Really Right Stuff - Olympus OMD EM-5iii L-bracket.

Suggested; but with Reservations

Really Right Stuff - L-Bracket BOEM5III - Olympus OM-D EM5iii

LET ME sum up this purchase in one word: Disappointing! I have blogged about how I believe an L-bracket is a near-indispensable accessory for a serious photographer (if you use a tripod - and I have also blogged a few times my strong belief that you should use a tripod whenever feasible). There are 2 features on my Olympus OM-D5iii "travel" camera that render the RRS L-bracket a "fail" (or maybe, depending on your perspective, a "near-fail"). I am not an engineer, but I personally think the design could be rather easily modified to better address both of these. In fairness, modern digital cameras present issues that older SLR/DSLR bodies didn't; mainly in the area of electronic screens and "connectivity." Because of the changing shape and configuration of newly released camera bodies it seems that a newly designed L-bracket has to be created for each new camera. In my view, however, this particular bracket doesn't quite make the grade.

I am realistic enough to know that technology may someday render a tripod superflous. We are not there yet

TWO MAJOR (though not the only) considerations for my recent switch from the OMD EM-10 series to the OMD EM-5iii were: (1) a fully articulating rear screen, and (2) wired remote release capability. Unfortunately, these directly conflict with the features on the RRS bracket that I am criticizing here.

Remote Release

DESPITE ALL the hype to the contrary, I will continue (though it is probably quixotic - at least in relation to those "why do I need a tripod with my XXX brand's flawless IBIS?" preachers) to say that use of a tripod is still strongly recommended in all cases where its use is feasible; and just a plain-old necessity in some cases. I am realistic enough to know that technology may someday render a tripod superflous. We are not there yet.

One of the reasons I recently "upgraded" to the OM-D5iii was the existence of wired remote release capability

THE OLD saying: "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" may be an apt analogy here. It does no good to have a sturdy, base if the camera itself is not firmly affixed, and can be triggered without touching it. To me that means you also need a remote triggering device to go hand-in-hand with the tripod. I have used the 2 second delay. I don't like it. It is impossible to "time" your tripping of the shutter - e.g., wind movement of plants and flowers, capturing "the moment" in other instances. Along with that, though this may be my personal peccadillo, it is inconvenient to remember to switch it back and forth. I have always been a little dumbfounded that many manufacturers have discontinued the facility of a simple, wired, remote release. My Sony cameras can only be triggered with a wireless release. I make it work, but it is clunky. The old OMD EM-10iv could only be remotely triggered using a cell phone app. To me that nearly cripples the use of a remote release. One of the reasons I recently "upgraded" to the OMD-EM5iii was the existence of wired remote release capability.

Articulating Rear Screen

I HAVE always been a viewfinder kind of a guy. Even today, purchasing a camera without a viewfinder is a non-starter for me. There is something about isolating all the other factors around you when you are looking through the viewfinder. It is how I have long felt most comfortable composing. Electronics, though, has changed the world. The first Electronic Viewfinders (EV) weren't very good. Probably as a result of mirrorless development, they very quickly got better; so much better that I now prefer them to the older TTL viewfinders for a number of reasons. I still want a viewfinder though. However, toward the end of my SLR/DSLR days, I aquired a "waist-level" viewfinder. I found it not only more comfortable to use when I wanted a composition from a lower perspective than my 6' standing height, but very versatile. Once my cameras began to come with tilting rear screens, I found that they were a pretty good substitute for that waist-level finder. Indeed, these days, I use it quite often and it does save wear and tear on my back. I find the fully articulating rear screens even more versatile. I wanted one - and I wanted to be able to use it.

RRS is really the only manufacturer who currently manufactures and sells a dedicated L-bracket for the EM-5iii body

Why I think RRS dropped the ball on this one

FIRST, I have a confession to make. This item is the first RRS item I have ever purchased. They are a U.S. manufacturer, and say that all of their materials and machining are from and in the U.S. There is something to be said for that. Over the years, I have had no doubt that they are top-drawer in terms of quality. At one time, U.S. manufacturer, Kirk Enterprises also made similar quality pieces (I am not sure what happened with them). I have owned a couple Kirk lens foot accessories. I also think it is fair to RRS to note that they are usually the first to the gate with brackets and accessories for newly released body. There is something to be said for the cost of design and R&D. I have a buddy who purchases from them and says their customer service is as good as any he has ever encountered. The reason, though, that I haven't routinely purchased RRS equipment boils down to one factor: cost. I have deemed their "stuff" (especially L-brackets) to be much too expensive for the purpose they serve. I once worked in a machine shop for a couple years and one of the things we did was milling aluminum parts - like the RRS L-bracket (not L-brackets, but similar machining). I knew in my "gut" that they could be produced much less expensively. That was born out time and again, by the availability of much less expensive good quality functional alternatives. When you have to buy one of these gadgets every time you make a camera change (and for every camera body you have), at prices from $150 and above each, it gets to be a costly (albeit important in my opinion) item for convenience.

RRS has some very smart engineers. I find it hard to believe they couldn't/didn't design around these issues

UNFORTUNATELY, AND I think this is largely due to the IBIS hype I alluded to, these brackets are not being made/sold for Olympus cameras (at least not the tripod based L-bracket). I think it is currenly a matter of demand, and it is just not there. It turns out that RRS is really the only manufacturer who currently manufactures and sells a dedicated L-bracket for the EM-5iii body. There are several "grips" being sold (mostly and eBay and those Chinese sites - which I will not participate in), but they really focus on the grip part and not the "L" in the L-bracket that I think is a critical piece. One competitor, who appears to be out of business, did have a pretty good looking alternative. I think you can find them (obviously used - but that shouldn't be an issue here) on eBay. Here is an example.

GIVEN THE niche that RRS occupies as the "best of the best," and essentially having a monopoly on this part, I paid the price because I thought it was that important to my photography, even though with this camera, I shoot very little from a tripod. But when I do, I want to be ready for it.

RRS L-Bracket for Olympus OM-D EM5iii
Conventional position for vertical bracket member (obstructs articulating rear screen)

THAT JUST makes it all that much more disappointing to me. The RRS bracket "designed" specifically to fit my model fits the camera base nicely, but has a critical shortcoming. The bracket has two positions (they are more or less permanent - you choose between them when you install the vertical member of the bracket - see the positioning screw in the photos above and below). The "normal" postition (see first photo below) leaves access to the three port access points on the same side of the camera. Great, but it also largely interferes with the articulating rear screen mechanics (and I should also note, even though accessible, access to the "doors" on each port are essentially impossible without very long fingernails, or some "tool" to pry them open). It doesn't completely block the screen, but it does (as shown in the illustration) block the screen hinge, severely limiting the use of the screen.

THE SECOND position shifts the vertical member forward just enough to clear the screen hinge (see second illustration below). Problem solved, one would think, except that in that position it completely blocks all of the access ports. Oops. I didn't realize this when I bought it. I had read RRS's own description and a few online comments and reviews. Nobody brought that little detail up. Upon receipt, I was soon "palming" my forehead. I bought my copy from the venerable B&H folks. I did not, however, read the reviews on their site - which clearly pointed out this problem. My bad. Usable, but not completely acceptable for my purposes - especially for a $150 item.

My personal solution to make an alteration which, though it doesn't fully solve the problem, will work for my needs

I THINK there are several possible design solutions here. I can think of two. The first involves just moving the upright member a little further forward (looks like about 3/8" would clear the ports and doors). I realize that makes it stick out in front of the body further - and might even interfere with handholding comfort (for me, easy answer; I only install the bracket when I am going to mount it on a tripod. Takes 2 minutes). A second solution would be to shim it out away from the side of the camera body to make the ports accessible (some manufacturers have even made an adjustable, sliding mechanism for this). RRS has some very smart engineers. I find it hard to believe they couldn't/didn't design around these issues.

RRS L- Bracket for Olympus OM-D EM5iii
Forward position for vertical bracket member (obstructs all connection ports)

MY PERSONAL solution was a "DIY" alteration which, I think will work for my needs. I don't do tethered shooting, so the only thing I need from that covered-up access port array is the single pin port for the wired remote. I calculated that I could gain access to this port with the upright in the forward position by cutting approximately 7/16" off the top of the rear upper (as they say on the TV commercials, "don't try this at home"). I used a grinder to first make a rough cut and then to carefully polish the rough edges as smooth as I could. I didn't attempt to mimic the pre-existing nicely rounded finish. The bad news is that I made a nicely finished piece looked less "nicely finished" - I have no way to replace the anodized black aluminum finish with anything durable. I painted it. Time will tell how that holds up. It is mainly for a nicer look and won't effect the functionality either way. My solution unfortunately removed some of the dovetailed metal designed to hold the camera firmly. I think there is enough left though, particularly with the very light load on this setup. I doubt most readers will feel confident about trying my "DIY" approach, but without it, if you are needing the lower ports while mounted vertically on a tripod, and you want use of the articulating rear screen, you are "SOL" - at least with the RRS model. 😒

RRS L-Bracket for Olympus OM-D M5iii
Modified to reveal Remote Release Port

as they say on the TV commercials, "don't try this at home"

 

Suggested; but with Reservations

[You may note that I have slightly deviated from my rating/recommendation system by adding a new phrase: "with reservations." I bought it. I will probably keep it. But I need to modify it to fulfill its intended purpose. So I have serious reservations about whether you should buy it. If you don't need access to the ports, you may be good to go. If you do need that access, but are not confident in your ability to make the alteration I did, then it would definitely be "not recommended"]

A Matter of Perspective?

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

THE WORD, "perspective," of course has different meanings. In photography we most often talk about it literally. By the "Oxford" definition, "perspective" in an image refers to the height, width, depth, and position of elements of a composition, in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point (mostly paraphrased from the #1 definition in the Oxford Dictionary). Perspective in photography is mostly affected by where we stand, the focal length lens we use, and camera position.

If you just logged on to the internet for the first time within the past couple years, you would be excused if you concluded that "AI" is a brand-new, world-changing phenom, but it really isn't

THE DICTIONARY has another definition (#2) however. It references a thinker's point of view. I find it fascinating how that definition intersects with photography. The main thrust of this post is about the latter kind of perspective. And it probably won't shock the reader to find that it is about a currently somewhat controversial subject: so-called "AI," or artificial intelligence. If you just logged on to the internet for the first time within the past couple years, you would be excused if you concluded that AI is a brand-new, world-changing phenom. It really isn't. If you want to stretch things a bit, you could argue that AI in a very rudimentary form, dates back to Leonardo DaVinci in the late 15th century. But that is a bit of a stretch. Today, we think of AI in conjunction with computers and digital imagery and writing. Probably the first mention of "intelligence" connected with computers was in the 1950s (with the term "artificial intelligence" probably first being used in 1955) - so it is not really new.

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2016

IT CAN be fairly said though, that use of the phrase, "AI" (especially on the internet), has more recently increased exponentially (like so much of technology has - making Kubrick and Clarke's computer: "Hal," prescient). If this acceleration of AI development feels multiple times as fast, it's because . . . well . . . it is (hence the term exponentially). We first started to see it prominently show up in digital processing programs around 2010. My own awareness was with Adobe's then newly introduced "content-aware" technology (first introduced to me by my friend and Photoshop "guru," Al Utzig) - something that changed my world photographically. Realistically, the technology, which compares the image you are working on with 100's of 1,000's of image examples, was around in a more rudimentary (but still astonishing) form for many years before with in-camera metering technology (Nikon introduced its "matrix metering" in 1983). Given this, I find it remarkable that suddenly sometime in 2024, "AI" became a "thing." 😏 Anybody who doesn't think it has been around for a long time is fooling themselves.

I could immediately see as I looked harder at this image, why I had not processed it and put it on my website back in 2016

WHETHER GOOD or bad, Adobe Software has been working as hard as anyone to bring AI digital technology to us. As an Adobe Cloud subscriber, I have been among the early recipients of this technology. Adobe Firefly (described by them as a series of AI technologies including text to image, image expand and image generation, and video technology, among other things, was first released in its Beta version in 2003. Since then, the technology has been systematically incorporated into other programs (for our purposes, mainly Photoshop and Lightroom) as image generation and object removal technology. Again that technology has changed my world. First, it has taken the now aging content-aware fill process a step forward with the new "remove" tool. Second, it has added to the already impressive content-aware crop tool, and added "generative expand." I know, I know. Get it right in the camera. Thats good advice and one of the fundamentals we should strive for. Reality though is that nobody always gets it right in the camera. The new tools open possibilities for "fixing" framing and even composition at times.

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

WE COULD get all into the: "that isn't photography" discussion, but personally, I think that is a waste of time and creative energy. The beauty of photography is that we can have it be what we want it to be. If you want to take the view that it is only photography if it was made in the camera and not processed in any way - that is your prerogative. I won't judge you for it. But I have said it from the beginning of my blogging adventures: In my view, photography is art (unless we get into some very narrow exceptions like reportage or scientific). When I arrive on a scene (sometimes even before), I "see" an image or images (although unfortunately "the image" is sometimes what I don't see). I have a "vision" and my goal is to make that vision my own reality. And it is determinative, I think, that what I "see" is not what you "see." Consequently, many of us will do "creative" edits during our post-processing to attempt to achieve our "vision." AI is becoming part of the toolbox. If you like it, great. If you don't, that's fine too.

We could get all into the: "that isn't photography" discussion, but personally, I think that is a waste of time and creative energy

THE CLIFF Walk image (Newport, Rhode Island) image is really one of those examples of what I didn't see. I thought I did. At the time, I was looking at the Gazebo, and the curves leading up to it. We were walking, shooting handheld (tripods, as you can see, would have probably created a nuisance, as there were many people on the walkway that day). Depth of field was an issue in the foreground, though I don't really find it unpleasant (f8 @70mm for tech-seekers). I "cleaned" it up a bit where there were people who in this case I felt were a distraction/detraction from the image. O.K. Nice image? Maybe. To me, though, it really is kind of ho-hum. In fact in the end, I think it fails. Why? I realized looking at it on screen, that it breaks one of the most fundamental rules of photography. Every image must have a subject. I guess you could argue that the gazebo is the subject. The railing leads up to it (though I certainly have better examples of leading lines). But to my eye, it just wasn't compelling. It reminded me of my very first image critique by my friend, mentor, and then college professor, John Knox. I made a really nicely exposed photograph of a snowy, wooded path. The late afternoon light was beautiful and spread a uniform pattern of shadows from the Birches lining the path on the sunward side, across the path. There was white snow and blue sky up behind the canopy. "Nice" photo. Again, maybe. At the time I was pretty proud of it. I took it to him "for critque" (probably really more for praise if I am being brutally honest). John is a nice, polite man. You may have read this story in my bio. He didn't praise it. Instead he asked me if I wanted him to tell me it was nice, or if I wanted an honest critique. I wanted him to like it (even love it). I wanted the acclimation. Instead, I did the better (for me) thing and asked for the critque (Like Robert Frost, I took the road less travelled by and that has made all the difference). He said the same thing over 50 years ago that I said to myself recently with this image (yeah - some of us are slow learners 😁). The photo lacks a compelling subject. If I had a person in a red jacket walking a golden retriever on the path in front of me, it would have made "just a photograph" into a "picture." I could immediately see as I looked harder at this image, why I had not processed it and put it on my website back in 2016.

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2016 and 2025
(original and AI-Generated additions)

BUT NOW we have "AI." This time I played around with the "Generate Image" feature in Photoshop. I have done this before with wildly varying results. Some may remember the image I posted of a man walking his dog and the dog walking backward. That from Generative AI in Photoshop. As it will, it just keeps getting better, though it still has a way to go. I played with a few different iterations, asking it to "generate" several times. I tried different words in the text to image box. I finally found a couple that I liked well enough to post here. If you look carefully at the details, there is still a ways to go, but it is impressive nonetheless. I liked both the AI results shown here. There were several others that I either didn't like, or worse, turned out horribly. One thing I have noticed is that it does a terrible job with faces. In these images, my text asked for a blond woman in a red jacket walking a golden retriever. I tried a couple variations (but all but the middle one above had the dog walking behind the woman, and I couldn't get the right combo to move the dog up, so after several tries, I gave up 😖). I do like the red against the otherwise drab colored background. I also like the way the woman's hair in both images virtually (see what I did there?) matches the golden retriever's hair. Is it real? Nope. Is that a concern for me? Not in the least. As a sidenote, I just finished reading (the now late) Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Street Photography." One of the things he repeats about situations like this is how he finds a spot like and then waits (sometimes for hours), for something like this to walk into his scene. What are the odds of this very combination appearing? I don't know, but I don't judge them to be very high. I am not that patient most of the time. But now we have "AI." 😂

"Remove Reflections" tool in Photoshop ACR - Not Ready For Prime Time

ADOBE JUST keeps on rolling out new features. When they first moved to their "CC" version, I was pretty lukewarm about almost everything "cloud" related. Part of it is that "resistance to change" thing. I also didn't like the fact that I was going to be changing from "owning" to "renting" Photoshop. The primary driver for me eventually changing over was the "realtime" update feature, though (and, in my seat-of-the-pants analysis, it really wasn't any more expensive). Not only do we get new features as they officially are released, but if you are adventurous, you can download and use the beta version which offers some of the new things Adobe is working on.

BUT WAIT. There's more. 😀 There is a third offering that I will call "Previews" mode. This mode is a way to preview some of the new features that will (probably) soon be incorporated as standard tools, but for whatever reason, Adobe does not feel that they are ready (or haven't pushed an update through). Most of these tools are what I would consider "almost ready." These new features are available only if you have something called "Technology Previews" loaded. This enables some features that can be loaded in your current version of CC (rather than having to work with the separately installed beta version of PS) which - for whatever reasons - Adobe considers not quite ready for full release yet). In order to take advantage of this, you need to go into your Photoshop ACR (camera raw) Settings (the little gear icon at the top right of the ACR window) and check "Technology Previews." After a restart, you will have these "preview" features in your ACR.

THERE IS one tool, though, that in my opinion is not ready and I think Adobe should have left only in its beta version pending more thorough testing and feedback. Read on.

You should be aware that at this point the tool only works on raw images. It is said that they will eventually make it so it can work on other formats, like jpg and tiff

A SHORT time back, I learned about one of  these new tools. "Reflections," is found in the "Remove" section of ACR (I recently read that it is coming to LR in the near future). It is designed to remove unwanted reflections,primarily created by window glass between you and the subject. Once you bring an image into ACR, you can click on the little icon on the right that opens the "Remove" panel (looks like a band-aid to me, but I suppose it is supposed to be an eraser?). In the drop-down there is a panel that says "Distraction Removal." Currently you will find the "Reflections" tool and another tool: "People" (I haven't tried that one yet). It is AI-based, so once you check the box, it works on its own. You should be aware that at this point the tool only works on raw images. It is said that they will eventually make it so it can work on other formats, like jpg and tiff. In the tool there is a box to check to "apply" the tool. Below that, you are given a choice between "preview," "standard," and "best." I tried them all. I cannot see any difference, and based on that I have been just using "standard" on my subsequent tries. Also, Adobe recommends that you apply this tool first, before making any other quality adjustments to the image.

"Reflections" is designed to remove unwanted (like from window glass between you and the subject) reflections

HOW WELL does it work? My experience has been underwhelming, particularly in light of some of the real "wow" tools that have been introduced in the past year or so. In fairness to Adobe, their own blog says that the tool "simplifies" removal of reflectons - it doesn't outright promise to remove them. I have tried the "Reflections" on a handful of images I have in my portfolio that contain unwanted reflections. I have seen what I would call only encouraging results in two cases. The first was this shot of a sign behind glass that I recently took while in the Caribbean. As you can see, the "Reflections" tool does remove some of the reflection caused by glare on the glass surface (though it looks, in this case like some judicious use of "contrast" might achieve a similar result). But certainly not all of them. There are still remnants throughout, and there is still a marked reflection at the bottom center (perhaps as much a function of the brightness of the light falling on the sign than any other thing). While I would definitely say that in this case, applying the tool improves the image some, it is definitely not what I would call a successful reflection "removal."

Befor and after with Adobe Camera Raw's "Reflections" remove tool applied
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

WHAT ABOUT a more difficult image? What about shooting through the glass? Again, my results have been mixed and mostly they simply fail to impress. The image below was made from high up in one of London's icons: "The Shard." It is hard (though possible, e.g., from The London Eye) to duplicate the panoramic views of London from up there, but there is a challenge.They (disingenuously) tout an "open-air" view from the top. It really isn't. There are thick plexi-glass panels between the viewer and the "air" for any outward or downward views (pretty obvious why - but still slightly disappointing). I have found over the years that it is nearly impossible to exclude reflections in shots like these (a polarizer can help but doesn't always work, and often introduces color casts into the glass). I have tried removing reflections on my own with mixed (and mostly unacceptable) results. I have some shots from the London Eye made a few years earlier, which I tried to save, mostly unsuccessfully. I plan to try the "Reflections" application on them in the future.

London (from the Shard) - reflections from the safety glass panels mar the image
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

I WAS really interested in trying out the "Reflections" tool on this image. As you can see from the first version, there are multiple reflections off the Shard's glass safety panels that basically ruin the image (you can see them better if you click into - and enlarge - the image). I brought the raw image into ACR and went to the Remove Panel, where I checked the "Reflections" box under "Remove Distractions," and let ACR do its thing. For this particular image, the result was actually decent. Not perfect, but a start.

London from the Shard - Adobe Camera Raw Reflections Removal Tool
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

REMEMBER, THOUGH that this new tool is mostly AI - based. As I have blogged (and noted on my FB page) in the past, as impressive as the AI tools are, they are far from perfect (though, presumably, they continue to move toward that goal each time somebody uses them). The tool does a decent job with most of the reflections, but it didn't quite get them all. You can see from the circled portion of the photo, that while it tried, Photoshop did not completely "remove" the circled reflections.

London from the Shard - Adobe Reflection Removal with remnants
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

IN ONE pass though, it did a better job than any attempts I have ever made to do it on my own. Using the "remove" tool that is now found in both Photoshop and LightRoom, and a tiny bit of "cloning" with the "Healing Brush," I was able to correct that area in a way that was satisfactory to me. There are many post-processing experts out there that could probably suggest better ways to do this - and do it better than me. They may also see other things that the new ACR tool "missed" that I didn't see.

Street Photo with my reflection in the window
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

UNFORTUNATELY, MY subsequent attempts to use it on other similar images have not fared as well. Other than this image, I have yet to improve the image enough for me to even keep the results. In the image above, the "Trickers" sign was prescient. No matter what I tried, I could not get remove reflections to even recognize that there was a reflection in the image. I even tried a tight crop of just the window, to see if that would help. Nope. After several different attempts, it is clear to me that Adobe some work left to do on this tool. Hence, my comment in the title that it is "not ready for prime time."

Unfortunately, my subsequent attempts to use it on other similar images have not fared as well

ANOTHER THING I noticed was that in the process of doing its "thing," the resulting image was darkened (I suspect that is related to my comment above about contrast adjustment being part of the algorithm). Substantially. My first concern was that when I went to brighten it up again, those reflections would re-appear. Fortunately, they didn't. I played with "Exposure," "Brightness," and "Shadows." None of them brought the reflections back. The image below is my final version, which includes the hand-retouching that I did (after applying the remove reflections tool) and my brightening and lifting shadows in parts of the image. I am pretty happy with the end result.

London (from the Shard)
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

THE UPSHOT here, is that while what I do see with this tool is impressive, there is much room for improvement. It is one of those tools that seems like it is worth trying on images that have unwanted reflections. It may work, or at least it may help. It may provide a foundation for further re-touching using additional tools. I know I will at least try the tool on any shot like this. For now, the tool has future potential and I have little doubt that improvements are on the way.