found an image that was simple enough to get it done in a reasonable amount of time. When my client asked me to edit this photo I knew it would be the perfect choice for doing a video so I finally gave it a go.
You’ll get to watch me edit this photo from the beginning to almost the end (final crop and logo placement not included) using my favorite tools – Portraiture, Color Efex, Viveza, and Sharpener Pro.
I’ve broken the videos up into three parts for a variety of reasons, so just watch them in order at your leisure:
I love, love, love my Canon iPF6300 printer. It’s been a joy to use that has been much less hassle than my Epson 3880 and 4900 (which are excellent in their own way), but I’ve missed my beloved Epson Exhibition Fiber paper (EFP). I know from feedback from my readers and sales reports that many of you are switching from Epson to Canon so you’ve probably been wondering the same thing I have – is there an equivalent to EFP from Canon?
From my research I’ve found Canon Polished Rag to be the closest thing to EFP and honestly I think it is just as good, but I haven’t been able to get it in 24” rolls. As a result I’ve been using Canon Premium RC Luster which is excellent too and doesn’t have the same issues with curling that EFP and Polish Rag do. I’ve found the built-in profile to be great for every day prints – especially in-camera JPEG’s with no post-processing (it’s amazing with those), but for those with a fine art color managed workflow you’ll want to generate your own with something like ColorMunki or i1XTreme for the most accurate results as the built-in profile does take some liberties with saturation and some minor color hue shifts.
A Word About Rendering Intents
On Epson I generally find that Relative Colormetric is my preferred rendering intent, but on the iPF6300 I have a strong preference for Perceptual. In fact, some papers such as this one offer a Perceptual (People, Dark Areas) rendering intent (only in the print plug-in) which I find to be fantastic most of the time. I choose that option whenever it is available. This extra rendering intent does take the liberty of making some adjustments to your image so some may not like it, but I find that it makes for great skin tones and offers a much greater tonal range of blacks than the other rendering intents (at least for the built-in profiles).
Products Tested
I have tested this paper with Photoshop CS4 for Windows, Photoshop CS5 for the Mac as well as Lightroom 2 & 3 for the Mac and PC and finally QImage. For everything but Photoshop you are stuck with using the OS driver rather than my preferred Export Module / Plug-in which is available for Microsoft Word, Canon DPP, and Photoshop. The Export Module / Plug-in produces the most accurate print jobs because the software doesn’t interfere with the data sent to the printer so your soft proofing from it can be accurate if your display has been calibrated. When using the driver the third party software products can sometimes introduce color shifts which can be pleasing (as is the case with QImage) or horrific (as is the case with Photoshop CS5).
Great for Printing with No Post-Processing
In my article entitled Printing Family Photos for Normal People I used this paper with QImage to print a bunch of in-camera JPEG’s with no additional post-processing and the results were excellent. They weren’t theoretically accurate from a color managed workflow perspective, but what I’ve discovered is that Canon has tested its printers against its in-camera images and knows that workflow well. If you simply shoot an image and send that in-camera JPEG to your Canon printer (in my case a iPF6300) without doing anything else you’ll get an excellent print when using Canon papers. For photographers doing high volume work like school sports or school portrait/prom work you may find the results to be satisfactory enough that you can eliminate post-processing from your workflow (assuming there are no distractions that require the content-aware healing brush or clone stamp tools). This also assumes you got your in-camera settings right – including the crop.
This silly shot was an in-camera JPEG with only text added in Photoshop It printed perfectly on this paper at 24x36 with life-like results
Now I’m super picky about my workflow so I wouldn’t do this for my fine art or commercial work, but those are images that sell for hundreds to thousands of dollars so those customers deserve a much more exhaustive end-to-end solution. However, if you are selling $14.95 Santa photos or something then you’ll get a fabulous end-to-end result that allows you to save a bunch of time and avoid the headaches of post-processing so that’s a huge benefit. Canon proved this point to me when I was at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, BC, but I’m a true believer now that I’ve done it myself with over 300 of my own personal photos.
Specifications
Here are the key facts that I have gathered about this paper:
This paper has an excellent color gamut with the Canon paper profile Graph via ColorThink Pro
For this printer I only used the profiles that Canon provides with my Canon iPF6300 printer and I was pleased enough with the results that I didn’t feel compelled to generate my own paper profile. I also did not try to use this with a RIP.
As you’ll see later in the walkthrough I also found that when using the Canon plug-in that if you have the media type listed that choosing Auto for the Output Profile is acceptable because the software is intelligent enough to choose the proper ICC profile based on the settings you choose in the dialog (i.e., highest max passes versus highest require different ICC profiles). Based on advice from Eddie Tapp I tested this feature and found it to work enough that I trust it now.
Tips
I preferred Canon’s Export Module’s “Perceptual (People & Dark Areas)” rendering intent the most for my people shots. When doing my black and white prints I found Auto Mono Neutral to be my preferred choice (much more so than printing in color – but for color printing of black and white images Relative Colormetric was better).
When soft proofing in Photoshop I found that the Relative Colormetric rendering intent most closely resembles the result I see when printing using the Perceptual (People, Dark Areas) rendering intent. However, I didn’t like like the Relative Color metric rendering intent for actual printing.
Video Tutorials on the Mac
To help demonstrate how to use this paper I have create these videos which take you from start to finish on how to print using this paper on the Mac in Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop. In the Lilghtroom video I show how to locate the printer profile and print using the printer driver:
Usage on the PC is identical to the Mac but the OS driver dialog looks a bit different. You should still watch the videos above, but here’s some screen shots to help make sure you set everything properly.
Lightroom settings on PC & Mac is nearly identical
The OS Driver on Windows feels like the Export Plug-In but it is different
A cool feature on PC only is the “Rotate 90 degrees” to save paper I stumbled in the video looking for this but it doesn’t exist on the Mac
Photoshop (All Versions)
The Mac and PC are identical when it comes to printing from Photoshop so the video is very helpful. Remember for Photoshop you must choose File | Export (DO NOT USE FILE | PRINT). Once you do then you see the same dialog no matter which version of Photoshop you are using. Here’s what to do in the print plug-in:
Highest (Max No. Passes) isn’t required – just Highest is good too
Click here for a full gallery of screen shots visit
Conclusion
I had this paper for several months before I really began to appreciate how good it is. It’s thick, but not so thick that it curls like crazy. It feels very professional and prints from it look great. It’s much cheaper than Canon Polished Rag (back when you could buy it) so it’s a great value too. I feel that it is much more substantial than Epson’s Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster which feels much more flimsy and cheap, yet produces excellent color prints as well.
I highly recommend Canon Premium RC Luster (available at B&H). It works extremely well with my Canon iPF6300 so I’ll be using it primarily for family photos and prints I give away as gifts to friends. I feel its quality is high and its price is affordable enough to make it a great choice as a high quality high volume paper.
Disclosure
Canon has provided me with a printer and paper for the purposes of reviewing these products for my blog.I may get a commission if you purchase using the links in this article, so thanks for your support!
I see a ton of photos daily. In fact I see so many good photos that I’m rarely wow’d by a photo, but this is a HOLY CRAP – WOW photo!!!! What’s more this is an HDR taken in Torres del Paine National Park (Chile) that doesn’t look like your typical HDR shot to me. Photographer Mandy Paul writes:
Our last full day in Torres del Paine was the best day we had weatherwise, starting with an absolutely gorgeous sunrise which has been enhanced just a bit in this photo. :)
This one was 3 raw files merged to HDR in Photomatix 4 using their "Tone Compression" preset, then I cropped out a distracting foreground and punched it up a bit further in Lightroom 3. IIRC during capture I also used solid ND filters to lengthen the exposure to make the water look smoother.
Congrats Mandy on putting your Canon 5D Mark II to good use to get this amazing shot.This was a long bracketed exposure taken at f/11 and ISO 100 with one of my favorite lenses – Canon’s 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM.
I love the artistic freedom taken to give this image such wonderful color – it’s a wonderful scene that I’d love to have in my portfolio and printed huge so I could hang it in my living room. A big thumbs up to Mandy for creating one of the coolest landscape shots I’ve seen in a while!
Be sure to click this photo above and leave some feedback on Flickr so this reader can get your feedback both good and bad (be gentle) and feel the love from our readers here!
Learn more about how you can participate in the Photo of the Week contest by clicking here.
I’ll make the disclaimer up front here that I’m not a videographer and don’t have much interest in becoming one. However, like many people I do have DSLR’s that can record HD video so there are occasions (like for this blog) where I use that feature. When I do the most common problem I face is very horrible quality sound. There is feedback from the internals of the camera and the volume is so low that it drives people crazy. As a result I thought I’d try a couple products from B&H to see if they really made much difference.
For all of my tests in this article I use a Canon 5D Mark II with the Sound Recording option set to Auto (under Live View settings).
Sennheiser MKE 400 Compact Video Camera Shotgun Microphone
One of the first DSLR microphones I’ve seen in action in real life is the Sennheiser MKE 400 Compact Video Camera Shotgun Microphone. It’s German made and at first has that solid German construction and design that you’d expect. In the photo above you can see its size in relation to the size of a Canon 5D Mark II with a 16-35mm lens. This mic fits nicely on this camera and works much better than the built-in mic. Here’s a super lame video that I did which shows how it works exactly as it is configured in the photo above:
As you can tell in the video there is a bit of a hum that is noticeable. I’ve seen a few references to this issue on the web and opinions vary on how to correct it (see my choice below). While the hum is a little annoying, it’s not annoying to the point that it really bothers me as there are trade offs when you try to reduce the hum. This mic is such a huge improvement over the built-in mic that I can totally live with what I’m hearing in this video.
For this test I used the low-cut filter (looks like a windsock) setting (as shown in the photo above the video) which is supposed to suppress noise caused by crosswinds blowing past the mic. I also chose the vol + (high sensitivity) setting which provides an audio boost for quiet or distant sound sources. While not included on the web, I also tested using the regular setting and the +/- db settings. All worked as described in the manual, but for the outdoor conditions I was in I found the settings I chose were the best option. Some may prefer the vol – (minus) setting as it does mostly eliminate the hum but I felt the audio was more flat than I prefer. In all cases I prefer the low-cut filter on as it doesn’t destroy the sound and it seems to help with hum and normal wind noise.
On the web you get mixed reviews about the build quality of this product. Some praise its solid build quality an German design, whereas others chastise it as being too fragile at the base. My 2 cents on the matter is that it is well designed and fairly solid, but the mount appears to be designed for shock absorption purposes so by its nature it can’t be rock solid (or you’d get feedback through the mic on small impacts when moving around). As a result this isn’t a device you want to just toss in your pocket or leave mounted to your camera when you stuff it into your backpack. Just like many Bluetooth headsets, if you toss them in your pocket they won’t last long and I suspect this is no different. However, with reasonable and sensible care I believe it would be perfectly fine. It would have been nice if Sennheiser had included a protective case. Since they didn’t, I’d probably keep the shipping box around and just keep it in its plastic casing to ensure its safety in my camera bag. I didn’t have any damage with my test unit during normal usage scenarios so it certainly isn’t as fragile as some have claimed on web reviews.
My primary gripe with this device is the lack of clear feedback that the device is on (my unit only flashed a power light for a second). Like many I wish the base mechanism was more confidence inspiring in its build quality, but I can accept the realty that it may be a necessary evil – especially at this price point. My usage was very minimal outdoors, but the consensus I had from people I talked to was that the foam cover is insufficient for real outdoor use. As a result nearly everyone suggests getting the Sennheiser MZW400 Wind-muff and XLR Adapter Kit for the MKE400 as shown above.
I would recommend this device to a friend and feel that it is decent for basic non-pro applications.
Rode VideoMic Pro Compact Shotgun Microphone
In doing research for this review I found that Rode is a trusted name among prosumer videographers. The Rode VideoMic Pro Compact Shotgun Microphone (the replacement for the original VideoMic which seemed to have major issues) was generally praised as being a good product for this price point. It certainly looks the part so I was interested to see how it performed. As you can see in the photo above its quite a bit larger than the MKE 400, but it is still a reasonably manageable size.
While labeled differently the VideoMic is functionally equivalent to the MKE 400 with the addition of a wider range of db settings. I found the 0db setting to be about the same as the vol + on the MKE 400. The switch to the far right is the High Pass Filter (HPF) setting which is like the low cut filter on the MKE 400.
As you can tell in this video the sound is a bit more muffled than the MKE 400 due to the larger foam windsock and High Pass Filter (HPF) setting I used. I found its performance to still be acceptable, although it seems to be a better choice for wind right out of the box without any accessories. The hum level to audio quality setting that seemed the best was 0db with HPF on (top switch al the way to the right) as I did in the video. In short, I suspect the hum is a factor of the DSLR and not either of these devices. As was the case with the MKE 400, I found the sound quality to be perfectly acceptable for my needs. I did find that this shotgun mic had a better directional effect which can be very advantageous outdoors.
For this test I used the HPFs setting and the 0 db setting (as shown in the photo above). In my additional testing I tried the + & - settings as well as being in normal mode. I’d probably choose to not use the HPF mode unless absolutely necessary if possible, but for the purposes of being fair in this review (i.e., comparing apples with apples) I chose to approximate the same settings as the MKE 400. During my testing, I found that the -10 db setting got rid of the hum but it also made my voice sound too muffled so I’d only use it for extreme wind conditions.
Just as I saw with the MKE 400, the web feedback varied on the build quality of the Rode VideoMic Pro. In my personal opinion I found the VideoMic Pro to be more fragile and worrisome, but just as was the case with the MKE 400 I had no issues that validated my concern. I did feel very concerned about the likelihood of damage so I was afraid to put it in my camera bag, so I would carry it in my hand when I was doing my testing. I’d recommend some type of protective storage container (could be a sandwich Tupperware type of plastic box) as I don’t see how the base of this device would survive typical field use. If you’ll only be using it in a studio this won’t matter, but my assumption is that all readers here will typically do their audio outside of their house or office.
I found this unit to be a little more flexible in terms of features and sound quality than the MKE 400, but not enough to make me think it is significantly better. From a sound quality standpoint I’d call them “close enough” when they are both set to the same setting functionally equivalent settings. I really, really, really hate the build quality of the base mount, but beyond that this is fine device. I also feel that the built-in wind sock is sufficient so the extra $30 premium for this device over the MKE 400 is a non-issue once you get the required wind sock for the MKE 400.
I would recommend this device to a friend and feel that it is decent for basic non-pro applications. However, I would caution them to take great care with it as they should be concerned about the potential to damage the base mount.
Conclusion
Home Theater is one of my many hobbies so I am a bit of an audiophile when you get me in a movie viewing scenario. However I find that when testing these microphones my bar is a bit lower. From what I can tell from videographers I’ve talked to, the VideoMic Pro is the preferred device, but when I talk to photographers who use video on a casual basis like myself the MKE 400 is the product of choice. My primary purpose for looking at these two devices is to see which group was correct and to ultimately get one for myself. Based on my experience and anticipated usage (in a studio), I’d prefer the MKE 400. I like its smaller size and mostly solid build quality.
To order, support this blog by using the following links:
B&H provided me with loaner units which I returned to them after this review was completed. I also may get a commission if you purchase using my links in this article, so please support my blog by using my links.
