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

Freaky Monday

Do you remember my friend Phil Davis? Phil was Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan, a former Army pilot, former hotshot Detroit car photographer, and the inventor of Beyond The Zone System (BTZS). He died of cancer last year, and I wrote a eulogy of him on this site. (You don't need to go to the link to get the point of this post. Just remember his name.)

So anyway, when I heard that George Carlin had died, I went to YouTube to find a few of his old bits to enjoy. The very first one I ran across was this one. (If you want to spend the least amount of time, start at about the one minute mark and listen for about 45 seconds.)

You can imagine how startled I was.

Carlin always did have a strange ability to say things that were in peoples' heads, but that was a strange synchronicity.

I don't think Phil would have approved of George or his views in the slightest. God bless 'em both.

Phil Davis and Mike Johnston by Oren Grad

_______________________

Mike

Olympus E-3: Miscellanea

By Eamon Hickey

I mentioned in my earlier post related to the E-3's autofocus system that Olympus has had to do some rapid catching up on certain areas of SLR technology that emerged in the 1990s when the company was concentrating almost completely on point-and-shoots. Wireless TTL off-camera flash is another of those technologies, and the E-3 marks the debut of Olympus's version of this feature. (The new E-420 and E-520 also support it.) I didn't give the system a complete test, but I've got a few comments.

Olympus's system uses visible light from the E-3's built-in flash to control all of the flashes in your setup, as opposed to infrared signals, which are used in the Nikon and Canon wireless off-camera systems. In all of these systems, there is a line of sight issue: the slave flashes must be able to "see" the master controller (which is normally at camera position) and the control signals, whether infrared or visible, must be detectable against the ambient light in your environment in order for it all to work.

With the E-3's system, you can in theory control any number of off-camera flashes in three separate groups, and you can vary the lighting ratios of each group, just as you can with other similar systems. I found it easy to set up and use; it's a simple and very quick matter to turn a flash on or off, or increase or decrease its light output, all from the camera. I shot in a studio setting, and in that environment the system was not very persnickety about maintaining a clear line of sight. I used both an FL-50R and an FL-36R, and they were often behind umbrellas, or sharply to the side of the camera, and probably outside the permissible coverage angle of the controller (i.e. the built-in flash). Everything still worked well nearly all the time, and I was able to shoot pretty freely without a lot of fiddling and re-positioning.

Three shots of Luda, a photographer friend of mine, and her amazing cat, Bizet. Main light is the FL-50R through an umbrella, and the sequence shows, from left to right, no background flash, a background flash (FL-36R) on the floor set for about "+1" exposure compensation, and finally the background flash set for about "+2" exposure comp. All controlled TTL from the camera.
-

In TTL mode, I got some modest exposure variation from shot-to-shot, but this is not unusual for wireless off-camera flash exposure systems. You can forego TTL exposure control and use the system to manually set the output of your slave flashes, still from camera position, which is how I would use it in real life if I owned an E-3. The convenience of being able to adjust your flashes individually from the camera is actually really nice. For the relatively simple environmental portraits that I sometimes shoot, where I often use two flashes off-camera, I'd be happy to have this capability, and I'm confident it would work well. I did not get a chance to test it outdoors, however, so I can't comment on how it's affected by strong sunlight, or how it would perform in very large rooms and more fluid scenarios like you'd encounter shooting a wedding reception dance floor, for example. One note: on a couple of close-up product test shots (at a distance of about three feet) I did notice that the control signals from the built-in flash were actually contributing a bit to the exposure, which I didn't want. I'd have to gobo the built-in flash for any close-up images I actually cared about.

Luda does a lot of self-portraits with wigs, props, and whatnot and, though I did not set out to make a kind of sex-bomb kitsch shot, it happened anyway. Lighting is the FL-50R and the FL-36R on each side of her, through umbrellas, controlled TTL with negative exposure compensation. The blue background is a gelled Nikon SB-26 on manual output.

-
Switching gears entirely (thus this post's title), I'll briefly outline my prejudices related to image quality—on the E-3 and otherwise. I'm not going to give an exhaustive pixel-level analysis of the E-3's files here. My approach to image quality is to determine what's technically sufficient for me based on my enlargement goals and what I like to shoot and then stop worrying about the files and start worrying about the content of the pictures. In my case that's a practical enlargement limit of 13x19 inches or so (or, possibly, magazine double-truck), and I shoot general subjects with an emphasis on people pictures.

The E-3's files are more than fine for me. In areas such as detail resolution, tonality, dynamic range, artifacting, elasticity (i.e. torturing them in Photoshop), and the like, there's nothing significantly out of the ordinary—in either direction, better or worse—for a 10-megapixel, large-sensor camera in the files I shot with the E-3. If ten megapixels will do what you want to do, the E-3 should work just fine. The one exception that I can see to that is if you need to shoot a lot at high ISO settings. The E-3 is not bad at all at ISO 1600 or even 3200, but if I shot a lot of indoor sports or was working on a documentary project about nightclubbing in the big city, I'd choose a different camera, a few of which are significantly cleaner at high ISO. (Note that the issue with high ISO noise is not that it renders images unusable; it just limits how much they can be enlarged. I don't shoot all that much at ISOs above 800, so if I have to settle for a somewhat smaller print on the few good shots I do make at high ISOs, it's not the end of the world for me.)

Please note that I am not arguing that small nuances of image file quality shouldn't matter to anyone. For some photographers, if Camera A makes files that are 5% better than Camera B, that might be a very legitimate reason to buy Camera A, and I have no quarrel with that. If I were trying to sell 40x60-inch fine art landscape prints, I'd be saving up for a 16 or 20-megapixel camera and minutely scrutinizing every pixel of its output, probably with a Schneider loupe pressed against the glass of my monitor. But my interests are different, and for me it's a matter of sufficient quality, not small degrees of comparative superiority, so you're not going to get that level of granular file analysis in my cockamamie musings on the E-3. Glad we settled that.

Luda lit with the FL-50R at camera right in an umbrella, on "1/16th" power manual output set from the camera, and a touch of fill from the FL-36R at "1/80th" manual output. Very convenient to try multiple test shots at different power levels without having to leave my sitting position on the floor.

______________________

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)

Sunday Open Mike: Cars, Cars, Cars

Think gas prices are changing fast? The car market is changing even faster. This week's OT editorial.

________________________

Mike

Lazy? Does Not Compute!

By Ctein

I have never understood what this "lazy photographer" thing is all about. When I was young and too tech-obsessed, Bob Nadler stated it to me very well: "No one cares how hard you worked."

He was absolutely right. If someone doesn't like your photograph, they're not going to like it after they find out how hard you worked to make it. If they already like it, they're not going to like it better hearing of your pain.

The point of photography is making photographs. If you're making photographs that you think are good (or simply cool) you are succeeding. Finding a harder way to do it does not make it better. That's about macho prowess and chest thumping, not about photography.

Some folks suggest that it's really about mastering "basic" photographic technique. The only purpose basic technique serves is to let you make the photographs you want to make. (Well, that's an exaggeration; it also serves to help you pass tests or to get scouting merit badges.) If you are making those photographs, you have sufficient technique. Conversely, if someone is making photographs they are entirely happy with and they don't use some particular technique you consider "basic" well then maybe, just maybe it isn't really basic,  merely useful on occasion?

Lots of photographic techniques that were once considered basic have become obsolete. Coating one's own emulsions, for example. There are still people who do it, but does anyone out there think a photographer is "lazy" if they don't? How about evaluating light levels and exposure without a light meter (let alone auto-exposure). Again, that used to be a basic skill. Many of us old-time photojournalists mastered it because in the bad old days, pre-autoexpsoure, you didn't have the leisure of making light readings.  I could not have made my Apollo 17 launch photographs without that skill, and lacking that skill is why most folks' photographs of that launch were crap. So, are you lazy if you don't know how to do that? Maybe  you were then, but not now.

This was the first night launch of the Saturn V, and the brightness of the scene changed very rapidly when the engines ignited and as the rocket lifted off the pad. There weren't any sophisticated professional auto-exposure cameras and there was no time to take meter readings and dial them in. NASA's guess as to what the exposure should be was off by several stops. If you couldn't gauge exposure by eye (or have a bank of cameras running different exposures) you were in trouble.

I make dye transfer prints which are, beyond argument, better looking than any chromogenic print ever made and 100 times more work. All those photographers out there who never bothered to learn dye transfer printing (which would have surely improved their prints)—that made them lazy?

For that matter, what about all those folks who use slide film? They don't have to master precision printing or how to instruct other people to do precision printing for them, in itself a substantial skill set. All they have to do is get an exposure right. Big deal. That sounds pretty lazy to me; they learn one trick and then eliminate 80% of the craft and let the chemistry do all the heavy lifting. Tisk tisk—clearly these are inferior photographers producing inferior work. So they know how to use a light meter (crutch!); they aren't having to do any of the really hard stuff like I am, the lazy sods!

Pretty silly, eh?

________________________

Ctein

We Rock Amazon Canada

9 a.m. Saturday, Central Time:

___________________

Mike (Thanks to Aaron)

Great Photo Books You Can Buy New—Part III: New Books

By Mike Johnston

In case you haven't been following along, recently we've tried to provide an extensive selection of book recommendations. The recommendations are for books that are available now, because so many photo books go in and out of print quickly and many "classic" recommendations aren't available—that's the raison d'etre of these lists. (I recently revisited my Amazon Listmania! list called "Readings for Practicing Photographers," compiled a number of years ago, and was amazed to see how many of them have gone out of print. All but one or two of them were available new when I compiled the list.)

Even in the time it took to put this list together, two books I wanted to include have gone out of print! It's ridiculous. It's like trying to fill a bucket of water with holes in the bottom. I'm afraid that if I delay the list any longer, some of the books listed below will be gone.

I realize we might have run you up to the limit of your book budget already. But assuming you haven't run out of patience or money, here's my own June 2008 list of a few "sure bet" new photo books that you can currently buy for retail price or lower.

1. Andreas Gursky (Snoech Verlag; Ram Distribution, 2007). The darling of international art dealers and art museums alike, German photographer Andreas Gursky has indisputably been one of the leading art photographers in the world over the past fifteen years or so. As such, each one of his many books have become instant collectibles. They tend to go out of print quickly and, just as quickly, rise in price.

This title is a retrospective of Gursky's 21st-century work. It's a big, slender volume, with excellent reproductions (except, curiously, in the case of Gursky's most famous picture of this decade, "99 Cent," which is not well reproduced. Don't ask me. Maybe it's just too small in the book—his originals are very large). The book's covers are laminated, with no dust jacket, and there are five cover photographs: the one I have is pictured below right. (All the cover pictures are of people in a Korean stadium holding up cards to form pictures or designs from the other side of the stadium. You can't pick which one you prefer except in a hypothetical bookstore that would stock all five.)

Published in early 2007, this particular Gursky appears to be in the last stages of availability. Even though only 20% of the edition was slated for the U.S., the book is now unavailable in most parts of the world (and already selling for up to $150 on the used market in some places), but for the time being it's still available in the U.S. for $75. That makes for a golden (and decidedly temporary) opportunity for U.S. buyers or any others who don't mind dealing with the U.S. Amazon.

I confess I don't care for Gursky's work all that much myself—it's not the sort of thing that really floats my boat. Despite that slight personal reservation, this is a good sampler of his later efforts. If you want a chance at it, don't hesitate—no matter what the current situation really is, it won't be available for long. And I can virtually guarantee that it will be a good investment that will rise in value.

2. Larry Towell, The World From My Front Porch. It might seem perverse on the face of things to introduce a mid-career retrospective from a globetrotting Magnum photojournalist with pictures he made largely at home on his Ontario farm. But Larry Towell, who might be described as a poet and folk musician before the term photographer even turns up (his business card reportedly reads, simply, "Human Being"), isn't really a photojournalist in the classic sense. Rather, he's a type more true to the roots of Magnum: a world citizen who poses as a photojournalist as a cover for work that is in essence artistic and humanitarian.

I've always felt a certain slight distance from Towell's work...his radical compositions are dynamic and graphic, and there seems a certain insistence in that, to my eye—you might say his pictures "try too hard" if that weren't pejorative; "insistence" is better. I've always valued a certain offhandedness in pictures, a relaxed quality, a sense that a great picture could have been a snapshot. (Just my taste.) Towell (Eugene Richards too) always seems to be trying to bat me over the head with just how virtuosic he is, just how jazzily the subject elements can be loaded into the frame, like a pianist who is always showing off with too many trills, or a musician afraid of silence.

But this is Towell's best book, I think. It includes a great many wonderful pictures, including some of his most famous ones. Just don't expect the book as a whole to be too coherent an argument. (Do I choose my words carefully enough? More bluntly, it's the only way I know of to get the front porch work that I particularly enjoy. And then you get a "greatest hits" from his photojournalism thrown in.) Often beautiful. Certainly virtuosic. I'm coming to love many of these.

3. Luigi Ghirri, It's Beautiful Here, Isn't It... (Aperture, 2008) The very first book ever published in the U.S. by the Italian "cultural landscape" photographer Luigi Ghirri (1943–1992). Ghirri became famous in the early '70s for his project "∞," which consisted of photographs of the sky made on 365 consecutive days. Although he died young, his sense of humor and his faith in plain objects and ambiguous juxtapositions was hugely influential. Much of the stuff you'll see today in art museums and on sites like Conscientious and Flak Photo bear some trace (direct or indirect) of Ghirri. There have been literally dozens of books of his work published in Europe, but he remains almost unknown in America. I don't own this one yet, but I think it's a safe bet and a good opportunity. (I hope you won't beat me up too thoroughly for recommending a book I don't own yet; I plead poverty.)

4. Peter and David Turnley, McClellan Street (Indiana University Press, 2007). My next three picks are books we've written about before on TOP. The Turney twins' latest book was their earliest project, the one that was their ticket out of Fort Wayne, Indiana, and into the world of high-powered international photojournalism. For much of the project—made within the stretch of just a few blocks of an impoverished local street—the two brothers shared just one camera, with just one lens. A humane and vibrant record, elegiac of an era just past, respectful toward its subjects, and bursting with visual talent and the exuberance of youth. Reviewed previously on this site.

5. This next one was reviewed by Geoff Wittig: Helen Levitt (Powerhouse, 2008). I found it fascinating that Joe McNally, in the Talks @Google video we linked to a couple of weeks ago, said something like "human gesture trumps everything." His point was that the light can be bad, the composition can be bad, but if you manage to catch a genuine human gesture you'll still have something. Helen Levitt likes good light and has a nice sense of composition too, but she is possibly the greatest photographer of the authentic human gesture—one of the greatest, surely—and I believe every personal library should contain at least one volume of her work. For pleasure, of course, not for duty.

6. And of course I've written several times about Looking East (Phaidon, 2006), the lovely large-scale sampler of the work of Steve McCurry. Apart from being a nice bargain, I just think this is a special book, that any photographer might return to again and again for pure enjoyment of its photographic riches.

I think that the best way to learn photography is not to read instruction manuals and look for advice online, or seek out critiques, because all those methods are essentially negative. They'll tell you what not to do. A better way of learning is to pay close attention to great work. Look at it often, enjoy it, make decisions about it (decide what you like best, what you don't like so much). Let your eyes rest on it; drink it in. Let your thoughts go where the images lead...it will sink in, infect your seeing, maybe even without an effort. It's a more organic way of learning—more difficult day-to-day, I suppose, but more positive, more organic in the long run. It allows you to follow positive role models and grow into your own concerns, your own eye.

Anyway I love the reproductions in this book; they're so rich, so deep. If you have an interest in portraiture you should own it.

Fred Herzog, Crossing Main, 1984

7. ...And as a bookend for It's Beautiful Here, Isn't It… an even more pure colorist, a guy I think can legitimately be described as a master of color: Fred Herzog. The book is Fred Herzog: Vancouver Photographs (Douglas & McIntyre, 2007) (the link is to Amazon Canada, the only source for the book). One of our readers, Jeff MacMillan of U.S. News & World Report, turned me on to Herzog. He's a guy who must have practiced a form of photography similar to what Henry Wessel has done, just taking walks around where he lives and photographing whatever interests him; if you do this concertedly enough, sure enough, you build up a coherent record of a place and time. In Herzog's case it's Vancouver, B.C., in the later half of the 20th century. These are quiet but beautiful pictures.

It's difficult to reconstruct this now, but Herzog worked in a time when being a color photographer (he worked in Kodachrome) made him a maverick, even an outsider, and limited his opportunities. He sacrificed a lot for color. And he's a true colorist, I think. Notice how often his pictures are constructed out of a very particular color palette, and how color accents work in his pictures, balancing and echoing each other. In his work you really have to pay attention to the color, not just the scenes or the action or the way he's composed formal elements.

As far as I know you can only get this book from Amazon Canada; Photo Eye doesn't even list it. In case you're not Canadian, it's a little more difficult ordering a book from Amazon in another country, but in this case the effort is well worth the trouble. This will be a long-term treasure in a good photo book collection; I prize my copy.

If you don't like it, keep it in good condition, enjoy it for a couple of years, and then sell it for a nice profit.

_________________________

Mike

(Note: Part I of this series covered currently available reissues; Part II, although not marked as such, was the reprint of Martin Parr's Best Photo Books of 2007—most, although not all, of which are still obtainable new. Still to come are two more lists, one by a guest author and one by Geoff Wittig, who has written a number of book reviews for us already. —MJ)

Featured Comment by Michael: "The recommendation of Herzog is great. I thought it was a Hopper, until I read your description."

Featured Comment by Tom V: "The Fred Herzog pictures shown sent chills down my spine! Did anyone else see Edward Hopper in those two? Down to the hunch of the shoulders in the man crossing the street?"

Featured Comment by Alastair Bird: "...and Fred is one of the nicest, most gentle fellows you'll ever meet. I ran into him once, several years ago at the lab and we had a wonderful chat about his work and about how much I loved his use of colour. The show last year at the Vancouver Art Gallery was stellar—amazing to see so much colour from so long ago."

Featured Comment by Ken Ohrn: "Hi: When the Vancouver Art Gallery put on the Fred Herzog show, I went five times. The first time was to just scope it out. It was knockout city. The second time, I decided to concentrate on composition and lighting. The third time was to try and get a sense of something strange—how far away from his subjects was Herzog, and what angle of view did he use (I know, weird). The fourth time was colour. And the fifth time was with my pool-playing buddy Paul, to try and find the emotion in the photos.

"Each time, I came out with my world-view changed. I saw photos everywhere.

"I obviously bought the book, but as usual, even those excellent reproductions don't hold a candle to the huge, lovingly-made prints in the VAG's show. Not to be a shill or anything (I have no affiliation, I'm just an old goof with a camera), some of his prints may still be available from the Equinox Gallery in Vancouver."

Long Days and Sleepless Nights

Regarding the "Recommended Cameras" list below, don't forget that we're in the calm before a storm. Three cameras, all expected in the Fall, stand a chance of creating a new category (the < pro FF DSLR, previously the exclusive province of the Canon 5D). They might shake up the higher end of the camera market considerably, even affecting the lower end of the present medium-format digital back market.

Expected are the full-frame, high-pixel-count Sony A900; at least one new high-end, full-frame camera from Nikon (although whether it will be a smaller, "detuned" D3—the road version of the pro race car—or a counterpart to the Sony, possibly even using the same sensor—or both—I don't know); and a replacement from Canon for the 5D.

There have been various leaks, rumors, and "pre-announcements," most visibly from Sony, which anticipates a September release for the A900. I should state that I don't have any inside information—well, I don't have any real information at all, "inside" or not—and I'm not under any non-disclosure constraint. I don't know anything I'm withholding. But I'm going to venture to guess that this is a stressful, high-tension stretch of time for the relevant teams at the three manufacturers. They're all jumping on more or less the same market (full-frame, pro-am) at the same time. They're probably well aware that their new cameras are going to be competing with each other. There is probably great interest at each company in what the other companies are doing, when they're going to release, and what each other's pricing will be. Looming as a warning to complacency is what happened to the Canon 1D Mark III when it came out, when early problems created headaches and bad publicity for the company—nobody wants a launch before the product is truly ready, I'm sure! Long days and sleepless nights indeed.

I imagine it's safe to say that all three cameras will be shipping prior to next Christmas—that is, if they can be, given the constraints of what it takes to produce them. 2008 has been fun so far. It will only get better.

(A favor—please don't post links to rumors in the comments.)

________________________

Mike

UPDATE: Nikonrumors.com has posted specs for an upcoming Nikon D700 and Chasseur d'Images in France has seconded the rumors. A July 1 intro date is being bandied about. The specs show a smaller, lighter camera with the D3's FX (full-frame), 12.1-MP sensor—pretty much the "FX-L" I wrote about here.

A digital F100? Looking like it. And if so, bravo.  (Thanks to Andre)

Featured Comment by Geoff Wittig: "Popular Photography reports this month that manufacturers expect to sell 9 million DSLRs in 2008. This will exceed the peak year of 35mm film SLR sales (8 million) in 1984. A large majority of those DSLRs will be entry level cameras, but there's a 'halo effect' for a high-end full frame camera; enthusiasts are more willing to buy into a system that has a top quality flagship camera than one that places a ceiling on their future aspirations. (Mind you, we're talking about perception here. Seems like anything much beyond 16 megapixels for now exceeds practical utility.) Nikon and Canon already have street cred., but a circa 25 megapixel Sony will make the former Minolta line a lot more appealing to first-timers. Just my 2 cents."

Who, What, When, Where. Maybe Even How

In response to the item below about Kulwant Roy, Eric Mac wrote: "The sad part of the story is how many crates of negatives/prints were tossed out by someone who had no clue of the history in them. I have purchased many boxes of slides for the cases and carousals only to find a life story in them. As someone who has a precious few pictures of my family's past, I can only hope that in the future a family member will treasure the photos I take today."

As someone who has pawed through huge numbers of old photographs and forgotten archives, I have just one piece of advice on that account: notate them.

I was in a local "antiques" cavern just recently (an ancient old warehouse that seems to rise right out of the river—wonder how they fared in the floods?) and the proprietor told me he had a collection of 12,000 old photographs. As we talked, he mentioned one old woman who brought in a bunch of old photographs. When he asked her why she was getting rid of them, she commented, "I'm sure I'm related to some of 'em—I just don't know which ones."

To be of interest to historians or descendants alike, pictures need to be identified. So, wherever and however possible, attach some information to the picture. I know I'm like a broken record about this, but it's a point that bears reinforcing.

_____________________

Mike

Kulwant Roy: Indian History in a Yellow Crate of Negatives

Nehru with his grandson, Rajiv Gandhi, and his daughter, Indira Gandhi, in an undated photo from the Kulwant Roy Collection. (Aditya Arya Archives, Kulwant Roy Collection)

By Jeremy Kahn, The International Herald Tribune

New Delhi—The yellow crates haunted Aditya Arya. A successful advertising photographer whose clients have ranged from India's luxury Oberoi Hotel chain to Russia's Bolshoi Ballet, Arya inherited the crates from a family friend, an old photojournalist named Kulwant Roy, in 1984. And for more than two decades, Arya had hauled the increasingly dusty trunks around a succession of studios, stashing them in out of the way corners and closets. He had a vague sense of what the crates contained—bundles of prints and negatives—and at least once a year his mother would nag him about them. But he was always too busy with his own assignments to spend time pouring over someone else's fading pictures.

Then, in December, Arya finally opened the crates. What he discovered is a remarkable photographic record of modern Indian history, including thousands of images from the last days of the Raj through the 1960s, many of which have never been published....

READ ON at iht.com

________________________

Mike (Thanks to Judy Kiel)

Random Excellence: Benjamin Kanarek

From the series "Paul & Joe," by Benjamin Kanarek, which he says he shot with "one of my three Pentax K20D's." A 12-picture spread and the cover image will be featured in the next issue of Spring magazine (Paris) and will be featured at the next International Festival of Fashion Photography in Cannes, France. Ben is a Canadian who lives in Paris.

_____________________

Mike (Thanks to Benjamin)