Craft And Vision has released their latest eBook, called EyePhone!  Normally I am particular to David DuChemins line of writing, but this time Al Smith has surpassed even his standard because this eBook was just amazing.  I know this sounds gushing, but really….no joke.

So, remember when Chase Jarvis published "The Best Camera"?  It was a book extolling the virtues of using your iPhone (or mobile phone for Android fans) for photos…he shared photos and basically inspired you to just make sure you are out there taking photos with any camera – as long as you have one with you.  (Hence the title.)

Well, Eyephone takes this to the next level.  Rather than just saying to take a camera with you, or even share photos extolling the virtues of doing so, Eyephone actually gives you explicit instructions on how to take and make better pics with your mobiel phone.  Everything from camera functions, to Apps to download, and little secrets that are what I would call the "Insider Scoops" of the mobile phone photography phenomenon.

So, in typical fashion, the folks at Craft and Vision offer it at an amazing price of only $5 for nearly 50 pages of photo tips, tricks, and inspiration!  As if that’s not cheap enough for you, for a limited time you can save another buck through Saturday and get it for only $4!  Just use discount code EYEPHONE4 to get the deal.  Likewise, bundles are available too.  For instance, to save the same 20% on bundle deals, use EYEPHONE20 for bundles of 5+ eBooks.  Lastly, David’s own lines can be had for nearly 50% off the 7 book bundle – use discount code DAVID19 there to get the series for $19 (which is normally $35!).

In case you missed the link upthread here’s another one (it goes to the same landing page)…  Go here, go quickly, learn, save, and then (of course), DO!  I did and already am taking better camera shots!

I’m seriously considering it when the alternative for the regular refill cartridge is $30 versus $13.  It’s over a 50% savings!  Something tells me to be cautious because something just doesn’t sound right.  An old saying I always use (and have had repeated to me is that “If something is too good to be true, it usually is…”  Since it’s only a $40 printer, the refill cost seems rather disproportionate to the cost of the printer, and I’d hate to throw away a printer simply because I was too chincy with the ink replacement needs…but this savings seems almost too good to pass up!  What say ye all?

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

I will ship the March prize out tomorrow (I promise!).  As for May, enough time has passed that running a contest for a mere two weeks (and change) would likely not give people sufficient time to submit images…so, call it author prerogative – I am making a slight adjustment to the contest schedule:  The May contest is now the Summer Contest!  I will take images from now until the end of June, and the lucky winner will get not one but two DVD’s of learning resources from yours truly – one from Ibarionex R Perello and one from Chris Orwig!  These are phenomenal DVD’s and the educational value alone is priceless.  Retail costs alone are easily in the $150+ range.  I am not sure what they run as the DVD’s were gifts to me from my good friend Joe Farace, fellow Colorado Photographer, and author of more books than I’ve even read on the subject of photography (thanks Joe!)

As for the April winner – well, that will have to wait until Friday now, because I need to take a bit of time and review the images (truthly – I’ve not looked at all yet!).  Wednesday has become quite popular as a “Wordless Wednesday” item, so I don’t want to disrupt the little bit of consistency I’ve developed there.  Thanks to everyone for understanding as the wind truly has blown me onto an entirely new course.

ETA:  As an off-topic note, my new course is now focusing intensely on designing, developing, and delivering training curriculum content for higher education, K-12, and corporate clients, with the K-12 audience being primary in my scope right now.  I am clawing my way up the learning curve here in various programs like Adobe Captivate, Articulate, and much more.  As my ID (Instrucional Design) knowledge and experience expands, I hope to bring this experience back to CB in the form of even better educational and learning resources for the readership – so rest assured, there is a long term positive here!  The cheesy intros of past videos will likely be replaced, learning objectives will be spelled out, and I hope to also incorporate much of my newly learned content preparation techniques both in digital and DVD form!  (That’s right, you will be able to order DVD’s of resources from me – hopefully not to far into the future!).  For now though, thank you for your patience as I wean myself from the suckle of self-education!

While traveling recently (my DSLR is just too bulky for most of my travel lately), I was at a wedding in OH and did not have my gear with me.  A few snaps went around on the phone before I just tucked it away and played the part of spousal arm candy.  Once tucked away, those of us circa 1980′s started getting our groove on.  At one point out of the corner of my eye, the disco lights were dancing across the ceiling and something inside me just said…”Hmmmmm.” SNAP!

Sure, it’s no masterpiece, and was taken from my iPhone, but something about it just makes me chuckle.  The point being?  Always have a camera with you.  Any camera.  If there’s nothing there, you’ll not capture a thing.   This will never sit in the Louvre, but I got a kick out of it.  And I took it on my phone camera!

What about you?  Any portable pics you ever take that just stand out for you?  Share ‘em in the comments

Editor Note:  A thousand pardons to Joe Farace who had graciously agreed to write a guest post for me for this Monday!  I erroneously published his article last Monday and inadvertently flipped these two posts in my schedule by accident.  To read his post (which is what you should have received today, stop in to last week’s post here)

When traveling recently, I decided to take along my tripod, mount, and video camera to record the training trip (sort of a milestone goal, so it had to be done at some point).  That means on the trip out, I had three items:

1. Laptop bag
2. Carry-on bag
3. Tripod (in its own tripod bag

The gate agent noticed I had the tripod with me and suggested I gate check it as the flight was nearly full and there might not be room for it in the overhead.  Okay, fine.  On the return trip, the gate agent told me I was over the two-bag limit and one would have to be checked to my final destination.  My understanding had always been that tripod bags are not counted against the two-bag limit, but whatever.

Then I was informed that my suitcase would not fit in the overhead bin, and I would have to gate-check that as well.  So now I am going from three bags down to two, and finally one bag in flight.  Huh?  Well, no worries, it’s a non-stop direct flight, what can happen?

On arrival, I get my gate checked suitcase, and mosey down to baggage claim.  After waiting for about an hour in case it got missed in the initial sweep, realized that it either never got taken off and took off for the next destination, or someone forgot to enter it into the belly of the plane and my trusty tripod was still in Kentucky.  So, I head over to the claim counter.  They said it could take up to five days.  If not found in 5 days, I can submit a claim for a replacement.

Assuming the tripod is not found, I need to get a new one, and it will obviously be covered by United.  I have a couple options here:

1. Give an estimated value for the tripod, ball head, and umbrella, get a check from them and go shopping
2. Go find the closest make/model, buy it and send them the receipt? (They don’t make my particular model anymore)

What would you do?

My other concern is over the inconsistent policies applied…is that worth writing to UA about to let them know?  I obviously will be compensated if the tripod is lost, so not sure I am really “harmed” here or that it’s worth even raising a fuss about it.  In the past my knee-jerk has been to write and vent, but anymore (maybe because I am getting older) it seems like it’s hardly worth the effort.

What would you do?

Some of following suggestions about photographing any kind of motorsport event may seem obvious to some of this blog’s readers but if you follow them I’ll guarantee that it will result in your capturing better images because there won’t be any non-photographic distractions.

Park your vehicle in a designated parking spot. The last thing you need to hear when you are getting ready to photograph a championship event is the race announcer calling “will the owner of the orange Gremlin, please move your car or be towed.”

Remain behind safety barriers at all times. But safety barriers are not set up everywhere so use your judgment when choosing a place to photograph the races. If you’re not sure about the location you have selected, chances are a safety worker will shortly arrive and ask you to move. Be nice to them; they have a tough enough job.

It may not be hot at the track but it surely will be loud. Bring earplugs. If you don’t have a set, most tracks’ concession stands sell inexpensive earplugs but plan ahead and make sure to have several pair in your camera bag. They are easy to loose but are inexpensive to replace. As Emeril always says: “Make a friend.” Share with someone who forgot theirs.

Be alert while in the pits because there will be many scooters, 4-wheelers, motorcycles, or golf carts transporting people around. Be alert for cars getting ready to enter the staging area. Racecars don’t have horns like the family jalopy but you should hear them coming—even with earplugs.

As with most professional sport facilities, photographers are typically only allowed to make video or still pictures of the vehicles for personal use and they may not be sold or marketed without having a prior arrangement from the speedway and/or the sanctioning body. Save yourself any legal hassle but taking care of this when obtaining your track credentials. That doesn’t mean you can’t sell photographs to the teams and racers on the track, which can help make you a few bucks.

Today is Joe’s Birthday, wish him well on Twitter or Facebook. You can find more tips about photographic cars in Joe’s eBook “15 Tips for Better Car Photos”.

You can also read more from Joe’s own blog at Saving the World, One Pixel at a Time

We took this particular weekend as a long weekend to do all of the above. We are off to Glenwood Springs, CO! Known for its therapeutic hot springs, gorgeous bike trails, and Amtrack trips along the wall of the canyons and following the Colorado River, we are going to soak our cares away for a long weekend.

I will obviously take the camera in tow, and will have more to report coming soon (from a photographic perspective of course)! For now though, have a great weekend! What are your photo goals? Don’t forget to consider entering the monthly contest as time is almost up!

I don’t always have any specific goals and objectives in mind when making an image other than “I’d like to make a nice photo,” but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. My friend Matt Staver is a talented, young photographer who often asks me “what was your objective in making that photograph” but I seldom have a good answer for him.

At the FOTOfusion conference a few years ago I conducted a workshop called “Right in Your Own Backyard” which was based on the premise that you needn’t travel halfway around the world when great photo ops are closer to home. When showing an image made, literally, in my backyard, one of the students asked, “What prompted you to make that picture.” Answering was difficult because it addressed the thought processes going on while an image is created but I never got that question out of my head and so decided to show you how a specific photograph was made.

This portrait of my wife Mary was made in my real back yard (in a former residence, not on Daisy Hill where I now live) using a Hasselblad Xpan film camera and is the full image of the camera’s 35mm panoramic frame. In this case, the portrait was created as a homage to the work of Phil Borges who is not only an extremely gifted photographer but is also a humanitarian. One of the techniques Mr. Borges uses is called “selective toning” which is different from split toning although the effect is similar because the image maker gets to determine which specific area of the photograph is toned in different colors or tones by using masking techniques.

In the traditional darkroom the effect can be achieved by coating the areas of the print that you do not wish to tone in that particular color with liquid rubber cement. You apply carefully this goopy stuff with a brush, let it dry and then immerse the print in the toner solution. After washing and drying the rubber cement peels off easily you can then apply rubber cement to the areas that you just toned and then re-tone the print in another color of toner. If all that sound complicated and messy, it is, but the effects can be dramatic. This same technique is much easier to accomplish using digital techniques and layers. After scanning the panoramic images, I created two layers; one was toned, was not. Then I erased everything on the “toned” layer but Mary’s face. To finish it off and give the portrait a real film look, I applied one of Kevin Kubota’s Sloppy Borders effects.

You can follow Joe on his own blog, Changing the World, One Pixel at a Time

AF Systems

The above AF system comes from the Canon 7D, but generally speaking, newer cameras will have better AF systems than older cameras.  What makes them better is the presence of more AF points.  The more points the sensor has, the easier it is to identify a point to focus on.  The AF system identifies these points based on contrast between light and dark, so reflected light does matter to a degree as well. The bottom line though is that with more focusing points, more focus detection, better contrast algorithms, etc. and better sensitivity to light will allow a camera to find a subject quicker than its older counterpart with fewer AF points.  Of course, the AF system is only as good as the lens that it connects to, and the lighting conditions you are in.  If you have a great AF system (camera body) and a slower lens (an aperture in the range of f4 or f5.6), you will still be limited by light.

The upshot:  More AF points = Better Camera (in general)

While there are always exceptions and nuances or unique scenarios for specialty gear, focusing speed is really more a function of the lens than the camera body.  What you will find in bodies though, is that you get better target acqusition and tracking on the higher end bodies than the entry-level models (say an Xsi versus a 1DMark II).   The camera basically does the job of saying “here’s the point to focus on”, and then transfers the job to the lens of actually making that point the sharpest one in the picture.

One question that I often hear though is “So, what defines how fast the focus locks – the AF system or the lens?”  The answer is that the AF system does the focus lock – the “lock” is really just defining the point to focus on…it’s just a fancier way of saying it.  If you have no point locked in, even the fastest lens will just search and search and not bring anything sharp because it doesn’t know what to make sharp.

I would be remiss though if I didn’t acknowledge that newer cameras do work better in lower light too though, because they do.  Here’s why:  you will get better low light performance on a higher end body, simply because the sensor is larger, and more sensitive to light.  But when we start talking about light, we have to actually give more of a nod to the lens.

Lens Focusing

Where camera bodies pull their weight in target acquisition and tracking, lenses pull their weight when it comes to operation in lower lighting conditions.  The larger your aperture (the smaller number actually means a wider open aperture, remember?), the better it will perform in low light because you are simply letting more light get to the sensor.  That lens that opens to f2.8 will let more light in regardless of the body it is connected to!  This is why expensive lenses that can open t f2.8, f2.0 or even wider are referred to as “fast glass” because they let such a large amount of light onto any sensor.

The other part of what really gives a nod to lenses over bodies is that lenses are what actually does the focusing.  Adjusting the focus to something that is “sharp” is done by the lens.  Where the camera said “Hey, cool, I’ve found the point to focus on”, here, the lens uses the AF points from the camera body and basically says “okay, I am going to focus in on this point that you’ve defined.”

The last point to bring up here is to mention the focusing motor of the lens.  Terms that are often bandied about include USM, HSM, and other similar terms.  This is where it can get really confusing because each vendor uses unique terms, and even within a specific vendor, the same letters can mean different things.  Here’s (since it’s the CanonBlogger site), I am going to stick to the Canon nomenclature for now, which is the USM.  In the Canon family, USM is seen in many lenses and has quite a history.  It started in the body before the digital camera revolution.  When Canon introduced the EF lens mount in 1987, the technology was available to put the USM on the lens, which allowed it to operate even faster.  They never looked back!

Nowadays, USM is bandied about within the Canon family, and you have to be careful now, because one is used to identify a lens feature, while the other is more marketing and hype (in my opinion anyway).  The one that really matters are the ones that refer to the Ring USM.  These lenses are more expensive, heavier than their counterparts, are much quieter, and also tend to bring the subject into focus faster.

The alternate motor or Micromotor Ultrasonic Drives are the ones used in cheaper lenses, which by comparison are lighter, noisier, and focus more slowly on the subject.  Most kit lenses are of these variety.

Conclusion

What did we learn here?  First off, hopefully you’ve come away with a better understanding of body AF systems versus lens focusing.  On the most simple of explanations – a camera AF system says where to focus, and the lens is what actually does the focusing.  It should come as no surprise though, that both tie in very tightly to light.  In the body, better sensitivity to light allows for better contrast in the AF points, while in the lens, the wider aperture can bring more light in under conditions where a narrower opening would not suffice.  So, higher sensitivity and wider openings can impact contrast and focusing speed in bodies and lenses respectively.

The bottom line:  neither does this task independently, but when  it comes to speed – most of this comes from your lens, not your body!

*****

Got questions, comments, or additional thoughts to share?  Sound off in the comments!  Have a great weekend, and we’ll see you back here on Monday!

As with most things, your camera needs maintenance too – and I’ve waxed here periodically about establishing a maintenance schedule, cleaning schedules, and the whole schmear – but I’ve never addressed the specifics of cleaning that most important piece of equipment – the sensor in your camera.  As I dive in here, it bears mentioning that I am not advocating any one of these over another – just sort of laying the foundation on the various ways that are available:

1.  Having someone else do it – Most camera stores offer this service for around $50, so if the idea of getting anything near your sensor just gives you the heebie-jeebies, by all means, this option is a good one for the nervous Nelly.

2.  Air Blowers – These are rapidly becoming one of the more popular options as they are relatively cheap, easy, and don’t require messing around with chemicals.  You simply put your camera into the cleaning mode, insert tip of the air blower near the sensor and puff it a few times remove and you are done.  Some claim fantastic results with these while others say stubborn dust won’t come off from this method.  The advantage of this approach is that you never have to touch your sensor (technically the filter in front of the sensor) with anything!  The downside is that results may not get everything off.

Giottos Rocket Blower

3.  Sensor swipes – Certain swipes are made just for camera sensors that use hydrostatic charges to remove dust from your sensor.  It’s got an advantage in that it’s a dry cleaning approach so requires no chemicals.  I have heard of some who are reluctant to use this as foreign fibers and materials can get in the swipe which could scratch your sensor.

4.  Chemical cleaning – Pec Pads, Eclipse alcohol and sensor swipes all combine in this method to give the most thorough cleaning, virtually guaranteed to remove even the most stubborn dirt from your sensor.  The risk – doing it wrong can permanently damage your sensor and the cost of buy-in is a lot higher than other methods.  Once you buy-in though, the long term cost drops rapidly!

Since I only mentioned it briefly at the beginning, I should also clarify that the idea behind cleaning your sensor is actually a misnomer – all of these solutions are cleaning the filter in front of the sensor – the sensor technically never gets cleaned unless you use option 1 – sending it in for a cleaning.  All the camera vendors (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc.) offer this service, but the downside there is multi-faceted in that it’s usually more expensive, you have to go without your camera for a period of time, and there’s shipping involved!

What methods do you use?  I know some people that combine multiple approaches, while others simply just shake it out once and a while (heck, I read a story once of a guy that used his t-shirt! – not sure how valid it is, but you get the gist).  Sound off in the comments with your own cleaning products and approaches!

But if you look at all the other stuff that goes on instead of creating content, what it boils down to is that we spend most of our time consuming content.  Thus begins the debate over how much time should be spent on consumption versus creation.  It’s a question creative ask themselves all the time:  “why does it seem I spend only X% of my time creating and Y% doing other stuff?”

The answer to the question of consumption versus creation is because we are always learning.  Anyone who stands up and says they know everything about any subject is feeding you a polished pile of…well, you get the idea…  We are always learning.  If you are reading a magazine, you are learning new material.  If you are perusing another artists portfolio (yes, even your friends)…you are learning about what inspires others (and may in turn inspire yourself).  Watching tutorials?  Yep, that’s learning new tips and tricks too!  Notice a trend here?  Hopefully by now you see that consumption is just another word for learning!

So, never be afraid of saying that you are consuming more than you are creating – consuming is just a fancy word for learning, and learning is good!  What are you consuming today?

Let us know if you have any questions too.  You can always use our email addresses directly until we can get a dedicated email address set up for the photo walk. to send responses to (forthcoming).  Stay tuned here too for more macro tips, inspirational shots, and articles to learn from!  There’s always the monthly photo contest too – this month the winner gets a free instructional DVD on Lightroom IV from Laura Shoe!

The classic definition of macro photography is that the image projected onto the digital sensor or film plane should be the same size as the subject. At a 1:1 ratio, a digital SLR with a full-sized chip should have the ability to produce life-size magnification and focus on an area as small as 24×36 mm. On the other hand, lens manufacturers sometimes describe a lens’s close-focusing capabilities as “macro” even if it doesn’t quite meet that definition and it’s gradually come to mean being able to focus close enough so the image is life-size or larger when viewing a 4×6 inch print. This only requires a magnification ratio of approximately 1:4.

Conventional wisdom is that close-up photography requires lots of expensive, specialized equipment and while it’s true you can spend lots of money in order to make macro shots, you don’t have to break your piggy bank to shoot macro, no matter how you choose to define it. Here’s why…

Most filter and camera manufacturers offer what are sometimes called close-up “filters.” Although not filters in the traditional sense, they look like filters, work like filters and act like filters, so I’ll call ’em filters like everybody else. Close-up filters are really supplementary lenses that shorten your camera lens’ close-focusing distance allowing you to get closer to the subject.

Close-up filters are available in different strengths (or diopters) as a set usually includes versions labeled Close-up +1, Close-up +2, and Close-up +4. A diopter is a unit of measurement used to describe the power of a lens and is expressed as the reciprocal of the focal length in meters. For macro shooters on a budget, a complete set of really good close-up filters in 52mm threads should cost about $50.

Tip: Close-up lenses are double-threaded so they can be used in combination with one another but to get the sharpest results it’s a good idea to place the strongest filter closest to the lens’s front element.

You can follow Joe on his own blog, Changing the World, One Pixel at a Time

“What’s the best focal length on a lens to reach 400 yards so I can see a 1 inch square at that distance?”

We started talking about different long length lenses, such as the 400mm, 800mm, and 1200mm lens options from Canon.  All were (are) very pricey and beyond the budget for my friend.  he then started asking why a 35x zoom point and shoot wouldn’t be an option.  So, the discussion turned to a teachable moment!  How exciting for a teacher!  The recap is two simple points:

Point #1  When manufacturers refer to the zoom of a lens, whether it’s a P&S camera, binoculars, or digiscopes, they are referring to how much of a magnification one can get over “normal viewing conditions”.  Notice how I put the last part in quotes.  What are normal conditions anyway?  What kind of vision is normal?  20/20 vision?  And what are we looking at?  Something 10 yards away or 400 yards away.  The point here is that there are so many subjective factors, the “zoom” isn’t really has hard and fast a number as one would think.  We can approximate sure, but it’s not set in stone, and certainly a measurable distance is nothing more than a rough guess.

Point #2  The zoom of an SLR lens isn’t at all on par with the zoom of other equipment – it actually is a hard and fast number.  Simply put, the zoom of a lens is the ratio of it’s longest reach to it’s shortest reach.  A 70-200mm lens starts with a focal length of 70mm and ends with a focal length of 200mm.  This is the distance from the focusing point to the sensor.  So, a 70-200 lens has a “zoom” of 200/70 or almost 3x.  A 100-400 lens would have a zoom factor of 4.  it’s simple math for SLR lenses.

This is a classic example of where the same term can mean different things to different people.

So, my answer to him?  Well, to see something at 400 yards large enough to take a decent picture you would likely need an 800mm lens or 1200mm lens.  You also probably need a 1x or 2x TC to really get far enough.  The problem with taking a picture at this distance is that heat, atmospheric conditions, and just the physical limitations of optics would not make for appropriate conditions to capture decent images.  Most wildlife photographers I know of like to get closer than 400 yards from a subject to take their picture, and for good reason.  The distance to subject is of prime importance in capturing wildlife photos.  Zoom or no zoom (prime lenses), there’s no substitute for proximity!  Photography all too often comes down to something along the lines of real estate mentalities…location, location, location!

My best example?  A hummingbird I shot from a mere 15 feet away!

You gotta be close to “get the shot”!

aimeeern and SpikeOne2011

 To get your prizes, please contact me via email or Flickr messaging to exchange shipping info so I can get them to you!  These two photos perfectly captured the essence of the theme and for the two of you – congratulations and thanks to everyone for participating!  Now that we’re in April, the new contest is ready to launch, and if you listened to the last podcast, you’d know that Laura Shoe has generously donated a copy of her Lightroom 4 video series to some lucky listener.  Standard rules apply, so get on shooting as we head into the “April Showers” month of the year.  That being the case, the theme for this month is:  Showers!

Here’s the full rule set:

1. One photo per person
2. Must be work-safe/family-friendly
3. Posted to this Flickr thread
4. Largest side must be no more than 800px or less than 600px (this is only so that the winning image can be displayed well…)
5. Taken within the last 60 days (preferably during the contest window)
6. Images must be done by Sunday, April 29th!
7. Theme is SHOWERS
8. And most importantly, have fun!

Thanks also to Laura and Joe for their generous contributions to the contest series to help keep things going!  As always, the creativity is amazing that comes out of these.  I learn as much from you as (hopefully) you all are learning from me.  Thanks for stopping in and we’ll see you back here on Wednesday, when I intend to follow through on my promise of some CS6 previews and tutorials for you!  Until then, happy shooting!

Since I will be putting together a more extensive article for Dave over at PhotographyBB, here I’ll just be doing a quick overview of the menus, what options you have for editing, and applying styles and effects to images.  Coming up in the magazine edition, I’ll also briefly discuss some of the features available for drawing and sketching your creative visions from scratch!

The Menus

Photoshop Touch has six main menu options from the top panel.  These serve to do things like crop photos, apply styles and effects, and to perform basic edits on things like white balance adjustments, add text, drop shadows, and other Photoshop-style functions.  Here’s a quick summary of each of the menus (courtesy of the real Photoshop and screen captures from my trusty iPad2)!

Upload to Creative Cloud
Launch Creative Cloud

Save to camera roll
Share to Facebook
Share to email
Send to printer

Add new Folder
Move projects

Duplicate project
Delete project

Connect to Facebook

Settings

On my initial edits inside of Photoshop Touch, I can definitely see some stylizing effects that could be useful for the creative eye, typical of what you would expect to see in a “Lite” version of Photoshop.  What I am not seeing though, is very much in the way of photo edits…I don’t see an adjustment brush, and standard types of photo edits like red eye seem to be missing.  There is some potential there, including things like white balance adjustments, and perhaps with some detailed time in, I may ramp up the learning curve enough to make this a decent photo post production alternative for in the field…I don’t think it’s meant for that purpose.

This is more a lite version of Photoshop, rather than Lightroom.  It’s not really a photo manager, there’s no exposure adjustments that I can see intuitively available, nor are there things that I would expect to see in a photo editor like red eye, noise handling, dynamic range adjustments, etc.  These might be obtained through more detailed edits, but I don’t see Photoshop Touch as something for the field photographer.  It’s probably more of a detailed sketch pad for the graphic artist.

I realize here that I am probably creating more questions than answers, but felt that on a first look, it would be helpful to identify the apparent overall goal of the app.  Since it’s only $10 for the app, I am actually going to go ahead and give this a buy recommendation.  Given the features that it does have, I can see the occasional need or use for a photographer.  In the event you can also take advantage of the sketch features, so much the better.  Even if you only get use out of it 10 times in a year (that’s less than once a month), it’s worth the expense.  For the price, and all things considered, this is a pretty solid “lite” version of the full Photoshop.  It’s certainly no workflow solution, but definitely worth the time spent in it for occasional styling, edits, and quick touch ups when you are on the go.

So, if you own an iPad (and at a baseline entry price of $500) you can probably swing the $10 to go ahead with this app.  You can get it from the iTunes App store directly from your iPad, or download via your computer and sync up through that method if you prefer.  More to come from the Adobe front, as we look t Friday where I give another sneak peak into the beta release of Photoshop CS6 (in case you haven’t seen enough of Adobe apps yet!   )

What about others though?  Has anyone else downloaded this app and kicked the tires?  It’s kind of hard to justify kicking the tires on an app at $10, so not sure what others thoughts are, but if you’ve bought it to try it, share your thoughts here.  Got more questions about it?  Feel free to share those as well.  In the meantime, don’t forget to keep on shooting, and we’ll see you back here on Friday.

Editor Note:  Don’t forget, the March contest eds this Saturday, so if you’re not shooting yet, get it done soon for your chance to win a great book from Joe Farace, titled “Studio Lighting Anywhere”.

Show Notes:

Our Five Favorite Updates to LR4 and Why…

Features Features to Hope For

Listener Q&A

Find Laura Shoe:

Thanks to Laura for taking the time out to sit down and talk with us on the show!  Especially exciting as we enter the last week of the March giveaway too, knowing what’s on deck!  Are your photos in yet?  More is coming up this week, so if you haven’t gotten your photos in yet, be sure to get in soon!