Jack-o’-lanterns are my favorite things in Halloween. OK, Jack-o’-lanterns and mahoosive amounts of Jack Daniels. That’s why I am happy that Mark asked you for photos of the spooky heads for this week’s Shooting Challenge. Like before, you didn’t disappoint.

The winner picture above is Pumpkin Carving Night. Jeremy Champion did a great job in the composition and creating the atmosphere, shooting with a Nikon D90 with Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 D, 1.3 sec, ISO 200.

Check out the gallery for the second and third places, and the rest of the entries. All of them were great, so thank you very much for sending them.

Have a happy and safe Halloween tomorrow. I’m off to start with the other Jack.

Back when Norman Rockwell ruled Saturday evenings, Adobe wasn’t even a gleam in some nerd’s eye, but a new book shows that the painter was, nevertheless, a photoshop god.

Very few Gizmodo readers were even born when Rockwell painted his last Saturday Evening Post cover, but we all know them. You hear that name and suddenly you can picture those overly detailed, cartoonishly dramatic but ultimately kinda corny depictions of American life. Well, Norman Rockwell: Behind the Camera, written and compiled by Ron Schick, has given me immense newfound respect for the man, for the meticulous photography, the real people and the unintentionally hilarious DIY props and sets that he required to make his painted fantasies of Americana come true.

The book is not about painting. Rockwell’s oil-on-canvas work feels like an afterthought for Schick, who mostly documents Rockwell’s photography and art direction. Throughout the book, you see a painting, then you see the photographs he took to make that painting. In most cases, many shots comprise the different elements, and are joined together only in paint. It’s almost sad: Vivid interactions between people, remembered jointly in the country’s collective consciousness, may never have taken place. Even people facing each other at point blank range were photographed separately, and might never have even met.

The photos are as memorable as the paintings: There’s a little boy whose feet are propped up on thick books, a walking still-life; there’s a naked lady who ended up a mermaid in a lobster trap; there are men and women in various states of frustration, concentration and bliss, whose facial expressions defined Rockwell’s style. These were mostly not agency models, but friends and neighbors who were pleased to help out, but not always thrilled by the finished product.

Since Rockwell was one of the most commercially successful artists of all time, you can imagine the rights to all of his images (paintings and photos) are carefully managed. The publisher was kind enough to let us show you the book cover plus two additional pairings, below. I encourage you to buy the book ($26.40 at Amazon)—what you see here is just a quick lick of the spoon:

Going and Coming, 1947
You’ll notice the book jacket shows a painting of a family embarking on a summer vacation—Granny, Spot and all—coupled with a photo of a similar scene with far less action. There’s a kid sticking out of the car in both, but many family members are missing. This is because they were photographed separately, in Rockwell’s studio, and painted in where needed. (You’ll also notice that the photo on the jacket is reversed—the car was pointed in the other direction but I suppose that wouldn’t have looked as cool.)

Circus, 1955
What I liked about this picture is that you get to see how ridiculous Rockwell’s sets could often be. He needed real faces, but he could fill in the rest. Hence piling chairs up on top of an old desk to simulate bleachers at the circus. Good thing nobody fell off the back and sued ole Rocky for millions—that twine used to hold the little girl’s chair in place doesn’t look OSHA certified. If the geeky looking fellow in the front looks familiar, it’s because Rockwell himself served as a model for his paintings all the time.

The Final Impossibility: Man’s Tracks on the Moon, 1969
Yep, here’s proof that the moon landing was faked. At least, Rockwell’s commemorative portrait of it was. NASA loved his work, so they loaned him spacesuits and helmets whenever he wanted, and for this, he got permission to photograph his models moonwalking around an Apollo Lunar Lander, with a black tarp doubling for infinity and beyond. Remember, this is when Apollo was new and the Cold War was in full swing, so getting access to the latest NASA toys took clout.

Behind the Camera covers many aspects of Rockwell that I had not known about previously. He was an outspoken civil rights activist, and many of his paintings dealt with race relations. There is a painting of two murdered men, one black and one white, accompanied by an almost absurd photo of two very alive guys lying side by side, eyes closed, on a carpet. There’s another painting of a little black girl being walked to school by US Marshals, and the many different closeup shots Rockwell required to paint the extreme detail of the tense, potent—and fabricated—moment.

I wish I could run a gallery of 100 shots from this book, because each page startled me in a different way. Meeting the real people behind the paintings, and learning that every painting was composed of masterfully planned photographs—always black and white, since the artist let his imagination add the color—I will no longer take Norman Rockwell for granted. In fact, I’m gonna kinda worship him from now on. [Amazon sales page; Little, Brown product page]

Earlier this week, we issued our first shooting challenge “fall leaves” to the photographers among you. And holy crap are there some impressive photographers among you.

First Place
Wade Saathoff: Nikon D300, Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4, 1/100th, f/3.2, ISO 320, 14 bit RAW, .nef converted using Raw Therapee and edited in Photoshop 7

Second Place
Tess Davis: Sony A350, 18-70mm kit lens, f/4.5, 1/200s, ISO 100

Third Place
Neal Rosenblat: Nikon D90, 50mm lens, f1.8, 1/2000

Thanks to everyone for making the first Shooting Challenge so much fun. And since these results are completely subjective, enjoy the full gallery below before mocking my taste in the comments. Still, I don’t think there’s a lousy shot in the bunch.

There are four Micro Four Thirds cameras on the market right now. That’s it. But with Panasonic’s GF1, investing in the mini genre makes more sense than ever—if you know what you’re getting into.

What the &*^@ is Micro Four Thirds?

Olympus and Panasonic co-developed what’s called the Micro Four Thirds standard just last year. The biggest difference to the eye is the smaller-than-SLR lens mount that incompatible with SLRs unless you deploy an adapter. Internally, the standard ditches the mirrors used in SLRs and uses a four thirds CMOS (not micro four thirds chip!) to capture the image straight from the lens (just like a point and shoot). That sensor is roughly 30% smaller than that found in your average dSLR but 9 times bigger than what’s in your average point and shoot. The result is a camera ever so slightly smaller than a dSLR that should give you a similar end image quality.

The end camera is just a tad smaller than a baseline dSLR:

But it’s still way bigger than your average point and shoot:

The big not-so-secret

There are only four products on the market at this point (Panasonic G1, its video-centric brother, the GH1, Olympus E-P1 and, of course, the Panasonic GF1), and they all have the exact same 13MP Panasonic sensor. But only the latest two, the GF1 and the E-P1, have taken advantage of the smaller technology to create design-forward cameras.

The spoiler

However, if you’re going to buy one of these cameras, you probably want the GF1 ($900 with 14-45mm lens). It couples all the good stuff from Panasonic’s existing line with a retro body that’s eerily similar to the Olympus E-P1.

The build

The GF1 is too big, and it’s too heavy. The Panasonic GF1 is indeed smaller than my Canon XTi, but it still won’t fit in your pocket.

Yet I love carrying it around. Why? The body feels solid, as if it’s from another era, a Utopian time when men were men and companies built hardware to last—before we valued sissy silver painted plastic more than the metal it was emulating.

The GF1 (and the Olympus E-P1 for that matter) feels like a small tank in your hands, an element of war that won’t give up after being tossed in a bag recklessly. If dropped on an iPod from over 3 feet, the iPod would certainly be crushed.
There are neither too many buttons nor too few. A familiar circle rotates between shooting modes naturally and burst and timer modes share a switch right in front of it. A d-pad toggles functions like ISO while a clever clicking dial allows you to adjust shutter speed and f-stops.
A few buttons earn their very own functions, like focusing mode, exposure lock and, maybe most cleverly, video. Hitting this little button to the right of the shutter release switches you to video no matter what mode you’re in.

Given the almost retro-style build, however, it was tough for me to lose an optical viewfinder (though a digital optical add-on is available). It’s a heavy camera to hold outstretched while framing shots on the viewfinder. But luckily, the 3-inch LCD’s 460,000 pixels mean you can just manage to find critical focus, thanks to the screen auto-zooming to your subject during manual focusing, though it can be tough to be sure you’ve really nailed it.

That screen resolution is below a premium dSLR, but it’s about twice as sharp as the E-P1—and you’ll notice.
And then there’s the flash. Unlike the E-P1, the GF1 has one of these bad boys, and Panasonic has celebrated that fact by designing what must be the most complicatedly mechanical flash on the market. Watching it snap from the camera body is both impressive and worrisome. Can these little struts really hold up? Regardless, it’s handy to have, even though a perk of buying such a big, expensive camera is avoiding flash photography.

The pictures

Check out all of my GF1 test shots on Flickr, untouched JPEGs pulled right off the GF1. Or see compressed versions in our embedded gallery.

Honestly, there’s not much we can say about the quality of the GF1’s sensor that hasn’t been said (by us, even.) The biggest particular problem is ISO noise, as you can see in the gallery below. Bottom line: the GF1 supports ISOs up to 3200, but you probably don’t want to reach beyond 800.
However, with that disclosure out of the way, I’d like to make a few points.

1. Shooting on the GF1 feels like shooting on an SLR. I’m not just talking about the ease of tweaking advanced controls. I mean, you pull the trigger, the camera takes a shot RIGHT THEN. For dSLR owners, that’s nothing new. For P&S owners, that’s a revelation.

2. There is undoubtedly more noise with Panasonic’s sensor in high ISOs than you could find in dSLRs for a similar price. But, the image quality you can achieve—I mean that intangible mix of sensor size and great glass that makes your photos feel professional—is undoubtedly beyond the realm of point and shoots, well in the SLR ballpark.

The BEST shot I was able to recreate of that watch above on my Canon P&S?
Needless to say, pretty gross stuff.

3. The Live View system features what’s, hands down, the best function I’ve ever see on any Live View system yet. Holding a Shutter Mode Effect button previews the motion blur you can expect in your final shot—saving you the heartache of the perfect preview and horrible blurry-faced end product we’ve all experience on point and shoots.
The only catch? The system didn’t work well in daylight, when you might want to use Live View to preview sports motion blur. Note that this car didn’t blur at all in my preview, nor did about 20 similar test shots I took in identical conditions.
However, low light tests worked fine.

The 720P video I’d describe as solid but not extraordinary. The AVCHD (or motion JPEG) video, while inherently better than P&S systems or Mino HDs, is not razor sharp. Without side by side comparisons or the wonderful popping colors you get with a bit of sunlight (it rained through my entire testing period), I can’t make any definitive statements. But what I’ve seen from the T1i seems better (richer colors, sharper figures), and not just because it’s 1080P.

Versus the EP-1

There are definitely a few key advantages to buying a GF1 instead of Olympus’ E-P1. They include:

• Sharper screen
• Faster autofocus (I’d estimate about 3x faster—it’s noticeable)
• Built-in flash (the Olympus requires an optional mount)

But it should be noted, the E-P1 has its image stabilization inside its body while Panasonic relies on its IS kit lens. In other words, every lens the Olympus uses will have inherent image stabilization. Also, Olympus allows autofocusing on all Micro Four Thirds and Four Thirds lenses. The GF1 can accept these lenses, but it only retains autofocus on its own brand. So lens fanatics may find the E-P1 the better bet. And if you find one or the other on some super sale, well, it’s a toss-up.

Confession

The real reason I enjoyed shooting on the GF1, and the real reason you’re interested in Micro Four Thirds if you are indeed interested, has nothing to do with practicality.

I just feel cool using it.
I like walking around Chicago with the GF1 on my shoulder. It gives me that feeling of Leica superiority without the expense. The Micro Four Thirds system may have originated in Japan, but the romance of shooting on the latest systems is purely European. For the first time in a long time, a piece of electronics has made me long for an era and a place that I never knew.

Every soccer mom tourist in Chicago has a dSLR. They may take prettier photos than I do, but damn do I long to be different once in a while. And I’m here to say that, if you crave a Micro Four Thirds for the same reason, it’s my opinion that the GF1 works well enough that, well, that’s OK. I’m just not trading my dSLR for one.

Incredibly solid build


Best screen in class


Unique shutter blur preview


General stylishness and badassery


Video is good, not great


Same CMOS found in earlier version/competition


IS in kit lens, not camera

Around the corner from the PCMag.com office is a construction site for a hi-rise apartment complex. Last Tuesday, when I passed it on my lunch hour, I noticed one of the workers pointing his iPhone’s camera up at the structure, so I tried to see what he was aiming at.

Above the building, I spotted a rainbow-like arc that I immediately recognized as a portion of a solar halo, and snapped a number of pictures of it (such as the one above) mostly with my Canon SD990 IS. (I even got a few good shots of it with my iPhone.)

In observing and photographing solar halo phenomena, the biggest obstacle, ironically, is the Sun itself. You must avoid looking at the Sun–even when partially obscured by thin clouds, looking directly at it can cause eye damage. As for photography, the Sun’s glare can wash out much of the detail of the delicate arcs, and spots, as well as the structure of the accompanying cirrostratus (and sometimes cirrus) clouds. So be sure to hide the Sun behind a tree, a building, a street sign, or other object–even a hand will do in a pinch.

Note that in photographing a halo, you’ll need to focus on the sky rather than the nearby object, or else the halo will be blurred. You can do this by pointing the camera at the open sky and engaging the autofocus if you’re in automatic mode–usually, a green box will appear when the shutter is half-pressed. Then, while keeping the shutter half-pressed, you should return to your initial framing with the nearby object in view, and press the shutter fully to complete the shot) It’s a good idea to move the camera around a bit to find the place with the least glare before you shoot. Although it’s good to try both, I find that wider-field shots often work better than close-ups–for one thing, if you want to capture the entire solar halo, it may be necessary to go as wide as you can.