The Online Photographer

T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #6

Assuming your interest is first and foremost in pictures, and not some other aspect of the photographic hobby, then the best way to make pictures that satisfy you—that "nourish your enthusiasm," in the quaint and kindly words of Uncle Ansel—is to spend time with a camera in your hands, preferably in an opportunity-rich environment of the kind you have a feel for (whether that's the landscape, city streets, a foreign country, or your living room). The second best way is to work on your technique—your shooting technique primarily, but your processing technique too. Only the third best way is by acquiring a camera or lens that does something your old ones can't.

In terms of cameras, the single biggest jump you can make, in most cases and for most people, is to move from a small-sensor (chiefly, 1/1.7", 1/1.8". and 1/2.5"—the last being the smallest) camera to a large-sensor (4/3 to "full-frame" 24x36mm) digital single-lens reflex (DSLR). The DSLR is currently the form of most higher-level, higher quality cameras, and the lens choices are customizable to your needs and have much more variety. The primary difference between point-and-shoots and DSLRs, however, is the size of the sensor: digicams have sensors roughly the size of a fingernail, and DSLRs have sensors roughly the size of a postage stamp. It’s a huge difference, and it shows in overall image quality at higher ISOs (the setting for light sensitivity) in lower light, and in overall smoothness, color rendition, and in the amount of processing you can apply before things start to go awry. Unless you always shoot in good light, our top recommendation for anyone currently shooting with a small-sensor digicam, assuming they can handle the size, is to make the jump to large image sensors. The cheapest and most satisfying way to do this is to invest in an entry-level DSLR.

Our top pick at the moment is...

Smart S.C. Snappers Shoot Canon(et)

Digital might be obliterating film in the hearts of enthusiasts (and consumers), but it seems to be lagging behind somewhat when it comes to visual representations of cameras in the popular mind. This is the current cover of GenLux, billed as "The only luxury fashion and beauty magazine created expressly for today's affluent Southern California woman."

Really? So affluent Southern California women these days are making cool snaps with Canonets?

Not that I disapprove.

Along the same lines, there's a PBS promo ad that shows a young girl ostensibly photographing with an old Rolleiflex, which you'd think would be about as familiar to her as corsets or hook-and-button shoes. I think that one might be a spot for "Antiques Roadshow," though, in which case it would make sense. But I'm sure I also saw a recent ad (for what, I don't recall) that featured a svelte young goddess wandering about in sun-drenched meadows snapping pictures with an old Hasselblad.

Of course it's possible she was from Southern California.

Anybody seen any other examples lately of old film cameras doing stand-in duty when "generic camera" needs to be signified in ads or elsewhere in pop culture?

Mike
(Thanks to Steve Rosenblum)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Matthew Carter: "Rebecca Romijn with an Argus for Bebe."

Featured Comment by Julian Barkway: "After reading this article on how vintage film cameras are being used as props in glamour shoots I remembered a flyer I recently received from my bank. Here it is almost in its entirety (the page that's missing is the only one without pictures). Sadly it was on textured card so the scan is not the best....

"The cover grabs the attention straight away:

"But that's not all. You open it up to find a double gatefold:

"Check out the cameras and the books. Not only is she gorgeous but she has taste! Doesn't look like she's reviewing her finances, though—unless she's figuring out how she can get yet another Leica for the collection.

"But wait! There's yet more:

"Look how she is desporting herself alluringly amongst those cameras! And that sexy close-up, too. It's almost pornographic, I tell you! But it's that final shot of her caressing the Leica that clinches it for me...I think I might be in love... :-)

"Oh, and the flyer closes with a shot of all that lovely gear:

"I've no idea what they're selling or whether I need it, but I'll take six!"

T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #7

 
I'll be candid: the Panasonic G1 does not have a very secure hold on a place on this list. I puzzled over including it. I'm convinced it's an important camera, and I'm persuaded that it's a very well-designed camera and a very well-implemented design. I'm just not entirely sure whether it all adds up to a very good camera, is all.

But first things first. Regular readers of mine know that I've been advocating for large-sensor compacts for a long time now. I've been following with great interest the Sigma DP1 and DP2 as well as this Panasonic and its sister camera the GH1, and I'm eagerly awaiting the upcoming Olympus Micro 4/3 camera as well as all future developments in large-sensor compacts. Little fingernail-sized sensors are very good in good light, but at ISOs of 400 and higher, larger-sized sensors start to assert their superiority, and by 1600 have completely outclassed the little guys. (More about this tomorrow.) Big sensors rock.

Micro 4/3 was the big announcement of the past year in this area, of course. And Panasonic pulled out the stops for its first Micro 4/3 camera: the little G1 is superbly designed. It's obvious that a great deal of thought went into its tactile properties, from the almost indecently sensual feel of its super-soft body covering to the lovely SNICK-zzzp of its shutter sound (the designer of the original Mazda Miata used to listen to tape recordings of other cars' exhaust notes* on his way to work, so he could get the Miata's to be just right; I wouldn't be surprised if the designer of the G1 listened to recordings of other cameras' shutter sounds.) Panasonic's camera people did an outstanding job on this product.

The G1 is also important because electronic viewfinders are in our future, like it or not. Why? Because the precision reflex mirror box and prism of an SLR is a large part of the physical cost of any SLR, and eliminating it will eventually make cameras manufacturable for much less cost. We will see more of these, not fewer, as time marches on.

And I really have no quarrel with the G1's EVF. It's different from an SLR—you might think of it as one more step away from the "plain glass window" of a rangefinder like yesterday's camera—and it's a bit like looking at an old TV. But it's quite bright indoors, and I find that its "flat" look helps me compose pictures. Yes, it has some other idiosyncrasies, but it's nothing I couldn't get used to.

So what's the problem? Let me put it this way. As pediatricians, child psychologists, and some parents know, children who are extremely big for their ages sometimes get treated as if they're developmentally retarded. If you have a three-year-old who's as big as the average five-year-old, people will treat him like he's slow, because they expect him to act, speak, and have the physical coordination of a five-year-old, and he doesn't.

The g1 has a little bit of the same problem. It really is a "gap camera" occupying the territory between small-sensor digicams and DSLRs. What it should feel like is a very capable, really superior digicam; it is that. But because Panasonic opted for a traditional SLR layout and look, I just can't stop the impression that it's more like a slightly inferior DSLR. That's not quite fair, but that's the vibe I get from it, persistently.

There are lots of reasons to like the little G1. There's a lot of wonderful technology in the little camera, the haptics (to steal Erwin Puts's word) are superb, and the camera is pleasant to use. In Japan, which tolerates more gender-specific advertising than is the custom here in the U.S., it will be pushed most strenuously at females, who will appreciate its small size, sensuous feel, and overall elegance. ("Elegant" is the first word that would come to my mind to describe the G1.) And maybe the Japanese are right, in this case. In any event, it's a camera that I like and admire, though not one that has invited much use while it's been in my possession.

I should mention, too, that there is a thriving subculture of enthusiasts using a wide variety of other types of lenses on the G1, by way of a variety of adapters. This is surely a lot of fun for them, and constitutes a whole 'nuther reason to like this camera. For those to whom this doesn't appeal, the kit zoom is excellent.

Mike

Tomorrow: #6

*I.e., the sounds the engine makes.

Send this post to a friend

T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #8

Of the four, six, maybe eight truly classic cameras in all of photography's history, the stone classic of the past half century is a Leica with a 35mm* Summicron welded** to it. And a bag full of Tri-X. You can shoot color if you must, but it should be proper Kodachrome—none of that bourgois E-6. If it's le pur sang you want, go black-and-white. And none of that prissy "fine-grained" slow crap, either, which is really pathetic—any 400-speed B&W film you want.

Which Leica? The M6, probably, because there were lots of 'em, and because nobody knows how to guess exposures any more. You can buy a new equivalent in the current MP, but it costs so much and it's so precious that you'll be tempted to treat it like a collectible, like something fragile, which is the horrible fate of all too many Leicas. (Like dating a supermodel and being afraid to touch her.) It's all turned around backwards these days—like taking black paint, the el-cheapo blue-collar option back when, and making it into a high-cost "special" optional finish. Gag me with a leader extractor.

The new Zeiss Ikon (a.k.a. ZI) is the only film camera left on our list. In essence, as I proposed in my T.O.P. review of it, it's an improved Leica M. Although missing the Leica’s redoubtable Teutonic solidity and  the panache of Leica’s continuous heritage, the Zeiss Ikon is a modern Leica copy with the improvements that many Leica owners asked for but that Leica couldn't give them because of, you know, the pur sang thing (it means "the pure blood"). The improvements are several and logical, and make the ZI the rangefinder of choice for users not already wedded to Leica—although, since it has the same lensmount and takes the same lenses, it could appeal to them as well. The result is a camera that’s ideal in terms of all of its various balancing acts, that has just the right feel, and that comes out being much more than the sum of its parts. And is just a pleasure to shoot with, too. If you prefer a 25mm or 28mm lens, don't miss the gaga 25/28 clip-on VF, which is just gorgeous—extremely expensive and worth every penny (get one of these for your Leica and 24mm or 28mm, too).

The Leica faithful (at least the ones who never use theirs) will have a checklist of all the differences that make the ZI worse than the Leica. Ordinary, normal, attached swing-open back, as opposed to the Leica's funky removeable bottom plate. Lighter weight. And it's (much) less expensive. But we happen to think all those are good things. If you agree, this might be for you. Or, go for that used Leica classic.

Mike

Tomorrow: #7

*I know, Henri Cartier-Bresson used only a 50mm. But you are not Henri Cartier-Bresson.

**Not literally.

Send this post to a friend

OT: Ides of April

April 14th, and I've lost that heavy feeling of false wealth you get when you've had money in the bank you know you don't get to keep. It's all off to the U.S. Treasury now, where I know it'll be safe.

It turned out to be a lovely day despite a rough start, although a few buds on the trees would be nice. Whenever. I don't know if you can make him out, but the wretched little terrier on the left stole Lulu's tennis ball and frolicked around the park with it for ten minutes, delaying our departure, while its owner fatalistically trudged after it saying things like "he never comes unless he wants to." Extraordinary. I never know when I'll encounter something entirely unforeseen and discover that it too is capable of annoying me—"dogs owners who won't train their animals" now newly added to the list.

Every picture tells a story, as Rod Stewart might say. End of the day (well, obviously—you can tell from the long shadows), and a girl needs a good long drink after ninety solid minutes of running hell-bent-for-leather after tennis balls. (Until it got nicked by that furry little reprobate with the slacker owner, that is.) I was getting tired by then, and I wasn't even the one doing the running. Maybe it was signing those checks that did me in.

Both snaps made with the new SMC Pentax DA 15mm ƒ/4 ED AL Limited.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Two shots taken by James McDermott using the same lens:
 

"Shot in Raw, converted to JPEG in Elements without tweaking," says Jim. "That isn't a new form of distortion (in the top shot) by the way—the walls really do bow outwards."

T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #9

Number nine on our list for this season is a Most Excellent Gadget and another Canon, the Canon G10...the camera that proves that even Canon can't please everybody.

In a sense the G10 is a throwback to an earlier era of digital photography. This sort of small-sensor but fully belled-and-whistled zoom compact was a very important market segment in the early- to mid-2000s, when Sony, Nikon, Canon and Olympus all competed tooth-and-nail.

A short digression: one thing I really don't understand in the current economic debate is that everybody bemoans failing industries, but everybody assumes the only choices are all or nothing*, and nobody talks about the failure of one competitor being good for other ones. If Chrysler and GM went out of business, wouldn't that be good for Ford? Wouldn't more Americans shift their business to Ford, energizing the company and giving them a shot in the arm and a well-deserved reward for going into the recession as the strongest of the Big Three? Isn't bailing out the weakest competitor tantamount to penalizing the strongest? Similarly, people talk about the "end of newspapers" as if all newspapers are inevitably going to go out of business. But if two thirds of newpapers went out of business, wouldn't that make the remaining one-third more important to us all—and potentially improve those papers' profits enough so they could survive?

Anyway, that's more or less what's happened here. As the G-series' competitors stopped trying so hard and gradually began to give up on this segment, Canon took the opposite tack and revitalized its line with the G7 in 2006. Then it actively addressed complaints and criticisms of that camera with carefully targeted improvements in the G9 and G10. The current camera—arguably the best G[x] yet—doesn't have an articulated viewing screen as many of the earlier models did, and is still often criticized for packing too many pixels on to the tiny sensor, leading to some image quality problems. Here, however, Canon's caught between an enthusiast and a hard place. The enthusiasts want fewer pixels and better high-ISO performance (as things stand, you should stick to ISO 400 and lower); but, as Canon knows, many of the people who actually plunk down their dollars for the G10 are still swayed by the more-megapixels mentality. The reality is, everybody has their own pet features and want list. It's impossible to please everybody. What's a poor camera manufacturer to do?

After eight tries**, this is Canon's best effort to please the most people maximally. And they did a pretty good job: speaking of plunking down dollars, people still do. Without giving too short a shrift to Nikon's quite nice also-ran, the P6000, it can't be denied that Canon has gradually come to own this segment of the market, which obviously still has some life in it yet.

And that brings us to another reason for liking the G10, alluded to in the first sentence: it's a pleasing, even rather jewel-like device. It's solid and heavy for its size and seems to be mostly made of metal, and the finely-made, smooth-acting controls, most of which seem to exude a sort of ergonomic just-rightness, make handling and using the camera a pleasant experience. Why Canon can't bring similarly pleasing "object-quality" to its larger cameras is a mystery. But the G10 is functional, and fun—and fine. Despite a relatively high price, it remains a good choice for people who don't want to deal with the bulk of even a small DSLR.

Our links: Edward Taylor's review; Ken Tanaka's second look.

Mike

Tomorrow: #8

* "In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." (Mark Twain, from Life on the Mississippi.)

** There was no G4 or G8.

Send this post to a friend

Szarkowski Reprint Update

Amazon U.S. is taking orders for Looking at Photographs again. It is expecting a shipment of books to arrive on Wednesday. Hopefully the availability will be continuous from now on so I don't have to keep posting updates...(please)....

The original post is here (so you don't have to go looking for it).

Mike

Send this post to a friend

'Back on Vesterbro, Klavs Bo Christensen Sits and Feels Sorry for Himself'

Jens Tønnesen of Pressefotografforbundet (that's the Union of Press Photographers, in Denmark) writes to tell us that the story about Danish photographer Klavs Bo Christensen's pictures of Haiti that were disqualified from the Danish Picture of the Year contest has "made it around the world," so they've published an English translation of the original article to make the facts more accessible to a wider audience. Of particular interest, the rules of the contest to begin with. Also specified is that the "before" pictures are "the original RAW file converted to JPEG using the Default setting i [sic] Adobe Camera Raw."

Our discussion of the matter on TOP took place in the posts Danish PJ Accused of Excessive Photoshopping and Dinosaur-Planet Pictures last week.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Eolake: "The phrase "Tilbage på Vesterbro sidder Klavs Bo Christensen og aergrer sig" is surprisingly hard to translate accurately. 'Aergrer sig" is a verb which is quite useful, but I don't know a good English word for it. It means sort of an angry, sullen regret, thinking 'oh, I really wish that had gone different' or 'I really wish I'd done that different.' It's regret, but mixed with anger. Like if you'd decided not to go to a concert, and now all your friends tell you it was the best one ever.

"It's perhaps not always as intense as I make it sound, and I think it wasn't meant that intense in the article."

T.O.P. Ten Recommended Cameras: #10

Marketing research has discovered that consumers hate having no choices. But they are also exhausted and confused by having too many choices. In supermarket tests, given one, three, or 30 alternatives, people will buy most frequently when they have three choices. Thirty choices makes them...cross.

The current consumer digicam market is a "30-choice" equivalent. Except that the real number is closer to 300 than 30. There are far too many models of small pocket digicam and far too little to distinguish one from the next. Too many to compare, in fact, unless you wish to consign yourself to an extended tour in wee minicam hell.

A good, solid choice that many photo writers—myself; Ken Rockwell; David Pogue of the New York Times; etc. (dpreview.com likes it too)—all recommend, is the Canon PowerShot SD880 IS. Personally I like it because it has a wider lens than most digicams (to 28mm-equivalent); it doesn't have too long a lens (tiny lenses with too much range tending to have more optical compromises, like slow speed, linear distortion, and falloff); it has "real" IS (image stabilization); and it doesn't have an optical viewfinder. This last I approve of on the theory that sometimes, in some cases, not having one of something is actually better than having a really awful one of that thing. The SD880 IS is also relatively crisp in its actions and simple in its configurations. A camera that does less, well, is better than a camera that does more, less well.

And, too: the pictures, the pictures. The SD880IS's image quality is very good, especially if you're willing to learn a few basic software moves. Of course, like most pocketables, it doesn't do well at high ISOs; but then, summer's coming, and summer's when the sun rises early, and sets late, and shines fiercely in between, and people go to the beach and stuff. Lots of light serves digital point-and-shoots well, and vicey-versey.

Keep in mind we don't really like digital point-and-shoot cameras (although the essay at the link is a rant, and will be too pungent for the squeamish; beware). But people buy them, and any good list of recommendations needs one good one, and the Canon SD880 IS is a very good one. And, contra to what I just said two paragraphs ago, when you want to take pictures, having a camera with you is infinitely better than not having a camera with you.

It's also available in silver. As of this writing, at these links, the silver one costs three dollars more. You can go figure that one out.

For an alternative if you have only half as much money to spend, a stalwart and serviceable option that our readers also like is the Canon Powershot A590 IS. If you have less money than that, put it towards getting a phone with a little better camera built in.

Mike

Tomorrow: #9

Send this post to a friend

Featuered Comment by Bahi: "I believe this is the first time that Mr Angry can write to TOP following a list of camera recommendations and claim to have just cancelled his subscription in disgust. Good times."

Featured [partial] Comment by Paul De Zan: "A great choice; I've given away two as gifts and heard nothing but astonished praise in return...another great feature of the 880 IS is the marvelous 3" LCD which is easily the best available in this class of camera."

Featured Comment by Player: "Another slap-in-the-face of the amazing Ricoh GRD2, but alas, it's not a toy, and it only comes in basic black.

"Too bad reviewers, who should know better, help to keep the consumer shooter in the dark, and relegated to using toys."

Mike replies: Mr Angry er, Player, the Ricoh is a nice camera, no question. The reason I didn't choose it is that a) it's not widely available in the U.S. as Ricoh is not officially imported here (although it is available from Amazon/Adorama), and b) it costs well over twice what the Canon SD880 IS costs, and in my view is thus too expensive for a basic "pocket camera" recommendation. Bear in mind that some people complain the SD880 IS itself is too expensive, which is why I also mentioned the half-as-pricey A590 IS.

The Ricoh GR Digital II only costs 105 more pounds than the Canon in the U.K., which might make it a more sensible alternative there. But as I've said before, I'm an American, I write from the United States, and a certain amount of gringo parochialism is unavoidable.

Nothing against the GR Digital II, if it floats your boat; just not quite the right camera for this particular list, in my judgement. But please, don't cancel your subscription....

Featured Comment by Lazy Aussie: "What are you talking about 'summer's coming'? We just had summer. Winter is coming. Summer ended in February. Are you smokin somethin'?"

Mike replies: I still don't know how you guys walk around hanging upside down like that.

One Big Happy

By Rick Detorie. (Click to see larger.)

Mike
(Thanks to Paul Van Audenhove)

Recommended Cameras

Starting tomorrow morning, I'm going to be doing a daily "countdown" of the current T.O.P. Recommended Cameras. I'll begin with #10 and count down to #1.

Obviously, any such list should be considered highly subjective: just one writer's take on the current state of the market. I almost opted to simply call it "T.O.P. Ten Cameras We Like." However, that list would actually be different: it would be more idiosyncratic and more subjective. The upcoming list will be tailored to recommendations: cameras in the market that we think are particularly good choices as purchases.

You will think that at least two of my choices are cop-outs, for reasons that will become clear once you see them. I consider them more in the category of "correctives," to counteract an impression that is now widespread on the web. I shall 'splain, when the time comes.

There is only one film camera left on the list. Perhaps time for a separate list?

See you tomorrow.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Gordon Lewis: "I already disagree with your choices. (Heh, heh....)"

Featured Comment by [another] Mike: "Time to settle in while Mike prepares himself for 10 days of verbal abuse at the hands of his readers."

The TOP Effect

As seems to happen all too often with our book recommendations, Looking at Photographs is no longer listed as available new at Amazon U.S. and is listed as "Temporarily out of stock" at Amazon U.K.

Just before I posted the notice below, at 11:34 p.m. Friday, the book was listed at #106,946 in sales on Amazon U.S.; and yesterday by 2:31 p.m. it was #73. I wasn't checking regularly so I don't know if that's as high as it got.

Perhaps Amazon was getting too many pre-orders and wasn't sure if its incoming shipments could cover them all. I still expect the book to be available in the immediate future.

As usual, I'll try to keep you posted. Sorry if you've experienced any frustration or inconvenience.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

A Very Grand Democracy

By Ctein

J. B. S. Haldane is quoted as saying, "Science is not a democracy." As with most memorable aphorisms, that's not entirely correct. It's more that the "right to vote" is highly restricted to qualified individuals. Still, there's no question that some sciences are more democratic, in the sense of being open to new citizens, than others. For example, a lay person is going to have a hell of a time acquiring voting rights in quantum mechanics or general relativity.

Astronomy, on the other hand, is the Canada of sciences; it's relatively easy to get into, the residents are sociable, and they are honestly happy to have new people who can contribute to the quality of discourse.

A couple of months back on this site, Christopher Lane wrote a nice article about doing your own astrophotography. There's a lot more you can do, both photographically and scientifically. In about six years you're going to be working with a very cool camera. Here are some specs.

Of course everyone wants to know about pixel count first, so prepare yourself for...

3200 megapixels. And they're nice robust 10 µ pixels.

Color, black and white, false color, infrared? All available: the camera photographs in six different colors across the spectrum from 320 to 1050 nm. Dynamic range? Huge. Low light capability? About 100 million times better than your eyes. 16 bit? Need you really ask?!

It does lack some important "professional" features. There's no "system." In fact, the camera comes in only one configuration with a non-interchangeable lens that isn't even a zoom. Worse, it is a 10,000mm, ƒ/1.2 lens with a 10° field of view, so all you folks who think a medium wide angle is the ideal single lens are just flat out of luck.

The folks who've been complaining about the size of their raw files are not going to be happy. Storage requirements for this camera are going to run 30 TB a day and processing the images coming in will take 100 teraflops.

Suzanne Jacoby with the LSST focal plane array scale model. The array's diameter is 64 cm. This mosaic will provide over 3 Gigapixels per image. The image of the moon (30 arcminutes) is placed there for scale of the Field of View. (Image credit: LSST Corporation)

This is not a hoax column, humor notwithstanding. The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope is for real and it will be your camera. That's because all the photographs are going to be made publicly available online. You'll get the same access to state-of-the-art astrophotographs as the most famous astronomer.

I can hear some of you naysayers grumbling that it isn't really your camera, because you can't point it wherever you want. Well, you won't have to. The LSST photographs the entire sky every three days. Think of it as the ultimate in motor drives: you just keep firing away and then pick out the photographs you like in Lightroom.

Is this cool, or what? Reflecting telescopes have come a hell of a long way in the 1,000 years since Ibn al-Haytham thought them up.

Ctein

Send this post to a friend

Looking at Photographs by John Szarkowski

I am enormously pleased to pass along the news that the long-awaited, on-again off-again reprint of John Szarkowski's great book Looking at Photographs is available once more.

If I have one single favorite book about photography, this would be it. It's a modest and simple book: Szarkowski, the longtime Director of the Department of Photography at the Museum of Modern Art and a great connoisseur, picked one hundred photographs from the collection and wrote short essays about each one. The pictures are on the right-hand page, with the essays facing them on the left. None of the essays fill more than a single page. The book is a paperback, not thick and not expensive.

The essays are, if anything, as beautiful as the pictures: brief, eloquent, measured, specific, declamatory and often poetic. Reading each essay has the effect of getting you to look at the corresponding picture repeatedly, adding to the richness of your experience of it. Oddly enough, the critical perspective is not what I'd call crucial—in many cases the essays are personal, elliptical, touched off by the photographs rather than constrained entirely by them; they are not even the final word on these specific pictures, never mind all of each chosen photographer's work. And yet, strangely, after finishing the book, and reading it again, and thinking about it, you realize that a great many of photography's concerns, glories, and riddles have been touched upon along the way. Think of it not as anything definitive, but as a way of tagging along as one one sensible, erudite and articulate observer experiences great work. It's the best guided museum tour of photographs ever locked into ink.

Assuming I can get permission, I'll publish a sample image and picture from the book in a day or two, so you can get a taste of the book and decide whether you might like it.

In the large literature of photography, there are only a handful of books that photographers of every level and type could read and look at with pleasure; there are fewer that deserve the attention even of general readers. This is one, in my humble opinion. I'm very pleased it's back in print.

$26.37 at Amazon U.S.
£21.21 at Amazon U.K.

Mike
(Thanks to dolphin)

Send this post to a friend

Cranky Old Man

I've had my problems lately. For one thing, I cannot seem to take a decent picture. Do you ever go through those dry spells? Sometimes I've felt I could take good shots in my sleep—or at least every time I pick up a camera. Not recently. My best shots lately are only competent, and sometimes not even that. I've been flailing around like a tyro. I have to do something...get out more, work harder. Something.

I'm also dealing with some annoying glimmers of "old man problems." I'm 52, which is not old, although it is undeniably middle-aged. Those of you who are 40 or older but not yet 45 can take heart—a few years ago, the DSM IV, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the psychiatric profession, revised middle age upwards, defining it as 45–65 instead of 40–60 as it had been defined previously. Seems people are living longer, and are remaining healthier and more active longer, so they extended young adulthood. If you're 44, you are—officially!—not middle aged yet.

I, on the other hand, take naps. Young adults don't take naps.

A number of years ago, my brother complained about a dog that raised its leg on a fire hydrant. "That's such a cliché," he said (still makes me laugh). Similarly, my nascent old-man problems are annoying clichés too (because, after all, I know some genuinely old men who are pretty young at heart, and in mind). For one, I'm becoming a bit of a pack-rat. Where'd that come from? I responded to the encroaching clutter in my house by buying a book about dealing with clutter. I read it enthusiastically, and learned a lot about clutter and what to do about it. So now I know. I just haven't done anything about it, is all. That book is still around here somewhere. Probably buried under some stacks of papers.

I'm also telling my son the same stories over and over. That's more annoying to him than it is to me, but it's annoying enough to me. When I was younger I told myself I wasn't going to do that. But I do it anyway.

And I've gotten cheap, too. Has anyone bought a Kindle 2 yet? If so, do you like it? Was it worth what it cost? I really want one, but I can't seem to pull the trigger on actually spending the money.

It would probably help with the clutter, a lot of which is books.

I think it's an old man thing: a tendency towards miserliness starting to manifest, like a case of hives.

A more serious consequence of my nascent miserliness is that I really want a Sony A900, but I can't seem to bring myself to actually buy the thing. I have the money, and photography is my "thing," after all, and I could probably make the camera pay for itself in a year or two. What I'm saying is, it doesn't even need rationalizing. But I can't seem to pull the trigger on the purchase.

It's very annoying to me that Sony has ported so many lenses over from the old Minolta versions, but not the one I want most; I tell myself that that's why I'm not plunking down for the A900. Yeah, that's it.

But I suspect it's really because I'm too cheap to spend $3k and watch it slowly (or not so slowly) dissipate down to nothing. I should just buy the damn thing. In this case, miserliness is counter-productive.

It's bad enough having finished my curmudgeon training several years ago, and being a full-fledged one of those. It's worse watching yourself become a cliché, right before your own eyes.

Okay, time for my nap.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

UPDATE: Thanks for all the great comments. I feel much better now.

OT: Slicker 'n Spit Imaging Workstation fer Cheap

I want to get in a plug for the latest best buy in computers, the new 24-inch iMac, just in case you might not be aware of it yet. For considerably less than you could get a 20" iMac for a couple of years ago, you get a 24" LCD monitor, a 640-GB hard drive, 4 GB of RAM, a fast processor and excellent nVidia graphics processing, and of course the best operating system money can buy, all in a streamlined stainless-steel-and-glass case that's no bigger than most flat-panel monitors alone—and all for the bargain-basement price of $1500*. To put you in context, that's about half what I paid for my first Apple, a 512k "Fat Mac" Macintosh in 1984. (Of course, that included a nifty dot-matrix printer than I sometimes wish I still had—but on the other hand, those were 1984 dollars, which bought a lot more of most things than 2009 dollars do. They sure bought a lot less computer.)

This is a significant bargain*. The existence of the new 24-inch iMac, and its excellence, is the direct result of the sales of gazillions of iPods, iPhones, and iTunes songs, all of which have got Apple awash in cash and which now essentially subsidize the Mac line. The Mac's market share in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2004, to nearly 9%. Apple's share of personal computer profits is more like 17%.

The 24-inch iMac is even a little cheaper at Best Buy. I was looking at this machine there the other night, across the table from a guy who'd just bought one. The salesman was regaling the guy with a cock-and-bull story about how the "Apple representative himself" had been telling him "just the other day" about how he wished more Apple customers would have their computers "optimized" before they bought them, a service he was willing to perform behind the scenes at point-of-purchase for just $29.95. He had a spiel about how Apple software is "hard to update" because "each update has to be loaded, then you have to reboot, then another one can be loaded, then you have to reboot again," which is "all very time-consuming and complicated when you have to do it yourself," and so on. It was bad enough that I took the guy aside once the salesman had gone and told him that everything he'd just been told was total, complete bullshit; he said he'd suspected as much.

I wonder how many people don't? And, at what point does "salesmanship" become outright fraud? I think that salesman stepped across that particular line. For the record, it's safe to say that no Apple representative has ever said that a brand new iMac has to be "optimized" by a fast-talking Best Buy salesman before it's safe to take it home. If you buy one there, don't let them break the seal on the box.

Regardless, the 24-inch iMac is a superior product, slicker 'n hot crankcase oil on wet pavement at a hot rod show. I will now cede the floor to those who think Vista is just as good as Leopard, and a $400 Dell is all anybody needs, and how I should stick to photography, etc. Do bear in mind I'm not a computer expert, or even a computer enthusiast. All I can do is testify to constant daily use of my 20" iMac, and, apart from one solitary kernel panic early on, zero problems.

Mike

*Yes, I thought it was high time for us to be treated once again to 20 comments about how you can build your own Linux machine from parts far more cheaply. You might as well suggest that I build my own car.

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Geoff: "I'm a big fan of these machines for working on images up to about, I don't know, 5000x4000 pixels? Maybe a little bigger than that, but not much. DigLloyd's excellent Guide to Optimizing Photoshop Performance will tell the tale about why the maximum image size you can efficiently work on on these machines would be capped (and no, it's not because of CPU speed, it's because of available RAM and the lack of fast hard disk I/O on anything except the boot volume).

"Still, finding a way to cheaply outfit a 24" iMac (I'd go for the 2.93GHz variant but that's me) with the 8GB of RAM it so richly deserves and a Firewire 800 RAID system to use as a fast Photoshop scratch disk and primary image storage would probably raise the practical image size limit to almost double the figure I quote above.

"Then the only real drawback (for me, my preferences, etc.) is that you have no choice but to take the glossy screen, which means overhauling your workstation lighting, wearing a lot of black while you process images and accepting calibration results that aren't as good as they could be. Only you can decide if that's a big drawback for you.

"Another thing these are great for is as a tethered capture station for a lower-ish megapixel camera. If you're doing table top or still life, why not plop one of these down nearby and check your work at 24" instead of 2.5 or 3? Sure, you don't want to drive a Phase P65+ with it, but a reasonably MP'd Can-ikon prosumer camera would mate up very nicely with it and either Capture One Pro or the manufacturer's tethering software and something like Lightroom. That way you can learn how almost all studio, corporate, celebrity and advertising photography is done in this day and age (although to truly experience it, you have to have a cranky art director sitting in front of the capture station telling you to 'make it more blue').

"Overall, highly recommended for those who don't want to shell out another grand+ for a Mac Pro."

Mike replies: The bit about the cranky AD made me laugh....

Featured Comment by Bahi: "The 24" iMac comes with a proper, 8-bit-per-channel (24-bit) display but the 20" model doesn't. Like most LCD computer displays sold and almost all laptop displays, the display of the current 20" iMac has a 6-bit-per-channel unit that uses a dithering technique to extends its range. It's fine for regular, non-photographic use but one of the most irritating and least talked about side-effects is that digital noise in areas of shadow can be crazily amplified in some situations. The display is trying to reproduce a noise pattern built upon subtle colour variations and will sometimes resort to dithering to achieve its results; the dithering itself can then appear to us as noise and the combined effect can be startlingly misleading. I had a pet theory (unproven) that a good chunk of forum complaints about noise came from people looking at their results on 6-bpc displays (cheaper LCDs, laptops) and not prints.

"If you're buying a separate LCD display in the UK, look for a specification that says '16.7 million colours' rather than '16.2 million colours.' That seems to be the somewhat sneaky method that UK retailers have settled upon to distinguish the 6-bit displays from the 8-bit.

"In the previous, plastic bodied Intel iMacs, both the 20" and 24" models offered full 24-bit colour and the 17" was the exception."

Dinosaur-Planet Pictures

It appears from the response to the previous post that photographers have strong feelings on the subject of image manipulation. I knew that, or should have known that, from past experience. It still catches me by surprise, each time.

First of all, I wasn't really taking a position myself in the original post, at least not until I wrote my little addendum—I was just passing the news along with a link, like I do dozens of times a month. I meant neither to condemn nor condone the actions of the Danish Press Photography Union in the original post—and in fact, I couldn't even report their concerns very well, since I don't read Danish (or understand spoken Danish) and I'm not willing to base close textual analysis on auto-translator gobbledegook.

That post drew more than 60 comments, some of them long, within eight hours. Most of those, you can read. It also drew some extremely insecure, ranting diatribes (well, actually only three), which I did not post. A couple of those attacked me, as if I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Danish contest judges and all of us speak with one common voice in persecution of the poor disqualified photojournalist, never mind our lack of a common language!

For the record, I regret to report that I wasn't consulted. In fact, I only first heard of the whole issue yesterday.

One hysterical screed attacked me as a "film purist." Now, how is that supposed to work, given that I've barely exposed any film at all this decade? I'm a digital photographer, folks, for better or worse. Not that that matters in the current discussion; it's entirely beside the point, as most of you are capable of discerning. This isn't a matter of film vs. digital, as it's not a question of whether Photoshop is good or bad. It's just a question of how different kinds of photographers ought to make their pictures look—not how they get them to look like that.

But since you asked, and since it's my blog...
First, my usual qualifying round: It's not for me to tell any individual photographer how to enjoy photography. If you like the wretched excess of the overhyped, overcooked style, go for it—it's your hobby; you own it. They're your pictures.

In point of fact, however, I do applaud the Danish Press Photography Union judges. When journalism is at issue, you have to draw a line somewhere, and Hr. Christensen (Eolake, who's a Dane, tells me that "Hr." is Danish for "Mr.") blundered across that line in no uncertain terms. This wasn't a toe-on-the-chalk, double-angle-replay judgment call; this was the receiver vaulting the bench and climbing into the stands to catch the pass. Out of bounds is out of bounds.

As for HDR-to-XS, etc., I don't care to look at that stuff, it's true, but that preference has nothing to do with a) how Timmy did worse things yesterday or b) whether Johnny started it, or c) the fact that Mom's being unfair because there is no clear technical path to 100% dependable, purely mechanical neutrality; my problem is the pictures. My problem is merely that the pictures don't look like Earth.

Take this, for example. Earth never looked like this. At least, not during the time I've been alive, and probably not for the past several million years. What the Wretched-Excess Style does remind me of are those fanciful illustrations (some of them cartoons) showing what things supposedly looked like in the time of the dinosaurs. You know the pictures I'm talking about? Lurid hues to signify exoticism, bizarrely-colored plant life, pasturing Stegasaurii in bright Amazon-lizard stripes and fades, festive volcanos spewing oranges and reds in the distance, all under a pink or yellow or violet sky. All very saturated with color, and wonder.

That's what the Wretched Excess, overcooked, dial-at-11, "HDR" (not that there's anything wrong with that) style looks like to me: another planet—or this one during the Pleistocene, in the minds of illustrators with full palettes of bright paints.

I look at Earth a lot more than I look at pictures, and I happen to think pictures taken on Earth should sorta look like Earth. But "that's just me" as they say. If you happen to disagree—if you're into a different look, up to and including the dinosaur-planet look—then knock yourself out. That's the nice thing about this hobby—everybody gets to do it their own way. I don't have anything to say about that one way or t'other. Other peoples' pictures aren't my pictures, and I'm not a Danish contest judge—all of which is probably just as well.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

T.O.P. is shareware!

Featured Comment by David Comdico: "The fact that one has to argue that the photo reproduced above has taken liberties with reality in its reproduction goes to show just how far the limits of credulity have been stretched. I'm not sure if it is the inevitable result of technology's trajectory or if rigor has simply gone out of fashion.

"Take for example, the straw man that has been made of the raw file. Because a raw file must be rendered via 'some' curve does not mean that any given 'interpretation' of that raw file is equal. Such an argument is patently silly.

"Digital photography has not suddenly superseded reasonable verisimilitude—and anyone who shoots film, or has a preference for it, is by definition not a Luddite. End stop.

"Journalistic standards are, like any standard, subject to the dictum of contemporary taste and preferences (even downright biases) but it doesn't follow that standards are useless or 'untrue' as truth itself is subject to the same preconditions. And given the current environment, where propaganda has become synonymous with reportage, we need these standards more than ever."

Featured Comment by Chris: "While this won't be the first time it's pointed out here, I think it bears repeating that 'looks like Earth' is not a meaningful single reference standard. Pictures, and the world too, look different to different people. Very different. Enough so that we frequently cannot even agree what we are all looking at in the first place.

"This shouldn't be that hard to appreciate, but perhaps because I am a teacher (of visual anthropology, among other subjects) it stands out particularly starkly. Students in general tend to think that the way they saw a picture, or a film, is both the correct way, and the same way everyone else did. (This is after all the great claim of photography—its objectivity.) When they subsequently describe what they saw in writing, and I get 40 essays which all seem to be about completely different materials, yet all couched in the same perfect assurance that there was nothing else to be seen... Well it is a dramatic illustration of the point. The same thing happens every day in photo critiques: people see the same photo, but can't agree what they're looking at.

"This is a bigger issue than can easily be dismissed by the common-sense approach of 'I know realism when I see it' (even though that will probably take most of us pretty far). Frankly I think the question of exactly what different people see in the 'same' material is quite an interesting one.

"In the raw/processed examples from the Danish contest, the raw pictures look unrealistically flat to me. the processed ones look, well, heavily processed. To me, the most interesting thing which could come out of looking at the two would be a refinement of terms for explaining exactly what's wrong, and how, with the pictures for photojournalistic use (any such discussion of course has to take ends into account), and doing so with some degree of precision. To say 'I know it when I see it' may be a practical solution that works for oneself much of the time, but it doesn't help much in communicating what 'it' is to others."

Mike replies: Just for the record, I never said, and I hope never implied, that the flat, unprocessed pictures presented in the article are some sort of standard to be aimed for. Naturally, those files needed processing to be presentable. Perhaps just not as much as they received.

Your larger point, Chris, is a valid one, and as a more subtle topic would be a fruitful one for discussion. But what I meant to imply, rhetorically, by using the phrase "looks like Earth" is that a very basic standard has been breached here, one that doesn't require subtlety to perceive. You can argue relativism all you want, but when something is extreme, genuine disagreement tends to be eviscerated. Show of hands—how many people think the picture in this post is likely an accurate and objective portrayal of the scene, with no subjective interpretation superadded? I don't think we'll see one hand raised, unless someone is just trying to be contentious.

Danish PJ Accused of Excessive Photoshopping

Photos: Klavs Bo Christensen

The Danish Press Photography Union has excluded photojournalist Klavs Bo Christensen from the judging for this year's Press Photo Awards due to excessive Photoshopping. I don't read Danish, but the comparisons of the submitted pictures and the raw files in the online article are pretty eloquent all by themselves....

Mike
(Thanks to Axel Bauer)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Rana: "Man, that's bad—and the others in the article are worse. There are those for whom that overly 'juiced' aesthetic is appealing, but I'm not one of them. I see enough of it on amateur sites to be profoundly unimpressed by it.

"I'm not a hardcore no-Photoshop purist, but I do feel that the images that result ought to bear some resemblance to reality. While I do tweak levels, curves, and contrast in my images, I try to do so only to bring the digital images in line with what my eyes saw. This is so extensive it borders on photo-illustration, rather than photography.

"If the photographer wasn't a journalist, I wouldn't take as much issue with it, but there's a certain obligation to visual truth there—not 'truthiness.' Indeed, the composition of several of the images featured is strong, and the images would be powerful with only minor editing—there was no need to do this to them."

Mike adds: There's simply a different standard for photojournalism—you're expected to be honest and factual, and that pertains to pictures as well as to words. Of course there's no "absolute" standard that can be applied, but the photographer, like the journalist, needs to strive to establish him- or herself as a reliable witness. You simply don't do yourself any favors when you dress up an image to the point that it looks obviously unrealistic. 

I can sympathize with those who see nothing basically wrong with these examples, extreme though they may be. In part, photography is a visual language that we've had more than a century and a half to come to terms with; the distortions we're used to, and can interpret easily (black and white, wide-angle perspective, loss of detail in shadows, etc.) are unthreatening, whereas new forms of distortion are more contentious. Jim Hughes proved in an excellent article I published in Photo Techniques magazine that W. Eugene Smith, who is close to a patron saint for many photojournalists even now, often "stretched" the truth to a degree that would be unacceptable today—and that would certainly get him disqualified from journalism competitions. In some cases this even included adding elements that hadn't been in the scene.

And of course there's nothing wrong with Photoshop (or any other image editor), or with darkroom manipulation. But in photojournalism those tools are expected to be used to increase the accuracy and veracity of the photograph to the scene—not decrease it. That seems to be Mr. Christensen's failure here, not the tools he used. He's simply made himself a suspect witness by overdoing his manipulations to the point of obvious unreality, subverting realism for cheap effects instead of reporting it with an appropriate modicum of dispassion.

Featured Comment by Jerred Zegelis: "Thanks for bringing this to our attention! My high school students (photojournalists) often don't have the slightest problem drastically changing things in Photoshop, even after our conversations about ethics. These will be great to show them, and to discuss them as a class.

"I may be off base here—but the students, having basically grown up with photo editing tools (now on their phones even) think of Photoshop editing as basic as getting the right exposure...so these will be great to talk about!"

Featured Comment by Gordon Lewis: "The point I think a lot of people are missing here is that the version Christensen submitted aroused the judges' suspicions precisely because it look so 'unreal.' Keep in mind that he didn't submit both versions, so they had nothing on which to base a comparison other than a first impression. The apparent problem was that the version he submitted looked so different from the 'reality' that most of us have experienced that they came to the conclusion he had overcooked it.

"It may also be that he clearly violated the rules of the contest. Without knowing what the rules were, how can you say the judges were being unfair? I doubt you'd feel the same way if you were one of the entrants who had followed the rules to the letter.

"I also can't help but wonder how some of the defenders of generous Photoshop enhancement would feel if they were on the receiving end of the transaction. Would it bother anyone that nothing we saw first-hand ever looked as good as in photographs?

"In my opinion (and it's just my opinion), the closer photography gets to selling used cars, getting breast implants, using computers to correct the pitch of tone-deaf pop singers, and taking drugs to improve sports performance, the more it becomes a part of the 'do whatever it takes to get over' culture so prevalent in this country."

Email Scam Targets Artists

There's a new version of an old scam going around—this time targeting artists and photographers.

First, a "buyer" contacts you requesting to buy a particular print or artwork—sometimes even linking to your web page with the print that's being requested. Then they tell you that a check is on the way—one that includes shipping costs—but that you need to use their (the buyer's) preferred shipping company. You're requested to deposit the check and, on the same day, make a Western Union payment to the shipping company. (In the case we know about, the alleged company was called "fedral shipping." Sure sounds legit, huh?)

Naturally, what happens then is that the check bounces and you can't get the "shipping" money back.

This is an old scam, common enough on Ebay and Craig's List. What's new is that they're now targeting artists and photographers who have online stores. And, sadly, although I know most of you will already be inoculated against such a ploy, I can just picture some struggling artist being so pleased to finally make a big sale of work that they allow themselves to be blinded by hopefulness.

Beware.

Mike
(Thanks to Chuck Kimmerle)

Send this post to a friend

Around the Web on a Wednesday

...Plus, it's Jazz Appreciation Month, which I can get into
Who knew there was an International Garden Photographer of the Year? Then again, I didn't even know that today is Buddha's Birthday in Japan. It's also Poetry Appreciation Month. April is the coolest* month....

-

The Eyeborg

Canadian filmmaker Rob Spence, who lost an eye in a childhood accident** and previously fitted himself with an artificial eye with a working red LED in it (shown above), is now working with a team to install a digital camera in a prosthetic eye. He says he intends to "provide a new perspective on the growth of surveillance in western societies."

The members of the Eyeborg project are trying to fit a digital camera, a wireless transmitter and a power supply into the prosthetic eye.

(Note: in this case the digital camera is just a digital camera, unrelated to the efforts reported in a popular documentary to create a photomechanical eye connected to the brain.)

-

The Thesis of Hockney (as in David) and Falco (as in Charles M.)

"The Hockney-Falco Thesis: Our thesis is that certain elements in certain paintings made as early as c1430 were produced as a result of the artist using either concave mirrors or refractive lenses to project the images of objects illuminated by sunlight onto his board/canvas. The artist then traced some portions of the projected images, made sufficient marks to capture only the optical perspective of other portions, and altered or completely ignored yet other portions where the projections did not suit his artistic vision. As a result, these paintings are composites containing elements that are 'eyeballed' along with ones that are 'optics-based.' Further, starting at the same time, the unique look of the projected image began to exert a strong influence on the appearance of other works even where optical projections had not been directly used as an aid."

-

'Seven Days' superior to '$12 Million Shark'?
Our friend Joe Reifer writes to say that he just finished reading The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art, and he finds it inferior to Sarah Thornton's Seven Days in the Art World, which he found to be more entertaining and "not as dry."

-

A veritable cache of rare books

Fred Herzog, Crossing Main, 1968

Speaking of books, remember the big deal over Fred Herzog's beautiful book of nearly forgotten pictures from the '40s through the '70s, Vancouver Photographs? You might recall that, following our review, the book went from #2,200+ on Amazon Canada to #1, and then quickly sold out.

Well, we've learned that the Vancouver Art Gallery, which co-published the book with Douglas & McIntyre, still has some copies! If you were one of the people who were frustrated last time, you have another chance***. You can call their store (in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) at +604.662.4706, or email them. (Note that the store doesn't open until 10 a.m. Pacific Time.)

-

Here, Elvis, hold this a sec
DSC Labs' "Test Charts in Action" contest winners.

-

Special offer from Calumet for wedding photographers

Calumet Photographic is offering a special price on the Phase One 645 camera body equipped with the P21+ Digital camera Back, 80mm ƒ/2.8 AF Lens, Phase One Classic Warranty, and Calumet Travelite 1500ws Two-Head Umbrella Kit. Only $12,989.99.

The P21+ digital back offers a high-speed capture rate of up to 70 frames per minute of 18 megapixel, 16-bit capture. The camera accepts all the Mamiya 645 lenses, and also film backs.

(I was hoping an up-to-speed wedding photographer somewhere could explain to us why anyone would choose this option in preference to a D3X, A900, or 5D Mark II at less cost....)

-

New Polar site

Herbert Ponting Standing on his head (courtesy Scott Polar Research Institute)

Freeze Frame is a brand new website featuring the archives of the Scott Polar Research Institute at the University of Cambridge. The site features extensive galleries of photographs taken from 1845 to 1982 on research expeditions to both Poles.

Just in case you haven't had enough of the snow yet.

Mike
(Thanks to Benjamin Marks, Oren Grad, Joe R., Vlatko Juric-Kokic, and Robert Phillips)

*Little T.S. Eliot joke there.

**Running with scissors, we assume.

***Another chance to buy the book, but, you'll note, also another chance to be frustrated. If you really wanted it and you miss it again, well, I live in New York City and I'm listed under "John Smith."

Send this post to a friend