The Online Photographer

Open Mike: The Peripatetic's Dilemma

"Open Mike" is a series of weekly off-topic posts on TOP that feature Yr. Hmbl. Host venturing far afield.

Where to, Mister?
"If you could have one wish, what would you wish for?" You know that old question.

One of my favorite answers came from my cousin Elizabeth Lynch, a wise soul. She said, "I'd wish all my friends and all the people I love lived in the same town as I do."

That would be nice, wouldn't it? And just as impossible as most other answers to that question, whether it be an end to war or a golf game like Rory McIlroy's.

"Where to live" isn't as pressing or important a question as how to live, but it's in the same general category. And it pinpoints a class of people I envy: those who really like where they live. I wonder how common that is? I seem to know a lot of people who love where they live, but I'd guess that, like happy couples, they're a minority overall.

I can't live absolutely anywhere—there's this whole issue of the nexus laws that I have to worry about. I can't live in California or Colorado or Illinois, for example. At least until such time as a national uniform sales tax might get passed. But since I make my living, such as it is, entirely on the internet, I could theoretically live almost anywhere.

A momentary digression: one of the great book titles of recent years is Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. (It's a lovely book, too, one of my favorites.) The omnivore's dilemma is: if you can eat anything, what should you eat? (The opposite is the panda, which can only eat one thing: bamboo shoots. Being a panda means never having to decide what's for dinner.)

Taking a page from Pollan, I'd call my problem the peripatetic's dilemma. If you can live anywhere, where do you live?

Why Florida?
I want to thank all the many people who responded in any way to my hasty and offhand post the other day about possibly moving to Florida. It drew lots and lots of generous responses on and off list. In truth, the only reason I was looking at the Gulf Coast is that it looks like that's one of the few areas in the U.S. where I could afford a house anywhere reasonably near a body of water and a beach. I got very interested in hurricane-proof housing a few years ago (housing is—abstractly—one of my interests), and ever since then I've had this daydream of building a small (~950 sq. ft.) Topsider prefab house on a hurricane coast somewhere.

  Interior of a Topsider windproof house.

"Pipe dream" would probably more accurately describe that. At a certain age we come to know our own patterns all too well, and I'm just not good at life planning. A much more sensible scheme for me would be to plan to get married and then leave it to my wife to decide where to live.  :-) 

On wings of ether
Since that post, though, I've taken a whirlwind virtual tour of the country. When anybody suggested a certain area to me, I'd go to the semi-addictive Zillow.com and zero in on that area of the country and start looking at houses.

The tour has not been entirely pleasant. For one thing, it confuses me. Too much data and too many choices makes the act of choosing more difficult, not less, as anyone who has had to buy a camera recently knows all too well. For another thing, seldom have I had to look at so many bad photographs consecutively—most of them tiny. It's left me with eyestrain and a slightly sick feeling in my stomach—a lot of real estate agents need to take a course, is all I'm going to say.

But the main lesson of my Grand Tour is that...I really can't afford to live anywhere I would want to live. Either housing prices have to go down further, or I need to earn more. (For the record, I'm not complaining, I'm just sayin'.)

Other peoples' fantasies
One website singled out Naples, Florida, as one of the most undervalued real estate markets in America. Really? From the looks of the Zillow map, you can't smack a tennis ball in Naples without hitting a million-dollar-plus house. One house I saw listed was described as "a stopover house...a pleasant enough place to live while your beachside dream house is being constructed." The cost of this temporary layover pad? Upwards of five million bucks, fer pete's sake. Who are these people?

One nice conclusion of my virtual journey...I don't covet big showpiece houses. Don't need a swimming pool, don't need nineteen rooms, don't want to live in a place that resembles a very fancy hotel or a mansion-turned-museum. That's not the fantasy for me.

What is? I looked at the tiny mountain town of Bisbee, Arizona, an arts enclave near the Mexican border. Some people in Bisbee have part-residence, part-rental properties. And the town and surrounding area is almost painfully photogenic. Now wouldn't that be fun? I could live in the residence part and rent out the rental part to TOP readers from all over the world who want to come visit the Old West! I picture an endless procession of new friends to talk shop and look at pictures with. Nice thought.

That fits in with another long-time pipe dream of mine. The way I logicked out Liz's wish is that if you can't have all your friends in the same town, then the next best thing would be to live in a place where all your friends would want to come visit. Accordingly, my lottery-daydream for years now has been to live in some spectacular spot in Hawaii...and have a commodious guest house. Not because I'm particularly attracted to Hawaii—I don't even swim—but because the catnip-lure of free accommodation in Hawaii would probably mean I'd see all my friends and relatives sooner or later!

I'll always love that idea. I'd never pull it off in two lifetimes, but I love the idea.

I can't look at California. They don't allow Amazon affiliates there, and without Amazon income I'd be pounding the pavement.

Two readers suggested Santa Fe. I will say that Santa Feans have the best taste in the country when it comes to interior decor—the local standard is quite high, if the dozen or so listings I looked in on are any indication. Alas, as it true in many areas, the prevailing prices put Santa Fe out of my modest reach.

So guess what? The best single house I found in all my online peregrinations was right here close to home. Only a dozen miles from me, in the genteel old neighborhood where the Mayor of Milwaukee lives—and right down the block from a pair of old friends (hiya, Dan and Barb). A gorgeous restored 1910 Craftsman-style house with lots and lots of woodwork (look at the interior shots. I love wood. The more a house has, the better).

Alas, it has a signed contract already. It was too expensive—and, truthfully, too extensive—for me anyway.

But maybe the biggest lesson of looking around is that I'm better off staying where I am.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Sean: "I'm one of seven siblings raised in inner city Manchester, England. Everybody I grew up with, friends and siblings alike, still live within five miles of me. It's one of the very few benefits that a lack of social mobility brings."

Mike replies: Very true, very true. And it's a big advantage. (Assuming you like your friends and siblings.) There are people here in Waukesha like that.

But actually that's one more thing to watch out for if you're moving: stumbling into too tightly-knit a community can tag you as a permanent outsider. Here in the U.S. we're nomadic, generally, so that's not much of a danger, but once a long time ago I almost moved to a small town where, it turned out, everyone's great-grandparents had known each other. Maybe not literally. My eyes were opened when one of the townspeople answered my question by saying, "I've been here twenty years, so I'm still a 'mover-inner.'" Yikes!

Featured Comment by William: "Thanks for sharing the beginning of your journey. Real estate prices in Florida are depressed. I visit friends in Naples and I know exactly what you're talking about.

"I do think the U.S. real estate brokers are fools. The Multiple Listing Service (MLS) software is a joke. It's like time-traveling backwards about 15 years. At least 80% of buyers look online first and the brokers won't invest in software that shows decent-sized images. Is bandwidth and storage that expensive? The most successful agents have private web sites that show much higher quality photos. Still, it is easy to find listings for million dollar homes with photos that appear as though they were taken by a random stranger off the street who never operated a camera before. I won't even start to rant about the HDR photos that make me wonder if there had been a small house fire and no one bothered to clean the smoke damage off the walls and ceilings.

"Anyway, you should head down to Florida and take in a few spring season baseball games. Find realtors in towns of interest  who uses a pro photographer (they will be the most professional agents). Get a feel for the place. Change can be good."

Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw

Sony NEX-5N camera JPEG, 1.6 sec. @ ISO 800, –3/10 EV

By Ken Tanaka

A couple of months ago I suggested keeping an open mind toward using in-camera image processing, and a number of people asked me to expand on the subject. So I thought I'd just share the logic behind my suggestion and some notes on my own practices.

First things first: no, I am not advocating that anyone abandon using Raw* image files. They are undeniably essential for any application requiring extensive manipulation of the image, particularly significant enlargements. Further, Raw will be the most practical choice if you expect to apply extreme tonal variations on those images. If you need Raw, shoot Raw. Simple as that.

That said, however, the fact is that the majority of my own images remain rather close to their original capture state. I'll bet yours do, too. And with 10 MP being today's apparent minimum resolution for new cameras, I rarely need to even stretch a file any more. The native resolution is nearly always adequate for even larger prints.

So with 1+ terabyte of mostly Raw files hogging my disc space, I asked myself a few simple questions. Does an all-Raw image work flow make any sense? Should I be taking advantage of the substantial storage and processing economies of using pre-cooked camera JPEG files as my new "standard"? Shouldn’t I be taking advantage of the enormous strides that camera manufacturers have made in in-camera image processing? And the big question: Will anyone call me a sissy if I use in-camera JPEGs?!

Why shoot JPEG? Because that's where the money went!**
The major camera manufacturers invest substantial sums toward refining their image processing technologies***. It's what they're most proud of as the hearts of their cameras and a key part of their proprietary competitive weaponry. Processing systems such as Canon's DIGIC system, Nikon's EXPEED system, and Fujifim's EXR system integrate the operation of the camera with the lens and sensor in an attempt to optimize the recorded image.

Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home. This made perfect sense years ago when the chef was still in school. But today many in-camera chefs are James Beard Award candidates. It's definitely time for a re-think.

Back to the future!
So now that you're eager to use all the new technology in your camera, I'm going to suggest you shoot like it's 1980. Yup. Even the best camera JPEG is an 8-bit file which affords less adjustment leeway than a raw file. So the best general guidance I can offer when shooting JPEGs is to be careful with your exposures. We've all become sloppy as cameras have become more automated. Many of the camera processors realize this and have programs that automatically compensate for our carelessness. But the best strategy is to devote some "quality time" to become deeply, almost instinctively familiar with your camera's metering and processing responses. I guarantee that the investment will repay you with excellent dividends.

I'll have mine medium-rare, but hold the sauce, please
I approach in-camera processing to get the best of what it can provide. But usually nothing more. That is, I generally use the most neutral color profile and medium contrast and sharpness. This provides the camera's essential technical corrections and tonal adjustments but steers clear of the faux effects such as "Holga," "Antique," and "MFA Candidate." This produces a file with color and contrast tonality that's generally straight down the middle of the road and able to equally accommodate + or – bumps. It looks more lively than a purely linear Raw image but not vivid.

What about B&W conversions?
Black-and-white conversions are more technically and aesthetically complex than simply nudging chroma and luminance. Reducing relatively rich color data to a few shades of gray is tricky for anything fancier than simple desaturation. B&W conversions also tend to be wandering manual processes as you lurch through slider settings in search of perfection. Staying within a higher-bit color system offers you a wider aisle down which to lurch.

Conversions to B&W can strain the JPEG’s limitations, as shown in this conversion of a gradient portion of a scene.

For this reason I recommend taking either of two approaches. First, experiment to see if your camera's processor can produce a conversion that you like. You may discover that it can usually produce a good average head-start baseline.

Failing that, I recommend that you simply use Raw files for images destined for B&W conversion. This is especially true for scenes featuring color gradients and/or a densely varied palette of colors and tones. Why needlessly suffer?

Other notes
I've already made the point of taking care with your exposures when shooting JPEGs. To that end, if your camera's exposure compensation facility is not already second nature to you (wagging finger), invest the time to make it so. Exposure compensation may be among the least-used features on advanced cameras, even though it's incredibly valuable and powerful for providing the crucial nudging important for getting the best images straight from the camera (Raw or JPEG).

• The "expose-to-the-right" mantra is not always the best strategy for JPEGs. In my own experience, well-lit scenes with high-contrast ratios will, indeed, benefit from + exposure compensation. But predominantly dark scenes featuring bright points or pools, such as the top image, often benefit from – compensation. Again, forget dogma and experiment for yourself.

• Beware of resolution reductions that certain in-camera rendering modes may produce. For example, the Fujifilm X10's EXR mode devoted to minimizing low-light noise uses a pixel-binning**** technique which halves the camera's resolution. I'm not suggesting abstinence, just cognizance.

• Editing JPEG image files in Lightroom and Bridge is essentially identical to editing Raw files. (I use the Camera Raw editor in Bridge for making edits to JPEGs as well as Raw files.) In fact I expect that you'll rarely take note of the difference.

• Images processed from Raw files tend to have basically the same initial appearance, camera to camera, principally determined by your converter. But camera JPEGs show much more character of both the camera body body and the lens. Just an observation.

Photography has always been highly susceptible to dogmatic practices, fetishes, and gospels. "Only film...," "Only prime lenses...," "Only viewfinders...," "Only full-frame...," "Only Raw files...." The problem with dogmas is that although they're often founded in point-in-time best-practices they can become dated millstones in a field with such an inconstant technical environment as photography. That's exactly the case with the "Raw-only" dogma. If you use a late-model camera and have largely ignored its image processor, you owe it to yourself to explore it, even if you're a placard-waving "Raw-only club" member. You may find that you can better allocate your post-processing time or, better, spend more time just studying your images.

And nobody's going to call you a sissy or kick sand in your face at the beach if you start using in-camera JPEGs.

Ken

*[Just an editorial note...we can never decide whether to write it "raw" or "RAW" (it's not an acronym) so TOP's site style is simply to split the difference and write "Raw." This is on us, not Ken. "JPEG," however, is an acronym. —Mike the Ed.]

**Apologies to Willie Sutton for adapting his famous line.

***There are some exceptions. Within my own collection of cameras two, of the most expensive, the Leica M8.2 and M9, are ironically among them. The JPEG images from these cameras are downright primitive.

****Pixel-binning is a software/firmware algorithm to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of an image sensor by merging data from adjacent pixels. The compromise improves image quality but results in less image data.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Bill Mitchell: "AMEN! Three cheers and a tiger."

Featured Comment by Jim Allen: "Your analogy of buying a meal from a nice restaurant and taking it home to cook it yourself kind of struck me like a good solid smack. What a perfect description. I never thought to look at it that way, and have been pretty firmly in the 'just shoot Raw' camp. For a long time. Not a placard-waving demonstrator mind you, just always shot Raw by default, having read many recommendations to do so in the not too distant past. I've always set the point and shoot cameras I've owned to shoot 'fine' JPEGs without a second thought, and sometimes have been quite taken with the images thus produced. I've always assumed I needed to sit there in front of Lightroom as a kind of after shoot ritual with my DSLR work. Not always eager to give up the extra time required either. I feel a bit like an idiot for never even really trying out the JPEG capabilities of my Canon DSLRs. I think I've set them to take small JPEGs for Ebay once or twice, but that's it. HMMmmm. I think I'll try your advice and see what I see.

"Thanks for the article, it really was an intriguing read. Long have I wandered in the forest, and suddenly the trees come into focus."

Featured Comment by h.linton: "Interesting idea. I was actually thinking about this very thing this past week and after some thought realized that the only advantage (to my mind) would be the extra capacity on the CF card which is not an incentive to change. I get your logic though, but, in the digital world that I inhabit, it's the post-processing 'signature' that I create myself that I'm most interested in—not what some camera manufacturer might come up with."

Featured [partial] Comment by Zeeman: "There is another consideration though—one does not always know, at the time of image capture, how the image might eventually be used. It is no stretch to imagine that a photographer might take a photo, 'sleep on it,' and retrospectively decide that it looks better in black and white."

Featured Comment by marek: "The flip side is that a good Raw converter at home (perhaps from the very same camera company) is like having the 5-star Michelin chef living in at home listening to our every culinary desire?"

Featured Comment by John Krumm: "I shoot Raw, but when teaching middle school students (as I was this morning) we always have the DSLRs (Oly 520's) set to JPEG. The files look great in Aperture, and it's all so much easier to handle. There's an art to getting perfect jpegs, adjusting contrast as needed, watching specular highlights...it can help your Raw shooting in the end, since it forces you to think about the light more."

Featured Comment by Peter Silvia: "In keeping with this train of thought, Antonin Kratochvil is interviewed here and says that he shoots JPEG."

Featured Comment by K.H.: "Shooting JPEG is the equivalent of taking your colour film to the drug store for some body else to print it for you, shooting in Raw is like having your own darkroom, in my opinion."

Featured Comment by Murray Lord: "I liked what Gianni Galassi posted on his blog a while ago: 'I'm allergic to Raw formats and I expect a good camera to properly do its job, which is to take a photograph and properly process it into a usable file, instead of subcontracting this task to the photographer.'"

Featured [partial] Comment by Ed: "I compare .jpg to .mp3 files. They are great for listening to music in a bus, but not perfect for use on a 40,000 dollar sound system. Not perfect for editing either. But having said that, if you are happy with the end result there is no need to go elsewhere and indeed new in camera engines are improving."

Featured [partial] Comment by Roy: "Hmm. Shooting JPEG only is effectively to intentionally restrict your options. Given that shooting Raw and JPEG simultaneously is a cost free option—card space excepted—the argument is no argument at all."

Featured Comment by Nico Burns: "I still see very little disadvantage to shooting Raw+JPEG. I have a 16GB SD card, which allows me to take about [?] Raw+JPEG images before I run out of room. Hard drives are also fairly cheap. IMO having the Raw there just-in-case is definitely worth it those couple of times you need it."

Featured Comment by Jeffy: "JPEG makes me money."

Featured Comment by Jeff Johnston [no relation —MJ]: "Will anyone call me a sissy if I use in-camera JPEGs?! Yes."

The Real Photographer Has Now Died

You've probably heard me say before that all photojournalists work hard but the really lucky ones labor all their lives and also leave a legacy of one single shot that becomes iconic, world-famous, part of the Zeitgeist, the culture. For example, Sam Shere's picture of the crash of the Hindenburg, or Nick Ut's of the napalmed Vietnamese girl; Alberto Korda's endlessly reproduced "Guerrillero Heroico," or Joe Rosenthal's "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima." The one picture becomes a career compacted, like carbon into diamond; the precious transcendent pinnacle, symbolic of a lifetime of work.

That makes it especially heinous when somebody steals that one picture from you. That almost happened to Stan Stearns, who died last Friday, March 2nd, at the age of 76.

Stan was the one photojournalist covering the JFK funeral who got the poignant shot of 3-year-old JFK Jr., then known as "John-John," saluting his father's caisson and casket as it passed by.

The Washington Post tells Stan's story from that day. First, he asked around to see if any of the other guys had gotten the shot. None had (although television captured it). So he decided to detach from the proceedings and rush the picture back to the UPI's Washington bureau.

"The bureau chief almost had a hemorrhage," Mr. Stearns told the Annapolis Capital in 2009. "I never saw a man turn as white as he did because I was not with the entourage going to Arlington. Then the big boss from New York overheard that and he said, 'You better have it or you’re fired on the spot.'"

He had it.

The picture made the front pages of newspapers worldwide....

The Baltimore Sun quotes David Anderson, a friend of Stan's and founder of the Professional Photographers Organization of Greater Annapolis, who said Stan "was very proud of that photo and talked about it a lot."

Lifted!
Little did Stan know, though, that for years, another photographer was busy taking credit for his most famous shot. That story itself has become part of photography's lore now. Our coverage started in this post and most importantly continued here (with a bit of rare-for-us original reporting), and a follow-up here.

Stan Stearns with his most famous picture. Photo by
Gene Sweeney Jr./Baltimore Sun

There's a good obituary of Stan at the Baltimore Sun, written by Mary Gail Hare. The picture above is by the Sun's Gene Sweeney Jr.

The New York Times published an obituary of Stan Stearns too. But, fittingly, it also published a discussion of the O'Donnell affair that stands as its obituary editor's "worst nightmare," in Clark Hoyt's Public Editor blog.

Let's have no more of that, at any rate. Let the credit for the John-John picture belong to the man who took it:

Stan Stearns, R.I.P.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Completely OT: Hatching a Plot

I've been hatching a plot recently to move to Florida sometime in the next five years. Just mulling it over—after all, my golden years are coming on like a freight train, and even this last ultra-mild winter has seemed long. Does anybody within the sound of my voice live in the Florida panhandle? I'm looking for impressions and information about the QoL in the environs of Pensacola in particular, but anywhere on the Florida Gulf Coast in general. TIA,

Mike the Ed.

Nokia PureView

(Now there's a term that hadn't entered radar contact for me until a few weeks ago: "Nokia PureView.)

Hard on the heels of the news that the 41-megapixel Nokia 808 PureView isn't being offered here in the United States (the sensor will probably come here eventually in a phone running Windows mobile), there comes this fascinating article by Nokia's Damien Dinning. Really interesting what problem they were solving, and how they solved it. Newthink—I like it.

(As far as the guy hanging from the rock is concerned, though, human beings should stop doing that. I have to look away.)

Ctein is sending me the trial prints he made from the Nokia 808 sample files. I'll comment when they arrive.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by beuler: "The size of each photo detector on the 808 (1.4 microns) is equal to that of the iPhone 4S. The iPhone has 8 million, the 808 has 41 million. Do you think this sensor is stunning? Consider the lens! Take a look at this interview about the lens on the front of that sensor. Mike, you should be all over this Zeiss interview."

Mike replies: I enjoyed it, yes.

Featured Comment by Speed: "So instead of buying a phone with a camera attached, we'll be buying a camera with a phone attached. As it should be."

Featured Comment by Jim: "Disruptive technology for sure. Technology eventually reduces everything to an appliance and sucks all the fun from things."

Featured Comment by Mike Anderson: "Like many Nikon fans are saying, 'can I get a D800 without the video?', I'm wondering, 'can I get one of these without the phone?'"

The Consider/Dismiss Binary Switch

Grant me that I read the web for a living, so maybe I've become, shall we say, sensitive. But, often, when I read peoples' comments on new or just-introduced cameras—here or elsewhere—I fancy I can usually tell whether, deep down, they're considering it, or dismissing it. No matter how probitous, even-tempered, and analytical their thoughts might be, that binary calculation often seems to rise up from behind it: interested, or taking a pass?

Just sayin'.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured [partial] Comment by Rory O'Toole: "I think that the switch should have a middle position—'dreaming.' And don't underestimate the amount of time people can spend dreaming—from reading online, considering what they can sell to raise funds, trying it out in the shop...."

Featured Comment by Michal K.: "Well, I do spend a lot of time online reading about photography. I always find it amusing to read Canikon comments-wars. I'm not sure if everyone up there could be put into 'consider/dismiss' frames. Sure—many of them are dreamers—they would love to make good photos, but instead go out and try, they spend too much time pixel-peeping and reading reviews. I believe most of them just want to 'exist' for a while—say to the world, 'hey, I'm here!'By the way,  I love my seven-year-old 6-MP DSLR, and I have and use about six 35mm cameras. I am by no means pro, that's why I don't believe upgrading would improve my photos in any way. But, at the same time, I've got my likes and dislikes—I do like all of the new Fujis and I don't like new Olympus OM-D. I doesn't mean I consider buying either."

OT: Xmas and Parrots

Corrigan, as a baby, loved to be scratched.

By Ctein

Xmas reveals two unexpected characteristics of the parrots of Chez Ctein.

The first is that they don't care a fig about the Xmas tree. That's been consistent behavior amongst all the psittacines we've owned—three conures of varying types and sizes, one African Gray (the famous and previously-fabled Elmo), and too many budgies to count. All of them, to a bird, have totally ignored this bizarre artifact that appears in their midst. They're not frightened by it, they're not attracted by it, it's like it doesn't exist.

This is exceedingly abnormal bird behavior. Describing birds as "high-strung" is understatement. Their little nervous systems are stretched C-above-high-C taut; they are ever on the lookout for anomalies that could indicate danger (or opportunity). A sudden unexpected noise, a motion caught out of the corner of their eye, something in our hands when we approach the cages that they don't expect to see, even a piece of paper, any of these things can cause a panic reaction. There are old parrots and there are bold parrots; there are few old, bold parrots.

This is true even of Elmo, who has to be the most mellow, chilled-out African Gray I've ever known. It's most assuredly true of Corrigan, our yellow-side green cheek conure, who Paula and I are firmly convinced freaks out at dust motes. Screeches and alarm calls issue from him aperiodically for no reason that we can discern. Whatever danger he's frequently alerting us to is invisible to us.

Objects above birds have major threat potential. A strange object at ground level may be a prowling or slithering predator, but a strange object overhead is assuredly bad news.

So, come Xmas Eve, there are Paula and I hauling the Xmas tree into the living room, carrying it high over our heads so it won't bump into furniture or objets d'art, abruptly setting it upright barely a foot or so from Corrigan's cage (and only a few feet from the other cages), where it towers to the ceiling, and covering it with bright and shiny objects.

A typical Ctein household Xmas tree, with Corrigan's cage to the upper right. Elmo's is on the left. Why the birds should find it totally ignorable is beyond me.

There's no reaction from the birds whatsoever. They act as if it isn't even there. Elmo may be accustomed to Xmas trees, as we don't know the habits of his previous owner. The other birds have never seen one before. They are not repulsed by it, nor are they attracted to it once it's decorated. It is covered with all sorts of shinies, which are normally like catnip to a parrot—but it doesn't exist. Apparently an Xmas tree is too utterly alien for their avian brains to even register. It's the strangest thing.

Yum, bones
The second surprise is that Elmo is a serious opportunistic omnivore, with distinct carnivorous tendencies. Most parrots are opportunistic omnivores. It is generally thought that their carnivorous inclinations lean towards bugs and grubs and maybe the occasional mollusk, which are, to them, like modestly mobile small fruits and nuts. I have doubts.

Like many folks, I have the tradition of cooking a big turkey Xmas dinner with all the fixings, and then we eat it for the rest of the week until we're finally sick of it. This is Elmo's most favorite meal. The cranberry sauce, yams, wild rice, succotash, it all rocks. But without question his absolute favorite is a turkey (or chicken) thigh or wing bone.

Elmo digs into bones with gusto. He doesn't care so much about any meat on it. Instead, he goes for the joints and end caps, which he devours. Lots of fat and calcium, I suppose. Then it's onto the main course. Skillfully, he cracks the bone, peels away chunks of it and eats out the marrow inside. He works his way down it, cracking and peeling off chunks, eating out the marrow, until finally it's done. Then he requests another one.

I can tell from watching that this is instinctive behavior. There are ways that he acts around eating artificial foods that make it clear that he is adapting natural behaviors to novel edibles. This doesn't look like that. He knows exactly what to do with the medium-sized bone and dispatches it efficiently. I am quite convinced this is normal, wild behavior for him.

So what do African Grays eat in their natural environment? I don't know. Lizards? Rodents? Smaller birds? Do they scavenge the kill of other animals? None of my books have anything to say on the subject, but I am am inclined to think that when we have jokingly referred to him as our "little feathered velociraptor," there may have been more truth in that than we knew.

Ctein

Strange objects appear in the air above us on Wednesdays.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by James B: "Ctein, I am glad to see you are still with us—Mike's post of yesterday entitled 'Ctein's Corollary' had me panicked for a moment, as I glanced and mistook the word for 'coronary.'

"By strange coincidence, the BBC today published something on a fossilised velociraptor's last meal, which was, I'm sure you have guessed, a pterosaur's wing and bones. Perhaps Elmo is merely reverting to the call of the wild?

"An old Jack Russell dog, owned by a good friend of mine certainly did react to Christmas trees. In his first year while being house-trained he was taught to go outside and do his business under a tree in the garden. You can imagine the pup's confusion when a tree was brought into the house and placed on a grass-green carpet. He thought he was doing the right thing...."

The Ctein Corollary

Sally Mann, The Last Time Emmett Modeled Nude, 1987

Regular readers no doubt remember Ctein's (memorable!) column called "No One Cares How Hard You Worked." His point, in a nutshell, was that "If someone already likes your photograph, how hard you worked doesn't matter. If they don't, telling them how hard you worked is not going to change their mind."

But there's a corollary to that which is just as important: you have to work hard enough. Hard enough to get the shot you want.

You have to work as hard as you have to, you might say.

Just as a picture doesn't come with a letter of recommendation ("this photographer worked really hard to get this"), it also isn't excused by excuses ("this would have been better, but..."). You have to do whatever is necessary to get the picture. And sometimes, that entails a huge amount of work. And sometimes dedication. And sometimes expense.

The work can take any number of forms. Preparation. Content, like models and props, or arranging to work with subjects. Travel to locations. Multiple attempts. "Working" a subject, meaning taking a lot of shots of a particular subject to make sure you get one. Lots of shooting and careful editing. Improving your shooting skills so you can work fast on the fly. 

For many amateurs, "working hard enough" just means making time to get out of the house with the camera.

I interviewed Sally Mann in the '80s, which was altogether a wonderful experience for me. (Her place on the Maury River really is as magical as it looks in her photographs. I visited her there several times, once with my friend Lely Constantinople.) At one point she was talking about her picture "The Last Time Emmett Modeled Nude," and she said, "Would you like to see the genesis of that shot?" Off she went, returning moments later with a beat-up 8x10 paper box. On the floor of her living room, she laid out dozens of 8x10 proof prints. It turned out that she and her son Emmet had made multiple trips to that location and she'd tried the shoot again and again. The final attempt was in late Autumn, and the water was cold, and Emmett said, "that's enough, Mom. I don't want to do this any more." Hence the title. But she'd gotten the shot.

(Two of them, actually. Over the years, Sally has circulated prints from two different negatives with the same title. Few people realize there are two different pictures. Only one variant is online, at least that I've been able to find. Maybe she phased out the other one.)

Sally had worked very hard on that shot. Exceptionally hard, I'd say. Why? Because she needed to. And the shot finally worked—it's one of her many classics, and has earned her untold thousands of dollars over the years—well into six figures I'm sure. (It helped put Emmet through college.)

I argued at the time that she should work with a high-end publisher to create a deluxe book of her pictures from that era, so the reproductions would do justice to the magnificent prints. But she went the opposite way—she wanted a cheap book that anyone could afford. The modest volume with so-so reproductions was published by Aperture, one of the biggest and most widely-distributed photo book publishers at the time. On the good side, the book is still available. Definitely a high point of American photography books in the second half of the 20th century, and a must-have for any library of American photography books.

No one cares how hard you worked—but the corollary is, you still often have to work hard. Sometimes very hard. You have to work as hard as you have to.

Mike

ADDENDUM from Ctein: Dear Mike, I think the extension to Bob Nadler's Axiom: "No one cares how hard you worked" should properly be known as the Nadler-Johnston Corollary, thusly: "No one cares how hard you worked...but they will notice if you didn't work hard enough." pax / Ctein

ADDENDUM: Here's what Emmett (and his Mom) had to say about the picture (thanks to Bill Mitchell for this):

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Eolake Stobblehouse: "Sally Mann is a genius. Immediate Family is one of the most beautiful books I have."

Sony Apologizes for Shortage of NEX 24mm lens

Sony Corp. issued an apology on March 2nd to its customers for not being able to deliver adequate supplies of the Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8 ZA Sonnar T* E lens introduced with the new NEX 7. According to Google Translate, which speaks Japanese far better than I do, the press release was subheaded "Apology and Notice of shortage of supply," and says the $999 lens "received orders far exceeded our expectations since its launch, making it production status can not keep up with the request. Customers are deeply apologize that you get time to deliver."

The words may be a bit garbled, but the meaning is clear.

Mike
(Thanks to John Hogg)

UPDATE: I should have checked. The lens is in stock at B&H Photo. Thanks to Mike in the Comments for pointing this out. (Sheesh. You'd think after seven years of doing this, I'd be getting better at it by now.)

UPDATE #2: ...And now they're gone.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Chad Thompson: "I've had my lens since January and didn't learn to love it until the NEX-7 arrived late last month. Until then I just had a jewel of a lens sitting in my cabinet and that's no fun. The most recent photos on my blog were taken with the NEX7/24mm combo."

Photo by Chad Thompson. Sony NEX 7, Zeiss 24mm ƒ/1.8.

Do Smaller Cameras Hurt Pros' Image?

Editor's Note: I was just about to post this below Kirk's Panasonic 25mm review, at the bottom of the existing Featured Comments, but I thought too many people might miss it way down there and it seems like an interesting topic. So here it is on its own. —MJ

Question from Kelvin: "Kirk, do you find your clients responding to you differently with the smaller camera? More relaxed? Easier to work with? Or not impressed, expecting 'big gear' for the money? I tried using my Ricoh GXR for a job once and the subject didn't seem to care. It made my job harder though (compared to an SLR—harder to focus, slow buffering).

Kirk Tuck replies: Perhaps in the old days of film photography, clients who were educated in the process might specify medium format film over 35mm film, especially if they had experience with color separations, but in this day and age I never, ever have any client ask about camera or camera type. If it's in your portfolio, they assume you can pull off a new version.

In the past three years I've had one client (rightly) criticize my camera choice. I tried to press an Olympus E-3 into making a sharp 11x17 for 4-color print. The strong AA filter on that model made it difficult to resolve small detail well. I ran out that afternoon and bought a Canon 5D Mark II, and we re-shot. The client didn't know Canon from Olympus. His only gauge was the quality of the final file.

While the "TV" version of professional photography often includes an art director standing right next to the camera approving each shot, the "reality" version, for editorial, is a client 1200 miles away waiting for you to upload a gallery of small JPEGs for selection and then waiting for your upload of the finished file from Raw. They never see the gear you bring. Only the result. And the result is what generally gets you the next job. Or not.

A 16-megapixel camera from Panasonic, Canon or Nikon will work well for nearly every job we do. The 12-MP ones pleased art directors just a few years ago. And the 6-MP ones before that.  The vision thing is what we're really trying to sell. Not the gear.

[Kirk has expanded on this idea in a post over on his own blog called "You Can't Use That. It's Not Professional." (Thanks to Gary Brown for pointing this out...I hadn't seen it yet.)]

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Jeffy: "As a former Nikon DSLR shooter, I do all my work with Micro 4/3 cameras now. In the beginning of working with small cameras I had some uneasy clients, so I would simply get my old beat to death D2H and set it on a table close by. Then I would shoot with my GX1."

Mike replies: You bring up a very good point. One of the things Kirk was saying is that he doesn't interact directly with clients and they don't see his equipment, which I thought was interesting. But when you do, it's essential not to give the impression that you can't afford the equipment you need. That can be death.

Featured Comment by Sanford: "In the official rules for media at the AT&T Pro-Am: Photographers must use professional looking equipment."

Featured [partial] Comment by John Camp: "Everything that everybody has said here is true, but you also have to be a bit careful...you can't get an image if you don't have a working camera. I shoot almost nothing but Micro 4/3 Panasonics now, but a few years ago, for several years spanning the film/digital divide, I was the principal photographer for an archaeological dig in the Middle East. We worked in a cloud of dust, and almost every day for six straight weeks the temps were above 40°C, which is about 104°F. When I was doing that, I shot Nikon F5's, then D1X's and D2X's. Anytime after 9:00 in the morning, they were covered with mud, from a combination of dust and sweat; when I stopped sweating, I was in trouble from dehydration. I think my Pannys would have lasted a day or two....

"If you're talking from a particular perspective like Kirk is, doing a lot of studio work, there may not seem much point in the overloaded monsters. But in reality, there is a point. Back in film days, when I was still reporting, I worked with photographers who were supplied with F4's and F5's, and a lot of them began using their own N90's, because those were great cameras and much lighter and with virtually all the functionality of F5's. But then, there were also the ugly assignments, around dusty cornfields or around water or forest fires, and then the F5's would come out. The small cameras are also not good for throwing around in lightly padded backpacks, and I suspect quite a few people here do that.

"So the small cameras are just fine for what small cameras are just fine for; but there are some things that they're not just fine for. When Panasonic comes out with an armored G1x, I'll probably get one."

Mike replies: You also bring up a good point. I used to shop at Pro Photo in D.C., when they were the principal repair shop for many working photojournalists. I remember coming in once and seeing two very beat-up cameras on the repair bench—Nikon F4's that had been painted desert camouflage. This was during the Gulf War. I made some snappy comment about how old they were, and the proprietor of the shop told me they were five months old. So it does depend how the camera has to be used, and for how long.

Featured [partial] Comment by mbka: "A smaller camera can work better than a larger one in certain situations. I have been shooting preschoolers for years now with Micro 4/3 equipment (currently with that great little 25mm ƒ/1.4). The small camera makes the photographer a lot less intimidating to the kids than a big bad black block would. I can move very close to their faces and still get a smile. I can even let them hold the camera and no broken wrists!"

Featured Comment by Chris Lucianu: "'You can't use that, it's not professional' are almost the very words Ella Maillart told me she heard from her editors when she proposed to travel to Central Asia and China with her Leica in the 1930s.

"You may want to look up Ella Maillart: adventurer, travel writer, photographer. Her first major tribulations took her across the Soviet Union through to Soviet Turkestan, 1930–32. On her way back, she stopped over in Germany, where she was met by Ernst Leitz II. Leitz was so impressed with her photographs that he presented her, literally, with her first Leica. (Her last would be a CL, forty years later.) Ella went back to Central Asia, and was joined for a trek all across China and the Himalayas, from Beijing to Srinagar, by Peter Fleming (Ian Fleming's elder and arguably more interesting brother). Both she and Fleming published their individual accounts of that journey.

"I met Ella Maillart half a century after her first Asian adventures. A spry, ageless Kate Hepburn character, she was preparing a trek to Bhutan and Sikkim. I took her picture with my OM-1. She examined the Olympus, weighed it carefully in her hands, and said: 'Not too bad for an SLR. Still, the lenses are bulkier than my Leica. You can't travel light enough up there.' I joked that she should consider a Minox. 'I thought about that, but was warned that I might get arrested as a spy. Even my Leica was so unusually small at the time, it was held against me as a "concealed camera" when I was arrested in turn by the Russians, the Japanese and the Chinese, during my travels in the '30s. Eventually they let me go, and keep my camera, because I was clearly an "amateur."' At that, she beamed me a broad smile."

Featured Comment by Colin Work: "Sometimes use my Pany Micro 4/3 equipment in conjunction with my Canon DSLRs on assignment, but tend to pass them off as backup gear / testing etc. In many cases they would do the job, but I have noticed many nasty comments made about photographers shooting with point 'n' shoots at media events (why are they here? how did he get accreditation?). While I agree in principle with the 'size doesn't matter' point of view, I'm not yet prepared to risk being snubbed by event organisers for not having appropriate equipment. As an aside, I have found carrying my big white Canon 500mm ƒ/4 a great door opener, even in situations where such a lens would be inappropriate, if not unusable—I've been waved through gates where others have had to plead their case for admission."

Mike replies: I have a confession—I once went to a Jaguar dealer when I could in no way afford a Jaguar, so for the occasion I got a Leica M7 and 35mm APSH out of the closet and put it on like a necklace. It had the desired effect—the salesman recongized it, and I have no doubt it helped pre-qualify me as being more prosperous than I really am. Imposture most base!

Featured Comment by Hoover: "I shot a job couple of weeks ago. Product shot at the client's office. Nikon D200 and 28–70mm ƒ/2.8 lens, four lights, green screen for background and big fancy tripod. One of the guys who worked there was curious as to what camera I was using. Turns out he has a D700! Going to be putting on a bit of gaffer's tape over the old D200 logo and tell who ever asks that it's a new Nikon prototype and I can't say anything about it. Or I'll lug my Pentax 67II along as a prop and say the Nikon's just for proofing and set up....

"Man, that D200 has paid for itself many times over. The client could have cared less what the camera was. Well, up to a point. And yes, I do want that new D800!!"

Featured Comment by Paul Byrnes: "On the red carpet at Cannes, photographers must wear a dinner suit to shoot; this is outside the theatre, on the approaches to the stairs of the Palais, not inside.

"One thing I did not know until I went last year was that people shooting live footage must have a 'professional' tripod. A friend who produces Australia's most-watched movie show had to spend a day trying to find a camera shop that would sell or hire him a big tripod to get some coverage from the day before his real crew was booked to arrive. He had found someone who could shoot it but they only had a dinky tripod.

"This is presumably to stop dinky camera crews, rather than 'real' ones from major TV networks, getting a space on the coveted approaches. My point is: it's not just the camera, baby. If you don't show up with a full rig at the world's most important film festival, doesn't matter what camera you are carrying. Insane, but true."

Focus on Imaging: Show Report

The crowds at the Canon booth are constant....

...And at the Nikon booth too.

By Robert D. Phillips

For any U.K. readers eager to get their hands on some of the new camera releases, Focus on Imaging at the NEC in Birmingham is running until 5 p.m. this Wednesday, March 7th.

Canon are* using the show to launch their brand shining new and eagerly awaited 5D Mark III, and the stand is crowded from the 10 a.m. opening till the end of each day with people playing with the five or so examples they have on show. People seem to like it. I overheard the fashion photographer Perou, who has some photographs on show at the Focus Gallery at the hub of the hall, tell the CPS** rep, "You don't need to sell it to me—I will definitely be getting one." Or at least it was something very similar to that....

Nikon are finding it hard to keep up with demand to play around with their D800 as they only have one example in the country. The queues to try it out are daunting, like being at a crowded bar trying to get the eye of the barman. They are making up for it by having what is apparently the largest LCD in Europe serving as their theatre screen.

The Olympus stand is a small catwalk which is OM-D branded, and has been showing an alternating schedule of dancers, models, and photographers talking about the new miracle camera. As was mentioned in TOP, the actual camera is a lot smaller than it appears in the product shots, but it feels good in the hand and makes a very satisfying old-school shutter noise/feel when used. There are only two OM-Ds here, but again, people seem to be liking the camera.

Similar story over on the Fuji stand, where there is only one version of the lovely new X-Pro1. This is a piece of retro art—it looks and feels in the hand like a "proper" camera of old, and Fuji seem very proud of it, rightly so in my opinion.

Sigma are being even more coy with their new 19mm and 30mm ƒ/2.8 4/3 lenses—the sole examples of each are pre-production mock ups which stay firmly in the cabinet. Certainly tempting the desire though.

It is nice to see a pretty strong presence from Ilford at the show. Pushing mainly the new InkJet papers, they also have a strong film presence which is nice to see. Any visitors to the show can have their photo taken with an 8x10 camera loaded with an Ilford paper negative, which is then contact printed into a positive and is yours to take away after 20 minutes.

The Nova Chrome stand even has an enlarger on show!

All I want for Christmas....

I would say that the show is a must for any serious gearheads finding themselves near Birmingham, England over the next few days. Everything you can imagine, from the awesome Phase One 80MP outfit, right down to the eyecups and LCD loupes being sold by brothers Lou and Bob over all the way from L.A. CA. "We all but sold out by the end of day one" said Lou, with a big California smile. "So now we are just taking orders."

All the way from L.A.: Lou and Bob from Hoodman

Focus On Imaging is in Halls 9 and 10 at the NEC Birmingham until 5 p.m. Wednesday, March 7th.

www.focus-on-imaging.co.uk
@FocusOnImaging

Robert

TOP reader Robert Phillips, who you've encountered before in these environs, is filling in at the Focus on Imaging press office this week.

[*Company names are treated as plural in British English. A U.S. writer would say "Canon is." I've left the author's native Britishisms in place because it seems appropriate—in the way that Ailsa McWhinnie used to leave my Americanisms alone in my U.K. Black & White Photography magazine column. —MJ]

**Canon Professional Services, Canon's limited-membership support organization for Canon-using professionals.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Mark Cotter: "I was at Focus on Imaging on Sunday and managed to get my hands on all of the new cameras that interested me—Canon's 5D Mark III and the 1Dx, the Olympus OM-D, and the new Fuji X-Pro1. Being a Canon user, the new models are very nice but didn't wow me. The OM-D was a disappointment. Yes, it's a very nice camera but it's too small for my liking: it needs the two grips to make it useable. Perhaps, being an OM-1 user for my film work, I just prefer the size of the original. The Fuji line was outstanding. I'm in love with the new Fuji X-Pro1. Possibly, the nicest camera I have handled in quite some time."

The Canon 5D Mark III and the Miata

So a couple of days ago the Canon EOS 5D Mark III was announced. TOP reader "JohnMFlores" (whose name I assume is John M. Flores) observed:

The less-than-OMG!-ness of the comments here is more interesting than the camera itself. Have we reached the point of sufficiency? There is much to admire in this new camera, but is there enough to instill desire?

That made me think of the Mazda Miata (fair warning: I'm a bit of a Miata nut, so beware of incoming).

The Miata, for those of you who don't know, is (or was) a Japanese roadster originally modeled closely on British roadsters of the 1950s and '60s. The original Miata bore a strong resemblance to Colin Chapman's original Type 26 Lotus Elan of 1962–75.

Stepping back one more step for those who need the background, a roadster is an open-topped, two-seater sports car, usually, but not exclusively, with a front-mounted engine, rear-wheel drive, and a manual transmission. (I've written about roadsters before in "Open Mike.") Despite the way it sounds, "miata" isn't a Japanese or even an Oriental word—it means "reward" in Old High German.

The Miata is the best-selling roadster in automotive history, surpassing 900,000 as of February 2011. It was a revival car—the original British and Italian roadsters were long gone or long in the tooth by 1989—and it bestowed Japanese reliability on to what had been a notoriously highly unreliable type of automobile. It has outlasted several pretenders to its throne—the Z3, the MR-2, the Solstice/Sky.

Briefly (unless it's too late for that): there have so far been three major variants of the Miata. The so-called NA was introduced as a 1990 model in 1989, and was last produced in '97; there was no 1998 model; the revised NB model came along in 1998 as a '99, was substantially revised in 2001, and lasted until 2005; and the car was completely redesigned roughly along the lines of the earlier two in 2006 as the NC. (NA, NB, and NC are internal designations, not part of the formal name of the cars.) Miataphiles are anxiously awaiting and endlessly discussing the possibility of a fourth Miata, the rumored but so-far-unreleased "ND."

The current "NC" Miata. Inexplicably, the designers thought it should its styling should resemble a cartoon more closely than a classic roadster. The "smile" grill debuted in October 2008, a little more than two years after Pixar's computer-animated "Cars" was released.

The sales graph
Each refreshed version appears accompanied by a spike in sales, as buyers flock to the new car; and over the next few years, the line on the graph heads south as sales decline...until the previous version reaches its nadir and the next version appears.

But each new spike is lower than the last, and each version has declined further in sales than the previous one did.

Obviously, that kind of graph can't go on forever. At some point, the sales spike created by a new model isn't worth the trouble for the carmaker, and the inevitable sales decline as the model ages takes the product into the realm of the untenable. The current NC version, 2006–?, reportedly now sells fewer than 6,000 cars a year worldwide—fewer than any Miata in the nameplate's nearly 23-year history. In automotive manufacturing terms—at least for reasonably priced cars—that's right on the borderline of "hardly worth the trouble."

What I'm wondering is whether this pattern explains the less than completely enthusiastic reception of the Canon 5D Mark III last week. Unlike car sales figures, Canon's official sales figures aren't made public, at least that I know of. But it's possible that the 5D is tracing the same sort of pattern the Miata has. Going merely on my impressions, it seems like the original 5D created a sensation and was—must have been—a huge sales success; the II's impact was similar but lesser; and the III seems to have been greeted with the modest approval of an expected development that everyone more or less takes for granted. Surely the III will create a sales spike above what the II was achieving at the end of its run. But will it be high enough? And will it last long enough?

And it remains to be seen whether the 5D Mark III will be the last 5D. But if I'm right to analogize the sales (and buzz) factors to those of the Miata, it might be possible. Personally, I don't think there will ever be an "ND" Miata. I think the nameplate has run its course. Oh, I've no doubt that Hiroshima has an ND in development, and it's periodically rumored in the automotive press, accompanied by fanciful "renderings" of what it might look like. But I have it on pretty good authority that no final decision has been made yet as to whether to produce it. And my guess is that the decision will ultimately be "no."

It's a lifespan thing
Maybe this is the wrong analogy. One could also look at this through a Canon versus Nikon prism—maybe what explains the Mark III's reception is that Nikon offered significant improvements for the D800 and Canon just didn't improve the 5D Mark III enough.

Maybe the full-sized DSLR as a class is is simply losing some of its lustre and settling into a gentle decline among serious photographers, garnering less and less "mindshare" as time passes, similar to the way the heavyweight boxing title and the Indy 500 seem to have declined in importance over the past couple of decades. (Can you name the current heavyweight champ or the winner of last year's 500? I can't.)

But I think it's just that the famous product is gettin' along. New models compete with used ones, partisans squabble over its meaning and reputation, and the product starts to suffer as much as benefit from the weight of its own heritage. Too many old fans drift away and not enough new ones enter the fold.

Maybe it's just that times are beginning to change. All products, after all, have "lifespans"—even very successful ones. Time will tell.

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by GH: "It seems that so many of us serious enthusiasts, hobbyists, and part time pros have moved on to using mirrorless cameras, because the quality is 'good enough' for any size that we tend to regularly print, and the portability of these new systems is a huge factor.

"I've been using NEX cameras with rangefinder lenses for nearly two years now, and gone are my A900 and other bulky DSLR setups. New DSLR announcements just aren't on my radar like they used to be. Six or seven years ago, big 35mm DSLRs were the only way to get high end print quality, but that just isn't the case, anymore, and the faster refresh cycles of the smaller sensor cameras allow the technology to get pretty close to the large DSLRs that have long life cycles.

"It's all about portable, these days, and the sales records reflect that."

Featured Comment by Roger Overall: "I think the III will sell well. In fact, over its lifespan it may outdo the II—though initially it will sell more slowly.

"The II brought us something new. Full frame HD video. It was revolutionary, albeit by accident. The III doesn't, as far as I can tell, have any revolutionary aspects to it.

"What it does have are the things many pros have been looking for. Proper autofocus, dual card slots and a more robust, weather-sealed body. Those three, coupled with better image quality and improved video useability will help it sell well initially.

"And then, when the IIs start dying off due to natural causes, where are their owners likely to turn? My instinct tells me the III. That means the III could sell in equal numbers as the II.

"The Miata you have will last you a long time. The II you have will give up its shutter mechanism sooner or later. The replacement time is much quicker than with a car.

"I do wonder how the 5IV could be better than the III. To me, the III looks like a perfect camera. The II never did. I've lived with its faults. So, I think the Miata comparison may be right. It's come just one iteration too early maybe."

Mike replies: Indeed, that might be right.

Featured Comment by Paul Glover: "Not a single one of the recent new flagship camera announcements has piqued my interest.

"With camera bodies north of $3k and the thick end of another $5k needed to acquire the accompanying 'lookie me I'm a pro-fesh-un-al' lenses, and another half k or so for a flash and then God alone knows how much to upgrade my creaky old PC to cope, they're well beyond 'I can afford or justify this purchase,' have passed clear through 'potentially attainable object of desire' and are now firmly in the territory of 'it's pointless to even bother feigning interest any more.'

"As tools of the wedding-and-portrait-sessions trade they make a lot of sense, but I'm merely a keen amateur with an eye on selling an average-sized black and white print now and then. There are considerably more cost-effective ways to achieve that end."

Featured Comment by John M. Flores: "Thanks for the mention, Mike! I'm working on my fifteen minutes of fame a little bit at a time; Being quoted on TOP is worth at least twenty seconds!

"Regarding Miatas, I owned a heavily modified NA and a stock NB. Skipped the NC—nice car but more of the same—and bought a Honda S2000 instead. So for me and Miatas it wasn't sufficiency but rather familiarity that bred discontent.

"And for anyone that dismisses Miatas as cute cars and 'chick' cars, go test drive one and then drive it like you stole it. If you don't have an ear-to-ear grin after five minutes you are clinically dead. The brilliance of the Miata is that you can have fun in it without going directly to jail. Corvettes and Porsches and other big boy cars on the other hand don't come to life until you're into the triple digits. Great cars for cocktail hour, boring for the real world.

"So at the end of the day, maybe the Miata is the Micro 4/3 of the car world. Or should that be the other way around—Micro 4/3 is the Miata of the camera world—good quality in a small and light package for everyday real world shooting. Hmmm, I think I just wrote Olympus's next ad campaign...."

Kirk's Take: Leica 25mm Summilux Review

It's the available lenses that make Micro 4/3 an
easy choice. Especially this one.

By Kirk Tuck

There's a lot of pressure put on reviewers to be fair and balanced in a way that seems the same as the social pressure to give everyone who participates in a contest a medal or a trophy. If we say we really like a small camera, we feel some sort of compulsion to moderate the statement with a rejoinder like, "for a small sensor camera...." It's almost as though there is consensus now that an objective prioritized list of camera features exists, and we, as writers and as astute image makers, have to hew to that conventional value.

Yes, the new Nikon and Canon cameras have bigger sensors than the Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras. By extension, we realize that the big cameras will have less electronic noise in the images taken at higher ISO settings. But does that really make those cameras the "obvious" choice for all serious photographers?

From my point of view a lot of what makes a system work is the available lenses. And for many of us there are one or two focal lengths (or, more precisely, the angles of view) that we keep coming back to over and over again for our own work. If the system we shoot with has a great example of the lensmaker's art in the focal lengths that we gravitate to, then that system has more value. If the cameras are much more fun to shoot with, then that has more value as well. The combination of great optics and great handling goes a long way to minimize the perceived value differences between "differently abled" systems.

I'm a sucker for two specific angles of view/focal lengths. On a full frame, 35mm-type camera I am drawn to the way 50mm and 85mm or 90mm lenses make images look. I think of the short telephotos as my "normal" lenses, and what most people think of as normal lenses I consider my moderate wide angles. So I was interested when I started hearing good news about two recently introduced lenses for the Olympus/Panasonic Micro 4/3 system: the 25mm Leica Summilux ƒ/1.4 and the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8. I bought them and I've been using them (to the exclusion of everything else) for the last two weeks.

Nighttime image taken at ISO 1250, 1/60th sec., ƒ/2.2. Handheld with no image stabilization. Lens: 25mm Summilux. Camera: Panasonic G3

I like them both very much. But for now I would like to report my opinion of the Leica 25mm Summilux. It slots into the Micro 4/3 world as a very high quality high speed normal optic. In a word, it is superb. On my first foray out with the lens, attached to a Panasonic G3, I walked all over Austin. I was heading back to my car in the dark when I came upon the architectural detail above. I aimed the camera, took a meter reading and shot. The auto white balance of the camera nailed everything in the scene, from the deep, rich blue of the sky to the white light indoors.

But what I really found compelling about the shot was the structure of the image and the impression of sharpness. Considering that the shot was taken at ƒ/2.2 I find the final product even more interesting. I'd done a similar shot with a Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 ZE on a Canon 5D Mark II a few weeks earlier, and found that the lens needed to be stopped down a lot to yield the same impression of sharpness. The smaller format and the greater depth of field of the shorter focal length lens creates a different look that, for things like architecture, seems better than longer focal lengths on bigger sensor cameras.

This image is interesting for another reason. There's a series of bare street lights just outside the right side of the frame—but there isn’t a hint of flare or veiling. This structure and lack of artifacts is good news but there's one aspect of the lens, and indeed most of the recent Leica lenses, that is harder to describe. It's an almost three-dimensional character in the images. It may not be obvious in the small, compressed JPEGs that accompany the article [the blogging software also degrades images subtly —MJ] but if you borrow the lens from your local dealer and shoot it you’ll see what I mean. It's just more...dimensional.

This image shows both a resistance to flare and the 3D quality I tried to describe. In the larger file the edges of the bright areas roll off more gracefully, but even in this smaller file I think the overall effect will be noticeable.

This afternoon I had the assignment of photographing one of Austin's top chefs and a highly successful restauranteur, Emmett Fox. I have photographed Emmett on other occasions and have always brought along lights, stands and high-dollar cameras and lenses. Today I decided I would go in light. Very, very light. I tossed a Panasonic G3 with the 25mm Summilux over one shoulder and I stuck the 45mm ƒ/1.8 on the front of an Olympus E-P3 and slung it over my other shoulder. I brought along a tripod just in case but I left it in the car.

Emmett greeted me at the door and I decided to get started right there.

ƒ/2.8 @ 1/3200

This next series of images is a full frame image followed by a 100% image followed by a 250% image. Even though I was handholding the camera and shooting nearly wide open, the lens is sharp across its plane of focus, lusciously contrasty and full of detail.

Just for the record, Emmett’s Apron is the robin’s egg blue that you see in the image. It's not an anomaly.

What I discovered during today’s shoot is that the Leica 25mm is much sharper at its maximum aperture and in the range of one stop down than my Carl Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 ZE is until you stop it down to ƒ/4 or ƒ/5.6.  And the combined "system" of the G3 camera and the 25mm lens also gave me the opportunity to cheat. I did something I'd never been able to do on a commercial assignment before. I used the face detection autofocus for every shot. And of the 220 or so images I ended up taking, only a handful needed to be rejected for minor focus issues.

All the images in this article were done with existing light in the restaurant.

The real magic in using a "normal" lens is that you can step in a create the illusion that the lens is longer or, as in the image just above, you can step back a few feet, include more environment, and mimic the feel of a shorter lens.

Emmett and I worked around his restaurant and I felt freed up not having lights and cable and triggers in tow. The small cameras worked well and the files have the necessary image quality to be used in  printed publications, and certainly on the web. The ability to shoot quickly and without effort was a different experience for me. I am used to setting up in one or two locations, lighting the subject and the background, putting the camera on a tripod and so on. Working without all that made changes of direction quick and seamless.

The color rendition of the lens is unobtrusively neutral. It’s not a lens
that calls attention to itself.

My tests show me that my copy is sharp in the center two-thirds of the frame even wide open. As I stop down it becomes even sharper in the center (although its wide-open performance more than satisfies me) and the sharpness spreads across the frame so that by ƒ/2.5–2.8 you've probably reached the maximum performance of the lens.

Being able to shoot at those apertures brings the whole Micro 4/3 system to life and explains why Micro 4/3 photographers like their Panasonic 20mm ƒ/1.7 lenses. In comparison, the 25mm is a good bit sharper wide open and has a solid feel to the frame. It maintains a certain feeling of depth to the details in the files that the Panasonic doesn't share, right through the useful aperture range.

The 25mm is big. The supplied square lens hood makes it appear nearly twice as big. The aperture "chatters" in bright light when mounted on an Olympus camera but there is no issue with the visual quality. If you manually focus you'll be "focusing by wire." Those are the cons.

Wide open table top. The front fork is in focus.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, I also brought along the Olympus 45mm ƒ/1.8 and I find many things to like about that lens as well. I included two images of chef Emmett taken with the 45mm and the Olympus E-P3. In this instance I got to cheat even more. I used face detection auto focus and I "instructed" the camera to focus on the closest eye. It did. If we’re going to demand cameras that do all the heavy lifting, we may as well use the features.

The two images above were taken with the 45mm ƒ/1.8 Olympus lens on an E-P3 body. Adding the 12mm Olympus lens to the two I've written about here would give me an easy-to-use and very high-performance camera system that can be packed into a shaving kit and which is able to go toe-to-toe with just about any system out there.

The 25mm Summilux is quickly becoming the anchor in my small system. I'm loathe to take other systems out anymore. The addition to a product line of an exceptional optic (or three) can make all the difference in the world.

Kirk

Photographer, photo book author, and photography blogger Kirk Tuck is a successful commercial and editorial photographer in Austin, Texas. His latest book, about "the hottest new trend in lighting technology"—LED lighting for digital photography and video—has just been published by Amherst Media.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by mbka: "I couldn't agree more. I had the sister of this lens (the 4/3 version with adapter on a Panasonic G1) and when the native Micro 4/3 version came out I bought it right away. I have shot literally thousands of frames with it (mostly preschool kids assignments) and the quality is superb. But the eeriest thing was right at the start, when I stuck the lens on my aging G1 in the store to check it before I bought it. Even on the so-so back LCD of the G1 the image seemed more plastic, with much better color than the kit zoom I also had around. I now almost loathe to use any other lens. It's that addictive."

Featured Comment by Kenneth Tanaka: "I agree that the Leica 25mm ƒ/1.4 DG Summilux is a wonderful little lens for all the reasons you cite, Kirk.  I, too, really like the 50mm field of view and jumped at the first availability of this lens for my E-P3.  (Although, no, a 25mm lens does not produce the mild compression of a real 50mm...my personal gritch with the Micro 4/3 format.)

"Of course I immediately wanted to know how this light plastic lens compared with the 'real' Leica Summilux 24mm ƒ/1.4 ASPH M-mount at less than 10% of its price tag. [The 24mm Summilux ASPH is $6,995 when it's available, which it isn't now —Ed.]

"Short answer: On my E-P3, this little lens easily takes the crown for sharpness, contrast, and, of course, all-around usability. The 'Lux 24mm is unquestionably the superior optic. On a Leica M body it features very good corners, excellent flare resistance and beautiful rendering at nearly all apertures. And, of course, it's built to withstand a D-Day invasion. But on my E-P3 the 25mm DG 'Lux, no doubt in cooperation with the E-P3's firmware, produces a superior wide-open image to the big guy. (Of course the 'big' 24mm 'Lux can only focus down to three feet...ah, that rangefinder intimacy!...versus the cute 25mm which focuses to a few inches.)

"I posted four casual comparison images for those interested.

"My main complaint with the Leica 25mm on my E-P3: that incessant chattering!  I don't know if it's really the iris, a stabilizer, or if the damn thing's cold up here in Chicago, but it drives me nuts. Chat-chat-chat-chat...shut up!"

Featured Comment by Marcin Wuu: "I absolutely love the first paragraph of this article. I just hope you're willing to cut some slack for those of us photogs who like our cameras properly black, bulky, and big...

Featured Comment by Oskar Ojala: "Nice review, thanks. However, it makes me want to buy the 25mm ƒ/1.4, even though I have a perfectly working 20mm ƒ/1.7! It's comforting to hear that other people have similar experiences.

"I'm completely sold on face detect; my last portraits with the 45mm ƒ/1.8 were entirely with face detect AF and the eyes were perfectly sharp, even when the subject was wearing glasses. It allows me to practically ignore focusing, so that I can pay more attention on the composition and the subject, a very important factor to me."

Mike replies: John Kennerdell wrote a nice piece here on TOP about using face detect...and trans-species face detect.

This Saturday

Housekeeping note: TOP won't be updating today, while the proprietor pretends to take a day off (although new comments will be posted).

Tomorrow, we will publish "Kirk's Take" by Kirk Tuck—this month, a review of the Leica/Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux lens for Micro 4/3 which has apparently just been discontinued. (That's unconfirmed. It's out of stock at B&H; Amazon no longer lists it as current; and it's backordered on the Panasonic website. All of which usually means tha-tha-tha-tha-that's all, folks!)

[UPDATE: It's probably more likely that this is just one of Panasonic's periodic supply irruptions. Adorama has the lens in stock (link removed—see below), for a good price. —MJ]

[UPDATE #2: Reader Joe Kashi writes to say: "It is not in stock at Adorama. Their web site representation to the contrary is not correct. They took my order and then converted it into a backorder." Caveat emptor, and sorry for temporarily steering you awry. —MJ]

If you'd like something to mull over today, try John Bates' "No Emus on the Airplane!" from June 2006. Fair warning, though—it's a piece to read slowly and carefully and think about, not one to skim.

Enjoy our day off....

Mike, TOP's One-Man Sidewalk Band

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

GaaaAAAAAHHH!!! It's HERE!!!

Big, beautiful sensor in a tidy, conservative, traditional wrapper is at
the heart of the 5D series' appeal.

Long awaited—much coveted—endlessly discussed—eagerly anticipated—the Canon EOS 5D Mark III is finally here and finally available for pre-order!

Here's a link to the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Digital Camera Kit with Canon 24–105mm ƒ/4L IS USM AF lens. Canon has also completely refreshed its top of the line Speedlite system "bringing it to new levels of performance and control."

It's possible to argue that the Canon 5D has been the No. 1 most important camera of the present era to serious and dedicated amateur and artistic photographers, also finding favor among passionate camera aficionados as well as a sizeable coterie of working professionals. It's sort of the central serious mainstream offering by the dominant cameramaker of the era, offering 90% of the performance of the top dedicated professional models in a portable, more reasonably-priced package, and offering quality overkill for hobbyists who want the best.

It might be worth mentioning that the original 5D of 2005 was so good that it's still in fairly wide use today, 49 dog years later.

For those eager to dive into the happy minutiae, I'd recommend Dpreview, Imaging-Resource, and especially Rob Galbraith DPI, whose articles on Canons are arguably the equal of Thom Hogan's on Nikons. Rob notes that "While things like pixel count, ISO range and video additions such as the headphone jack will get the most attention and discussion in the days ahead, the real story of the 5D Mark III is how much effort has been directed towards making it better as a camera."

Also, keep an eye on Luminous-Landscape for Michael R.'s comments. He knows Canons.

Go nuts, camera world! (Picture me grinning.)

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by MM: "I thought of the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry when Mike wrote, 'It's sort of the central serious mainstream offering by the dominant [carmaker] of the era.' For me the 5DII has been that kind of camera—a comfy, hard-to-dislike, reliable, well-performing day-in/day-out workhouse. I've put more than 150,000 'miles' on my 5DII so far, with no problems. (And yes, the Honda Accord was a game-changer, at least in the U.S., when it was released more than 35 years ago.)

"But of course that's the problem for the manufacturer—of cars or of cameras—that brings out a new iteration that's a bit better than the old one and sells for a bit more: if the old one is soldiering on just fine for most users, it's that much harder to motivate them to buy the new model that's more evolutionary than revolutionary. The 5DIII will never be seen as important as the 5DII was; I'm not sure any dSLR even can be a game-changer anymore. But like the Camry and Accord, the 5DIII will likely do very well for the manufacturer and for countless buyers: definitely not everyone's cup of tea but a solid 'you can't go wrong' choice for an awful lot of people.

"P.S. Since there are no comments posted yet (though I am doubtless not the first) I just want to anticipate the criticisms of the term 'pre-order.' Like many terms in English, it leaves a word unsaid but understood: availability. Just think 'pre-availability order' every time you see the term 'pre-order' and everything should be chill."

Mike replies: I would put the 60D more at the Accord/Camry level, and equate the 5D Mark III to something like a BMW 3-Series or a Corvette. But I take your point.

Featured Comment by Ronny Nilsen: "I just handled a 5D Mark III earlier today. AF is good, and it handles well and feels right in the hand. It's not a small camera; it felt bigger than my 5D Mark II, but I have not handled both cameras at the same time. Will I upgrade? I'm not sure. The new AF is the best selling point for me. Photographing the kids in action, my old Mark II sometimes misses focus. But for my landscape photography, the Mark III would have to have cleaner shadow noise to make it worth it."

Featured Comment by Michael Ryan: "I know the current 'megapixel race is over' slogan being pushed by the camera manufacturers may apply to amateurs but as a professional who can neither afford nor justify a 1Dx I'm very disappointed that there wasn't a significant pixel increase. For me, and my clients, there is no such thing as too many pixels. It's more like the 5DMkIIs...."

Two More 'Forgotten' Photographers

Self portrait by Charles Harris, c. 1940.
Photo courtesy Carnegie Museum of Art.

For your delectation this fine Friday, two links, two Charleses: One to a sampling of the work of one Charles ("Teenie") Harris, a.k.a. One-Shot Harris, at The Mail Online. From a show currently on view at the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh.

I'm a sucker for this stuff. I love jazz, I'm very interested in African-American history, and I like working pj's and historical B&W.

The second, to another photographer seemingly in the vein of the recently discovered Fred Herzog, master of Kodachrome color: Charles Cushman, subject of a new book called The Day in Its Color: Charles Cushman's Photographic Journey Through a Vanishing America. This Charles's "meticulously catalogued" archive of 14,500 slides has its home at Indiana University.

Charles Cushman, Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, 1938.
Photo courtesy Indiana University Archives.

I haven't seen the book, but from the 22-picture sampling at the Chicago Mag.com link then I'm...reserving judgement. If those are among the best shots out of 14,500, then it looks like Mr. Cushman might not have been, shall we say, the most talented of photographers. They charm with their historicity, of course, but they seem aesthetically haphazard to me, like overly-controlled snapshots (thus missing only the best thing about snapshots: their infrequently but dependably bizarre randomness). I'll reserve final judgement until I see the book, of course.

But see what you think.

Mike
(Thanks to MM and another tipster whose identity I have lost, alas)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by kukkurovaca: "The thing about Cushman's archive is that it's very large and in its native state is just a lot of photos. My take from the last time Cushman was making the rounds of the blogosphere is that an editor picking and choosing from that archive (and in the absence of a published/edited/sequenced body of work from the photographer himself) could easily create the impression of a pioneering Cushman, or a lousy Cushman, or a clumsy Cushman, or a merely lecherous Cushman."

Featured Comment by Kenneth Tanaka: "Cushman was perhaps a rather above average amateur. His strengths were a) his family wealth which enabled him to hop through the US and around the world for years at a time snapping away, and b) his devotion to snapping lots of lost Chicago architecture stuff, like a junior Richard Nickel.

"No, Cushman did not have the eye or reflexes of Herzog but, at the end of the day, his body of work is perhaps more valuable for the breadth of its cultural documentary value.

"IU has the full archive online. What's striking is how much documentation Cushman recorded for each shot.  Kinda like a manual EXIF obsession."

Mike replies: ...Or a touch of OCD.

Featured Comment by Mark Hobson: "Having lived in Pittsburgh, I 'discovered' the work of Teenie Harris over 20 years ago and was able to acquire several Harris prints. Unfortunately, at that time his archive was in the hands of an unscrupulous shyster who had essentially swindled Harris out of archive.

"Fortunately, as the result of a lawsuit, the Harris family was able to reacquire the archive and it was subsequently acquired by the Carnegie Museum of Art. The museum is meticulously cataloging and archiving the collection. The current Teenie Harris exhibition at the Carnegie Museum of Art is a monumental presentation—987 prints from the Harris collection are on display.

"There is also an 192 page exhibition catalog (hardcover or paperback) available online from the museum store. The catalog has 100 images and several interesting essays about Harris, his work, and its historical significance. It's a great addition to any photo book collection (I have the hardcover edition).

"It is also worth noting, the museum has also created a Teenie Harris microsite which is treasure trove of information with an in-depth gallery of exhibition images.

"Hopefully, as the exhibition travels around the country, the prolific Teenie Harris and his work will garner the recognition, appreciation, and respect he and it so justly deserve."

It Went By In a Blur

(Taken by Dan Colucci of Antiquecameras.net with an iPhone 4S driving 65 MPH in a snowstorm. Used with permission. Not Photoshopped!)

Mike
(Thanks to Oren Grad and of course Dan)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Rowan: "Amusing, but the whimpering health and safety officer in me wants me to tell you that here in england, using a camera whilst driving is totally 100% illegal. Plus he's obviously driving on the wrong side of the road ;-)"

Slobodan Blagojevich replies to Rowan: "Hmmm...not to argue with that, just matter-of-factly: he is driving on the right side of the road ;-)"

Mike replies to Rowan: Responsible photographers should never take a picture while driving a car, obviously.

Featured Comment by Pete: "It would have been much higher resolution and easier to read the plate if he had used a Nikon D800E and the 200mm ƒ/2 :~)"

Featured Comment by Max_a_secas: "Which brings us back to the issue previously addressed in the Nokia post: If your camera didn't have a phone in it you wouldn't be using your phone while driving!"

Featured Comment by Arne: "Here is the Nevada version:

Kodak: All Slide Films Are Now Gone

Yet more Kodak products have dropped off the precipice.

Citing a decline in demand that has been "pretty acute," according to a Kodak spokesperson quoted in the BJP, Kodak has announced that it will discontinue Kodak Professional Ektachrome E100G, Kodak Professional Ektachrome E100VS, and Kodak Professional Elite Chrome Extra Color 100.

Existing stocks are expected to last another six to nine months, depending on demand.

Slide (transparency) films have accounted for only a single-digit percentage of color film production for many decades. But these discontinuations mean that Kodak will no longer make any slide films at all.

The announcement does not affect Portra or Ektar color negative films, or the remaining Kodak black-and-white films.

Mike
(Thanks to Kevin Purcell)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.