Data clouds

'Bowl of clouds' by
Kevin Dooley under
a CC license

I was sorting out my (digital) photos the other day. Browsing, cropping, retouching, titling, tagging, sharing and all those things that normally follow the transfer of photos from the camera to the computer.

[This is certainly a point where I could say that in the (somewhat) old days, the film days, things were much easier. All one had to do was shoot a film (36 shots at most, which would normally need days, weeks or even months to finish), take it to a store to have it developed and then select a few nice prints for the photo album or, even simpler, stack them in a box and put the box aside. Sharing photos would mean having reprints made, which was not the most pleasant processes, which, in turn, is why many people I know of used to order two sets of prints straight away.]

Regardless, I won't be comparing with the old days on that level. Partly because I enjoy taking photos and I don't mind all the post- steps. The only thing I may be missing a bit is the getting together with friends to show the photos but that's another story.

I do like, however, to preserved photos in some way, in an organised fashion, if possible. I think of them as little pieces of (my) history; bits of memory that will - eventually and inevitably - begin to fade from my mind. In the film days preservation was not really an issue. The prints could last for years, maybe decades. The negatives could/can last for more. Today, digital copies, photo files are thought to last forever. Correct? Well, not precisely. They can last for as long the medium that holds them lasts. And here is where problems begin to arise.

The data volumes we are talking about are rapidly increasing. Modern cameras make shooting photos really easy. They won't be making us pros but for sure they give us a very high success rate in terms of "acceptable" photos. Those are the ones that we are likely to want to preserve. With increasing camera sensor sizes and pixel densities photo files have increased in size. A 16 MP camera would give JPGs of 4 or 5Mb, depending on the compression level. The corresponding RAW files would be about 16Mb.

To cut a long story short, it is easy to gather a photo collection 100-200-or more Gb after a few years of using a modern digital camera. In itself, that is no problem. Modern hard drives can hold a few Tb of information and still be reasonably affordable. But are they reliable? Yes, they are. Do they fail? Not too often but occasionally they do. I had a drive failing within its warranty period and another something like a few months after it expired. Regardless of the cost, getting parted with several thousand photos of mine - little pieces of history, as I called them - wouldn't have been pleasant at all. Those two times I was lucky - I had more-or-less decent backups.

So, there you have the challenge: having a backup strategy (and a data restore plan), which will secure both the files themselves and their associated data (e.g., album structures and anything not within the files themselves) and will gather those files from all the different computing platforms in use (PCs, laptops, tablets, smartphones, etc.).

The various cloud services offer a truly tempting backup alternative. Google does it for every photo one takes from an Android device and can do it with PC content as well (I believe - I have never tried the latter). In could storage services Google already has several competitors - Dropbox, OneDrive, Flickr (for photos) and many others.

Having one's data (photos, in this case) in the cloud comes with a great deal of pluses: It is a kind of backup, the backup of that backup is somebody else's problem, it keeps content accessible from anywhere, it makes content sharing simple, it is easy to use, it is affordable or - even - for free. OK, that last bit regarding cost does vary on the data volume needed - 100 Gb won't be available for free.

Is the cloud truly reliable? Hmmm.... Yes it mostly is. Does it every fail? Hmmm.... Yes, it does. Or, at least it may fail providing access to one's data when one needs them. Occasionally cloud services close or change their terms of service, etc. That may or may not be bad thing. It happens, though. Then, there is the question of bandwidth: how much time does one need to recover the data, if needed? Is that any easy process? And finally, there is the question of privacy: what privacy level can one expect with one data if those are stored on the cloud? The answers to these last questions vary depending on the cloud services provider. And on one's confidence on the provider's policy.

Let's face it realistically, however. In a lot of real-life scenarios, cloud storage is highly practical. The cloud offers options and capabilities that local storage can't easily match. At least not within the IT resources range an everyday person can maintain. But this doesn't mean that one shouldn't have a copy of one's dataset in a medium at a hand's reach. After all, when it comes to photos, those are little bits of personal history that we are talking about :)

Photography: the never-ending possibilities

'Camera 003' by Shutupyourface
under a CC license

Camera technology has been rapidly evolving through the years. Yes, I 've written before about that. But change is constant and multilevel. I believe that, to some extent, it is driven by the need to diversify in order to satisfy niche needs, rather than to achieve market domination.

True, some emerging products integrate improved technologies that ensure that the usual camera functions are carried out in a faster, more efficient or more user-friendly way. Better focusing speed, higher low light sensitivity with less image noise, larger sensors, smaller or lighter bodies, environmentally sealed cameras, stabilised lenses or sensors, are examples or improvements that aim the conventional photography experience.

But there, within the sea of consumer products, there are some few that aim at the curious child within us. Take a look at the Panono camera, for instance. It employs mostly conventional hardware, cleverly stitched together to produce 360 deg panoramas in fun way.

And then there are those small "wearable" cameras, such as Autographer, mecam, Narrative, etc. Also action cameras, such as GoPro, which are usually mounted on bikes, helmets, shoulders, etc.. And, of course, there is Google Glass which has put on the spot yet another camera niche.

Further to these examples, above, some have chosen to use conventional technology in an uncoventional way. For the shake of the argument, here are some vivid examples (in no particular order):

1. A camera mounted on the back of the head of an arts professor, so as to take snapshots of whatever lies behind him at regular intervals. 
2. A single fast action camera (a GoPro in this case) used to mimic the bullet time effect, which was made widely know in The Matrix movie (clip).
3. X-ray snapshots of nature-like compositions.  Well, that's not exactly conventional for most people but it uses technology that has been available for quite a few decades.

I'm sure one can go on for longer on the topic of photography niches (HDR photography, IR photography, pinhole camera photography, light field cameras, even Kirlian photography) but my point is that, in photography, technology - while multiplying possibilities - have never seriously hindered creativity.

The many faces of photography

'Sunset writ small' by
bgblogging under a CC license.

This is not supposed to be a regular post. It's rather an addendum to my previous one, 'Photons & imagination'. You see, while I was going through that a second time (a hard-to-explain masochistic thing that I find myself sometimes doing), I felt the urge to add several other things on photography. No, the lot of additions I had in mind would hardly make the topic complete but, also, that was never my original intention.

Photography is one of the things that has many different functions in our lives. For some, it is art. For others, science. Also, it forms a kind of expression, in a way an equivalent to speech, in the sense that it can convey messages to specific (or not-so-specific) audiences. Some consider it a visual tool merely accompanying written or oral speech. At the same time, photography is a means for art, science and communication. And, on top of that, there are the ones that embrace photography as passion.

A few days ago, I made a reference to light field photography, which seems to be slowly emerging as niche in photographic consumer-oriented products. I described it as exciting and challenging but also divergent from the traditional spirit of photography that most hobbyists and professionals carry. I now consider that I may have been a bit too harsh on that.

It's no secret that the photography world features considerable diversity: a variety of technologies are being used for a variety of applications by a variety of people. Photography seems to me as a mainstream skill/ hobby that hosts an overwhelming number of hard-to-ignore niches. Just a couple of examples I recently came across:

a. Revisiting the old times of photography, a case of which is the resurrection of instant film cameras (Polaroids). The Polaroid (corporation) having itself shifted a bit to the modern era and seeing the entire film-based world slowly making the leap towards digital media there were voices that asked otherwise. The SavePolaroid movement (archived site: here) lobbied for the preserving the option to use Instant. "It grows up with you and becomes a part of you", as a visitor of SavePolaroid.com said. I can see what she meant, although - myself - I was never an instant film user. That is passion! Now, the Impossible project offers the chance for people to meet or continue to use instant film Polaroids.

'Lomo' by pixelfreund.ch
under a CC license

Lomography is another retro photography passion that is very much alive and still burns. Understandably perhaps, since it applies no specific rules for photography (apart for the 'there are no rules' rule) making it really dynamic, potent means of expression. Beyond that - I'm sure - there are many oldish photography branches that still enjoy support.

b. "Small world" photography. To be fair, that's by no means mainstream. Capturing images from the "small world" often requires specialised equipment and some skills in sample preparation. Especially when it comes to techniques like TEM (transmission electron microscopy), AFM (atomic force microscopy), BAM (Brewster angle microscopy) or - even - confocal microscopy, one needs specilised equipment that is (very) unlikely to be found outside the lab walls, in the hands of hobbyists. An encouraging exception to the rule has been a recent boom in the marketing of USB microscopes (such as VEHO or Reflecta), although I tend to believe that the trend doesn't persist much anymore.

Photos from the small-scale world, however, always attract attention. Be it insects, snow flakes, bacteria, crystals, phases of matter or molecules, the images of the world at such size-scale have always been associated with a certain kind of "cool factor". There several interesting sources out there. Apart from what one can find in Flickr or Picasa, Nikon "Small World" is certainly worth a visit. It is a corporate-supported website (Nikon Instruments) hosting several galleries with photos from the "small world", which were selected by open competitions. In most cases, the photos there are accompanied by (brief) information on the sample and the technique used to get the picture. As an example, a favourite of mine:

Charles Krebs, Wing scales of Urania riphaeus (Sunset moth) (100X),
available in the "2008 Winners" gallery of Nikon "Small World"

I guess that the bottom line is that the photography scenery is - fortunately - beautifully complex. It's certainly unlikely to feel bored there!

Photography: Photons & imagination

'1934 Kodak Brownie
Hawkeye 2A vintage
camera' by Kevin Dooley
under a CC license

Capturing moments in time or instances of human imagination on something solid is nothing new. Paintings, sketches, sculptures, photographs - to name a few means - have all been part of, more-or-less, the same game. From amongst those means, photography is probably the most recent addition.

Manipulating light through pinholes or lenses has been known since the BC era. Finding a way to 'freeze' light on a piece of film proved to be a bit more challenging. The first useable form of photography - as an innovative technology - came up at about 1820. The next few decades were certainly exciting with huge steps towards better equipment and superior consumables. Technological progress and consumer demand went hand-in-hand for several decades. Even a few years ago, just before the dawn of the digital era of photography, cameras and films were practically for all, available in all sorts of flavours and costs.

Regardless of the technological advances, the main idea has remained mostly the same since the early photography days: Collect light from an object/ person/ scene, drive it on a photo-sensitive surface and capture the moment! Even with the coming of CCDs, which eventually made digital cameras possible, the idea has remained unchanged; it is just the film that has been put aside. (Edit: When it comes to photography and the corresponding equipment, people often like retro-looking technology.)

Around that main theme, a number of variations have developed. Different kind of lenses, numerous filters allowing for all sorts of visual effects, software that enables post-processing with - practically - no limits, etc. People have even looked at how things look outside the narrow limits of (our) visible light spectrum; infrared and ultraviolet photography are niches that still maintain their audience and are always associated with a certain 'cool-factor' (e.g., common things in the IR and a more structured approach in UV/IR photography).

A much less known area of photography is 'light field photography'. Putting science aside for the time being, the idea is somehow different than classic photography: instead of getting a single projection of rays of light on a plane (be it a film or a sensor) let's get more information about the light received by the camera, i.e., not only intensity and frequency (colour) but also direction. Having captured an instance where the received light rays have been 'better documented' makes it easier to manipulate that instance after its capture, changing, for instance, the focus point or altering (slightly) the view point.

Stanford university hosted quite a lot of work on light field photography. It worth visiting their webpages, e.g. http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/ (there is a nice, illustrative video at the bottom there). Ren Ng, one of Stanford's researchers has started his own company using that technology, Lytro. Lytro has made quite an impact on the photography press lately by launching a camera with the capability to focus after the fact.

Promotional video of the Lytro camera

Sample photo from the Lytro website. Click on an area of the photo to refocus.

Now, personally, I find both the science behind and the application quite exciting! Despite the fact that some experts were rather critical on the particular implementation (e.g., Thom Hogan's blog). And no, I believe that Lytro is not the first plenoptic camera that reaches the market (e.g., Raytrix GmbH), although it does come in a very consumer-oriented form.

Myself, I find the whatever technological or practical constraints bearable. For instance, the resolution offered is likely to be quite far from what the current dSLR or prosumer options. Also, merely viewing lightfield photos requires proprietary software and so does sharing such photos. But still, it's the new thing around. It may feel clumsy and strange but if it stays around long enough, it is bound to improve!

However, I admit, it sort of beats the purpose of getting photos in the first place. Yes, it still allows you to 'capture the moment'. But it takes away the magic of finding the right angles, focusing on the spot that highlights your point of view behind the photo. It is basically about the same debate around video vs. photography. (Edit: for those of you who wonder, light field video does exist - e.g., http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~lizhang/projects/lfstable/ - yet not in a commercial product AFAIK; having a light field video camera allowing for ex-post manipulation of the output with respect to POV or focus would be cooooool, too.)

I think that we are about to see plenty more developments in the world of image capturing and processing.

BTW, just before closing this post I can't resist saying that, yesterday, I saw at Slashdot a link to Kevin Karsch's site on 'Rendering synthetic objects into legacy photographs'. I find pretty amazing what they have managed to accomplish. Also a bit scary. Here is a video they have made available:

Rendering Synthetic Objects into Legacy Photographs from Kevin Karsch on Vimeo.

If we keep on that pace of development, I - sometimes - wonder how much more innovation can we possibly accommodate :-)

(Note: I'm not affiliated to any of the companies mentioned above. This is not a product review - I neither own nor have access to any of the light field cameras mentioned.)