Useful Range of Vivitar Wireless Remote Release

Vivitar brands a radio-frequency wireless remote that is available on a budget. The version shown below is configured for a Nikon D300; the pigtail can be changed for other camera designs. The remote has a telescoping antenna that extends to about six inches. The radio receiver is about 1.5 by 2 inches as seen from the top, and stands off the table about 3/4 inch. The receiver has a plastic foot that fits in the camera’s hot shoe.

20151114-11

For an upcoming shoot of a dance performance my two-person team is planning to work one camera dynamically up close, working on solo dancer shots and facial expressions. A second photographer will be in the mezzanine working context and group figures, as well as providing a higher angle. In our last shoot I worked close to the stage, mainly on single-dancer shots. Usually a single-person subject looks best when her background is simple and clear. During group figures I could find no position near the stage that produced satisfying composition. In other words, during large group shots I had the choice of scrambling to a different perspective or sitting idle. I want a different choice.

The new choice is to put a third camera either on the mezzanine left, or better on the balcony. With a wireless remote I can easily capture a full context shot. I can set the balcony cam with a fixed focal length lens, fixed aperture, and fixed focus point to get a consistent context shot. When the stage situation demands context shots, I’ll drop back and work the remote. Assuming the remote works.

Two main issues could get in the way of the remote. The first is batteries. Both the remote and the receiver use a battery. Should be easily solved with new batteries prior to the shoot. The second one is distance; the remote must have enough range. I used a simple test to gauge the remote distance. My son stood by the camera on the sidewalk, and I walked a few steps at a time up the sidewalk. He would give me a thumbs up if the camera shutter released, and I could take another few steps further. I marked the final distance with chalk. We performed the test with the remote’s antenna collapsed, and with it extended. An outdoor test means the RF has little chance to scatter off walls and ceilings. I expect the remote’s indoor range will exceed its outdoor range.

Antenna Collapsed: 53 feet max range
Antenna Extended: 148 feet max range

20151114-07

Canon MX850 with Canon Paper

I revisited printing with the Canon MX850 this weekend. I printed a 4-image collage on a sheet of 8.5×11 inch Canon Glossy Photo paper. I had the printer settings for optimization and enhancement disabled, since this gave the most accurate printing in previous trials. The results are shown below. Note that my scanner pooped out about 1/3 of the way through the picture—I presume not permanently—so the images aren’t exactly the same scale and crop.

There is, maybe, a slight reddish shift in the left frame, but it is quite good overall. This print will go on display at the office. For album use, the resolution of the professional print services is better, but for most uses the printer is quite good. For anything hanging on a wall, this is great.

Canon MX850 and Home Printing Foibles

I had no interest in printing at home due to early versions of a study that showed home prints would fade, run, and fail to impress in almost no time at all. That study was updated, and the result made it look like home printing might not be a waste of time.

Also, I was loaned a Canon MX850 all-in-one inkjet printer, scanner, and fax machine, along with some paper. My experience is that home printing offers an exciting way to spend the endless hours I had nothing else to do with. Yeah, I’m blogging now—leave the obvious inconsistency alone, please.

I printed my classic color test photo (see The Color of Software) eight times. I really only wanted to fiddle with color management, but I discovered the true thrill of home printing. My best results were quite suitable for a quick mailing to Great Grandpa or to pass around at work. To save you the bother and expense, do what your printer manufacturer asks: buy their paper and their inks, anything else is false economy.

Printer manufacturers work very, very hard to keep it that way.

The following montage shows scans of a selected area of all eight prints. A key follows, along with some detail blow-ups of the coarse and subtle problems I encountered.

All the variations were generated by changing printer settings or paper. AV stands for Avery paper (#include paper type and number). OM stands for OfficeMax paper.

  • OM1: OfficeMax Paper, printer set to Photo Paper Pro, Optimize and Vivid enabled
  • OM2: OfficeMax Paper, printer set to Photo Paper Plus, Optimize and Vivid enabled
  • AV1: Avery Paper, printer set to Glossy Photo, Optimize and Vivid enabled
  • AV2: Avery Paper, printer set to Glossy Photo, Optimize and Vivid disabled
  • OM3: Glossy Photo, Optimize and Vivid disabled
  • OM4: OfficeMax Paper, printer set to Glossy II, Optimize and Vivid enabled
  • OM5: OfficeMax Paper, printer set to High Resolution, Optimize and Vivid disabled
  • OM6: OfficeMax Paper, printer set to Glossy Photo, Optimize and Vivid disabled, color turned down to -25

In all the OfficeMax (OM) prints there is a glaring flaw, the ink pooled and made little color clumps. It looks dreadful. Many show banding. The Avery (AV) paper worked reasonably well, the color did not pool and the variations are in line with what I expect from turning on “vivid” and “color optimize” modes. To be fair to Office Max, their instructions suggest setting Canon printers to “transparency” mode. This mode is distinctly missing from the MX850 control; every choice available is shown in this next screen shot.

This is probably deliberate on Canon’s part, at least they have a financial incentive to do so. Transparency printing (or printing on high-gloss nearly impermeable paper) uses much less ink. Furthermore, non-Canon papers might work well. Maybe it is not a conspiracy, but quality is clearly not the only metric.

I attempted to approximate the effect of printing transparency by turning down the intensity setting to -25 (see OM6), assuming this would deposit less ink. It deposited less ink, but it also made the photo appear underexposed. Some puddling occurred on her lips even so.

There are different characters of problems as well. The following picture shows some trouble areas in relatively high resolution. The background is the best shot, AV2, which has fairly accurate color representation where generally the color looks almost as good as the print I got from MPIX (currently my favorite lab). The print of MPIX is overall much nicer, but that is due to the higher resolution and the quality of the paper. More on the paper later.

The OM1 inset shows the terrible ink pooling. The AV1 inset shows the deleterious effects of enabling “optimize” and “vivid”, at least on this picture. OM5 shows pooling and banding, though with as bad as the pooling is this might not matter. Finally, OM4 shows fingerprints, which I must have gotten on the paper before it printed. Since I was working with clean hands I can only assume that printing is quite sensitive fingerprint oils.

The papers are quite variable, and the quality of the AV prints was limited by the poor feel of the paper, which was waxy and easily scratched off in my hands. Under glass I doubt this would be an issue, but I’d certainly approach mounting this on paper with caution—frequent bending might cause flaking.

The OM paper was quite nice. Only it is incompatible with the printer, and as such is useless. Clearly home printing is an opportunity to burn lots of time trying to get good results from something that can be quite fiddly. I expect quality and utility would be fine when using the manufacturer’s paper. For the albums, I’ll keep ordering prints. However, I can see a role for a printer when you want something in a hurry.