Like many others out there, I’ve recently purchased a copy of Scott Kelby’s most recent release, The Digital Phtotography Book, Volume 2 - I was expecting a lot and wasn’t disappointed!

Many other reviews on the web right now recommend this as a beginner’s book. I agree that beginners would get the most out of it, but I believe that any photographer should own a copy. The sheer number of tips and the spread of subjects make it applicable anyone.

Read on for the top 9 reasons you need to purchase this book.

• It covers around 200 tips in 7 categories (Travel, Macro, Weddings, Landscapes, Portraits, Studio, Flash – with a few general tips chapters thrown in). It doesn’t matter how good you are – I doubt anyone is the best in so many areas – there is something to learn for everyone.
• For the amount of great information you get, it’s cheap at an MSRP of $25 and a price several dollars below that on Amazon or Barnes and Noble.
• You can read it very quickly.
• Online companion material. The book has several online resources that enhance some of the tips nicely.
• Scott Kelby’s writing style. Oddly, some folks think his humorous and engaging style is too much. I disagree. I’ve read my share of text books in my life and I’m done with all that. I really enjoy someone who can have fun with communication – and it makes it MUCH more accessible to newcomers out there.
• The tips are short and the pics are great. I really enjoy that each tip is very short and easy to remember. He also scatters great photos throughout.
• Product recommendations. Some might see this as trying to promote certain products or breaking folks’ pocketbooks. Personally, I really appreciate the honesty and information around what it takes from an equipment standpoint to make it happen.
• One of the best reflections on this book is that it will continue to sit in my continuously referenced stack. There isn’t a much higher compliment than that on a book.
• It just works. My wife just asked “Have you ever dragged the shutter before?” After putting on my shocked look, I explained that that is what I’d explained at least a dozen times before and what I knew she was actually doing on our shoots. It turns out she’d been using this practice for a while and didn’t know what it was called. My upteen explanations didn’t do the trick. Reading one page in this book did.

Thanks Scott for another great book!

I recently posted several articles reviewing options for GeoTagging your photos (you can view them here and here). Both are still accurate and good reviews/overviews of GeoTagging tools and how to use one of my favorites, ExifTool.

Last night, as I was browsing the web, I came across GPicSync, a tool that trumps them all! It uses ExifTool in the background, but does EXACTLY what I was looking for. It tags photos with GPS data that I was looking for, automatically. It looks at the time stamps of the GPX file (a common GPS format) and the camera file and automatically tags it if they are within a certain number of seconds of each other (specified by the user). It works on Windows Vista and best of all, it’s free!

You can download GPicSync here. After installing, it gives you the option to choose the folder full of images you want to synch and the appropriate GPX file. You can also change how close the two timestamps need to be in seconds and a few others settings. Output options include putting the data in the EXIF headers, the EXIF Headers and the IPTC Comments, and creating a Google Earth file. The interface is very simple and the product works very well.

GPicSync Screenshot

A special thanks to the Adobe Lightroom Journal, which provided the link to this wonderful resource.

Originally, I only planned one post on Photo GeoTagging. After researching, playing around with different techniques and sitting down to write, I realized that the topic involved more than I originally thought (and was even more cool than I originally thought). So this, the third post in the series, is about how to display your photos once you GeoTag them. (See GeoTagging Your Photos and Using ExifTool to GeoTag Your Photos for the first two posts on this entry.)

Flickr and Google Maps (using Picasa) are the two most popular, free, public tools available for automatically mapping geotagged photos. I tagged a photo from a recent trip to Moab, Utah and uploaded it to both sites. The rest of this posts outlines my findings (from a ‘new’ user’s standpoint) on how each worked.

PicasaWeb – Google Maps (Click for larger view)

Flickr – Yahoo Maps (Click for larger view)

The following are the items I compared during the evaluation and which I preferred.

PicasaWeb – Google Maps

Click here to view my mapped photo in PicasaWeb.

From a beginner’s standpoint, PicasaWeb was much easier to use. It’s interface (and lack of features) makes it more approachable and mapping is much more simple. It also displayed a thumbnail of the photo directly on the map and displayed a small preview of it when the thumbnail was clicked. To top it all off, you can easily click on and view the location in Google Earth, which allows you to view the scenery all over again – very cool!

Unexpectadely, PicasaWeb did a poorer job of accurately placing the photo. The displayed coordinates didn’t match those tagged to the photo. They were close (within a few hundred yards), but as this is powered by GoogleMaps (the best mapping tool on the web, in my opinion), I was disappointed that it wasn’t 100% accurate. Disclaimer: I didn’t spend much time trying to troubleshoot to see why it didn’t read it properly – I was trying to see how well it worked without fiddling around.

Flickr – Yahoo Maps

Click here to view my mapped photo in Flickr.

Unlike PicasaWeb, Flickr’s mapping accuracy was spot on. It also provides MANY more features than PicasaWeb for organizing and sharing the photos outside the map, which is appealing to many. Flickr is the industry standard for photo sharing, which makes this option fairly attractive. I also liked the feature that allows you to e-mail your organized sets to others directly. You can always copy/paste the link, but this removes one additional step, especially for new users.

Flickr’s dispaly of the photos on the map was one of its major downfalls. While PicasaWeb displays a nice thumbnail and preview when clicked, Flickr decided to implement a small dot to indicate the presence of the picture. When the dot is clicked, a small preview of the photo is shown in the bottom left corner of the map, far away from the dot. I found that fairly inconvenient.

Which I Will Use

The comparison chart above makes the comparison look fairly equal, and honestly, it was pretty close.

If you are looking for a quick and easy way to share your geotagged photos and don’t have much use for other features, I would recommend PicasaWeb. It was easier to use and displays the photos on the map in a more appealing way.

If you are looking for more features to manage your photos in other ways, though, Flickr is the industry standard. It provides many more features and a much larger community of photos.

As GeoTagging is only part of my photo sharing/management, I chose Flickr. For more specific on how to upload and display images, you can visit their sites directly at Flickr or PicasaWeb.

If you aren’t already familiar with GeoTagging – it combines two simple things; a picture and a location (in this case, a very specific set of coordinates based on latitude and longitude). It allows you to always know where your photos were taken (which is very handy for landscape, wildlife and travel photographers) as well as display photo locations on a map. Google Maps and Flickr both have great tools that allow you to click on the map locations and view the related pictures. (The picture at the top of the screen doesn’t really have anything to do with GeoTagging – I was just looking around on my hard drive for earth-like images and that one seemed fun).

Recently, I decided to jump on the GeoTagging bandwaggon. I do some landscape/travel photography and thought it would be neat to share them via a map view. I already have the first piece of the puzzle, the pictures. I recently purchased the other, a handheld GPS system. It’s the size of a cell phone (well, maybe a cell phone from 5 years ago when they were a bit larger). Among other things, it allows you to press a few buttons and record your current location. I did some research and chose the Garmin eTrex Legend.

The final step of the GeoTagging process is attaching the location to the photo. After several hours of research, it turns out this is by far the hardest part of the whole thing. I found several usable methods; some that work in my specific setup, and some that may not work for me but that may work for others.

My Requirements

I needed a solution that would attach my Garmin GPS data (which can be exported to a .gpx file, a common GPS file format) to photos stored as .dng (digital negatives – an Adobe format that is equivalent to RAW). I was looking for something as inexpensive as possible – idetally free. I was also looking for something that would work easily into my workflow – I didn’t wanted to have to add too many steps that aren’t in my download/sort flow already. I work on a PC, Windows Vista. [Note after original posting - my requirements (and as a result, what I searched for and found) also include being fairly entry level, especially with cost. My brother, a GPS expert, reminded me that there are many solutions in the $100+ range that will geotag photos very well. I tried to find something that will let me spend my money on photo gear and keep this part of things as a hobby. Just something to keep in mind as you read.]

What Didn’t Work

I’ll start with a brief look at what I tried, but didn’t work. While these didn’t work for me, they might work for you and your needs. Also, while I spent a good amount of time on the web, this list isn’t necessarily comprehensive and only includes programs for PCs – I wasn’t able to test anything for Macs. If you use a Mac, though, technology guru Terry White wrote a good review on GPS data conversion on the Mac (including a different GPS receiver than I chose). You can find it on Terry’s blog, here.

• PhotoMapper: This looked promising. Very easy to use initially. It did, however, end up crashing on Vista (meant just for XP and below, I suppose, although the web site wasn’t super clear). Also, it only wrote the information to .jpg files.
• PhotoMe: This looked very promising at first. It is primarily used as an EXIF/IPTC metadata editor. Its interface is simple and fairly intuitive. Unfortunately, it doesn’t batch process photos and can’t add new data, it can only edit. Because my GPS data wasn’t there to begin with , it wouldn’t add it.
• AiS Exif: Installed and couldn’t even get it to run. Not sure if I needed to install the .net framework. I didn’t want to invest that much effort to even get the thing off the ground. Also, a full license was $50, which detracted even more from troubleshooting.
• Downloader Pro: I didn’t try this one, but others have and give it high reviews. It is an alternate way to download files and attaches the GPS data as it does so. I chose not to use it because it costs $30 and it adds an extra, time consuming step (I wouldn’t normally mind paying, but if it adds another step too – that pushes the decision into the no category, even thought it is a pretty strong product.). Normally, I convert my files to .dng on import. This would require importing (and tagging) as raw and then a conversion to .dng.

What Did Work (and one that didn’t, but mostly did)

When it came down to it, price turned out to be a big factor. I couldn’t find anything that fit seamlessly into my workflow – everything ended up replacing Lightroom’s import feature, which I wanted to avoid. Several options mentioned above work with the workflow workaround, but I don’t want to pay for a feature that interrupts things that much. If I’m going to slow down my process, it had better be free. Also, I’m hoping that Adobe will eventually make this part of Lightroom.

So, without further ado, my top choice is ExifTool.

[Update after original posting: I recently found a new tool that uses ExifTool in the background that makes it even easier to use. It is definately my top choice! Check it out here.]

RoboGeo: Okay, I know what you are thinking (or should be if you’ve been paying attention) – “I thought you just mentioned ExifTool!”. I did – it was my final choice – RoboGeo was so close, though, that I wanted to mention it in this section. It works on Vista, it imports photos and .gpx files and can even automatically synch with my Garmin GPS receiver. And it does all of that will about 3 clicks. Here’s the few catches, though. First, it’s about $50 – and as you can tell from the rest of this post, I don’t particularly want to pay for this piece of software. Second, it has a fairly strange implementation.

One would normally assume that it would synch the photo that had the closest timestamp to a timestamped location from the GPS information. It turns out, though, that it needs at least two readings, one timestamped before the photo and one after. If you shoot the picture before the first or after the second, you are hosed – it doesn’t end up working automatically. You can set your GPS to constantly record points, say every 5 minutes to help a bit. But, any photos taken between GPS recording 2 and 3 won’t be automatically tagged, any between 4 and 5, etc. If it sounds crazy, it’s not just you, it is.

So, back to ExifTool, my tool of choice.

The number one reason I chose it, you guessed it, is the price. It is a whopping $0! Also, it works on Vista, can batch process files, and once I figured it out was fairly easy to use.

The downside is that it did take a few minutes to pick up – it works primarily from the command line (I listed the steps in this post, here, though, to help things along) and it doesn’t automatically tag the photos – meaning that it won’t automatically compare time stamps and insert the data. I have to choose the photos and then apply the location with the tool. For now, this will work, but if I was shooting landscapes professionally or if I just ever get tired of doing it this slightly slower way, I might continue looking for alternatives.

Noise, when shooting at higher ISOs, is inevitable (unless you can afford one of the new Nikon D3s, which is supposed to have amazingly low amounts of noise, even at high ISOs). That’s where noise removal tools come in to play. This post will review my recent experience with two such tools, PictureCode’s Noise Ninja and Imagenomic’s Noiseware Professional.

Several weeks ago I attended a night event that had low (although nicely colored) lighting, which required me to shoot at 1600 ISO in order to get a shutter speed that was fast enough to hand hold. This was one of the first occastions that I’ve had to shoot at that high of an ISO and actually wanted to share the pictures with others. As a result, I decided to purchase a noise reduction tool. When choosing the product, I used the following criteria:

• Remove the noise
• Easy to use
• Work as a plugin for Photoshop (and allowed itself to be run as an action)

I’m a subscriber to several photography magazines and read blogs fairly regularly. As a result, I was able to quickly narrow down the search to two similarly-priced options, Noiseware Professional and Noise Ninja.

After downloading and installing the trial versions of each, I ran them on the following photo, taken at 1600 ISO. Both products overlay a grid on the photo when run in demo mode, which still provided an adequate view of the results to determine quality.

Photo BEFORE noise removal. Click on the photo for a larger view.

The Results

Removing the Noise

As expected, both products removed the noise well (both products are highly recommended and are considered some of the industry leaders). See the following photo for results. As you can see, it can sometimes make the skin look a little waxy, but that seems to be the result of most any noise removal tool. Duplicating the layer, running the removal and then lowering the opacity of the new layer helps reduce the waxiness. Also, artificates are occasionally introduced or enhanced, which may require some additional Photoshop work.

Photo AFTER noise removal. Click on the photo for a larger view.

Ease of Use

Up to this point, the two products seem very evenly matched. This is the point where Noiseware Professional pulled ahead. The user interface was much simpler and the presets easier to access. When running, both allowed manual adjustments, but Noise Ninja required loading external profiles in order to apply various presets. This turned out to be overly cumbersome for what should be a simple plugin.

Work as Photoshop Plugin

Both products worked as a plugin in Photoshop and can be run as actions (Noiseware required purchasing the professional version to run as an action).

The Final Choice

Both Noise Ninja and Noiseware Professional stand true to their reputations as leading the industry in removing noise from photos. They do a great job at removing noise. They also work as plugins to Photoshop and are available as stand-alone products.

My final choice, though, was Noiseware Professional, for two reasons.

First, the user interface was much easier to use, allowing access to several presets and other useful features.

Second, at $70 it was just a bit less expensive than Noise Ninja, which came in at $80. I also received an extra 20% off by using a discount code that can be accessed as an NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals) member.

Like many photographers, I own a variety of bags and use them in a variety of situations. I tend to like backpack-style bags because they allow me to carry equipment more comfortably, especailly when hiking around while doing landscapes or other jobs that require moving around.

While I like the comfort of the backpack for long hikes, they don’t work well when trying to access the camera quickly or conveniently. As a result, I also own several shoulder-style bags (my favorite is LowerPro’s ProMag2 AW). I really like the fact that I can access equipment more conveniently, but the shoulder the strap sits on (as well as my neck muscles) suffer severely.

The solution? Backpack straps for a shoulder-style bag. Ideally, this gives benefits of both worlds. The convenience of a shoulder bag with the comfort of a backpack. With that goal in mind, I recently purchased several backpack straps and provide a review of each below (One was great, the other fairly unusable in my opionion. Read on for details on each).

LowerPro’s BackPack Harness

First, the only set of backpack straps I could find specifically manufactured for camera bags was the LowerPro BackPack Harness (pictured below).

Shortly after unpacking the LowePro straps, though, I was more than a little disappointed. Overall, they look more complex than the bag itself – it actually took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to appropriately attach them to my bag. It requires connecting two clips from each side onto the single large D-ring on your bag. This set also required undoing some of the rigging to slide it through your bag’s belt loop.

Two particular features were deal breakers. The less important of the two was the padding. To me, it feels a little weak and poorly distributed over the space of the strap, espeically along the neck and upper shoulders. Second, and more importantly, the fact that it requires you to insert the belt portion of it through the bag’s belt strap. Taking the time to thread them through (you have to pull the nylon strap out, feed it through the belt loop and feed it back into the nylong holder) was a deal breaker. I need to be able to trade this strap out for the traditional strap if I need something a little smaller for shorter jobs. Even more critically, you may want to use these with a bag that doesn’t have a belt loop. If that is the case, you are out of luck.

Phenix QuadShocks (You’ll Never Guess What They’re Really Meant For)

After deciding that the LowerPro straps wouldn’t do the trick and hitting a brick wall when searching for other decent looking straps manufactured for camera bags, I decided to start thinking outside the box. In addition to photography, I love Disc Golf (a sport similar to golf, but played with frisbee-like discs – you can check out the Professional Disc Golf Association web site here). When playing disc golf, I carry my discs around in a bag designed specifically for disc golf. Interestingly enough, it is about the same dimensions as a decent-sized shoulder-style camera bag. And, as luck would have it, manufacturers do make backpack straps especially for disc golf bags (these bags can weight quite a lot and spreading the weight out is even more critical than in the photography field – a round of disc golf can last more than a few hours).

So, after a little research I picked up a set of Phenix QuadShocks. To put it briefly, I love them! After unpacking them, their differences from the LowePro version were night and day. It also uses 4 clips, 2 on each of the D-rings on your bag. But, it does away with the whole belt part of things, making it much simpler. Also, the padding was thicker and more evenly distributed along the straps. As icing on the cake, they come in 6 different colors.

After wearing the pack with these shoulder straps for several jobs, through airports, etc.
I couldn’t do without them. They make carrying around a heavy bag a breeze.

So, with that in mind, I’d recommend purchasing a set of Phenix Quad Shox to anyone that wants to carry a shoulder-style bag in comfort. Gone are the days of shoulder and neck strain!