The Online Photographer

Pardon Our Dust

The Online Photographer will be sort of on "half speed" until September 1st because I am moving. We'll still be posting regularly, just not quite as often.

In the meantime, my new tagline will be "I'm very busy and I should be busier."

Thanks for your patience and please keep coming by!

—Mike, Hmbl. Ed. and MC

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dave: "Best of luck with your move. I sympathize with anyone who is uprooted. My family has moved six times in the last six years. Moving is the worst. It kills my creativity and concentration. My advice: hire help when possible. We always went the cheap way and did everything ourselves. Then, for our last move, we hired a couple guys off Craigslist to help unpack the moving truck. That was the best $100 we ever spent."

Joe: "Moving—certainly a 'moving experience'! A chance to discard, give away, donate all that you don't want to clutter your new abode with. I know what its like, I moved after living in a house for 29 years last year and had a grand time clearing the decks. Moving, indeed."

Open Mike Addendum (and Charlie Haden)

Just one more note before leaving yesterday's topics—if you soccer fans are not too miffed at me!  :-)

There's an old saying—"You can pick your friends, but you can't pick your family." It's like that with cultural choices too, isn't it? We have the ones we're born into, and we have the ones we adopt by choice.

I have a good friend, Kim K., who has become a football/soccer fan. He's American, grew up watching American football and baseball. International football has really been for him. He's adopted it enthusiastically, and follows mainly the British league, whatever that's called (Premier League? Sorry, I'm way out of my element here and won't know many particulars). He's almost annoyed that I won't see the light and become a fan too. Well, "annoyed" is putting it too strongly. But he loves the game.

For him, though, it's adopted culture. He loves it because it happens to fit him, not because he grew up with it.

"Taking to it like a duck takes to water" is another expression that pertains to this subject. Somebody famous—I'm forgetting who (was it one of the Bauhaus artists?)—said that when he discovered Buddhism he realized he'd been a Buddhist all his life. He just took to it. It fit. Another example: a high school classmate of mine now lives in France and writes literary criticism—in French. Long way from home. (I admire people who can relocate like that. I don't know how they do it.)

I think I'm kinda big on adopted cultures. I find what I like and then make it mine. I  grew up on rock 'n' roll, for instance, but it never really truly "took," at least in hindsight. I thought the Beatles were my touchstone band when I was a kid (age seven on), but I never even heard Revolver until I was in my 20s and I've never owned a copy of The White Album, not to this day. Some fan, huh?

It wasn't till my brother Scott introduced me to jazz that I found my own real musical culture. The core of the music I love is American jazz from about 1955 to 1960 and spreading out in either direction from there. That was the era of my birth, and it wasn't part of my family's culture. I've listened to far more of it, know it much more deeply, and love it more than I ever did with the rock music that was supposed to be my "native culture."

Too early to tell if pool is my sport. Might just be a fad, who knows. Personal fads—I do go through those. (As for people who say Americans should follow soccer, though, it's just as difficult as Europeans or South Americans following American football. It's not in the papers, not on TV [usually], not in the discussions at work on Monday. Not in the social fabric or the cultural bloodstream.)

You can relate this to photographic cultures if you try, too. I hear from people all the time who are devoted to particular practices or methods—to name just a very few: night photography; view cameras; toy cameras; underwater photography; architectural photography; "critter photography" (my term—wildlife photography using very long lenses); street photography. I both admire and kinda envy people who have the freedom and the desire to just pursue one thing—doing it because they love it, because it's "home" to them.

I think it's nice to have adopted cultures. Lucky, even. Identity by volition instead of by simply following the herd (not that there's anything wrong with that). They're things you consciously choose rather than what you've born into or what everyone around you is doing.

Charlie Haden 1937–2014

Take Charlie Haden, the great jazz bassist who died on Friday at the age of 76. I'm listening to the audio obituary by Tom Cole right now (go to WPFW > Available Shows > G-Strings > July 13th—thanks to Bob Burnett for this). He was the only chordal player in Ornette Coleman's groundbreaking quartet, and played with many different people and as a leader.

Oddly enough, though, Charlie Haden grew up on a farm in Iowa in a country & western performing family! As a very small child he sang (with a yodel) and was called Cowboy Charlie. From there to Ornette Coleman is more than a hop skip and a jump.

He came a long way from his native culture to find his adopted one.

If you don't know Charlie and would like a sample, try one of his two lovely records with Hank Jones, Steal Away or Come Sunday.

And think for a minute if you have a particular photographic culture you're really into—if you do, you're one of the lucky ones.

Mike
(Thanks to Bob)

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John: "Interesting observations. I'm one confused puppy in that case: in photography, I can't specialize. It's just not in me, although there are areas that don't interest me. In life and cultures, I'm all over the board. At heart, I'm Dutch, but turned away from that country 25 years ago. I have since lived in America (three times, including now), Switzerland, Cyprus and Austria and plan to move to Europe at some point again, though not Holland. On top of that, I'm married to a woman who's half Japanese and half Arabic. As I said, one confused puppy...."

Chris Kurmann: "I think the cultural background may run stronger in some places than in others. I'm Swiss and we have a small but lively folkloric singing tradition which includes what we consider to be real yodeling. Now I'm not really into this at all and spend a lot of my time and energy on music from all over the planet but when I hear traditional Swiss singing I feel my chest tighten and the tear ducts moisten ever so slightly. I simply can't help it. Strangely enough this seems to be common. There is a story that during Napoleonic times the French military banned yodeling as it got the Swiss mercenaries so homesick that they would desert or even die."

Dennis Dunkerson: "Sometimes reading TOP makes me really sad. I had not heard of Haden's passing. I also had not realized than he was a fellow Iowa farm boy. My first encounter with him was in a record store in New York City, a long way from the farm, where I picked up a copy of 'Ballad of the Fallen,' which had just come out. Like Emily Dickinson, it has been part of my culture from first hearing. Time to dig it out again."

John McMillin: "Charlie's well worth mentioning here, and everywhere that American music is enjoyed. Out of his many achievements, I'd recommend a recent album that knits together Haden's folksy past and his experimental side. 'Rambling Boy' unites the whole Haden family, including his triplets who have strong musical careers of their own. Every other song is a traditional number, done faithfully and family-style, while an alternating set of songs offer more eclectic sounds. Pat Metheny plays a jaw-dropping lead on 'Wildwod Flower,' Bruce Hornsby sings an eerie, haunted '20-20 Vision,' and master dobroist Jerry Douglas adds a steely twang throughout. All three guest stars come together for 'The Hills of Athenry,' a tragic ballad of the Irish famine that builds and soars right up where birds fly. There's an old clip of young Charlie singing on the radio, before old Charlie sings 'Shenandoah' in his shaky, damaged voice. It's the story of a hard life, well lived. 'Rambling Boy' is the one Haden album I would never be without."

Sunday Open Mike: Lunatic!

My latest lunatic picture (lunatic being defined as one suffering from the intermittent insane belief that the moon is a good subject for photographs). I went outside to take a picture of the full moon behind some picturesque clouds, but then the clouds moved away and the moon started setting behind the peak of the neighbors' roof. So I figured, what the heck, just go with it.

Taken handheld, because...well, I'm a lunatic.

Do you tend to approach things based on your ideas of what you want, willing to work until you get it, or are you more likely just to go with whatever you find and make the best of it? I'm much more the latter type. I'll take whatever I find. Maybe it'll be a picture, maybe not—I never know beforehand anyway. I have to see the picture as a picture. I think the ways we approach photography have a lot to do with our personalities.

Too early to say if I like this shot or not. I like it now, but the next few weeks are when my opinion "cures"—during that time I'll either start liking it more or (more likely) less. Three weeks from now I'll know. Right now I'm in that "look what I just made!" phase, where you're pleased with what you did and want to show it around for approval. I think we all feel that way when we like what we just shot. That doesn't mean the shot is any good, of course.

Enjoy the World Cup final today! You know things are tense around the Vatican.

Mike

Sunday's Open Mike is when we let Yr. Hmbl. Ed. write whatever he wants to write.

[UPDATE: I watched nearly the whole World Cup Final. Having never watched a soccer game before, I was curious about the fascination the rest of the world has for this great sport, and was determined to find out. I am happy to say it was splendid. Everything went marvelously. From the looks of things, fans got everything they ever want.

I say I watched "nearly" the whole thing because I had to leave my TV early in the match for a brief time. Fortunately I was only gone for twenty minutes or so and I didn't miss a thing. The match had everything. Regularly, every ten or fifteen minutes or even more often, a player from one team or the other made a shot in the vague direction of the opponent's goal, causing the crowd's hearts to leap into their throats. Trmendously exciting. Then there was the ongoing drama of who had tripped whom; great tension and suspense was created as we wondered whether every player who appeared to be mortally hurt was actually hurt or only faking (on the other hand, obvious subconcussive trauma was ignored on numerous occasions); and people who get engrossed in players milling about and kicking the ball to and fro had a field day (I have made a pun) as there was an absolute endless orgy of that. It went on forever and ever. Fans of it must have been in absolute heaven. Oh, the kicking of the ball this way and that—I have never seen anything like it. Seriously, I have never seen anything like it.

And it went on for hours and hours—and then a little more. For a non-fan like myself, after a while this became...I'm sorry...a bit of a trial. I was just glued to my seat the whole time, or nearly the whole time as I have already described, because I reasoned that if some small event of any significance were by chance to actually occur, and I were to miss it, then the interminable amount of time I had invested in watching the game would have been all for naught. My beard grew. I could not stop myself my anxious fidgeting, and at one point I began smacking myself in the head, softly and slowly, with an empty bottle, because I felt my brain was going numb, and my hope was that small jolts of pain could spark it back into operation. This did not work, and to be honest I am still feeling groggy.

Eventually, under approximately the same principle as the one which states that the sun will enlarge and engulf the earth in flames of fire if one only one could wait around long enough, one team did finally at long last manage to score...a point. One single, sparkling, crystaline point. This was the desired crescendo, the crowning moment, the climax upon which the whole celebratory shebang depended. It might have been the other team that did it; but it was the one team. Which team the one was seemed arbitrary, accidental almost. They had played, by that time, I think, about half a day and a night and another half a day. Although I had lost track of time. Mind you, the goal looked purposeful, but if they could actually do it on purpose, surely logic predicts that they would have done it much earlier. As it was, the score occurred well after the scoreless tie had established itself as the status quo. To any status quo, anything can happen; nefarious Nero ascends the throne of the judicious polymaths of the old Republic; Ceasar dares bring his rough Legions past the Rubicon; a little longer, and a sea-bird might have been struck by an errant header; an eerie cloudless rain might have begun to fall from a clear sky. A little longer than that, perhaps there would have been an eclipse. As it was, it was a goal. And the one team did it—because one team must. All manner of strange things happen in time.

The allotted time expired—but play continued. This mystified me, nay horrified me, because in all the sports I know, play ends when time runs out. I suspected something wrong with the Universe. I checked the hands of my kitchen wall clock, and, sure enough, the second hand took many slow heartbeats to pass from one hash-mark to the next. I was indeed experiencing a rending in the fabric of space-time. The announcer mentioned that fans were begging the referees to blow the whistle to end the contest. That could happen?!? My benumbed brain latched upon it in desperation and hope. I found myself fervently thinking, yes, please, dear God, that's what I want too—tears streaming down my cheeks. Like many other fans.

I am glad I watched a soccer match; now I can say I watched the most important soccer match in the world. It was great; it was wonderful; it is something I have done once; and I should be fine again by the time I wake up in the morning. —Mike]

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

James Sinks: "I am much more the former. Obsessively so. I've gone back to locations for months on end and spent two, three, four, or five nights a week shooting them. Sometimes I'll try for the same shot half a dozen times in the belief that the image in my minds eye just needs a little more coaxing out....

"But at the same time, the more time I spend at a location, the more I see to shoot. The more time I spend at a location, the more chance there is for serendipity. My mentality is very much: explore, think, compose, shoot, critique, rethink, recompose, reshoot, but the location always informs my photography. Sometimes, even with exposures stretching into the hours, improvisation is an essential element of photography. Of course, everything I wrote above is about my 'real' photography—the stuff I do at night on a tripod. Working handheld is completely different. It's just snapshooting, so I shoot whatever, whenever, wherever, whyever...."

Bill Wheeler: "The moon shot looks good to me. Like you, I am likely to go with whatever I find and make the best of it. Then I move on. I try not to invest too much of myself in any one picture, for if it shouldn't work out, the resulting disappointment gets in the way of making another picture. Gotta stay loose."

David in Sydney: "I just read your account of the trial of watching the World Cup final.
I am a fan of soccer but this match was exactly that—a solid trial. It didn't become exciting until the German's scored that excellent goal and then for the last ten minutes everyone played very hard and much more freely but the preceeding 102 minutes were pretty hard viewing!

"The excitement of a World Cup cannot be summed up in the gameplay of a single match. Remember that there are 60 or so games in the tournament itself, many of which were truly exciting. There are also about two years' worth of matches played amongst the entire world to qualify for the month-long tournament. Many countries hunger for that finals representation. It takes an enormous amount of skill to qualify for the Cup.

"In America you have  a bunch of sports that you, without a hint of humour, call World Series. They're not. Soccer, football, whatever you call it, is truly the world sport because of its participation rates, spectator numbers, media coverage and its ability, in spite of the nay-sayers, to provide the most elated highs and darkest lows for players and viewers alike."

Steven House: "I wonder how many of your readers are bothered about whether you like football or not. It seems like a lot of negative space to take so long to say so."

Mike replies: Just waving on the way by. I figure if I am mildly unlucky I get ten more years on Earth. If my luck is more average, twenty. If it's good, thirty. And whether my allotment of remaining years is two or forty, I won't be watching many other soccer/football games. Today's was the first and last!

That's nothing against soccer/football or anyone who loves it. It's just that...well, in the second half of a man's life, a lot of things close down. Doors slam shut; limitations present themselves; long-held aspirations turn out to be untenable. Possibilities drift away. We can't do everything. Hell, we can't do most things. At my age, there are a lot of things I know I'll never do or be—and it's just a reality that I didn't have to face at 40, even though it was probably just as true then.

So you pick your spots. There are some things you can do and some things you have to give up. I'll never run a footrace again, never climb a tree, never sky-dive. But I have two dogs, to my delight. You pick your spots.

Soccer is a wonderful game for fans, and being a fan of anything gives back to you according to the attentiveness you devote to it; I know millions of people love soccer, and God bless 'em. It's not my culture is all, either native or adopted. I'm okay with that. Some good things in life you embrace, some good things in life you must let pass by. With a wave.

Kristine Hinrichs: "I am more the later. I enjoy surprising people with Milwaukee and Southern Kettle Morraine images that most people would just walk on by. That requires some bit of spontaneity I think. That said, I've been known to come back to the same scene several times to get that surprise."

Thomas Paul Mc Cann: "I'm not a soccer fan either. In fact the World Cup along with Wimbledon just interfered with my minimal television viewing habits. However I think your little tantrum is akin to an average Joe looking at 'Sunrise over Hernandez' and going 'Mwah.' It takes education to appreciate certain things."

Mike replies: Ha! It wasn't a tantrum. It was intended to be humorous. I'll take it that shot was way wide of the net where you're concerned....

Erik Ahrend: "Being the only Spaniard in the whole universe who doesn't like soccer (it's called football here, by the way, and we never understood why you call your sport 'football' when the foot hardly ever touches the ball), I could not help chuckling when I read your tongue-in-cheek eloquent update. For a good reason TOP is one of the most interesting and refreshing corners of the net...."

Last Chance Romance

So today is the last day of the Lincoln Memorial print sale. Orders close at 7:00 this evening. As you know, once we close the orders, that's it. The streamlined machine that is Cteinville* swings into action for printing and fulfillment, so no further orders are accepted. Here's how to order.

"At times 'tis folly to hasten; at other times, to delay. The wise do everything in its proper time." (Ovid)

My copy of the AP (artist's proof) came back from the framer yesterday afternoon. My pals Chris and Maria at Gallery 1 in Waukesha (no, I did not get a discount for mentioning that! I just like the place) took care of most of the decisions for me. It looks fantastic. Elegant and subdued, with rich tones. Tasteful. David's idea of what he wanted in the print ("strict formality contrasting with the two workers casually standing there") comes across very well. Hits my buttons, this one do. But then, I do love shades of gray. (Xander had to hold it at a bit of an angle to avoid reflections. The above was taken with my portrait rig, the A900 and Sony 85mm ƒ/2.8 lens [love that lens].)

Chris at Gallery 1 suggested a two-part moulding with Hawaiian koa laminate on the main part (I almost wrote "main frame" until I realized that those two words together would cause trains of thought to jump tracks in the brains of the many former and current IT guys who read this site) and an inner rim of American cherry. The framing cost $176 all in, which is more than a little rich for me for a frame, not to mention closing in on twice the cost of the print, but it looked so good I couldn't help it. In the new abode, this one might have to go upstairs rather than below ground level in the office space.

Visiting hours: Speaking of which, in my house hopefully to be, I hope to have most of the print sale prints plus a number of other goodies on display as a sort of casual gallery. I'm still planning to set up "office hours" (so to speak) in the new house. I'm thinking  2:30–4:00 p.m. Tues./Wed./Fri. (I have to limit the time to prevent too great an incursion into my working hours. I ration phone calls for the same reason. People always want me to do things—lecture, travel, teach—but they don't consider that the more of anything else I do the less I can do of this.)

We will be just a short hop off the expressway, so if you should happen to find yourself headed toward or away from Milwaukee from or toward the West, you could stop by and say hello and see some prints. Theoretically. I admit Milwaukee is on the way to almost nothing save possibly Door County. And this arrangement will not serve readers in Perth, or Hyderabad, or our sole reader in Ulaanbaator.

The last sale: Wondering how Jack's Leica S print sale went? Quite well for such a large print (the largest we've ever offered). Forty-four were sold. Jack reports that he is very happy and that his printer is very happy. And I am also very happy, and that makes three. This leaves 44 important people yet to be heard from. If you're one of them, I'm very much looking forward to hearing how you liked your print after seeing it for real.

The next sale: There'll be no print sale in August. It's our slowest month of the year, and I'll be moving (knock on wood, if all goes smoothly, etc.). After that we'll be continuing the monthly experiment until the end of this year.

Fab photo by Mike Mitchell

With the Beatles: I meant to do a whole post on this wonderful story, but a link will have to do. It's the prime example—that I know about, anyway—of unprintable older negatives being "rescued" by digital (like DD-B's was). Mike Mitchell photographed the Beatles' first concert in America, but all the negatives were underexposed and basically unprintable, so he had done nothing with them. Cut to 40+ years later. Mike had suffered through a divorce and was broke and living in a small basement. He had the old negatives scanned and printed digitally—which worked very well—and the maiden auction of the prints at Christie's grossed more than $360,000!

Now that's our kind of fairytale. Read this, it is guaranteed to cheer you up.

TOP is off tomorrow, although I'll still be adding comments. Next week: Kirk Tuck's truly epic review of the Panasonic GH4—in parts. Kirk has nearly written another novel.

Here's that link again, to the sale. Have a peaceful weekend.

Mike

* The reference is to the now defunct "Steidlville."

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

k4kafka: "I'm a bit confused how badly under-exposed and 'unprintable' film negatives can be magically 'rescued' by the miracle of digital scanning. Can you enlighten me?"

Tech. Ed. Ctein replies: What makes underexposed negatives like this difficult or impossible to print well in the darkroom is that all the important detail is down on the toe of the characteristic curve, where the contrast is very low, the tonal separation is poor, and the graininess is horrible. The only way to get enough separation in the shadows in those sorts of negatives is to go to a really high contrast grade of paper (because those really dark tones are being printed on the shoulder of the paper curve which is also, annoyingly, very low in contrast). Then you have to do a lot of dodging and burning, and the results still look crappy because the midtones and highlights will come out very harsh. On top of that, high contrast paper exaggerates the already-bad grain. [Here is an example of how all that looks in practice. —Mike the Ed.]

In a photograph like this where the really important subject matter is the very dark workers, it means that getting a darkroom print that is satisfactory is going to be extraordinarily difficult task. Maybe not impossible, but well beyond DD-B's skill set.

Digital printing gives you three advantages right out of the gate. First, you can linearize the characteristic curve to improve contrast in the shadows without driving it through the roof in the midtones and highlights. Second, you can do local contrast enhancements and dodging and burning with much more flexibility and precision and fine detail than would be possible in the darkroom. Third, you can use noise reduction tools to reduce the problem of excessive graininess, and you can use them selectively where they are most needed.

For excruciating detail on what was done to this photograph, you should go read the article on DDB's website.

It's just as Arthur C. Clarke said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Bruce Katz: "I have such fond memories of assisting Mike Mitchell back in the day. Long hours in the studio on F Street and out on location with our mutual friends Angie and Kevin. Mike did (does) great studio work and brilliant documentary stuff too—he has such a great, natural eye. I remember he was the official photographer for for a Papal visit to D.C.; that work was brilliant too. So glad this work came to light and that he's had such success with it."

Mike replies: Hey Bruce, what's shakin'? Long time no see.

Joe Holmes: "I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but a print of that Mike Mitchell Beatles photo will apparently now set you back anywhere from almost $7,000 to $34,000, depending on size, at this New Mexico gallery. Of course that must be very good news for Mike Mitchell."

Intention and Integrity

Elisabeth Spector wrote an excellent response yesterday to DD-B's post about the evolution of the Lincoln Memorial print. Since then, several people have "piled on" and agreed with her that they don't like some of the changes Ctein and DD-B made to the picture. (I do, but that's beside the point.)

What I think might be getting overlooked is what is explicit in the rest of DD-B's post: he worked with his printer (and friend—Ctein) to get the result he wanted. He describes this process in some detail. And he succeeded—that is, he did get what he wanted—as you can read right there in English at the end of the post, where he says the print is "certainly the finest rendering of the image I've ever seen!"

This is a great example of what I mean when I say (as I often do) "you've got to take mature artists  at their word." (And by "artists" I just mean creators of artworks—that term "artist" is so loaded.) What that means is, once you've determined that the creator of a work of art or craft is skilled, competent, and practiced enough to actually achieve what they're after, then you really can't argue with their choices. It's their work. They get to decide.

There are, naturally, a few things you do get to decide. You get to decide whether you like that artist or not, of course. If their choices consistently bug you or detract from your experience of the work, then maybe you just don't sync well with that person and his or her work isn't for you. (plenty of artists are like that for me.) You can also learn from another creator's choices—this is what Elisabeth is describing she went through. She's clarified her own feelings about what she would have done differently if David's picture had been hers. That's important.

I think you can learn from other creators (you'll notice I'm avoiding that "artist" word) in both a positive or a negative way. Both are equally valid. You can admire someone and want to emulate their work—model yourself or your approach on them; you can also intentionally reject another creator's choices and resolve to avoid them.

Either one can be important to your own work. Many times, encountering an artist who is very clear about his or her own artistic strategies can have the effect of "forcing" you to deal with it and arrive at your own conclusion, either as a creator yourself or as a critical viewer and appreciator of work. A few "fer instances": Andreas Gursky Photoshops his work as part of his creative process. Positive or negative for you? (Don't answer these questions to me—I'm not asking, I'm suggesting that these questions are what you should ask yourself.) There's a photojournalist I've written about (forgot the name!) who uses heavily oversaturated colors. That might drive you to consider color saturation in your own work, pro or con. Ralph Eugene Meatyard places a sense of surrealism front and center in his work. Accept or reject? Ditto Joel-Peter Witkin's necrophilia. Studying the work of Gregory Crewdson for any length of time will bring you face to face with the directorial mode of staging scenes deliberately and extensively in order to photograph them. Interest you, or turn you off? And so on. I could go on all day.

But back to the subject. While I think "I would have done it differently" is a good learning and self-testing and self-clarifying tool, at the same time I don't think "he should have done it differently" is a very mature critical stance. Do you see the distinction?

(I've been "immature" that way myself, lest you think I'm casting stones. For instance, note my "uncolorizing" of John Moore's famous picture here. You have to scroll down a bit. Bad Mike. Not your picture, not your right.)

Maturity as a viewer and appreciator of photography or any other art starts to come when we give artists enough credit to believe their choices are deliberate, and we can both give them room for their own intentions and also respect their right to shape their own work into what they want it to be. Only then can we really start to work out whether their art can speak to us or not. I don't like Bruce Gilden's methods or his use of flash (I generally dislike flash) but his work is genuine and it convinces me. Adam Fuss's composition and concerns are about as far from mine as they can get, but I still really like his work because he has let me see its coherence and unity.

So learn from DD-B's choices or not, either pro (like the changes) or con (don't like the changes). But agree with them or not—doesn't affect him. His picture, he's the one who gets to say.

Mike
(Thanks to Elisabeth)

Print Sale printer and admin Ctein adds: First, I want to remind everyone that I always run these sales on a customer-satisfaction-guaranteed basis. If you really don't like the photograph after you buy it, you can return it and I'll refund your money. This does not happen often, but it does happen. So, if seeing the "before" and "after" versions has put some doubts in your mind about how much you'll like the "after" version, I'd encourage you to go ahead and buy the print. I will bet, with some degree of confidence, that you will like it a lot better when you see the print than you think.

Now, I'm not going to argue with anyone's aesthetic judgments because a.) it's not my place and b.) as Mike said in this post, DD-B, as the creating artist, is the ultimate arbiter of the right way to print this photograph. So far as I'm concerned, this is a fascinating intellectual debate of photographic aesthetics and I'm enjoying it immensely, but it's one in which we have no standing.

Having said that, there's a couple of things going on here that do distort people's judgments. First, remember that you're looking at an on-screen JPEG; the actual print presents tones and total placement considerably differently. The print looks substantially more dramatic than the JPEG. This does interfere with judging the relative impact of the before and after versions. Not saying it would necessarily change anyone's opinion, but the limitations of web presentation mean that we are all "viewing through a glass, darkly."

There is another kind of illusion going on: the web version of the finished photograph looks distorted to me. It looks squat and flat (I mean that geometrically). When I look at the print, it looks taller and narrower, so the sense of verticality in the print is much closer to the way the JPEG of the drum scan looks as it's represented in DD-B's column.

The impression is so compelling that I took out a ruler and measured the proportions of the screen image and the print, because I was certain that some kind of distortion had occurred to make the image more squat in posting it online. It's not! It is entirely an illusion. The proportions are exactly the same—it just looks wrong.

Ain't that weird and interesting?

For what it's worth, I don't get the same distorted impressions when I look at the web image at the top of the original Sale article, so you're not seeing a misrepresentation of the photograph there. I'm positive it's one of those geometrical illusions, maybe something like the patterns that make parallel lines look like they're diverging when they're not or vice versa. Something about having those two images in juxtaposition on the webpage. (I'm arm-waving—I really don't know why.)

Anyways, it's a reminder that we always have to be careful judging a photograph, especially a print, from an online image.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bob Smith: "I also prefer the original drum scan. The perspective feels more like what you experience when you see the memorial in person. Like it is towering over you. The corrected image seems a little too squared away and not as natural. Regardless, after living in D.C. for thirty years I was without one single photo of D.C. hanging on the wall. Well I'll have one now as soon as this photo arrives. I still like it and it is outside the norm of available shots of D.C. available. Or taken by myself."

ben ng: "I love Elisabeth's comments, as well as Kenneth's. I never show any image other than the finished product. I also never have a printer [printmaker], even one of Ctein's abilities.I don't believe in having someone else print, or 'realise,' as I call it, my pictures. I am the only one capable of it. I really make the print for my own needs and satisfaction, and if others like it, they buy it with nothing else to compare it to. This seems to be the only site where discussions like this take place...wonderful!"

David Dyer-Bennet responds to all the comments generally: I should say, in case it's not obvious, that disagreeing with my decisions is completely and totally okay—in fact it's required; if everybody agrees with me there's something wrong. The kind of disagreement we're seeing here, where people explain how different versions affect them and why they like one better than another, is the best kind of productive discussion. No idea if I'd have thought of removing the ladder. It's possible I'd have said "I wish we could make that go away," even if I didn't know how (then). Seeing it gone, I liked it better. Consistently, the people preferring a different approach are just not going for my idea of strict formality contrasting with the two workers casually standing there. The perspective correction, the ladder, and the cropping all tie back to that same thing, it seems to me. So the ladder (removing it) fits right in with the rest of my choices in printing this, to me.

MikeR: "I am absolutely delighted by the thoughtful and articulate (and polite) discussion this print has provoked, because I am learning so much from it. Thank you to everyone who commented.

"My wife's preference shared the Elisabeth Spector viewpoint, mine the DD-B/Ctein. We had our own discussion about the print, the original image, and the validity of the creator's intentions. A then-and-now contrast: when she shot a Nikon F2, she prided herself in all composition being in-camera, and no manipulation in printing. Today, a Photoshop geek, she abstracts and colorizes her images in a way that reminds me of Matisse. Different tools, different vision?

"Since I have a number of negatives that have frustrated me in the darkroom, I purchased this print to give me a reference point for what can be done by a really, really good printer (Ctein). These discussions, in which Ctein himself has taken part, provide a significant and unexpected bonus, both in technique, and in viewpoint."

"Did I say thank you?"

Photography Has a Bad Name...

...And it's "Terry Richardson." I would never be allowed on the jury if justice ever catches up to that guy, because I've long ago made up my mind. Counsel for the defense would dismiss me right away. But if you'd like to read Benjamin Wallace's controversial New York magazine cover article (which in my view is overly Richardson-friendly), here it is. (Reading the comments is actually fairly rewarding, too. I don't know why I'm so surprised by that.)

But to answer the article's title question:

Literal question: Predator; Implied question: Wrong framing. It doesn't have to be "either-or"; subtextual question: That it might be art rather than pornography as well as over-the-top workplace sexual harassment—or worse (much worse)—does not in any way, shape, or form excuse it.

I'm appalled I have to share a label with certain individuals.

Mike
(Thanks to Bruce Appelbaum)

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John Boeckeler: "The big guns in the fashion world aren't surprised by this, and we shouldn't be either. All you have to do is Google 'Terry Richardson photographer' images to find out what he's like. In fact, I'd say his conduct is not inconsistent with contemporary standards in popular entertainment, fashion, politics, and our culture's declining norms. That magazine piece will probably end up helping his business."

Gordon Lewis: "I wouldn't say that Terry Richardson gives photography in general a bad name so much as his conduct reflects very poorly on himself and the fashion industry—not that I hold either one in high regard. They are clearly co-conspirators in this tawdry mess. What hits even closer to home was when Bob Shell, the former editor of Shutterbug magazine, was convicted in 2007 of involuntary manslaughter for the death of one his models. I personally found his prior photos of young women to be slightly pervy, so I was surprised but not shocked to hear of his arrest. Men and women alike have to be very careful before putting themselves into situations where vulnerability can lead to exploitation or worse."

Bahi: "Not long after the New York magazine article, there was a very good and widely tweeted follow-up written by Alex Abad-Santos for Vox. It offers a better balance; the New York piece was a little infuriating."

DD-B on the Lincoln Memorial Picture

DD-B looking over some of the many proofs for the sale print.

[Note: DD-B's Lincoln Memorial picture, left, is our July Print Offer, currently in progress. (Part of our experiment this year of having a print sale every month.) —Ed.]

 

 

By David Dyer-Bennet [a.k.a. DD-B]

The TOP Print Sale image was shot on June 25, 1975, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. The Lincoln memorial is, as you know if you've been there, a fantastic place. I see it as being ideally designed for B&W photographers—it's entirely white (with shadows creating grays and blacks), full of interesting natural light coming in from the outside.

When I walked in as a college student in 1975, it was just a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed—America was beginning to finally deal with the aftermath of slavery and the despicable attitudes many Americans held, and this issue was very much in my mind at the time. And what did I find? Two black National Park workers, up on the pedestal cleaning Lincoln. (I didn't view it as "at his feet," since that had connotations that didn't fit my views; I thought of it as "in his lap," though that's inaccurate.) How could I resist? Hence, this picture.

On the contact sheet the Lincoln image (actually three similar frames) and one other image are marked in red grease pencil, and I remember being very excited about them at the time. I don't have any bad prints in boxes, though. They must have all been so bad I didn't keep any at all. Given the markings and my excitement I can't imagine I never tried to print this image.

As to what it was shot with, I would have thought that I took my Leica M3 kit on that trip, and probably only that. However, the frame spacing on the contact sheet suggests it was shot with the other body I owned then, an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. I have no record of the lens used, or the exposure, but it would have been hand-held. The film was bulk-loaded Plus-X, developed in D76 diluted 1:1.

Given that I’d never made a good print of this in my own darkrooms, I was very excited when, in 2007, Ctein tried printing it digitally. He had just gotten his large-format inkjet printer. I'd been admiring Ctein's photos since the 1970s (and buying them since the 1980s). I loved the space program and technology images, and of course the amazingly deep shadow detail in his dye-transfer prints. I saw them in art shows at science fiction conventions. Eventually we met, talked, and gradually became friends. My first photo of him seems to be on roll 313, not long at all before the Lincoln Memorial photo on roll 344.

What I got from Ctein in 2007 was, from my point of view, even better than what I think is the normal custom-printer experience. Ctein and I sat down at his computer, edited for a while, made proof prints and compared and discussed them, edited some more, and so forth. So I could suggest things and watch how he did them, and he could suggest things interactively and show me fairly quickly what he meant. Seems to me we spent about a day and a half doing this. I came away with four prints.

The one thing we did that wasn't common in darkroom printing was some perspective correction. You could do this in the darkroom—I've done it a time or two, to correct mildly converging verticals—but most people who needed that back then shot with view cameras.

I've had the big print up on the wall at home since shortly after we made it (see the illustration at the top) and I still like it a lot. When this sale came up, Ctein found he still had the file from before. Starting from there, we've emailed back and forth a lot, and I've received three packages of proofs (six versions of the image). Ctein lightened the image some, and brought out the workers' faces more, and sent me proofs in different sizes. I asked him to fix a weird bright area on the boot toe and some mist around Lincoln's shoes, I remember, and darken up the left base a little (Ctein found a way to do it that enhanced rather than hid the spray, which had been a concern of mine). After several rounds of corrections and changes I picked what I thought was the strongest version, and we had our final image.

I started photography early, with my trusty Pixie 127 in second grade. Documenting what I see, mostly things involving people, is what drew me into it, and it’s what keeps me going at it more than 50 years later. This image has come a long way from the original exposure in 1975, but the TOP print is certainly the finest rendering of the image I've ever seen!

David

[NOTE: David has posted a more detailed account of the process on his website, DD-B.net. That posting includes more illustrations. —Ed.]

©2014 by David Dyer-Bennet, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Stan B.: "Great shot—and the perspective correction certainly seems to have helped in this case.

"You were smart to wait—I know I ruined a couple of thin but treasured negs with chromium intensifier back in the caveman days; my wails of grief having just departed the heliosphere."

Elisabeth Spector: "Very interesting and informative post; I always like to understand the process involved in other people's work. I greatly admire this image and have been very tempted to purchase a print. I just wish now that I had not seen the original drum scan! I find that I prefer the non-perspective-corrected version, in terms of composition, content and for technical reasons.

"One issue for me is that the correction creates a subtle but slightly unsettling  'distortion' of the geometry of the base of the statue—not terribly noticeable, just subconsciously perturbing in an Escheresque sort of way (mainly on the left hand portion of the base).  Now that I’ve seen the original version, those 'corrected' lines and shapes jump out at me. The perspective distortion in the original does not seem at all distracting to me or in need of obvious straightening (maybe just a degree or so on the right hand side, primarily to get rid of that tiny sliver of space between the statue's base and the image frame). Sure, things aren’t perfectly squared off throughout the image, but I think the eye expects that to some degree. The image feels meticulously composed yet natural, and the vertical lines of the statue, at least those on the left hand side, look perfect. (I’m guessing that the photographer composed the image in the viewfinder using those verticals?)

"The much bigger issue for me is that I greatly prefer the inclusion of three particular elements in the original version that are lost as a result of the perspective correction: the ropes at the bottom, the ladder on the right, and the darkened steps in the lower left corner. To me, they each add something important to the composition and/or  to the content. Without them, the image is made up predominantly of the mid-to-light tones of the statue, with the darkest tones concentrated in the two workers, who are relatively small elements in the composition. In the original, the dark tones of those three elements along the edges really help give the composition balance and provide my eye welcome resting points to explore the image further. The corrected version, in contrast, feels much more static and my eye feels lost in a sea of rather featureless marble once I’ve finished studying the main subjects (Lincoln and the workers). The ropes and the ladder also add nice context to the scene and suggest narratives or ideas that extend those of the main subjects. At the very least, the ladder works great as part of my favorite kind of environmental portrait where we see a worker among his tools, and it also has potential symbolic meaning (ascendancy, climbing within the social structure, etc.). The ropes seem important to me, too. They give a better sense of this particular place and its purpose, and suggest ideas relating to dividing lines within society and of people allowed in vs. being kept out.

"The re-worked version certainly has its strong points, particularly the way it brings out various visual details, especially in the workers. The tones are lovely, with a greater separation that enhances the various materials and textures. If I hadn’t seen the original, I might have no quibbles at all with the final image, but that drum scan is now seared into my brain and now I can’t seem to unsee it! The original feels unforced and welcoming, leading me into and around this space to enjoy the literal elements, the abstract compositional elements, and the figurative elements. The original just has a richer photographic vocabulary, more depth, more subtleties to hold my interest. The corrected version is still an amazing image, but in comparison seems two-dimensional, static, without as many areas to explore either visually or in terms of metaphor. I also have to believe that, at the moment this photograph was made, Mr. Dyer-Bennet framed the image purposely to include those elements along the edges. Consciously or subconsciously, they must have been important. I’m hardly a purist when it comes to cropping (or forced cropping that results from perspective correction), and the revised version may very well fit the photographer's intended vision better than the original. I hope I'm not way off base even bringing up these issues. Consider my thoughts not as a criticism of the revised version, but simply as even deeper admiration for the earlier version!

"I’d be curious how a print sale offering both versions would turn out. Perhaps I am only a voice of one saying that I prefer the original (not at all unlikely, as my tastes are often idiosyncratic). In any case,  this has been a fascinating exercise in comparison, and I thank the photographer for showing us the behind-the-scenes story of this print. Best of luck in the sale; I have no doubt the print is gorgeous and will sell very well!"

[Note: See Ctein's comment, partly a reply to Elisabeth, with the header "Print Sale printer and admin Ctein adds" beneath the "Intention and Integrity" post, above. —Ed.]

Kennethy Tanaka (partial comment): "Moral of the story for DD-B: Never, never show your contact sheets or, today, the other versions of a print unless you're absolutely, positively certain that you made unassailable choices! (Which = Never!) All chiding and back-seat printing aside this is still an outstanding image, David."

DD-B responds to Ken: It's certainly "safer" not to show process or intermediate states. I come from an academic family, and my inclination is to teach, and one way to teach is to show what I did and why (which lets people think about it and form opinions; I didn't imagine you'd all agree with me). That's more important than being safe to me, though I'd be sorry if my openness costs Mike and Ctein significantly in their share of the sale proceeds.

Edward Taylor: "One teaching point here—as much as possible, post-produce an uncropped image and crop or alter (remove items, etc.)as the last steps. That way if you decide later that more is more, then you can change your final image without having to go back to square one.

"On an image with tons of editing, it may be a good idea to use smart objects and then save a version of the file without flattening it, therefore preserving much of the history.

"I have a hard time deciding which version I like best. Between the final version and the original, the final version has better contrast, tones, etc., but I may prefer the cropping and the ladder in the latter. (See what I did there? I modified that last sentence just so I could write 'the ladder in the latter.' I kill me.)"

'Hard to Proofread Through My Tears'

Ray McSavaney has died. If you don't know that name, and you might not, you have a wonderful exploration in store for you—because Ray's photography lives on.

John Sexton has written a fine tribute to his great good friend. He apologizes for its length and for his typos because "it is hard to proofread the text through my tears." He has written a beautiful piece. I hope you can make a small space in your life to read it over the next couple of days.

In one of those gratuitous lists I write here every so often—you know I like lists—I said, in calling Ray one of the ten best living photographers: "The man has got no rap at all, and seems almost allergic to self-promotion or, indeed, promotion of almost any sort (which could be good things), but he's our modern-day heir to Ansel Adams: a classic West-Coast B&W Zone-System photographer whose work is gorgeous but nuanced, distanced, wide-ranging, probing, rapt, technically perfect and tonally ravishing—and did we mention gorgeous?"

John says "Ray was a humble, unassuming, quiet person, and a bit of an enigma." Later he continues: "Ray approached photography, and life, in a slow and methodical manner. He had countless talents. He was a fine chef, a talented woodworker, he designed and hand crafted clamshell portfolio boxes, was trained in the army as a cartographer, was a talented typographer, and an incisive writer. Once Ray felt passion for a particular photograph, or project, he became obsessed, and there was no stopping him from reaching his goal. His intense dedication was an inspiration to Anne and me, and many others [who knew] Ray. He had the uncommon ability to shed the encumbrances of normal day-to-day life, and focus on whatever was the subject of his attention."

I was surprised to learn that you can still buy Ray's 1992 book Explorations through John and Anne's Ventana Editions. I wish I'd known while there was still time to help Ray himself, but a purchase will still help his work—John and Anne are donating 100% of the profits to the effort to help preserve Ray's archive. Contemplating Ray's "Walking Trees" series in Explorations is one of the profound experiences of nature photography.

And as I said, if you don't know Ray's work yet you are in for a wonderful treat. He was one of the most inventive and wide-ranging of the "West Coast" school of Zone System large-format photographers, and a superlative craftsman. It's a great book.

You can see some of Ray's work at his website, but go with a strong caveat: the small JPEGs just do not begin to do justice to the lovely book reproductions or to Ray's superb prints. The JPEGs are like schoolchild sketches of great paintings, an indication at best. But they will give you an idea.

Ray McSavaney was a photographer who may not have been widely known, but who richly deserves to be remembered. R.I.P.

Mike
(Thanks to John Sexton)

P.S. Sorry for the lack of a portrait as an illustration—pictures of Ray are hard to find and hard to clear. Please don't take it as a sign of any disrespect.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Dave Karp: "My late father-in-law did a workshop with Ray McSavaney, John Sexton and Anne Larsen. He was very taken with McSavaney. Really liked him. Ray was available to him after the workshop, to answer questions and to further the teaching started at the workshop. Later, my wife and I met Ray at a gallery showing. He remembered my father-in-law, who was gone by then, and we have a very nice talk about his work and photography in general. When the conversation turned to our feelings about his photography, he was genuinely moved by our compliments toward his work. By all accounts and by experience, a very, very nice and gentle man.

"His photography is stunning. This man understood light. His studies of the abandoned Firestone factory are amazing. I have seen similar work by well-known photographers. In my opinion, his is the best example of that sort of work. He could photograph and print snow like nobody else. Explorations is my favorite book of photography.

"He also had broad range as a photographer. He seemed equally comfortable photographing the landscape, architecture (ancient and modern), people, flowers, you name it."

Frank Greenagel: "Ray was an exceptional teacher as well as a superb photographer. I worked the Southwest with him half a dozen times and was often surprised by his deep rapport with several Navajos we encountered, often in a remote canyon; certainly born of his understanding of and empathy with their culture.

"I recall several times when we set up our cameras, all ready to make an exposure, then sat and waited—may an hour or more—for a cloud to move into the right position or for a shadow to fall on the right area of a ruin. He was a very gentle man, one of wide-ranging knowledge and high ethical values. I feel especially fortunate to have a dozen of his prints from the Southwest, each one recalling for me a day-hike, mostly in Southeast Utah. Mike, you are correct that he seemed to avoid all efforts at self-promotion. I think I'll have a beer, or several, in his memory."

July Print Offer: David Dyer-Bennet

Lincoln Memorial print by David Dyer-Bennet, $95 

Digital rescued this film photograph, which I think is a quiet masterpiece. It's by TOP reader (and frequent commenter) David Dyer-Bennet (a.k.a. DD-B). If his last name looks familiar to you, you might be a fan of folk music—his uncle was the British-born American folksinger Richard Dyer-Bennet. David took this on a break from college in 1975, a decade after the Civil Rights Act and not long after he first met Ctein.

Longtime TOP readers will remember this picture from back in 2007, when Ctein and David talked about the  multi-decade-long path this photograph took from exposure to a print that did it proper justice.

Put your own subtext on it; you can see the picture for yourself. As for the print, it looks like neither film nor digital, but like exactly what it is: a fine inkjet print carefully made from an original B&W negative. Richly glowing tones on premium paper with a lovely surface. The print strikes me as just about ideal—and also remarkably “effortless," quite a feat considering how much effort actually went into it.

David took the photograph on 35mm Kodak Plus-X with either a Leica M3 or an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic. (He's not certain. I'll post his reminiscences of the shot and his comments about it in a few days.)

Our print—made with great care by David's friend Ctein, over a long process of back-and-forth consideration, first between David and Ctein in 2007, and then recently between David, Ctein, and myself—is printed on Canson Baryta Photographique paper with Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks. The size is 9x12 inches (~23x30.5 cm) on 11x15 paper. The prints are signed on the front by David and on the back by Ctein.

No vintage prints exist. The link at the top explains why—the picture was never printed adequately until digital came along.

•     •     •

The price for this month's print is $95 and $20 for shipping regardless of where it’s going. As usual, we accept orders for five days only. Sales close at 7 p.m. Central Time on Friday. Then the prints are made to fill the orders we've received. Prints cannot be ordered past the close date.

HERE'S HOW TO ORDER

[UPDATE: Sale ended 7 p.m. 7/11/14.

New orders can no longer be made.

For those who have already ordered but have yet to send their check, here's the info: you can send a cashier's check, money order, or personal check drawn on a U.S. bank in U.S. funds made out to "Ctein" and mailed to:

Ctein
42 Skyline Drive
Daly City CA 94015

The price including shipping is $125 if you're in California and $115 if you're anywhere else. This is only for people who have already ordered—please don't send a check if you haven't already made an order! Thanks.

PayPal buttons removed 7 p.m. 7/11/14]

I've seen thousands of pictures taken at the Lincoln Memorial (like many people who ever taught photography in D.C.!) and tried to photograph it myself many times (I used to live within walking distance). This is my favorite picture taken there, in a print that is as good as can be made and looks wonderful. I hope you like it as much as I do.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kenneth Tanaka: "Good choice! This image is pretty darn close to the feeling of some of Gordon Parks' work."

Sony A7, A7r, or A7s Opinions?

Keeping up with our recent series, begun with posts about the Olympus OM-D E-M1 and then the Fujifilm X-T1...which I must say I've been thoroughly enjoying.

So do you have one of these? Not necessarily with this lens.

And it could be any of the three in the series, the Sony A7, the Sony A7r, or the Sony A7s.

Seems like it's been out long enough for owners to have formed opinions. If you are (or were) an owner, what do you think?

I'm not looking for buying advice personally, but I'm interested to hear the thoughts, feelings, and reactions of people who have been using them—anything, really: overall impressions; what lenses you're liking with it; problems or annoyances; how you like using it; what RAW developer you use with it; how you like the files; etc. You don't have to address all or any of those issues. But feel free to say whatever you'd like to say.

Do remember the "tl;dr" principle, though ("too long, didn't read"). The longer the comment, the fewer people will read it. With that caution, fire away.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Kyle Batson: "I have been using the standard a7 for about eight months now and it has quickly become my favorite camera. While I was disappointed at first that it didn't have more of an NEX-6/7/a6000 style design, the camera's use and image quality have made it my go-to camera.

"My most thorough testing was when I took the camera with me for a recent trip to Peru and Bolivia. The camera went with me up to 5,000 meters, through rain in the forest, wind and dust in the desert and never gave me any trouble. 35mm and 50mm are my most-used focal lengths so the available prime lenses for the system suit me pretty well (and the 35 and 55mm Zeiss lenses are possibly the best I've ever used). It's built well, it's easy to use, has great external controls, the image-quality is fantastic and it has a fabulous viewfinder.

"One thing I want to say about the viewfinder, almost more than it's impressive resolution and contrast is the white-balance. I still find myself amazed when I bring the camera up to my eye and the scene looks nearly identical to what I saw with my naked eye.

"It's nearly perfect, though it still desperately needs a few more lenses for the system. You can find a few photos from my trip to South America (all shot on the a7) here."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I've used the Sony A7r since it became available last fall. In brief, I respect it.

"I quickly learned that despite its diminutive size the A7r is NOT a happy-snapper. Its 36-MP stabilizer-free sensor is utterly unforgiving of sloppy camera handling. So while I do use the A7r for occasional hand-held frames, it's a tool best treated as a medium-or-large-format camera. Its menuing, EVF, and articulating hi-res screen make it a joy to use as a more technical imaging instrument.

"There's really no need for me to comment extensively on the camera's image quality; it's simply superb—again, with careful camera craft. Only my Phase One IQ160 rivals, and surpasses, its capabilities. I have just completed a commercial project in which I used a mix of the A7r, a Leica M240, and a Canon 5DIII. The final selections were overwhelmingly A7r frames, while none were 5DIII frames. Interestingly, many of the selected A7r frames were shot with the superb Canon EF 24–70L II (via MetaBones adapter) or EF 16–35L lens. I used a Leica Summilux 24mm and the FE 55mm lenses for the remainder of the work with this camera.

"One aspect not mentioned elsewhere is the A7r's dual-resolution capabilities. Strap on a Sony FE or other full-frame lens and you get a 36mp full-frame file. Strap on an original E-mount and you get a 16mp frame. That's actually pretty cool and occasionally handy!

"Do I wish the A7r's startling CLAP-CLAP louder-than-a-mirror-reflex shutter was quieter? Of course. Who doesn't? Do I wish more FE lenses were available? Not really. Between the current 55mm and 35mm FE's and my Canon EF and Leica M lenses I'm more that adequately covered. And, of course, I can use my E-mounts for faster focus.

"I believe that the sibling A7, with its faster focus and more normal file size, is probably the better general-purpose camera choice. (Frankly, though, the Fuji and Oly systems are the best general-purpose enthusiast camera systems today. Period.) For me, the A7r is somewhat of a specialist/technical camera that produces the best results when it can be treated with some care and respect."

Edward Taylor: "To sum up the A7r—I have many, many cameras (1Dx, 5D Mark III, GH4, NEX-7, among others). I have many many lenses for the above cameras. I only have one 35mm FE lens for my Sony A7r. And yet, it is my favorite stills camera ever, by far. I also have an A7s. I am returning it. Although it can capture images at high ISO, I just don't like the look of the high ISO images that much, whether stills or movies. I know this goes against what other reviewers say, but it just is not a game-changer for me, and not worth the cost. With internal 4K recording, maybe, but not as is."

Sunday Open Mike: News!

July Print Sale starts tomorrow! N/t.

Even more sprawling: So I made an offer on a new house yesterday, and it was accepted! (Now you know why it's been a bit quiet around here for a couple of days.) The new house is on the far side of town, so the neighborhood and its environs will be new to us, but the house itself has literally everything on my checklist—not only of needs, but of nice-to-haves as well*. There's a big back yard for the dogs. (I've been scoping out web pages like this.)

Most notably, my home office space will increase greatly. The new house has a finished, dry basement which will be the new TOP Planetary Headquarters for my continuing plan of becoming an Internet tycoon—and it actually is kind of sprawling, if you can believe it. (Blogging from the basement flirts with an uncomfortable cliché, but oh well, if the shoe fits.) My realtor didn't have her nifty laser measuring device with her yesterday, so I can't report the square footage of the new office, but it's at least five times larger than what I have now. Maybe more. (Thanks again to all you print buyers and donors from the "Help TOP Move" sale!)

I really can't post a photo yet. It's a privacy issue—the people who are selling the house still own it. I'll post plenty of pictures as soon as we close in August, however.

No more Aperture: You've probably heard that Apple has announced it will cease development of Aperture, in favor of a replacement called "Photos." (And could they have picked a worse name? I'll be waiting for their new apps "And" and "To," because those will be even harder to specify in a search. Or maybe they'll call their next app "National Geographic," because there's no famous magazine by that name. Oh, wait....) Here's an article on TechCrunch telling you all about it.

(Personally I feel somewhat vindicated, because this is why this former AppleWorks loyalist decided against going with Aperture when I checked it out a few years back. Say what you will about Photoshop—and granted it has changed enormously, although that's one of the good things about it—but I've been using it since 1996.)

Stamatovic & Son Co. camera obscura, from
Nicole Lewis's "Happy Camera Day!" article

Camera Day: So did you have any idea that June 27th was National Camera Day? Me neither. But Nicole Lewis at Flickr Blog made a nice short post with pictures of various cameras and some photographs made with them. Not a lot new for most of us, but pleasant and nicely done just the same. (Stamatovic & Son apparently has no website, in case you're wondering.) [UPDATE: Yes they do, it's just called something different than the company name so it doesn't come up in a search for the latter. Thanks to Johan Verhulst. —Ed.]

Ut by Terakopian: If I were a photography collector, I'd probably collect portraits of photographers—even without trying, I've accumulated a few nice ones over the years, and I enjoy good ones I come across online. Speaking of the latter, check out Edmond Tarakopian's portrait of Nick Ut.

John Wilson comments: "And here's my portrait of Edmond Terakopian."

Sony A7 back: I've heard of several projects like this. Chiek Imaging in Seoul, South Korea, uses the Sony A7r as the basis for a megapixel camera with view camera movements. People are definitely having fun with the A7's.

New TOP: Also on the TOP news front, Hugh Crawford is making splendid progress porting us over to Wordpress. We don't quite have light at the end of the tunnel yet, but there has been great progress.

Hugh Crawford comments: "We may not have light at the end of the tunnel, but the oncoming train problem has been pretty much eliminated."

Fascination: Three days ago there was a very interesting article by Arthur Lubow published at the World's Best Photography Magazine, a.k.a. the NYT. It's all about posthumous redaction of photographers' work, centering around Vivian Maier and Garry Winogrand.

Personally I'd like to see Leo Rubinfien's Winogrand show at the Met, because I have yet to see a single posthumous Winogrand I thought was any good. To me it's a sow's ear that has soaked up way too much hopeful effort to make it into a silk purse*. I remain open to the possibility, however. Just in case.

Mike
(Thanks to numerous tipsters)

P.S. Xander's latest video: Five Bar Bets You'll Always Win (his entry into a Mike's Hard Lemonade contest).

Open Mike is the Op/Ed page of TOP. Usually, it's off-topic. Not so much today.

*Even, I belatedly realized, a little heated room off the garage that's separated from the rest of the house that could have been custom-designed as a good place for coffee roasting. A surprising bonus. I actually didn't even see that room on my first tour of the house.

Coffee roasting is generally a pretty messy business—it smokes heavily, gets chaff all over everywhere, and results in a powerful smell that takes a while to clear. The coffee roaster I use has a catalytic converter in it, which takes care of most of the smoke (it can still set off the smoke alarm in the hallway if I don’t close the door to the kitchen, however), and the chaff is taken care of with a Shop-Vac that currently resides under our kitchen table, and the smell normally goes away almost entirely after 3-4 hours. But having a room that’s separated from the house, and ventilated to the outdoors, and sort of “workroom-like” so it doesn’t have to be kept pristine, is ideal.

**For non-native English speakers, "making a silk purse out of a sow's ear" is an old expression that dates from 1579 in England. Wictionary defines it as "to produce something refined, admirable, or valuable from something which is unrefined, unpleasant, or of little or no value." Although if you try hard enough....

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Cyrus: "Regarding the Winogrand show, I saw it in D.C. as part of the 'See a Show This Year' challenge. My thoughts are on my blog, and to summarize, see it if you want to view the familiar images on paper rather than on a screen, but don't expect too much from the new selection."

tex andrews: "Congratulations on moving up in the realm of slavery...ahem, I mean home ownership! BTW, Cambo is also on the way with a view camera using the A7/r series. Should be around by August, about $1500(?). Worth it, I would think...."

James Sinks: "I have to ask...why on earth would you stick a tilt-shift lens on a bellows? The T/S lens already has movements, for crying out loud!"

Simon Naisbitt replies to James: "In response to James Sinks's comment: tilt-shift lenses usually have image circles that are larger than those of other lenses. A larger image circle allows a greater range of adjustment to be made (using either the tilt-shift mechanism of the lens or, in this case, using the bellows) without causing excessive vignetting."

Bill Tyler replies to James: "Congratulations on the new house! In partial response to James Sinks, there is a good reason for having movements both at the back and front. Geometrically, either place is enough, but in practice, you need much less extreme adjustments if you have both front and back movements.

"Consider, for instance, the problem of sharply imaging a sidewalk, looking down along its length. You can either tilt the front or the back. But they have different effects. Tilting the front leaves perspective more or less normal. Tilting the back gives extra magnification to close-up objects and less to far-away objects. To get the back tilt effect using only front movements, you'd first have to point the camera down, then shift the lens way up, then tilt it backwards so it regains a vertical axis. In doing this, you can't see even approximate framing until you're done shifting the lens. It's much easier to do with a tilting back. There you can frame approximately with all movements neutral, tilt the back, then refine the framing to taste."

GRJ: "Congrats on the new HQ. I'm glad it's working out for you.

"Re: Winogrand, I wonder if there's any chance of minds being changed, if minds are made up. I'm young enough that all Winogrand is new-ish to me, so I was able to approach the show in D.C. with a more-or-less open mind (though with familiarity with details about Winogrand's life and superficial knowledge of his work). To me, the late work included in the show is merely different—not necessarily worse—than the early work. The later work is somehow emptier. If one's mind is made up that busy/New York Winogrand is good, then melancholy/detached Winogrand simply won't have any appeal. After seeing the show, I thought the late work stands on its own, but with different strengths than the earlier work. But who am I to challenge the Gospel of Saint John (S.)?"

Mike replies: I always used to say "I have a right to respond to art as if encountering it was an important experience for me." It's yours when you experience it. No one has the right to tell you how to feel about it. "Suggest," maybe, but "dictate," no. St. John is just telling you how he feels about it, not how you must.

Oh, and thanks for your perspective.

Fujifilm X-T1 Opinions?

We spent the last couple of days gathering opinions about the camera on the left, the Olympus OM-D E-M1. Now how about the one on the right? Do you have one of those? (Not necessarily with the pictured lens.) Seems like it's been out long enough for owners to have formed opinions. If you are (or were) an owner, what do you think?

(I have one*, so I'm not looking for advice, but I'm interested to hear other owners' feelings and reactions—anything, really: what lenses you're liking with it; problems or annoyances; how you like using it; what RAW developer you use with it; how you like the files; etc. You don't have to address all those issues. Just whatever you'd like to say.)

Mike

*Had to buy the loaner because I didn't get enough time in with it during the loan period. I'll have to sell one or the other soon, though, because I can't afford to keep both and never intended to own both.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jerry Thirsty: "I have it, with the 23mm. I can't really put my finger on why, but I'm just not that into it. Partially I think it's just insecurity knowing that my Sigma DP2M is sharper, even though I rarely print at sizes where you'd be able to see the difference. I tend to take photos that contain a lot of leaves and grass, so the mushiness of the greens is a bit annoying. The high ISO is only a slight improvement over my Pentax K5, and I trust the K5 AF more, so that's what I take for dim light. It's mostly a chicken/egg thing: I don't like it enough to use it a lot, and I don't use it enough to build up the experience and confidence needed to like it."

Robin Campbell: "As a matter of fact, I got an X-T1 with the 18–55mm lens yesterday. Love it! Couldn't be happier! Perfect size and weight. Makes me wanna shoot. Beautiful images too. And the viewfinder...Oh my! Simply gorgeous to look through. Camera itself is just cool looking. It's 'goodbye' to my (much bulkier in comparison) Nikon D7000. 'Hello' mirrorless!"

Nir Alon (partial comment): "Hi Mike! I'm a photojournalist based in Jerusalem. I do mostly news reporting. For years I had used Canons professionally but always went through the dilemma of which small camera to take with me when just going out for a beer. I've used an assortment of bridge cameras and rangefinder-like cameras...until Fuji came out with the X100. That was a turning point—it was fun to use, small and delivered extraordinary image quality, and, it became my main camera for 85% of the work.

"But, and with cameras there is always a 'but', the fixed 35mm-equivalent lens limited what I could do. About that time I also had a motorbike crash that left might right forearm and wrist, my dominant arm, somewhat disabled and I can no longer work long hours with a heavy camera/lens combo. So I bought an Olympus E-M5 with a 14–150mm and tried to convince myself I was happy with the image quality. Often it performed well but not when challenged with the lighting conditions that in news reporting always works against you.

"Then came the X-T1 and it has become my main camera with the X100 often tagging along, almost unnoticed, as a backup. X-T1 performance is fantastic and image quality superb."

gene lowinger (partial comment): "Some months ago I had the M Monochrome itch. I borrowed the camera from a store in NYC to take out on the street for a couple of hours. Used my own 35mm Summicron and my own SD card. At the same time I put the Fuji 23mm on the X-T1 and shot with them side by side. Same pics, same settings. When I got home and loaded the two sets of images into LR to compare them without any processing, I was totally and completely underwhelmed by the Leica. A case of the Emperor's new clothes. Saved me eight grand. Das it!"

Michael Tapes: "No manual focus when the shutter is half-depressed and no blinkies during image review were two of a few showstoppers for me. Files are amazing, but I did not enjoy shooting with the camera. YMMV."

Bob Hansen (partial comment): "I own the X-T1 and one word often comes to mind when I select which of my cameras to use—trust. It works like I think and I consistently capture the image I am after—even the most difficult ones...Keep the X-T1 you will never be sorry."

Mike replies: I think that "trust" is the one thing we're all after in a camera. It's different for everyone and depends on a number of factors, but whether we trust the equipment we use is the bottom line for whether we think it's good or not.

Adam Lanigan (partial comment): "I was deep in a non-creative funk with photography and finally realised the issue while packing for a vacation...I just didn't want to take my big bulky DSLR with me anymore. It was too intrusive and a pain to carry with a few lenses on longer days. I was always looking for something else to shoot with (which led to a nice diversion through some wonderful film gear, though). And along came the hype for the X-T1....

"I did my research into the camera and the Fuji system and was sold. I picked up my X-T1 and 23mm on the day it was released and it's been a joy ever since. I have since relieved myself of all of my DSLR gear, which offset the cost of switching quite nicely, and am not looking back. My output and the quality of that output have increased dramatically in the intervening three-four months. We'll have to see if this is just a honeymoon period, but it honestly feels very strange to leave the house without the X-T1 these days. Something that I haven't said about a camera...maybe ever."

sneye: "Are you really asking us to comment on cameras we own? Cognitive dissonance will net you 95% positive feedback regardless of the truth. As an owner of both systems you are better positioned to judge than most of us. Just saying."

Mike replies: I think we get a lot of very objective comments from owners. Most TOP readers are pretty mature. But if a camera can inspire a "honeymoon period," as Adam put it, what's wrong with that? It too is data.

Barry Reid: "The X-T1 with the 23mm I have to say is the only digital camera I've ever picked up and immediately liked the feel of in hand. I still bought an A7r because it seamlessly integrates with my Canon lens system and TS-E lenses."

pierre: "Interesting thread. Many commentors mention the save in weight compared to standard DSLRs. After 10 years of using Canon 1Ds cameras, I do sympathize.

"But are we talking only about conveniance here? It would be great to know more about a (possible?) loss in the quality of files, resolution wise, noise from a professional/advertising/corporate experience. For some reasons, I still wonder how a smaller sensor can do as well than a bigger one.

"But hey, I am not dogmatic here, would be very happy to use anything lighter."

Tech. Ed. Ctein replies to pierre: The best way to answer your questions, for what matters to you, is to rent some cameras and try them out, if that option is available to you. It seems from your message that you're trying to work mostly from theory and supposition. Even with other people telling you their experiences, that's not really going to help you decide if a given format camera is good enough for you.

But staying with the abstract for a while, your question about how a smaller sensor can do as well as the larger one would be much like someone saying they can't see how a 4x5 negative could hold up against an 8x10 one. Well, if the 4x5 negative were made on T-MAX 100 and the 8x10 negative on Royal-X Pan or even Tri-X….

That's the thing about real digital cameras: it only makes sense to look at sensor size when you know that the sensor and the driver and support electronics are all using the same technology. That rarely happens. When it doesn't, you can see markedly different levels of performance per square millimeter of sensor from two different cameras.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are comparing apples and apples, that doesn't mean it matters. Everything else being equal, 8x10 is better than 4x5. Okay, so how many professional photographers opted for an 8x10 view camera over a 4x5? For that matter, how many opted for a 4x5 camera over 35mm camera? A very small percentage—you can tell that just from the sales numbers for cameras. It's not that bigger wasn't better, it's that better didn't matter for their needs. Which takes me back to paragraph 1.

My mileage will not be the same as yours. Neither will anyone else's. I can tell you that this former 6x7 cm film photographer finds that his current Micro 4/3 camera results in superior prints in every respect.

One thing I can tell you for certain is that small differences in sensor size just don't matter—folks who assert that, for example, APS-C is meaningfully superior to Micro 4/3 are just plain wrong. In the apples vs. apples case, there just isn't a big enough difference in sensor size there to matter. And, rarely is it apples vs. apples.

One other thing: the folks who say it's a “simple matter of physics?” It's very unlikely any of them are physicists.

Happy Fourth! If Applicable

I realize not everyone in our audience celebrates the 4th of July (American Independence Day), when we, with the essential aid of the French, and possibly a little assist from the madness of King George, shook off the yoke of colonial Britain—which a lot of us didn't want to shake off the yoke of. (Did you know that? Fewer than half of the residents of the Thirteen Colonies were revolutionaries on this day in 1776. More were Tories, loyalists to the crown. But they tended to keep quiet about it. And many quietly switched sides when it became expedient. And some went back to England, or sent their children back.) (I'm hoping to get some history lectures in the Comments.)

Anyway, before I get too far down that track: TOP will be closed for a few days for the holiday.

Coming up just after, the July Print Offer. In response to requests, it will be a completely different sort of image for us, and it's a two-digit (sub-$100) sale as well. A picture I love, and that longtime readers have seen before. And it's a TOP reader's picture, too.

Speaking of readers' pictures: also when I get back, I'll be sending a letter to all the buyers of Phil Rosenberg's Keck Observatory print about the contest they can enter to win a week at a Hawaiian villa and have their own picture in a Print Offer. (I'll be asking for 1–3 guide or proof prints not to exceed 8.5x11" in size if you want to start thinking about it.)

Also this coming month, I could well have some Blog Notes about the new TOP, which is coming along, and possibly about the new Johnston family digs, which will have a larger office and will thus have to be known as [Slightly More] Sprawling TOP World Headquarters. (It means I won't be able to enjoy this new road, but then, I always use the alley anyway.)

In the meantime, please keep the comments about the cameras coming. I'm finding them very enjoyable to read, and informative.

See you in a few days, and, if it applies, have a nice and safe Fourth! Send me a picture, and I'll publish a few.

Mike

Mike

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Jack: Had the British won...see this beer video.

David Miller: "Happy 4th of July to citizens of the USA!

Re 'the yoke of colonial Britain—which a lot of us didn't want to shake off the yoke of': While some residents of the Thirteen Colonies may have returned to Britain, a significant number emigrated to other British colonies, where the British government designated them 'United Empire Loyalists,' often rewarding their faithfulness with land grants in their new locations. The influx of Loyalists had an enormous effect on the 'other' British North American colonies and were instrumental in the formation and early history of Canada. (Happy birthday to us on July 1st!)

"Though the United Empire Loyalists were discussed at length in Canadian history books when I was in grade school in the 1950s, I was surprised to discover that the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada still exists. (I was pleased to note that among the traditions they maintain is the correct use of the apostrophe in the name of their organization.)

"I wonder if they're on speaking terms with members of the Daughters of the American Revolution?"

Mike replies: Heh. I could ask my great-aunts, except they're all...well, you know.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Opinions?

Do you have one of these? Seems like it's been out long enough for owners to have formed opinions. If you are (or were) an owner, what do you think?

(I have one, so I'm not looking for advice, but I'm interested to hear other owners' feelings and reactions—anything, really: what lenses you're liking with it; problems or annoyances; how you like using it; what RAW developer you use with it; how you like the files; etc. Whatever you'd like to say.)

Mike

[UPDATE: Given the high number of high compliments in the Comments, I probably should have added this:

Olympus OM-D E-M1 and 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 zoom at Amazon.com (note that this is gray market, but it's from our friends at Focus Camera.)
OM-D E-M1 at B&H Photo

P.S. If anybody has a Panasonic/'Leica' 45mm ƒ/2.8 Macro that's surplus to their requirements and that they'd like to sell, please get in touch with me. And then, right after that, I am not spending any more money on anything ever again. Nothing. Ever. [UPDATE: Bought one! Thanks...]

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

The E-M1 and much more.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Harlan Chapman: "Have had the E-M1 since March. Very happy with it, so much so that I subsequently sold all of my Nikon DSLR gear. I can see very well through the E-M1 EVF with my thick glasses. By comparison I couldn't see well through the viewfinder on my previous NEX-7 and still can't see the whole view on my Leica M3, as good as that viewfinder is. My hands shake a lot but with the EM1 it seems I can always get the shot because of the fantastic stabilization, big bright viewfinder, and the (ideal for me) size/position of the controls.

"And I've been wowed by the quality of the glass: there is no practical IQ loss when shooting wide open using Olympus and Panasonic zoom and prime ƒ/2.8, ƒ/1.8, and ƒ/1.2 lenses. I'd never expected to be able to shoot glass that good."

Bob Rockefeller: "I'm a happy owner and am on the verge of moving off my Nikon D3 system and going all Micro 4/3. I have the 60mm ƒ/2.8 macro, the 25mm ƒ/2.8 and the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8. All are excellent lenses, the 12–40mm especially so. For me, I'm missing the 70–200mm ƒ/2.8 equivalent. Olympus has announced one for later this year, so we'll see when I can order it.

"RAW conversions via Aperture have been very good. I'm moving to Capture One Pro now, and its conversions are perhaps even better. No troubles there."

Chip McDaniel (partial comment): "I'm wondering whether Micro 4/3 is really my thing. I think that the APS-C format may have an edge over Micro 4/3. The files form APS-C are more 'there' for me. It's not just better detail at 100%. There seems to be a depth in APS-C files out of the Sony that I don't often see out of the Olympus."

Bruce (partial comment): "...Gripes...I still haven't figured out how to get HDR and self timer for real estate shots (waiting for remote release...the Giga T Pro won't allow HDR), I have to buy three more batteries, I had a guest saunter up to me at the last wedding and say, 'you call yourself a professional?!?'—he had a Nikon D3100 around his neck....

"Overall, absolutely no regrets, and I'll get an E-M10 or little used E-M5 as second backup very soon."

Mike replies: "You call yourself a professional"...made me laugh.

Hans Andersen: "You can have my Panasonic/Leica 45mm ƒ/2.8 Macro when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. It's overpriced, underspec'd, and somehow absolutely magical. I have trouble taking it off my camera bodies—I keep looking for more excuses to use it."

Mike replies: I already accepted an offer, but good to hear you like it. For me, half the rationale is to help me avoid the super-pricey 42.5mm Nocticron that I can't afford. I hope I'll end up liking the P/L 45mm as well as you do.

Eric Brody: "I had an E-M1, and based on some of the things you said in your 'Fujifilm Gets It and Sony Doesn't' article, decided to sell it. I absolutely loved the Oly IBIS and with it the ability to use legacy M Leica lenses with an inexpensive adapter and have a stabilized M Leica. I am an no expert but after borrowing an X-E1, and looking carefully at my own files, decided that the X-trans sensor was what I wanted. I now have an X-T1 and love it. The lenses are just superb."

Bob Rosinsky: "The EM-1 is the nicest camera I've used over the past 40 years. I first got hooked into Olympus a few years ago with an EPL-1. Now I have an EPL-5 (with the VF-4 finder) and an E-M1. The Oly fast prime lenses are miraculous. The files are robust; they withstand a lot of Photoshop abuse."

Howard (partial comment): "I love the E-M1. I have two if them in fact. It's my favorite camera, ever, having used a variety of 35mm, medium format, large format and digital cameras over the past 40 years or so. I love the ergonomics of the E-M1, the size and weight (of course), the in-body image stabilization and, of course, the lenses. The image quality is also top notch, IMHO, though I've only owned Micro 4/3 cameras for the past five years, so I can't compare to recent sensors in other formats."

Comment Note

Very sorry—I made a mistake in moderating the comments yesterday and a number of comments were approved and posted out of order. My apologies to the readers whose comments got short shrift and to those readers who like to read all the comments and depend on them being posted in sequence.

Please check through the comments to the previous post again to see the new ones.

Too-Tired Mike*

*Darrell Green's nickname for me back in D.C., an homage to Ed "Too-Tall" Jones.

Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

What, this tired dude thinks he deserves to get paid?

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!