The Online Photographer

Playing Wilson Hicks

By Scott Kirkpatrick

Have you ever wondered what it would have been like to be Wilson Hicks, the picture editor of LIFE Magazine in its heyday? Or at least wanted to see the whole story, not just the 10–20 pictures that went into famous photo essays like Eugene Smith's "Country Doctor," "Spanish Village," or "Nurse Midwife" stories? Google's image search facility offers that possibility. As you know, they recently announced that the entire LIFE photo archive is being digitized and made available online. About 20% of it is claimed to be there already. Pictures can be downloaded for noncommercial, personal use, or purchased as photographic prints. I haven't bought one, so I can't comment on the quality or dimensions of purchases, which are supplied by LIFE.

Here's how it works. On the Google front page in, e.g. Firefox, select "image" and then enter a search term, adding the phrase source:life at the end of the string. For example, "Country Doctor source:life" brings up 119 pictures, more than 100 of which were shot for the story, and printed by LIFE's darkroom team. The 23 pictures that ran in the photo essay are all there, plus establishing shots, shots of other people in his practice, other patients and incidents. A favorite outtake of mine is this one:

which displays Dr. Ceriani making a house call in the pouring rain. Another is:

for which the caption is "Country Doctor Ernest Ceriani and wife Bernetha printing out bills for his medical services, as they do once every three months (at her insistence) at their dining room table." Much has changed since then.

In the files for "Spanish Village" I found only the pictures which ran in LIFE, apparently since Smith printed those himself. Maude Callen, nurse midwife, is well represented by what looks like a mixture of Smith (more dramatically printed) and LIFE output. Again there seem to be more shots than could have run in the story.  I don't remember seeing this one before:

...in which Maude Callen is arranging for a TB patient to be admitted to a state sanitorium.

I haven't found evidence of the "Drama beneath a City Window" essay yet. It's hard to know what search string to use, and perhaps it hasn't been digitized yet, or the Smith estate, since Smith was no longer under contract to LIFE at that time, may hold the photos. Trying various search strings involving windows, I did turn up this charming shot by Leonard McCombe:

Google offers you the chance to assign a star rating to each picture, link to your favorites, and add comments. I didn't feel the need to do that, but others may. Flikr away, and you will be pointing us all to more of the gold in this mine.

______________________

Scott

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Jim Richardson: "As someone who has done a bit of documentary photography over the years I learned significant parts of the craft at Smith's feet. Whether it was the printing or storytelling, there were great lessons to be learned.

"Many years ago I had the chance to do just what you are suggesting, in my case by taking a look at a couple of story files at the Center for Creative Photography. It was very, very instructive. This access on Google brings that experience to the public forum.

"When you can see more of the images you become aware of a profoundly workmanlike talent, someone who really worked a situation and then worked through the process of telling the story with the images at hand. Viewers should remember that what they can see on Google are just the ones that got printed. Smith had his failed pictures amid the contact sheets, too. And he wasn't always sure which of the images were the masterpieces. (That was surprising to me.)

"On the technical side, as I look at the images I am struck again by his lighting technique. Obviously he was doing a lot of interior lighting, and doing it very well. You can see it in the picture of the TB patient you posted. So, did he have a couple of assistants holding flash units and changing flashbulbs madly between shots? Some of it looks like bare bulb done very well, matching some of the available light (like light from dangling light bulbs) and keeping detail in outside scenes visible through the windows.

"His printing is pretty obvious. If I see flat shadows where somebody in the darkroom tried (poorly) to reveal facial detail in dark areas, I can probably figure this was not Smith doing the printing.

"I only met Smith once, when we were both at the University of Missouri where he was receiving the first World Understanding award. The occasion of our conversation was less austere. We were in some student's basement apartment late that night, both of us drunk beyond intelligence or caution. Leaning over a pinball machine (nice bit of furniture for a student apartment, I guess) I ask him about the famous story of spending days pouring his soul into a single print. 'Well,' he said, 'if it doesn't make a good print at least it makes a good story.'

"This guy knew what he was doing, every step of the way. I owe him."

[Jim is a National Geographic photographer with more than 20 stories in that magazine to his credit. See his website here. —MJ]

Featured Comment by Kenneth Jarecke: "Jim's post reminds me of a lesson I learned from...Jim himself (which I'm sure he wouldn't remember).

"Back in 1981, maybe '82. I was stringing for the Associated Press in Omaha. Jim was a staff photographer for the Omaha World Herald at the time. I had just shot people setting up for a farm equipment expo and ran the film through the Kodak Versamat.

"The Versamat was a wonderful machine, or so I thought at the time. All you did was feed your exposed Tri-X into one side, and in about the time it took to finish a styrofoam bowl of Chili-Mac from the vending machine you had dry, toasty negatives coming hot out of the other side.

"Needless to say, I didn't really know what a negative was supposed to look like back in those days. Exposing for the shadows? Why would I when I could get an extra two stops by just exposing for the highlights!

"I was looking at my negatives and wondering (aloud) why I only had clear film base where there should have been a face under the John Deere hat, and also why the grain structure on my negatives looked like a piece of sandpaper.

"Jim, a guy who I only knew as a big-time photographer and a guy who still got his hands wet when he processed film (sucker), turned to me and said, stay away from that machine, it's no good.

"That got me thinking. I don't think I ever used the Versamat again.

"Jim moved on to the Denver Post, I believe only a few weeks later. I never talked to him again until years later.

"John Gaps replaced him at the paper. I was watching John print one day and he was using potassium ferricyanide to work on some prints. I asked him what it was. He said it was what W. Eugene Smith used to bring out the highlights in his prints.

"I said, 'Who?'

"Yeah, that got me thinking too!"

[Ken is an accomplished photojournalist who took the best-known image of the Gulf War. He has won many awards, including the Leica Medal of Excellence. His website is here. —MJ]

Around the Web on a Thursday

The List Universe has a post featuring ten famous "last pictures." It includes the last known photographs of Hitler, Lincoln, and Princess Diana, among others. The picture above was the last photograph taken by a vacationing Canadian couple named John and Jackie Knill, of the onrushing leading wave of the 2004 tsunami that ended their lives presumably only moments later. Amazingly, their pictures were eventually found and returned to their family.

-
LIFE online: The big photography news on the internet yesterday is that LIFE magazine, in cooperation with Getty Images and Google, has begun putting its giant archive online. Unfortunately, the scans are not particularly good, but something is better than nothing. Eventually, we'll have more about the ins and outs of using the archive, but in the meantime, here's the basic link.

-
Ctein on the Radio: TOP's resident techspert holds forth on all manner of topics photographic, on an Inside Analog Photo Radio interview. Listen up!

-
Megaperls relaunched as 'Japan Exposures': Our friend Dirk Rösler's Megaperls Webshop has been expanded and relaunched as Japan Exposures. It features a more general home page and a new specialized bookshop featuring Japanese photography books of all sorts but especially signed copies of books by emerging photographers. Of course, the core of the site is still the shop, which makes it possible for photographers around the world to easily procure Japan-only photo products. Bookmark it!

-
...Especially if your name is "Pinky." More and more women are taking up digital photography with SLRs. For those who have a certain amount of, um, a certain style, Acme Made has just the thing—"The Bowler," a camera bag styled like a bowling-ball bag. It holds a DSLR and zoom lens, has a handy double zipper, comes in red, navy, and orange, and allegedly doubles as a purse....

-
Numerology serendipity: Curiously, we had almost exactly the same number of page views here on the main page of T.O.P. on Wednesday as on Tuesday—19,722 on Tuesday and 19,707 yesterday, only 15 apart. What is this, some kind of Minnesotan Senate race? I have no idea what it means, but it must have cosmic mystical significance of some sort. Either that or it's a coincidence, and we all know there is no such thing as coincidence.

-
Camera clocks: This one is bound to make camera collectors cringe, if only because of the likelihood that sooner or later, she'll desecrate a rare treasure by happenstance, but we thought we'd mention it anyway: J. Peterman is offering clocks made from old cameras by Minnesota artist Debra Dresler. Just the thing for your desk at the office, to let your camera-geek flag fly.

-

A very specialized peripheral: Any idea what this is? No, we're not actually going to make you guess. It's a crank-operated manual Hard Drive Destroyer —just the thing to have handy "if the power goes out...if the plane must land in enemy territory...if the embassy is under siege...." And if you just can't remember where you put that dang, um, hammer.

-
Best tech book: 301 Inkjet Tips and Techniques: An Essential Printing Resource for Photographers by Andrew Darlow was chosen as the winner in the "Photography: Instructional/How-To" category of The National Best Books 2008 Awards, sponsored by USA Book News.

-
Book covers cover photos: And speaking of books, here's a really nifty exhibit. "Covering Photography: Imitation, Influence and Coincidence" is a show at the Boston Public Library. It's an interesting and different idea: it shows how the design of various book covers over the years have borrowed (or stolen) themes, memes, tropes and figures from a variety of famous photographs. Unlike many shows, you can see and enjoy this one online, on a special blog set up by the show's organizers. Well worth a visit when you get a chance.

And finally....

-

The Photoshop interface rendered in real-world objects. Just the sort of thing you'd expect to find on the web: totally pointless...and yet, strangely cool.

-

Have a good Thursday!

__________________________

Mike  (Thanks to Stan Banos, Bill McFadden, and everyone who sent us the tip about the LIFE site)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by John Mason: "Google's LIFE photo archive might need some work, but it's great to have the photos easily accessible. The scans aren't the best, perhaps, but as Carl says, they aren't bad. The images look just about as good as they would have been in the magazine.

"The search function is primitive, but effective. Enter, for instance 'Smith midwife,' and you'll get three pages of photos, both published and unpublished, from Eugene Smith's famous 1951 photo-essay on Maude Callen, an African-American midwife from South Carolina. (Is it possible that the unpublished photos haven't seen the light of day since they were made? In any case, it's wonderful to have them.)

"My only real complaint is that I'd like to be able to see all of the published photos in the context in which they were meant to be seen—that is, in the pages of the magazine. Beside scanning negs and/or prints, Google/Getty ought to be scanning the entire page on which every photo appeared. It's important to be able to see how the photos related to each other and to the words which accompanied them."

The Sony A900 and the Nikon D3

Nikon D3, ISO 1250. Those are not lens artifacts up by the streetlight; those are windshield artifacts.

I have to say, seldom in my life as a writer about photography has an event occurred with the kind of serendipitous timing as Monday's announcement of DxO's new DxOmark.com.

To understand the reason why, I have to go back to a peculiar condition of reviewing. Very often, experienced writers of reviews can decide for themselves what's going on with a certain product far more easily than they can prove it to the satisfaction of others. For example: I've tested so many lenses in my life, and I know the visual telltales of the various optical aberrations and properties so thoroughly, that sometimes I feel I can get a pretty good handle on how a lens behaves just by looking at other peoples' pictures taken with it. There are even some things that you can tell about a lens by looking at pictures online. (Saying this, I'm aware of how perilously close I am to opening a can of worms.*) I know most of the websites where pictures are searchable by lens type, and I've spent happy but ultimately pointless hours sifting through pictures trying to detect what I want to know about lenses that I don't own and have never used.

But of course, I would never dream of making hard-and-fast statements as if they were fact from such suspect research, and still less of publishing such conclusions in a formal review.

And the ultimate "I'd never do that" is in cases where my own conclusions are diametrically opposed to conventional wisdom. If what you think is contrary to what the crowd believes, you'd better be prepared for arguments. Your proof has to be all that much more convincing, your procedures better armored against dispute.

But I'm also an old bull**. I've gotten lazy. It's hard to do all the work that has to go in to a formal review, and I've done it too many times for it to be exciting any more.

On the other hand, I do have my conclusions. I just don't always feel like I can talk about them.

This week I have a Nikon D3 in house. There are a lot of ways in which the D3 is superior to the A900: it's clearly quieter, and the mirror blackout is much shorter, and the camera as a whole is faster, crisper, more responsive (although the A900 is by no means bad). It's also bigger and heavier, and I don't like the user interface as much. Of course, those are things you get used to.

But the kicker is that, frankly, I think the A900's image quality beats the D3's.

Conventional wisdom holds that the D3 is superb at high ISOs, and it does do better than the Sony. But I like the Sony's high-ISO quality better than the Nikon's. Its sensor noise looks more like what I want sensor noise to look like: like grain that's more integral to the picture, more coherent. Does that mean it just looks more like film grain, and film grain is what I'm used to? Possibly.

Nikon's noise under duress: ISO 3200, 400% [after you click on it]. This wouldn't survive into virtually any print, but still.

So can I prove it to you? Well, no, I can't. I don't have the two cameras side-by-side to compare. I know what I think, but that doesn't necessarily convince you. I understand.

Scorn the dark
Incidentally, I think I'm approaching a personal "Theory of Überkameras." I was out photographing with the D3 the other night in what most folks would call "the dark." The Nikon was fazed by this usually daunting circumstance not one little bit. Remember how I was saying the other day that the A900 can see a lot better into the distance than I can? Well, the D3 can see in the dark a lot better than I can. So what's my theory? I'm not 100% sure of this yet, so don't hold me to it, but what I've been mulling over is that maybe I don't really need a camera that sees better than I do. I think maybe if it sees as well as I do, that's enough.

Approximately what the scene looked like to me—in the woods, after sunset

What the scene looked like to the D3

That's just an illustration, but I think you get the idea. (The D3 can actually see in the dark better than that.)

So what does any of this have to do with DxOmark.com? Just this: DxOmark gives the Nikon D3 a score of 2290 for "Low-Light ISO" and ranks it second of the 51 cameras it's tested so far, and the Sony A900 gets a score of 1431 and ranks fifth. That's wildly divergent from the conventional wisdom based on a couple of internet testing sites that judge the A900 based on how it will never be used. But my own subjective impression of the "low-light ISO" performance of the two cameras (shooting RAW and converting in ACR) is much more in line with DxOmark's ratings than it is with all those people shouting about how the A900 is unusable at ISO 400. Given how the conventional wisdom is already stacked against the Sony, and how strident the online arguments have been, would I have dared say this out loud and in public if DxOmark hadn't come along to back me up? Hmmm...maybe. But I would have had to be all mild and mealy-mouthed about it, because I know I didn't run strict enough tests with either camera to prove my impressions to anybody.

Anybody else, that is. I know what I thought.

It's still just my opinion, and needn't mean anything to anybody.

Shoot-to-carry
Another aspect of cameras that might be calcifying into a theory is the "shoot-to-carry ratio." When you're shooting, what percentage of the time do you have the camera in your hands, actively shooting with it, and what percentage of the time are you just carrying the camera around? I think pros generally have a high shoot-to-carry ratio. When they're working, they have the camera in their hands 80% or 90% of the time. (Is that fair to say?) I, on the other hand, have a low shoot-to-carry ratio. I probably spend 80 to 90% of the time carrying the camera, and only 10 to 20% actually shooting with it.

I suspect that people with a high shoot-to-carry ratio will like the D3. It's a great camera to shoot with. It's very fast, reasonably quiet (I can't hear the 24–70mm ƒ/2.8 focus, and the quick, instantaneous flutter of the mirror and shutter is addictive), and it has a really formidable flexibility in terms of operational parameters. If you can't do something you want to do with the D3, it's probably because you haven't learned how yet, not because the camera won't do it.

But when you're just carrying it, the D3 is...well, ridiculous. The D3/24–70mm is an order of magnitude bigger than my old Konica-Minolta 7D and 28–75mm ƒ/2.8, which is already too big for me. Note that this is just a preference, and yours might differ from mine. (The camera with the optimum shoot-to-carry ratio IMO, the perfect balance, is an M6 with a 35mm Summicron.) But when I'm carrying the D3 from place to place, I feel no more comfortable than I would with, say, a 10" circular saw dangling from my neck.

The A900 and Minolta 35mm ƒ/2 combo is still big, but lots better.

Sony A900

Nikon D3. As you can see, the Sony shows more colors, more sunlight, and more leaves. SA***

Early conclusion
These are two of the best cameras money can buy at this moment in history, and each one is enormously impressive. Photography buffs who fantasize that either one has significant deficiencies are akin to upper-middle-class Americans obsessing that they just aren't rich enough: that is to say, they lack perspective. And there's no reason to "decide" between one and the other as to which is "best"—except, of course, that people shopping for a camera wouldn't buy both; as a practical matter, they'd choose. But either one is a tremendously flexible tool for picture-making.

Either one sees better than I do. Albeit with somewhat different emphases.

Still, the two cameras take a markedly different approach to image quality. The D3 is biased toward getting the picture no matter what; the A900 is more biased toward getting the best picture.

More or less the same area at more or less the same size: Nikon (top) at 200%, Sony (bottom) at 100%. Again, not a terribly well-done comparison, I admit, but I think you can sense the basis for my impression that the superior resolution of the Sony just does translate into better potential image quality ultimately.

I qualify the things I say too much, I know, but there are a lot of caveats you have to make when talking about digital image quality. Note that all of these distinctions I'm making are really just leanings, or tendencies. To say the D3 is faster doesn't mean the A900 isn't fast—it is—and to say the IQ of the D3 is a bit less in some cases than the A900's doesn't mean it isn't still superb; it is, it is. Either of these cameras presupposes a good deal of expertise on the part of its prospective owners, and, ideally, would demand significant amounts of time and effort on the part of the owner learning to get the most out of the camera and its files. Either one would lend itself to a long process of learning and optimization, and I think either one would, in the end, prove deeply rewarding.

If I were a pro, especially shooting mainly for reproduction, I'd get the D3. It's faster, more competent, better suited to getting the job done. The image quality is superb, and the sensor a wonder, especially the way it sees in the dark.

Still, I have to admit that I'm tremendously impressed by the image quality potential of the Sony A900. I feel like I did little more in the short week I had it in my grasp than begin to scratch the surface of what it can do. I've only made a few prints, but to say they're wonderful is an understatement. I'm left with the sense (again, a holdover from my own particular personal history with cameras, which includes lots of familiarity with MF cameras) that it's a bit more like a medium-format film camera—a bit slower, more deliberate, maybe a bit more finicky; but it's got that same "deep" enlargeability, that same feel of resolution to excess, the same pleasure in finding the"grain" deep down in the image morphology. A similar subtlety and richness.

If I were an art photographer, especially shooting for fine printmaking, I'd get the A900. Its image quality is superlative, yet it's still reasonably portable, fun and comfortable to shoot with, and easy to use.

Of course I am an art photographer, not a pro. If some munificent wizard appeared out of the mists holding out these two cameras one in each hand and asked me to take the one I wanted, I'd pick the A900. That's just me. Your mileage might vary. In any case I'm not buying either one any time soon, so rest assured none of the foregoing has anything to do with personal purchase decisions or any of the emotional baggage and status-claiming behavior that sometimes goes along with that.

I'll probably have more to say about the D3 anon, since I'm still shooting with it. Then, next up, the D700.

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to John Camp)

*Doubtless, on some forum somewhere, some idiot will write, "Mike Johnston says he knows everything about how a lens performs by looking at online samples! What horseshit!" or words to that effect. It's inevitable. For the record, there are just a few things I can figure out from online samples...sometimes, if the samples show what I need them to.

**You might remember a certain dirty joke about a young bull and an old bull on a hillside catching sight of a herd of cows. In case you don't, no, I'm not going to tell it, so don't ask.

***Remember "satire alert"?

Send this post to a friend

Just Posted: One New Essay

So to go AWOL on you there for the last 24 hours or so, but I've had one of those days—too much going on. I just got really busy. I'm sure you know how that goes.

One new essay:

The Digital Camera Clock on Photo.net. Some of you might recognize that this essay grew out of a discussion on T.O.P. from a couple of weeks back.

______________________

Mike

[Full] Feedus Interruptus

Not more than once a month, I interrupt the proceedings to beseech thee to help support T.O.P. by using our Amazon and B&H links. Anything you buy at those sites when you link from T.O.P. sends a small percentage winging our way. It won't cost you anything extra; the purchase price is the same for you either way. Our share comes out of Amazon's and B&H's profits, not your hide.

Obviously we get the most benefit when you splurge on something expensive, but it also helps the site when you buy something twee and tiny (on Amazon, this is), because the number of orders we refer ups our percentage. Big purchases, tiny purchases, everything in between...all good. It all helps.

So, if you read this site a lot, I'm sorry, but you kinda have to buy a book or a CD or something else you might want every month, don't you? It's not your fault. You're only doing your selfless duty, and you can say so if your spouse questions the purchase. Look innocent and shrug your shoulders when you say it, too. It might help. (You might even try the same excuse to buy a new camera or lens, although I can't promise it will work.)

Please don't forget us at Christmas, either....

Here's the direct Amazon link for U.S. readers (which can be bookmarked):

http://www.amazon.com/?tag=theonlinephot-20

Here's the B&H link (this can't be bookmarked, though—use the ad in the left-hand column):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=2144&KBID=2882

Other links (to Amazon in the U.K. and Germany, for instance) can be found here. You can also go to the Affiliate links at the bottom of the right-hand column on any page on the site.

And if you're not in a buying mood, don't worry about it. You're always welcome here whether you help us out or not.

Okay, that's it, consider thyself beseeched...

And, thanks.

-                           —T.O.P.'s majordomo and M.C.

The Canon G10: 'I Was Wrong'

ISO 400. Very light processing, and no noise reduction, applied to the original raw file.

By Ken Tanaka

Christopher Hsee et al. may have demonstrated that specifications can be powerful camera selection influences. But it's also possible, albeit less likely, for higher specs to negatively prejudice selection. To some degree that’s what prompted my thumbs-down reaction to Edward Taylor’s excellent October 15 first impressions of the new Canon Powershot G10. I had become somewhat prejudiced by the G10’s higher pixel density on the same 1/1.7" sensor and was not immediately impressed by the G10's list of enhancements over the G9 [which Ken reviewed for us —Ed].

Since that time, however, I've spent much more time actually shooting with the G10 and working with its raw files. Consequently my opinion of the camera has diametrically changed and, in fact, I am now an enthusiastic G10 owner.

I'll not take the space to repeat Edward’s earlier report. I would merely ditto nearly all of his observations. But it's worth noting the key factors that changed my own vote:

Image Quality: Despite Canon cramming more pixels on that tiny CCD (which Canon claims is all-new) the G10's image quality is actually markedly better than the G9's. Raw images are noticeably sharper right out of the camera. Highlights seem less prone to blowing out. Colors are more lively. Noise is well sublimated, more so than the G9. I can only conclude that the new DIGIC 4 processor is largely responsible for these advancements.

Operation: The G10 is certainly no slower than the G9. Its shot-to-shot cycle time (my personal bugaboo) may even be just a bit zippier. Moving the exposure compensation control from a screen-based control to a knurled mechanical dial was actually an excellent design change. I've already begun to wonder how I ever lived without it. 

Size, Build and Feel: Yes, the G10 is slightly bulkier than the G9. But, as Edward noted, the difference is not great enough to force anyone into a different carrying method. The G10's build, like the G9, is very robust and more similar to a Leica M than to a point-and-shoot. Canon's addition of a better right-hand grip (which will put the third-party G grips out of business) makes for a much more secure handling feel. I must also agree with Michael Reichmann’s remark that the G10 feels more like a finished and refined product than its predecessor.

So while Canon's Powershot G10 may not be the ultimate imaginable single-lens camera it's certainly doing its part to close in on that goal. And, contrary to my October remarks, in the final analysis I did find the G10's incremental improvements over the G9 to be worth the investment. The G10 is now my main carry-around camera.

____________________

Ken

ADDENDUM: For those interested in seeing a few more G10 samples, I used the G10 for all of these images except the aerials (Canon 1Ds Mark III) and the Hutchinson Field set (Leica M8). I realize that Web images reveal little about a camera. But I can tell you that the image files rival those from much better cameras.

DxOmark.com

[PRESS RELEASE]

Introducing www.dxomark.com, the first digital camera benchmark based on RAW image quality

Created by leading image science company DxO Labs, this free online resource delivers in-depth, objective RAW-based image quality data to enable fair analysis and comparison of digital cameras

San Diego, California, USA, and Paris, France—Nov. 17th, 2008—At the Image Sensor 2008 conference in San Diego, DxO Labs today unveils www.dxomark.com, a new website delivering key objective metrics of sensor performance for a variety of cameras measured directly on the RAW image. Available as a free online resource, dxomark.com makes it possible for the first time to assess the intrinsic quality of a camera before the impact of any RAW conversion.

“There are many valuable resources reviewing the image quality of digital cameras, but none of them consider the actual RAW signal straight from the camera sensor,” explains Nicolas Touchard, Vice President of Marketing, DxO Labs Image Quality Evaluation business. “Demanding photographers who shoot in RAW should only care about the genuine quality of the RAW image, yet until now they have had to rely on measures based on converted RAW images, obviously biased by the processing applied to them, whether embedded or performed offline with a software RAW converter. Furthermore, as RAW converters evolve and improve, the latent potential of RAW images can only be gauged by analyzing the RAW images themselves, projecting the potential quality achievable with the ultimate RAW converter. This is why we believe that our approach will dramatically change the way photographers evaluate digital cameras.”

dxomark.com provides in-depth measurements of all the relevant characteristics of a sensor: actual ISO sensitivity (which generally differs from the value reported by the camera), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), dynamic range, tonal range, color depth and sensitivity, metamerism, etc. dxomark.com already covers 50 popular cameras, including Digital Single-Lens Reflex (DSLRs) and high-end bridge cameras offering RAW image format. The site will be updated on a regular basis with new cameras....

READ ON

_____________________

Mike

Getting to the Books

By John Camp

My wife died a year and a half ago, of metastasized breast cancer. There was deep and continuing grief—I’m still sort of a sad guy—but there were also daily, practical things that had to be done after her death.

She was an immunologist, with a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota, while I was a writer (we both had a lifelong fascination with nature, which is where our interests crossed.) She had a substantial working office in our home, while I worked out of a condo in downtown St. Paul.

Recently, I’ve been trying to consolidate my life—to get out of the condo, which I no longer need, because Susan’s office is there as a work space, right downstairs from my bedroom.

Which is where we get to the books.

Consolidations
Between us, we had literally thousands of books—well, a couple or three thousand, anyway. I never really counted. There were probably a thousand in my downtown office, and another couple of thousand in the house. Many of hers, the technical books, I had no use for: I could literally not understand a single page in them, except perhaps the author acknowledgments. It seemed foolish to keep them as memorabilia, when others might actually make some good use of them. So they went first: her colleagues took some, and others went to Goodwill.

Our joint books, mostly on such things as nature and gardening, I kept.

My books, on writing and on the arts—almost all on painting and photography—I’ve been trying to consolidate in my house. In doing that, I encountered a conceptual puzzle that I’ve run into before, in other library consolidations (there were several in our lives).

I have about 1,200 books on painting, and about 500 on photography. I tried to count them for this article, but kept losing track of where I was, for reasons I’ll mention below.

The art and photography books fell into two categories: "about," and "how-to." The how-to books went up to a small painting studio I have in an attic, and that was that. (Although I haven’t finished sorting them, so it may not be all that simple.)

The "about" books included guides, encyclopedias, general histories, period histories, style histories (Baroque, Mannerism, etc.), museum guide books (selections of works in a particular museum), art by nation (Russia!) and even by city (Santa Fe), theory, biographies and autobiographies, monographs, and a bewildering assortment of cross-over books: Monet and Modernism  (file under "Monet" or "Modernism"?); Do you put the History of American Art with general histories, or at the beginning of a section on American art? What do I do with a photo book called Sex, which has aluminum covers held together with a spiral spring and is mostly pictures by a photographer I’ve never heard of, of a naked Madonna (the pop star, not the Madonna.) I’m inclined to put it with another book called Madonna Nudes 1979, which was made by another photographer I’ve never heard of…but what would I call the category?

Size discrepancies
This was complicated by the problem of limited space: the biggest books are huge: James Nachtwey's Inferno is fifteen inches high. Avedon's In the American West is fourteen inches high.  On the other hand, Gregory Crewdson's Beneath the Roses is only twelve inches high, but is more than sixteen inches deep. It sticks out of the shelf like a photographic erection.

You see the problem? If you space your library shelves to accommodate all the books by height, enough are very tall that most of your space is wasted, because most of the books are normal-sized—that is, less than a foot high. Get rid of the tall books, and you could add an extra shelf to the wall.

The solution is to have an "over-sized book" shelf like they do in libraries, but then you wind up with most of those categories listed above, in two places—once in the regular sized books, and once in the over-sized.

Solutions
At the moment, I’ve categorized them this way: Painting on one side, photos on the other.

Then for both:

Dictionaries, encyclopedias, general histories, theory, biographies, national art, city art, museum handbooks, periods, themes; a special American section, because I have a lot of books on American painting and photography; and then monographs, alphabetized.

Part of this project—not yet completed—resembles a kind of archaeology. How did I get four books by Annie Leibovitz? I don’t even like Annie Leibovitz. Yet, there they are, and I don’t remember buying a single one of them, and on the shelves at my office they’d never stood side-by-side.

Then there are the catalogs.

In the early '90s, I went to Sothebys, the New York auction house, out of curiosity, and wound up subscribing to their catalogs on photography sales. I'd get a few every year, for several years, and dump them in a pile when I was done looking at them, only to excavate them again during this reorganization. I haven't really decided whether to keep them or not—they may be headed for recycling—but they do provide an interesting snapshot of what photography prices were like as little as fifteen years ago. In the auction for Saturday, April 23, 1994, the David Hockney photo collage "Canal and Road, Kyoto," no. 6 in an edition of 10 (this was an original work of art), was estimated at $6,000 to $9,000. A famous vintage Wynn Bullock photo, entitled "Child in the Forest," was estimated at $2,500–$3,500. A terrific Joseph Sudek vintage still life was estimated at $3,000 to $5,000. There were some high prices: a famous Alfred Stieglitz photo of Georgia O’Keeffe, clutching a robe about her, was estimated at $200,000–$300,000. That might have been the most expensive photo in the catalog. But if you were to try to buy it today, you could probably add at least another zero to those estimates….

Distractions
I've finished shuffling most of these books more-or-less into place, but I have to say, I’m not satisfied. I tried to count the books for this article, but kept failing, because I'd come across books that were obviously misplaced, at least, conceptually, and that would distract me from the running count.

What do I do with The Artist and the Camera, Degas to Picasso, which is a book about how painters use photography? What about The Downtown Book, a photo book on the New York art scene in the '90s? Painting or photography?

As I sit here looking down the shelves, these questions pop up like mushrooms.

Not that it’s unpleasant, at all. Reorganizing a library actually gives you a lot of time to think, and interesting things to think about.

Now, if I could just figure out what to do with the thrice-cursed Madonna books.

_____________________

John

John Camp, 64, of St. Paul, Minnesota, is better known as John Sandford, a best-selling thriller writer—he's written twenty-seven novels, all of which appeared at one time or another on New York Times best-seller lists, several going to number one. He won a Pulitzer Prize in written journalism in 1986, and has a life-long interest in journalistic photography. He is the financial backer and sometime photographer for the Tel Rehov archaeological dig in Israel's Jordan Valley, under the sponsorship of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Google it if you'd like to volunteer.) Last January he embedded with the 2-147th Assault Helicopter Battalion in Iraq, flying into Baghdad and with a medical evac unit, and in September covered the demonstrations at the Republican National Convention. He has two children and a grandson, with another grandchild on the way.

Featured Comment by Matt Mills: "I used to work in the Beaumont and Nancy Newhall Library, at the College of Santa Fe, and we frequently encountered similar problems. There is already a brilliant system, thoroughly worked out: Library of Congress number system. There are a bunch of libraries out there that use it; College of Santa Fe and University of Arizona both have extensive photography and art collections and if they have an entry for a book in their catalog, you can find it online and use their classifications and subject headings. If you're really intrepid, you can catalog all of your books and label them (our system was actually to put labels on blank bookmarks that stuck out of the top of the books). There's free software for libraries, even. I'm too lazy to do it for my own books, but then I only have a few hundred. Maybe I should before they grow into the thousands...."

ADDENDUM:

The "art side" of John Camp's library.

Featured Comment by DSR: "John (and others): I feel your pain. I am up to about 1200 photo books (and about 1,000 others) and have built new bookshelves twice now to house them. The third bookshelf addition is not far in my future.

"When I was growing up, my beloved grandfather collected classical record albums and he owned several thousand. When he would take me record shopping, we would often bring something home only to find he already owned it! We laughed about that each time but I was always secretly dumbfounded how this could happen over and over. It was immaterial, since the record store was always happy to take back anything.  After all, my grandfather was their very best customer. Well, I have become my Grandfather and often purchase books I already own. As often as not, the books I purchase come from Amazon, Powell's, or somewhere else halfway or more across the country. Not so easy to return. So I have a 'special' shelf (soon to be shelves) for duplicates. They do make excellent gifts. And in some cases, inadvertently shrewd investments.

"But I digress....

"The practical solution to your 'erection' problem was already suggested by Jakub. They get piled up on their sides and make good bookends!

"And by the way, I think I have probably read each and every one of the 27 books you have authored. Who knew you collected photo books? Very cool to run into you here."

Comparisons Are Odious

I feel vindicated.

Science has proven what I've been saying for twenty years. Boo-YAH.

In a brief, six-paragraph article that I think I shall treasure always, the Research Digest Blog of the British Psychological Society presents a précis of a 2008 experiment by Christopher K. Hsee, Yang Yang, Yangjie Gu, and Jie Chen called "Specification Seeking: How Product Specifications Influence Consumer Preference," from the Journal of Consumer Research.

You can (and should) read the six paragraphs yourself—and perhaps even the full study (it costs $10), but the upshot of the research is that people will choose better specifications even when it contradicts their own experience of quality. Specifications, they say, "exert a powerful, irrational effect on consumers' decision-making, even overriding the influence of a person's direct experience with a product."

Irrational. I love it.

When Hsee et alia asked test subjects to choose a camera based on the image quality of sample pictures, most chose a camera that made more vivid pictures. But when told that the other camera had more resolution (more megapixels), "many more participants chose the camera with higher resolution."

In other words, we let single-index specification numbers distract us from our actual visual tastes.

I knew it.

The final paragraph is worth quoting in full:

The researchers concluded with some advice for consumers: "First, they should seek experience, not just numbers," Hsee's team said. Secondly, the researchers advised people should avoid direct comparisons between products, remembering that your real-life experience of a product will most likely be in isolation rather than side by side with its rivals.

Not to say I told 'em so, but Yr. Nt. So Hmbl. Svt. the ol' empirical photographer has been saying as much fer years....

(Okay, carry on pixel peeping, and ignore my gloat and glee. I think this is maybe just a personal thing, and maybe not as relevant to others as it is to me.)

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to Jay Smith)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by yischon: "Dr. Hsee has the article for download on his University of Chicago web page."

Low Shutter Speeds and Too Much Coffee

By Robert Roaldi

You know, I've often read pixel-peeping articles on various web sites and the follow-up discussions on their respective forums. After a while, by the second and third pages, when the arguments become too esoteric I just give up. If I tried to, I am sure I could study the subject matter, follow the discussions, and even add something intelligent to the debates. But what I've noticed is that I only read those articles when I'm at work and need a break. When I'm at home on my own time, I never give them a second thought. I choose my camera gear today the same way I did 30 years ago: I buy the most expensive gear I can afford, use it, and ignore the better stuff that's for sale because I am never going to own it.

I have read some forum threads in which the participants discuss in great detail the optimum aperture of some lens/sensor combo and I get the impression that some people only take pictures for which the exposure falls within those parameters. I picture them carrying around depth-of-field charts and resolution charts from the testing that they've done on their equipment and use that info to determine which pictures to take. Do people actually do this?

I often take pictures at less than optimum apertures and shutter speeds. At 1-to-1 on my monitor I can often see the blur that is the result of too low a shutter speed and too much coffee. But I can often fix those pictures by just reducing the magnification and printing them anyway and pretending that I never saw them at 100%. It seems to eliminate the problem.

_______________________

Robert

The Oxford Project

OK Guys and Gals, Oxford Project, CBS Sunday Morning, Tomorrow, 
Sunday, November 16th. Finally

Thanks,

Peter

(Peter Feldstein)

UPDATE: I've never watched "Sunday Morning" before, and it turns out to be a long but pleasant program, hosted by an engaging, avuncular man named Charles, which (remembering Charles Kuralt) seems to be de rigueur for the time slot. Naturally, because it's what I tuned in to see, the segment about the Oxford Project aired dead last—but I enjoyed some of the pieces that preceeded it, especially the ones about the superannuated dancers and the profile of Steve Miller, whose music I have involuntarily listened to to such excess that his very name gives me a sort of shudder. I had to listen to all those old chestnuts yet again in the course of the segment, but, mercifully, in brief snippets, which wasn't too bad. Steve Miller, too, turns out to be engaging and avuncular, as well as refreshingly unpretentious.

I already knew a lot about the Oxford Project, but I learned more about it anyway. They painted Oxford as idyllic, which seems to be in keeping with the reassuring tone of the TV show. I like the fact that the project was originally a way for Peter Feldstein to simply get to know his neighbors. I used to fantasize about living in a small town, until I realized that, in most small towns, you have to be born there to belong. (I now live in a small town near a big city, which is not quite the same thing.) I also liked the fact that Peter had a hard time getting his project started, but eventually had a hard time turning it off. Lots of photographic ambitions are like that, I suspect.

Well worth the time invested, I think. I hope a video shows up online. If it does, and you find out about it, let me know, will you please? I'll post a link.

And thanks to Stan Banos for reminding us of this. —MJ

Diffraction In Perspective

By Ctein

Last column I introduced you to diffraction. This time, I'm going to explain why you shouldn't pay it so much attention.

How do the component blurs in an optical system combine? Usually, the following equation is a good approximation to the total amount of blur you'll get:

TotalBlur^2 = Blur1^2 + Blur2^2 + Blur3^2...

In English, the total blur squared is the sum of the squares of the individual blurs.

Just to make sure you understand this equation, imagine you have a camera with a film and lens resolutions of 100 line pair per millimeter (blur circle of 10 µ). Then the total blur will be 14 µ and the final resolution will be 70 lp/mm.

Up the film resolution to 150 lp/mm, and the final resolution will be about 83 lp/mm. If your film resolves 200 lp/mm, then you're near 90 lp/mm. That's close enough to the resolution limit of the lens that further improvements in film aren't going to produce a visible gain.

Rule of thumb: if your worst blur isn't twice as bad as all the other blurs, then improving any of the blurs will improve the image, although (obviously) improving the weakest link gets you the biggest gain.

With film cameras, you've got five major sources of blur to worry about: film resolution, vibration, focus error, lens aberrations, and diffraction. Until one of them is twice as bad as all the others, improving any of them helps.

Focus error is the biggie that photographers don't think about. Cameras usually have SERIOUS focus errors, if you're trying to work on the scale where diffraction actually matters. The error has a variety of sources, from a mismatch between the distance to the focusing screen/autofocus sensor and the film/sensor plane to the finite step size in the encoders and servomotors in electrically-focusing cameras. It's a bigger problem than you would imagine. In an otherwise-good system, it is often the biggest source of image blur.

Film resolution is easy to characterize; digital sensor resolution is almost impossible! For a start, there are all the reasons mentioned in the article by Ruben et al. Add in several more:

• Even a 2 x 2 pixel array is a bare minimum. Does fitting the Airy disk into a square provide high quality image data? Nope. You're going to see improvements in the quality of the fine detail up to at least a 4x4 pixel array.

• Sensor pixels don't even operate entirely as discrete elements. There is charge leakage (analogous to a halation in photographic film) between adjacent pixels. This degrades sensitivity, sharpness, color fidelity, and noise, above what "theory" would tell you.

• Finally, there is the image processing that produces a viewable image. Some of you may have noticed how peculiar it is that the number of lines of resolution in many digital cameras is about the same horizontally, vertically, and diagonally! That's impossible if you're talking about a physical blur circle. This is a synthesized image. The resolution you get is not a simple mapping of pixel data.

Put it all together and claims that pixels have become too small because of diffraction effects loses all credence. There's too much stuff going on that muddies the picture (literally).

The same test photograph as last time. This figure is at 150% full-size [after you click on it to enlarge it —MJ]. The camera is my Fuji FinePix S100fs. Pixel pitch is around 2.5 µ. Nothing much changes in terms of sharpness all way down to ƒ/5.6. Sure, the pixels are minuscule and diffraction is getting worse, but everything else matters much more. Even at ƒ/8, the impact of diffraction is modest, although the Airy disk is twice the pixel size. It's only going that final aperture from ƒ/8 to ƒ/11 where diffraction truly dominates image clarity.

The only way to figure out if diffraction is important in your photographs is to run some very, very careful tests and understand how to interpret the data. For most of you, honestly, it's a waste of your time comparable to running endless film tests instead of making nice photographs.

_____________________

Ctein

Random Excellence: The Best of Barack

Emmanuel Dunand, U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama disembarks from his campaign plane at Midway airport in Chicago, Illinois, October 19, 2008 (AFP/Getty Images).

-
Few extended events are covered as thoroughly as U.S. Presidential campaigns, as news organizations from all over the world ask photojournalists to come back with unique and expressive photographs from heavily covered, repetitive opportunities. Boston.com has gathered 35 of the best photographs of President-Elect Barack Obama from the campaign of 2008.

The photographers in this set are Jim Young, Chris Carlson, Emmanuel Dunand, Alex Brandon, Stan Honda, Jae C. Hong, Doug Mills, Jason Reed, Yoon S. Byun, Joe Raedle, Jeff Fusco, and Pouya Dianat.

Jae C. Hong, Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (lower right) waves as he arrives at a rally of 100,000 supporters in St. Louis, Mo., Saturday, Oct. 18, 2008 (AP Photo).

______________________

Mike  (Thanks to Adam McA.)

Featured Comment by Bill Bresler: "Nice gallery. I've photographed nearly every presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan. Every time I've done so, I've had a gut feeling about the candidate. History tells me that I need to listen to my gut. I photographed Barack Obama in early September. If my gut reaction is still accurate, this guy is the real deal.

"Here's my favorite from that campaign rally. I couldn't help but notice these pauses, before he would continue speaking.

"I had the same gut reaction to John McCain in 2000, but eight years later, it was gone."

Pixels Are Like Cupcakes. Let Me Explain.

By Russ Juskalian, The New York Times

It happens to all of us: the moment when one finds out that more megapixels and better photographs aren’t always the same thing. To be disabused of the Megapixel Myth—this decade’s analog of the Megahertz Myth—can lead to an existential buyer’s crisis in miniature.

Disbelief, at first, gives way to a sort of embarrassing self-questioning: You mean, 15 megapixels isn’t three times better than 5 megapixels? This year’s model isn’t better than last year’s? I spent all that money upgrading—for nothing?

READ ON at nytimes.com

________________________

Mike  (Thanks to Aaron Dill)

Featured Comment by Robin P: "Well, it read like an advert for dpreview to me but I sent the link to a technophobe friend anyway and he replied 'Very interesting and easy for a novice like me to understand.'

"All grist to the mill in the struggle to make technology easier for the man in the street to understand and deter the manufacturers from persuading us to buy what we don't really need."

Featured Comment by Mike Jones: "The article brings one additional factor into the equation, but is little more enlightening than the pixel counting scenario. We are still judging digital photography within the digital realm, simply because it is digital. Pixels, sensor size, pixel density, ISO etc. When did one ever judge a photograph by such criteria? If so where would 35mm been in comparison to large format? Colour rendering, sharpness, gamut, contrast, bokeh are all factors too, but not so easily quantified. Especially when related to the final image."

Sam Abell: The Life of a Photograph

Sam Abell's fine, generous, and personal new book The Life of a Photograph has been available for a couple of weeks now. It's a book about process: he shows other frames taken "around" some of his favorite pictures; pairs of picture taken over time; sequences; even failures. Along the way he gives the reader a genuine glimpse inside his sensibility, and visual, not theoretical, indications of what it is that makes his pictures his. The effect is of a gentle, pleasant guided tour of what it's like behind one famous photographer's eyes.

There's not much text, and what there is is elliptical and personal. Much of the information here is visual as opposed to verbal, which could leave more literal, less visual readers feeling shortchanged. The Life of a Photograph requires contemplation. You'll have to purposely slow down the frantic and hasty intake of information that many of us are encouraged to indulge in by modern technological tools and the pace of life today; this book is more of a meditation. Taken on its own terms it has plenty of depth, but it's poetic, condensed, direct.

Ironically it's also very easy—superficial readers could get a lot out of it in one quick pass, too.

In any event it's certainly an enjoyable experience, and I think an insightful and rewarding one. I've been through it (slowly) three times now, and have enjoyed it more each time. It's this week's "recommended by M.J."

_____________________

Mike

P.S. There's a nice interview with Sam about the book on Doug Plummer's blog. (Thanks to Mike C. for the tip.)

The Epic Red Epic

Convergence from the other direction: Check out the infinitely-configurable Red Epic DSMC (digital stills and motion camera), as the name implies a digital motion picture camera capable of shooting high-quality stills. Most of the money pictures are on page three of the linked thread. For one thing, it's the camera many have been asking for, on which you can replace the sensor only while keeping the rest of the camera intact. And speaking of sensors, check out that sensor option page: you can choose any sensor size you like, up to the "Mysterium Monstro," a 186x56mm digital "6x17"! Zowie. For once, a hyperbolic product name seems just right.

___________________

Mike (Thanks to Iñaki)

ADDENDUM: See Michael Reichmann's succinct explanation of the Red line and its implications at The Luminous Landscape.

Featured Comment by Vikrant: "Here's a link to a wonderful piece by Wired on RED and Jim Jannard."

Apropos of nothing

This has nothing to do with anything, but it's hilarious.

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to the Monkeysquirrel, not a squirrel monkey)

Thom Hogan's 2009 Predictions

Thom Hogan has just published his always entertaining Predictions for 2009. If you're not an enthusiast of reading about, and speculating about, the photo industry, the article will quickly make your head swim, but if your interests lean in that direction it's very interesting and thought-provoking.

I do think it's rather unfair of Thom to predict various specific companies' demise, though, as such rumors can be hurtful, especially in this volatile climate. But then, that's his business, and none of mine.

Recommended. It's a longish and dense article, and ought to be perused and not browsed, so reserve a little quality time for reading.

____________________

Mike

Featured Comment by Philip Storry: "It may be brand loyalty, so I disclaim that I'm an Olympus weenie first up. I find it hard to take seriously the predictions of someone who thinks Olympus is, to quote, 'a camera only company.' (From the article: 'What I think we're witnessing is the beginning of the end of the camera-only companies with the possible exception of Nikon and Olympus, both of whom are too dependent upon cameras to give in.')

"I just checked Olympus' half-year financial results [WARNING: PDF download]. In the half year to September 30th, Olympus had an income of 140,287 million Yen from digital cameras and related areas.

"They also had an income of 206,450 million Yen from their Medical division (endoscopes etc.), 61,594 million Yen from 'Life Science' (microscopes, blood analyzers), 92,997 million Yen from 'Information & Communication' (I'm guessing that's the little dictaphones they make?) and 34,462 million Yen from 'Other' (?).

"That's a total of 395,503 million Yen from non-Camera activities.

"And a total revenue, worldwide, of 535,790 million Yen. Of which 26% (rounding down) was digital cameras.

"Basically, Olympus are—like everyone—experiencing a halt to growth. Those financial results show that the camera division is experiencing more problems than others, as we'd expect in this market. But because the bulk of their products are sold in healthcare—a more stable market—the company is better positioned than many other camera manufacturers. They could afford to put cameras 'on hold' if they wanted to, and just come back to them later when things improve. Or they could let the rest of the company prop up the camera division. Fairly easily, too, if I read their accounts correctly.

"All of this isn't to say that Thom doesn't have some interesting points about Four Thirds, the relationship Olympus has with Panasonic, and the issue of Sanyo being bought. But the idea that Olympus are cameras only is ridiculous, and a modicum of research shows that.

"Panasonic may yet acquire Olympus—if they do, it'll be for their optical experience, especially with that medical background where colour rendition can mean the difference between a good diagnosis or a bad one. Panasonic have the Leica name licensed, but probably dream of selling Olympus-built optics with a little red 'mark up' dot on them.  (And who wouldn't dream of that?)

"But Olympus look to be able to survive on their own quite well on their current business, precisely because they aren't just a camera company. I'd hope Thom's just blinkered by the fact that he's a camera guy and didn't think to check Olympus's financial reports or business. But as I said, I find it difficult to take seriously any predictions which have such obvious flaws in the bedrock of their analysis.

"Olympus are vulnerable, yes. But nowhere near as vulnerable as Nikon or Pentax, as far as I can see.

"Then again, before I wrote that I did as much research into Pentax and Nikon's company financials as Thom has into Olympus's. So now the Nikon and Pentax weenies can roast me, and deservedly so... ;-) "

Lens Maker Sigma Buys Imaging Chip Maker Foveon

By Charlie Sorrel, Wired

Foveon, the company that makes film-like digital camera sensors using three stacked photosensitive layers (instead of putting the RGB pixels next to each other on one slice the way most imaging chip makers do it) has been bought by third-party lens maker and sometime camera manufacturer, Sigma...

READ ON at blog.wired.com

____________________

Mike

'Duchess of Carnegie' Faces Cruel Eviction

Carnegie Hall is seeking to evict photographer Editta Sherman, who has lived in her photography studio above Carnegie Hall for the past 60 years and photographed hundreds of show-biz luminaries over the years. Here she is with her 100+-year-old camera and her portrait of actor Anthony Quinn (photo by Colleen M. Delaney).

One good reason for letting her stay? She's 97 years old. The people who run Carnegie Hall must be pretty hard-hearted to not let her live out her life in her longtime home. Let her stay, we say!

READ MORE at npr.org.

___________________

Mike  (Thanks to Bill Mitchell)