The Online Photographer

The T.O.P. Befriend-A-Forgotten-Camera Challenge

Here's a modest challenge (for fun) to anyone who wants to play: Find, buy, or borrow a funky old forgotten camera and run a roll of film through it sometime during the summer (deadline, after Labor Day Weekend. Labor Day in the U.S. falls on the first Monday in September. You don't have to be American to participate). Send us a) a picture of the camera and b) a picture you took with it that you think other people might like to see. (Doesn't have to be "good.") We'll post all the entries on a special page.

RULES
1. Anybody can play.
2. Points for using the oldest, funkiest forgotten camera you own or can find. (Funky or old digital cameras are permissible if that's what you want to do.)
3. Shoot as much or as little with your forgotten camera as you want to.
4. If you don't have a film scanner, get prints made locally and scan a print. If you don't have a flatbed scanner, make a copy picture with your digital camera.
5. Limit the potatochopping.*
6. Send 2 pictures: a picture of the old camera and a picture you took with the camera.
7. Submit 800-pixel-wide JPEGs at any time between now and the first Tuesday in September by clicking on the "Email Me" link in the right-hand column. Use "Forgotten Camera" as the subject line.
8. One entry per person. Well, unless you have a second entry you really, really think is cool.

___________________________

Mike

*Photoshopping

Featured Commentby Justin Ribeiro: "My fiancée and I have been in the befriend-a-forgotten-camera (and enlarger and old film...) game the last few years; it's simply amazing what you'll find at yard and estate sales.

"Generally if it works, we'll buy. We shoot a quick test roll, and if all is good we take it out for a spin. 

"The thing we love about them is the social aspect. We'll invite friends out with us who usually aren't into photography or are attached to cell phone cameras, and hand them an Ansco Rediflex or Imperial Debonair (two of our point-and-shoot favorites). After a quick how-to, off we go. Haven't had anything but rave reviews; something about winding the lever and the little shutter click people just love.

"For those so inclined, we let them keep'em. It's not like we spent a fortune on most of them, and anyone having fun with an old camera is okay by us. We'll even develop the film for them (most like to try themselves, something we didn't expect).

"The spirit of the challenge sounds great and I hope everyone has fun! I know a great number of people (including myself) will have a great time!"

Journey Through the Past

If you're looking for an archive to browse on a lazy summer afternoon, you might like Mango Falls—evidently the selects from a much larger collection of old and abandoned Kodachrome slides put together by a cheerful guy named Joe and his daughter Willow. All I can say is that Joe and Willow have good taste.

I suspect Mango Falls might have the most resonance for viewers of a certain age—say, middle age, now defined by the DSM as 45–65. And there's some indication on the site that they've had trouble with their server capacity from time to time when they get linked to, so if you can't access the site, try again another time.

As you might imagine, I enjoyed Joe and Willow's tour of the '50s, '60s, and '70s. Put on some of your favorite period music and go for a stroll.

______________________

Mike  (Thanks to Fred Mueller and his daughter)

Featured Comment by John Frendreiss: "Thank you! Looking at images like these taps into some primal craving in my brain. My synapses are awash with nostalgic endorphins. I could look at them for days."

T.O.P.'s 2,000th Post

As we near our 2,000th post (this is no. 1,950, and counting), I'd be interested to know if you have any particular favorites. Anything come to mind that you liked, or found memorable?

___________________

Mike

P.S. That's 602 here, and 1,348 on the old Blogger site. Note that although the old site is never updated any more, it still draws about 1,500 visitors a day who find the content through search engines.

Olympus E-3: Final Chin-strokin'

An escaped rowboat in The Lake at Central Park. This scene clipped the raw histogram on both ends, and I offer its long tone range (much adjusted in Photoshop) for whatever lessons it may reveal.

-
By Eamon Hickey

So what's my final verdict on the E-3? I don't really have one, as such. I'm not going to give a drawn-out analysis of its pros and cons against all possible competitors—I haven't used those competitors enough to give an informed point-by-point comparison. So instead, I'll touch on some of what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of the E-3 and the E-system in general. (This will not be an exhaustive list.)

On the strength side, the E-3 offers good performance across what has become the usual range of SLR technologies, including some, like autofocus and wireless flash, where Olympus had previously lagged significantly behind the leaders. Importantly, it also collects together cool and useful new technologies like in-camera image stabilization and a decent (for today) implementation of Live View. Finally, in combination with the somewhat unusual E-system lens lineup, you can put together a package that combines high capability and quality with moderate size and weight. Trying to figure out a way to visually illustrate that, I started digging around in my closet and found my old Lowepro Orion AW bag, a large (but not huge) belt pack I've had for ten years or so. I started stuffing my loaner gear into it, and, lo and behold, all the good stuff fit, even including a back-up body.

Nestled in my belt pack are: two DSLR bodies (E-3 and E-510), excellent moderately fast-aperture lenses covering 24-400mm (35mm-e), two wireless TTL flashes (with cool mini-stands), and all the sundries (extra batteries, chargers, flash bouncers, and cards of the compactflash, gray, and business variety), all image-stabilized and the E-3 and lenses are shootable in rain, dust, snow, locust plagues, etc.

-
One of the many lives I have imagined but will never actually lead is that of free-roaming foreign correspondent (others include luxury yacht captain and proprietor of a beachside gelato stand in Rio de Janeiro). I could cover an awful lot of different kinds of stories with the E-system gear that Orion fanny pack will hold, and the prospect of dragging it from Budapest to Bangkok to Bogotá does not fill me with dread. And therein lies what the marketing folks like to call a "value proposition." If you want good performing stuff, with a very high degree of versatility and durability, in a comparatively portable setup, the E-3 and the E-system in general are worth very serious consideration.

Now all that said, there are shortcomings and caveats. I already mentioned the modest high ISO issue, which could certainly be determinative for anyone who shoots a lot of low-light pictures. If you buy into the E-system you better like zoom lenses; Olympus has skimped on primes, so far, much to my displeasure. There is no really correct portrait lens in the E-system, a stupid and frustrating omission. How hard is it to make a roughly 80mm-e ƒ/1.4 or ƒ/2 prime of moderate size and cost, with nice bokeh? C'mon. I think even the cavemen had them. Olympus's software for converting their raw files is also at least a generation behind equivalent software from Canon and Nikon. (I should say here, however, that Olympus Studio 2.0 is usable in more than just emergencies, albeit only barely so, on my MacBook Pro. Studio 1.x was intolerable, so the current version is a significant step up, for which Olympus should be congratulated. And, oy, Pentax's software—let's not even mention it. So Olympus is not the worst.)

There are also some frustrations associated with using a system with such small market share. (These are shared, to one degree or another, by Sony, Pentax, Panasonic, and Samsung DSLR users, among others.) Third-party manufacturers of lenses, flashes, flash accessories, and other gadgets just don't have much economic incentive to support any camera brand with 5–6% market share (or less). So there are relatively few third-party lenses for the E-system (and what there is, all from Sigma, was designed for 35mm and APS-C formats, so the focal lengths don't make a lot of sense for the Four-Thirds format). Another example: the recently introduced Radio Poppers, a potentially very cool wireless flash accessory, are not officially certified for Olympus. They may turn out to work, but if not, it seems doubtful that Radio Popper will spend the R&D resources necessary to build a version for Olympus. My experience with raw files from my Olympus and Pentax DSLRs compared to those from Canon and Nikon DSLRs makes me suspect that third-party software developers, overall, also spend a lot less time optimizing their products for the companies with small market shares. This makes the shortcomings of Olympus's own software all the more painful.

Speaking purely subjectively (meaning the comments that follow reflect my prejudices, not the capabilities of the E-3), since I will not soon be embarking for Budapest, and I don't really need the versatility embodied in the above photograph, I don't have any plans to buy an E-3. For my current life, my idea of a good DSLR system might comprise something like (sticking with mid-level DSLRs) the responsiveness and user interface of the Nikon D80, with the size and feature set of the Olympus E-520 (but with an articulating LCD), and using the several wonderful compact prime lenses in the Pentax lineup.

But if some benevolent wizard appears and offers me that foreign correspondent gig, the kit you see in that picture above would be seriously in the running. (I have yet to decide what camera gear I'll need if the beachside gelato thing comes through.)

And on another topic entirely, if you're looking for a place to park your paddlewheeler, I know where you can get a good deal.

______________________

Eamon

______________________

Olympus E-3 at Amazon U.S.
Olympus E-3 at B&H Photo

______________________

Olympus E-3 Review Part 1 (preface)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 2 (first impressions)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 3 (lenses and autofocus)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 4 (live view)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 5 (miscellanea)
Olympus E-3 Review Part 6 (conclusion)

They Didn't Know They Were Famous

Robert Frank, Indianapolis, from The Americans

51 years later, Indy couple ID'd as faces in iconic photo

By Christopher Lloyd, The Indianapolis Star

Robert Frank, meet Mack and T Smiley.

The mystery couple in the photograph taken in Indianapolis 51 years ago by Frank for his seminal book, The Americans, have been identified as Matthew and Telester Smiley, known to all their friends as Mack and T.

Several relatives and acquaintances recognized them in the photo published in Sunday's Indianapolis Star and brought it to the attention of Telester Smiley, now 76.

On Tuesday, she pored over pictures of her husband at her Northwestside home, showing him with his beloved Harley-Davidson motorcycle...

READ ON at indystar.com

_________________________

Mike  (Thanks to Eric Schoch and Nicholas Von Staden)

Beloved bike: Telester Smiley's photo shows her husband, Mack, with his motorcycle and riding gear. "He was crazy about that motorcycle," she said of her husband, who died in 1996 at age 69. They were married 47 years. (Photo credit: Frank Espich, Indianapolis Star)

Star Power

Brad Elterman, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Ron Galella, Los Angeles Music Center, 1976

I should clarify one thing...about the previous post, Tom Duffy asked, "Why are you wasting your time with this? The Paparazzi have as much to do with photography as house painters do with artists...."

Naturally, my concern isn't really with celebrities. But I think the post about the surfers confronting the photographers of Matthew McConaughey [I know how to spell it now, dammit, and I'm going to use my knowledge...] indicates a problem. The excesses of the Paparazzi are clearly creating a perception problem with the public for photographers in general. Watching videos of "celebrities" on television being beset by hyper-aggressive hordes of photographers (itself an embodiment of the culture it pretends to decry, pace Alexander Vesey) does indeed instill a sense of outrage, even in me. Apparently at least a few of our readers even feel that mob violence is justified as a response. That's a potential problem for everybody who wants to be out and about with a camera.

I think it's pretty clear that my "modest proposal" below is untenable, both for Constitutional as well as practical reasons. And it violates fairness norms, which I'm almost never in favor of doing (laws should apply equally to everybody).

I actually have little interest in actors, except as actors. My feeling is that the "star" concept often disfigures movies, because "name" stars who can't act are cast in roles that require acting ability ("never see a movie in which Kevin Costner speaks with an accent" is one good basic rule of thumb), or because it makes it harder to see the character past the personality. (I once wrote a send-up of Jack Nicholson called "Actors Needed." The supposed premise was that there clearly weren't enough actors in America because such a small number of them had to be re-used again and again. I went on and on with things like, "So, was he an astronaut before or after he worked as a border guard? And how does a guy with a lobotomy get to be commander of the American garrison at Guantanamo Bay, anyway?" As Craig Ferguson says, made meself laugh, and that's half the battle.)

(While I'm digressing, I also think it's a shame that talk shows have been so badly eviscerated by actors. The same big corporations that own the movie studios now own the networks, and they want to leverage their assets for promotional tie-ins, so they force talk show hosts to interview actors who are promoting movies. The actors, for their part, are contractually bound to promote the films they've acted in by appearing on the talk shows. The net result for talk show viewers is that they have to watch an endless succession of people who don't want to be there being interviewed by people who aren't really interested in interviewing them. If I ever had a talk show, it would have one hard-and-fast rule: no matter what, no actors.)

Still, all of us have an interest in public perception of photographers as a whole, just as we have an interest in government persecution of photographers for alleged-but-unprovable links to "terrorism." Many of us have experienced situations in which the camera is a carte blanche, opening doors and commanding respect. Public sentiment might be turning. You might not care about Paps or celebs at all, but the entrenched public attitudes towards the Paparazzi—including latent anger and outrage—does have a net negative effect on all of us, on our status, and on our work.

____________________

Mike

P.S. David Bennett's comment made my day! Very funny.

Featured Comment by Roger S: "Here's my idea for celebs annoyed by 'paps' following them to the club, bar, home, etc. Wear battery-powered slave flashes that go off whenever they get flashed. With a couple of those pointing back at the cameras, the photographers won't get any shots—just brilliant flashes of light into their lenses."

ADDENDUM: It seems we may have annoyed several actual Paparazzi with these last couple of posts. So let me just say that we're not talking about any particular photographers, and doubtless many celebrity photographers are good photographers, decent people, and responsible members of society who never engage in the worst practices of their compatriots. May I be allowed to return to my peaceful, quiet, humdrum life now? —MJ

A Modest Proposal: The Celebmark

Re the Paparazzi, I've been mulling over an idea that I'd like to share with you. What if a law were passed that established a new sort of trademark—a trademark on the photographic image of a famous face, prohibiting usage for commercial or promotional purposes without permission?

I'm talking about an anti-Paparazzi trademark.

I'd propose the following:

• Any very famous person who could demonstrate to a suitable ruling body that he or she were regularly being harassed by photographers could apply for the "celebmark" for some reasonable term, say two years.
• Under the terms, the subject (let's call her a "she," for simplicity, although it could be a man, woman, or child) should be made to state her main claim to fame: television actress, basketball player, whatever. She could legally be photographed freely while actually engaged in that specified activity, by anyone, whether for commercial use or not, unless constrained by some other rule or law.
  
• She could also give her legal consent for any images of herself to be used for commercial or publicity purposes, for pay or not, just as she can now.
• Photography of the person not for commercial or promotional usage would still be tolerated just as it is under the law today. So ordinary people could still take snapshots of their favorite stars, and photographers not deliberately including the subject in their photographs could still exhibit and publish their pictures (i.e., just because Jack Nicholson is in the crowd at a Laker's game doesn't mean that he could sue because he incidentally appeared in the background of a photograph of the players).
• Certain events could be declared "celebmark free," such as the Academy Awards. The restriction could also be suspended in cases when the subject is engaged in some activity that might be later determined by the court to be legitimately newsworthy—a definition which would, however, not be extended simply to incidents of bad behavior or inebriation.
• However, when the subject came across her likeness being used for commercial gain by organizations that didn't have her permission to do so, she could sue for this celebrity-trademark violation. A reasonable vigilance would need to be observed, just as it is for trademarks now.
• Individuals going about their daily lives, in the company of their families (especially with minors present) and/or shown in embarrassing or awkward situations or for purposes of public ridicule would be most stringently protected.

Note that the "celebmark" wouldn't prevent the pictures from being taken—just from being used for financial gain based on the identity and notoriety of the subject without the subject's consent.

Not that there might not be some unintended consequences. For instance, aspiring and minor stars might clamor for the protection in order to prove that they are bigger stars than they actually are. Real publicity hounds (and perhaps the odd exhibitionist!) might be exposed as wanting their pictures taken, by virtue of the fact that they don't apply for the protection even though they could.

To prevent holders of celebmarks from enforcing them unreasonably, half of any financial damages awarded could go to the courts (for imposing on their already crowded schedules) and the other half to charity.

What do you think? Would something like that work? And if it's illegal or un-Constitutional here, would it work where it was legal?

_____________________

Mike

© 2008 Michael C. Johnston—all rights reserved

Featured Comment by David Bennett: "Dear Sir, I must apologise for the delay in replying, but this office has been overwhelmed with applications for CMARK status. However, on reviewing your application for the CMARK, I must advise that I require further details of the status of your celebrity because I have been unable to find the crowd scene in the May 12th 2002 episode of 'Friends' to which you refer. Further, while I have been able to locate the Odessa Steps scene in Sergei Eisenstein's 1925 film 'Battlehship Potemkin', my colleagues and I have found it impossible to see clearly into the runaway baby carriage as it careers down the steps so I am unable to accept this as one of your status claims under section B of the application. We have had more success with 'Adult Adventures' and after viewing the indoor crowd scene a number of times we have been able to verify your identity from the parts that were visible. As you are aware, however, this office requires three proofs of celebrity status to support an application and we look forward therefore to receiving a further two. Please be advised that your application has been put on hold meanwhile. Yours etc."

Featured Comment by Steven Scherbinski: "While it's an interesting idea, I think it would run afoul of the First Amendment and several Supreme Court rulings. I also do not want yet another reason to get hassled for taking photographs. A law like this would invariably be expanded. Plus who's to say that those "celebrities" don't want the exposure no matter how much they protest. Being a star nowadays is all about keeping your name in front of the public. As they say, even bad publicity is good."

Featured Comment by Bill Mitchell: "More pointless litigation. The courts are already tied in knots with trivial stuff."

Featured Comment by Robert Roaldi: "Rather than inventing elaborate ways of dealing with the insanity, maybe we should try to eliminiate it. How about this. All celebrities should be forced for some period of time to walk around in public, undisguised, grocering shopping, buying deodorant, etc., until they become commonplace. And then no one will notice anymore and the insanity will stop. Seriously, this celebrity-worship idolatry is toxic. What's wrong with us? What is this a symptom of? Let's cure that disease."

Featured Comment by Mark Probst (a sentiment first mentioned in a longer comment by Lasse): "I don't think we need a law whose only purpose is to protect a handful of rich people."

Featured Comment by Alan Klughammer: "I do like the way you are thinking. Having fewer tabloids screaming for attention at the grocery checkout would be a good thing, unfortunately, as you point out, there are a lot of grey areas. I once heard a quote that I wish more people could live by: 'Don't bug anyone, and don't be easily bugged.' "

Zeiss Introduces 18mm in ZF, ZK Line

Carl Zeiss has announced another introduction to its proliferating line of manual-focus premium prime lenses for Nikon and Pentax mount. The 18mm ƒ/3.5 Distagon T* covers 35mm and "full-frame" or FX DSLRs, focuses to a third of meter with floating elements for close range correction, weighs 470 grams and takes 82mm filters. The angle of view on a reduced-sensor DSLR is roughly 28mm-e.

The ZF (F-mount) and ZK (K-mount) lines comprise this lens plus a 25/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 50/2 macro, and 100/2 macro.

______________________

Mike  (Thanks to Oren)

Surfers Attack Photographer Over Matthew McConaughey

Malibu, Calif.—A paparazzo trying to photograph Matthew McConaughey at the beach told police he was attacked by a mob of surfers who threw his camera in the ocean.

The 29-year-old photojournalist told sheriff's deputies that a large group of surfers near Paradise Cove in Malibu approached him and other paparazzi about 2 p.m. Saturday and demanded the group stop taking pictures and filming.

"There was apparently a fight, and the photographer gave a statement that he received injuries," Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said Sunday. Detectives are investigating...

READ ON at huffingtonpost.com

_______________________

Mike

(Editorial Postscript: Yr. humbl. bottlewasher and chief factotum has to admit that he has no idea who Matthew McConaughey is. I'm assuming he's just a generic celebrity and not in some unique sense deserving of special protection from surfers...in other words I could be misinterpreting this story. Correct me if I'm missing something.

Whoever he might be, I now know how to spell his surprisingly difficult-to-spell name.)

ADDENDUM: Here's the TMZ video. (It's kind of a waste of time, actually. You are warned.) I'm no fan of the Paps, but surfers might be one of the few groups that harbor even bigger a-holes than the Paps are. I recommend a short film called "The Swell Life" (2001) for more on that. I don't think it's online, but you can buy it on iTunes. It shows the actuality behind the standard "surfing life" fantasy that's been a part of American lore since the '50s. Fascinating stuff.

Featured Comment by Alexander Vesey: "I find the multi-layered aspects of this 'feeding frenzy' humorously (but also sadly) warped. The paps first feed on the 'stars' (both high and low), and then videographers feed  on the paps' shooting-stars/friends angered response sequence. In the third dimension, the ever voracious constantly consumes them both. (For the star adoring public, its a case of hating the messenger [the pap], but loving the message [intimate shots of the celebs].)

"Just for a added twist, upon occasion a talking head on the those shows that exacerbate the feeding will issue a mea culpa  after a particularly grim event, and then its back to business exploiting all involved.

"All we need now is a self-reflexive 'reality show.' Perhaps 'Be a Pap for a Day' with goofy contestants who try to chase down celebs with equipment they do not understand. That way the public can feed on itself. Or we could have 'The Pap Follies'—the ironic iconization of those who claim to iconoclasts.

"Ahhh...I think I will go back to my books, and flower/landscape shots."

Featured Comment by Dick Bolton: "Observing, gathering information about, recording and reporting of the goings-on in public places—including public beaches—is a fundamental right in the USA. It is not a right that belongs exclusively to 'the press,' but to each and every one of us. It is not a right that is conditioned on who happens to be in that public place at that moment and wishes to not be recorded as part of the scene or wishes to not have the scene recorded at all.

"Any interference by 'official' (government) or private force with that right to observe, record and report is serious business, to be taken seriously as an attack on fundamental freedoms. It should not be applauded or dismissed lightly, cannot be condoned, and must not be tolerated."

Featured Comment by zlatko: "It's quite apparent from the video that the photographers weren't harassing the actor at all. They were at a distance on a big beach. They were photographing surfing, not a private activity. They weren't hiding or doing anything illegal. They weren't interfering with his surfing or his privacy rights. The mob that came to threaten them is clearly in the wrong."

Ricoh GX200

Ricoh has just announced an update of its popular Caplio GX100 model, called the GX200. The new version has the same 5.1–15.3 ƒ/2.5–4.4mm (24–72mm-e) lens. It features 12 megapixels, better noise reduction through the use of a new processing engine, a 2.7-in. 460,000-dot LCD, and enhanced raw buffering.

Press release and pictures

Image samples on photographyblog.com.

_____________________

Mike