The Online Photographer

Open Mike: Pots of Gold

I've been writing about photography since 1988, when Fred Picker goaded me into writing an article on spec by telling me I was a punk and couldn't possibly get an article published in a magazine. (That first article was accepted, as were several hundred after that.) That, and subsequent editing and online jobs and activities, have put me in an unusual position. I became a sort of host, discussion leader, clearinghouse, observer of the scene, and pundit rolled into one.

As such, I've been aware of various leitmotifs over the years, low-level but persistent themes that run like threads through my work and my days. One of the more noticeable of these is what I call the photographer's lament: photographers ask, why am I not getting more attention? Why am I not earning more money? Why that person and not me? Why is the world not beating a path to my door?*

Upon reaching a certain level of competence or accomplishment we seem to feel that we should start getting attention.

I see this as more a characteristic of the activity of photography itself than it is a commentary on any individual's skills or talents. There's something about the way we commonly conceive of this activity that encourages the thought that we should be rewarded, somehow, for being able to do it.

Maybe it's the fact that some people are rewarded for it. Everyone knows the examples of the professional photographer and the artist-photographer, who, they imagine, are showered and fêted with money or recognition or both.

Not so often, really. The average "name" photographer is more like a recording star who no longer has a record contract. They, too, are usually feeling some version of the photographer's lament...just at a higher level than most of the rest of us. Fees are down, nobody's paying for original photography any more, I'm not selling many prints, my last book didn't sell well.

My question is, why does the idea persist that fame and earnings—more broadly, attention and admiration—should naturally be contingent on practicing this activity? What is it about photography that makes us feel we should get attention for doing it?

Look at other recreational activities. Water skiing, hunting, woodworking, bird-watching, cooking, video-gaming—or any of a thousand others. I suppose in each of those fields there are a tiny minority who get paid for what they do or are famous for it, although I can't name a single water-skiier nor imagine how someone who's good at knitting might become well known for it. Mostly, such things are their own reward. We hike in the woods, or travel for miles to eat at a nice restaurant, or teach our dogs tricks, or arrange wildflowers in vases, or work out, visit famous battlefield parks, or build model railroads, or sew, because those things are fun for us, that's all.

We don't think, hey, I'm really good at scrapbooking. When am I going to get an award for this? Or...you know, I'm a hell of a great foodie. I go to the farmer's market every week and I read a ton of recipes. Why is someone not giving me money?

For a small number of people, photography is a career. But those people work really hard at identifying markets, building up client relationships, and giving customers what they want. And it's true, a small number of photographers get their work published in books or shown in museums, or they sell prints for what seems like a lot of money. And they work just as hard at that...it's just a different kind of work, is all. You could probably do one of those things occasionally too, if you really worked at it. And if you didn't need your day job.

But for the most part, photography is just a fun activity. A recreation. An enjoyable pastime. We do it because we enjoy it.

I often encourage people to work in a more focused way, to be more organized and deliberate and conscious about their work, to undertake projects, or to finish or "redact" their work more fully. I encourage photographers to concentrate on what they're best at, and be sterner editors of their own work—generally, to do what needs to be done to enable their work to communicate to others, to be seen by others, more readily. But that's just because I think those things make photography more satisfying and enjoyable, that's all. Not because I'm trying to encourage people to believe there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

So if you ever find yourself thinking, why am I not famous, or when am I going to make a little money at this, or any of the other gnawing dissatisfying insecurities that seem to crop up for all of us from time to time, I'd encourage you to ask yourself a question: why do you really do this, anyway? Concentrate on finding the things about photographing that are within your control that make it fun and gratifying as a recreation, a relaxation, and a rewarding activity in and of itself. It might or might not change the way you work. But it might make you happier.

Mike

*The famous "build a better mousetrap" saying is a folk distillation of a quotation by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

"Open Mike" is the editorial page of TOP, in which the Editor allows his opinionations free range. It appears on Sundays.

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Rich Reusser: "My daughter is having some success as a model in L.A. so she gets to see the minority of photographers that are 'elite' as well as the working class variety. She called to tell me one particularly famous fashion photographer has a spiritual guru by his side at all times. This is how I would know I found the pot of gold."

Mike replies: Is the spiritual guru a leprechaun?

Ruby: "I always wanted a camera (I got a Vivitar 110—with flash, no flash cubes for me!—for my 10th birthday, and a K1000 for graduation). Life got in the way for quite some time, but eight years ago I began to study more seriously. Of course I had those relatives saying 'You should open a business,' and I dutifully looked into it. I spend a lot of time looking at photography. I am competent, sometimes good. I really enjoy taking pictures, and even editing them. I don't want to have to think about promotion and making other people happy. Sometimes the act of taking the picture is the best part of the experience. This post articulated something I've been trying to explain to relatives who think profit is the only reason to pursue photography."

Bruce Mc: "I have worked with a famous photographer or two. As you mention, there was a lot of attention given to the techniques and just plain hard work involved in advancing their career. There was also a drive, a dissatisfaction. Just taking good photos was not satisfying to these people. Having their work celebrated was very important to them emotionally."

Steve: "I highly recommend a book called The War of Art by Steven Pressfield. It's mainly about writing, but you can apply it to any creative field, especially photography.

"I tried, and failed, to start a winery here on the west coast. After 10 years I had to pull the plug. There was a certain je ne sais quoi that seemed to land on some people and not others. I wouldn't even call it luck. We all worked like dogs but there was something I was lacking that others had. Now I make waaaay more money in IT and have way more free time to pursue photography. As in the wine business, I'm sure it's the same in photography. Ninety percent of your time is selling your product and 10% actually doing. I am not a good salesman...."

'Like Musical Instruments,' Portraits of Poets

Reviewed by Carl Weese

This hefty softcover book—228 pages of text and pictures at traditional letter-size—is really two things at once: a collection of 83 portraits by photographer John Sarsgard, and an anthology of contemporary American poetry edited by Larry Fagin.

For the poems, the selection emphasizes diversity, not favoring any one style or camp. There are young and old, famous writers and relative unknowns. With the better known contributors, an effort was made to select some of their lesser known work, so even readers up to date on the poetry world will find some surprises. I was an English major many years ago but I haven’t stayed current in the field. I’m finding Larry’s curating to be a great guide to introduce me to current work, and I’m happy that he sought out a wide range of styles and approaches.

On the photographs, first, disclosure: John is a friend, who has studied platinum printing with me. His portraits are utterly direct and straightforward, devoid of any hint of pretense or artifice. His rapport with the poets is obvious, and he has told me that the conversations during the sessions were mind-blowing-amazing. He makes the exhibition prints in platinum/palladium, and they are progressing to several gallery venues around the country.

Something to study in these portraits is the way John uses every bit of the frame. The environments—I’m not going to use the term “background”—are rich with suggestion even though they generally take up little space compared to the human subject. In most cases he asked the poet to choose the location for the shoot, and the places selected are often resonant, adding another layer to the connection John makes with his subjects.

The pictures are all made by available light, on medium format Tri-X film, with a Pentax 645 and normal 75mm lens. That last detail is telling. Selection of the normal rather than the more typical “portrait length” of 150mm is partly responsible for getting those significant surroundings into the frame and keeping them legible. It also draws photographer and subject physically closer, which again aids the sense of connection that comes across in these pictures.

The publishing team, including Sarsgard, Fagin, and Larry Moore of Broadstone Books, wanted to keep the price “at a level that poets might afford.” This leads to a small downside. To reach that price, they had to print overseas, by remote control, using CMYK-monochrome printing. The reproductions are good, but not at the level of a first-tier print house working with tritone or quadtone plates—however that book would cost $80–90, not $39.95. I think they made the right compromise.

If you like portrait photography, or poetry, this book is for you. If you love both, it’s like getting two for the price of one.

Also, if you order from the publisher and mention that you read about the book here at TOP, they'll discount it to $30 for you.*

Carl

*[Despite the discount, the publisher and the authors actually get to keep more money for each book if you buy it through our link than if you buy it from a bookstore or from another online source. —Ed.]

Carl Weese is a photographer, writer, and workshop teacher, based in Connecticut. There are many online galleries of his pictures at his website, and he publishes a daily picture blog.

©2015 by Carl Weese, all rights reserved

ADDENDUM by John Sarsgard, the book's photographer: "I appreciate Carl writing the review, and certainly hope folks will buy the book, but I also want to take the opportunity to encourage others to consider a long term personal project. I met and engaged with over a hundred poets, and gained a perspective I would never have any other way. I am still in contact with many of them.

"I hope many who have not done so will think about a group of people they would like to meet and know just a bit. I had the benefit of an insider collaborator, but I also found that people will lead you to others if they like the work. Poets are under appreciated by the larger society these days, and most I contacted were happy to participate. I'm sure rock stars and novelists would be harder.

"I tried to keep the technical things simple and second nature so I could spend my time engaging with the people. One camera, one lens, one film, natural light, tripod or not as necessary, meter the face.

"Carl mentioned that the poets frequently picked the location. I always asked, but also made sure I had a few ideas just in case. "I dunno," followed by "I'll get back to you" from me would have been lame. I did learn how hard working in a park can be on a sunny day, with hot spots in the background everywhere. Cartier-Bresson liked cloudy days for good reason.

"I asked everyone to sign a simple release at the end of the session that promised prints, with a space for a mailing address. Most signed right away. Some wanted to see the prints first. They all signed eventually. I don't think releases are technically necessary for this work, but I wanted to make clear what I might do with the images. I gave them all permission to use the images for anything they wanted, and a number have been used as author photos for books.

"Finding a publisher was hard. More than one told me that photo books are the second lowest volume category, and poetry sells even less…and that I had some nerve to ask them to publish something that combined the two! Larry Moore at Broadstone is a brave small publisher who loves both poetry and photography and is not in the game to get rich.

"I hope many will explore such a project. Think of what might happen!"

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:

scott kirkpatrick: "I'm not sure how to purchase the book from its publisher and get the $30 price Carl refers to. The website doesn't do it automatically, and the publishers should not be looking forward to a flood of emails requesting something like a discount code? So I just bought it anyway."

Mike replies: Carl has now added a link that goes to a special TOP readers' page that applies the discount. It wasn't up at first. If you tried to buy the book soon after the post went up and didn't see how to get the discount, but ordered the book at full price anyway, you'll be contacted by the publisher.

Hugh Smith: "I looked for the book on Broadstone's website and was pleasantly surprised to find Larry offering a special discount to TOP readers. While I appreciate a bargain as much as the next guy/gal, I am purchasing the book without the discount simply to support the publisher and authors of this work. Just my two pesos."

Mike replies: I added a note to the post to this effect, but you should be aware that the publisher gets MORE support if you use our link than if you don't. In fact, the publisher wanted Carl to review the book on TOP in part because it allows them to keep far more of the purchase price than they get to keep using other channels of distribution. So ordering it here gives the producers of the book the maximum of support, despite the fact that it's cheaper for you.

marcin wuu: "I'm curious, why is CMYK printing cheaper than tri- or quadtone? It should the other way around or the same, since you use just three (or four at most) plates? Or is it printed 'on demand' on a laser printer?"

Carl replies: Marcin, I wasn't involved in production of this project, but in general terms, CMYK is Standard Operating Procedure at large printing firms. For monochrome, author-provided neutral or toned RGB files are fed through a batch action to convert to CMYK, ideally using a press-specific custom ICC profile. Then the job runs with many other jobs through high-volume presses that run nearly 24/7. (Pro tip: toning is good in this instance; true neutral is fiendishly difficult to achieve on press in CMYK.)

For duo-/tri-/quadtones, everything has to be done custom (which is a good thing if you can afford it) from creating the separations with specific pantone color specs and custom PS curves for the channels, to filling the press fountains with the custom inks, etc. At a mass production place the pressmen carefully keep the press running "on specification." At a high-end fine art printer, that's the starting point. Then the pressman works with the artist and/or designer to tweak the controls until what is coming out of the press is better than the proofs. Then he finishes the run keeping the press exactly on, not specs, but the signed-off-on sheet.

Going "on press" as a designer was some of the most exciting—and stressful—work I've ever done. Standardized production saves money, custom attention costs money.

There Will Be More Photographs Taken This Year...

...Than in the entire history of photographing on sensitized substrates (i.e., film and plates).

That's the conclusion reached by blogger Benedict Evans, who works for Andreessen Horowitz, a venture capital firm in Silicon Valley that invests in technology companies. He writes about "what's going on and what will happen next." In a post that he notes is an exercise in "how one can try to reach approximate estimates in the absence of solid data," he concludes that "at least two trillion photos will be shared this year, and possibly three trillion or more. Spread across roughly two billion smartphone users, that's only 2–3 photos per day per person, which is not so extraordinary...."

That's only the number of photos that will be shared, so the number of photographs taken will naturally be significantly more than that. (I don't know about you, but I share considerably less than 1% of the photos I take.) He claims (without naming sources) that estimates of all the photographs ever taken on film are in the 2.5–3.5 trillion range. Hence, as mentioned above, "more photos will be taken this year than were taken on film in the entire history of the analogue camera business."

Reminds me of John Szarkowski's old, but unprovable, more rhetorical formulation: "There are more photographs in the world than bricks." One day there might be more photographs than grains of sand.

Mike
(Thanks to Isaac)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Mark McCormick-Goodhart: "I think a little mental math is all that is needed to prove this milestone in photographic history probably occurred several years ago. Given that the film era of consumer photography started more or less in the 1890s with the introduction of the Kodak Brownie camera and pretty much died circa 2006 when smartphones and Facebook exploded in the consumer market, we only need a current year count to match approximately the prior summed up count for merely 110 years of consumer photography, i.e., 110:1.  Now consider that one or two orders of magnitude more consumers participate in photography today and on a daily basis compared to the film era, and that amateur photographers have always been the dominant creators of photos. Yet unlike today they typically documented only special events during the film era and with only a few rolls of film processed per year.  Hence, it's pretty much a done deal that we quickly blew past this 'more photos than ever existed before' milestone in photo history fairly early on in the digital era.

"My guess is that we did it in the first year the Internet, social media, and mobile phones with cameras mesmerized the consumer's market. That was probably between  2006 to 2008. Add to the consumer photo count all the security cameras that have been installed during the last two decades which capture photos automatically each and every second of the day, and it wasn't as high a bar to cross as it sounds at first blush."

Albert Macfarlane: "Lots of others have commented on the sheer volume of pictures taken, and I want to modestly point out that I have calculated that there are now more single images than the human race can ever look at (making some assumptions about looking at still images so you can perhaps realize what they are showing). See here."

When Was Your Home Built? (OT, Sort Of)

[Note: I'm afraid this post is directed mainly at my fellow Americans. What can I say? It's where I live.... Ed.]

I have a great interest in houses. It's the kind of architecture I like and also a kind of sightseeing I like to do. (If you do too, I can recommend a very useful little book called A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America's Domestic Architecture by Virginia Savage McAlester). (And as a point of curiosity, here's her own home, if you're interested.) As with trees and birds and fonts, I have trouble identifying styles (/species) in the wild, but the ways people live in built spaces fascinate me. Another crucial, major book on that topic is the wonderful A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander et al., which is a book for a lifetime of study and revisiting. I notice on Amazon that a top review is from our friend Phil Greenspun, who founded Photo.net in 1993. He says of A Pattern Language, "Nominally about architecture and urban planning, this book has more wisdom about psychology, anthropology, and sociology than any other that I've read. Nearly every one of this volume's 1170 pages will make you question an assumption that you probably didn't realize you were making." Amen.

Anyway, I just wanted to ask: do you know when most of your state's houses were built? Zillow has published a crude but still fascinating map showing which decade is most represented in each state's housing stock. Both my recent states, Wisconsin and New York, have more 1950s houses than houses from any other decade. Interestingly, many states in the South and West have more houses built since 2000 than from any other era.

You might notice that the key to the map skips from the 1920s to the 1950s. Therein lies a tale. If you think about basic American (and world) history, you'll realize that "The Roaring '20s" were a boom time, a time of huge economic vitality and growth; the '30s were the years of the Great Depression; the '40s were preoccupied with WWII and the recovery from it; and the '50s (with its "Baby Boom" generation, now aging out) were again a time of growth and economic prosperity. 

So lots of houses were built in the 1920s and 1950s, but relatively few were built in the 1930s and 1940s. In fact, as Zillow's map shows, there isn't a single state that has more houses from either of those decades than from any other.

(I have a special affection for survivors from the mid-'40s. They're often interesting in one way or another.)

Many neighborhoods in the "1950s states" are in fact "'20s/'50s" neighborhoods. My old street in Wisconsin, Windsor Drive, was like that. Half the houses were built in the 1920s and very early '30s, and many others were "infill" from the 1950s and the years adjacent to them. There are a lot of neighborhoods that fit that description in the U.S. My 1957 house on Windsor Drive was built on a side lot of the 1932 house next door.

I don't take a lot of pictures of houses, but I'd love to. Interestingly, I have the same problem with photographing houses that I have with photographing strangers on the street...it seems intrusive to me, confrontational, and I don't really like to do it without permission. It makes me vaguely uncomfortable. This feeling is largely post-9/11, but still.

A small, blurry picture of my house prior to restoration, the only one I've so far been able to find. Style? Gothic revival, if you can believe that.

If I somehow had the resources or a reason to do so, I'd love to be a "house photographer," and create a documentary book of interesting houses. That ship has sailed for me—not my field—but I think it would be fascinating, and fun.

In photography, everybody needs a subject or two. And one's true subjects start from interests apart from photography.

There's certainly enough out there to look at in the way of house pictures, one way or another.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Adam Lanigan: "I've had an 'interesting house' project idea boiling in my brain for a while. My city (Halifax, NS) has a really wonderful and eclectic mix of architecture. As an old port city (old by North American standards at least—1749), there is a fascinating history to be told in the styles of the homes alone.

"And as with your note about construction in the '20s and '50s, there is also a very clear demarcation of new construction in Halifax, as half the city was leveled by the accidental explosion of two munitions ships in the harbour in 1917 (the largest manmade explosion prior to the atomic bomb). The history of development in the city (as likely with many cities) can also be traced by the areas leveled in the name of 'progress' and 'urban renewal' in the '60s and all of the politics of wealth and race that went along with that.

"And quite serendipitous to this conversation, I would be remiss if I didn't mention a wonderful blog run by Stephen Archibald titled 'Noticed in Nova Scotia.' He focuses on interesting architectural details and tidbits about homes, buildings, towns/cities, and various other things across Nova Scotia and elsewhere in his travels. His latest post (and here's the serendipitous part) was a visit to Corning, New York, to visit the Museum of Glass, as mentioned here just two days ago."

Dave Morris: "I am, at least in part, a house photographer. I came to photography from architecture after about 15 years of training and working in architecture, where photography had been my side-interest. The balance is almost even, now, and I couldn't be happier.

"Even when on holiday, my wife (an architectural historian) and I will basically be focused on the everyday built environment around us more than almost anything else! (Recently, for example.) And you're right: Sometimes, I really do have the best job in the world. There is barely an activity that I can think of more pleasing than spending a whole day in a new house, just exploring the place, waiting to see how it reacts as sun moves around through the day, finding the views which properly explain and evoke what the architect had in mind...really, it's heaven."

Richard Wasserman: "We are on our third house and they are getting newer with each iteration. Our first was built in 1875, the next in 1916, and our current one in 1970. They have all been charming money pits....

"I photograph a lot of houses. I recently completed a project examining the ramifications of eminent domain in the U.S. I was in 10 different locations around the country shooting currently occupied homes as well as areas that had been previously inhabited.The one time I asked permission the owner offered to shoot me instead. Everyone else was curious and supportive of what I was doing. It should be noted that I use 4x5 on a tripod and certainly don't try to be invisible, which I think makes a big difference in how people relate to me. I am happy to answer any questions and can easily talk about what I am up to and why their neighborhood is interesting and important."

Ann: "The  '50s is when all of the WWII and Korea vets were using the GI Bill to  buy houses, so it makes sense that a lot of houses were built during that period.

"My current house is a 1926 bungalow, in a '20s/'50s neighborhood. Our entire block was clearly built at the same time by a single builder. The houses across the street are newer. At the time our house was built, I'm sure it had a fabulous view of the valley, that was sadly destroyed by the 1950s building boom.

"Our California house is a beautiful 1929 Spanish Revival, in a neighborhood of '20s/'30s houses, that is pockmarked by a blight of 1980s 'Huffman six packs,' the local name for cheaply-built six unit apartment buildings that were built on lots originally occupied by single family homes. (Huffman was the developer of many.) We love that house and neighborhood, and were unable to bring ourselves to do the practical thing and sell it when my job moved me up the coast a couple of years ago. So it's leased out right now. We still plan to kick out the interlopers and move back there in a couple of years.

"I love older houses, and it would be hard for me to live in anything else. McAlester's Field Guide it's a very fun book to look at. Another interesting website is oldhousejournal.com. It's a labor of love by people who are true old house buffs. In years past, they published some very good books as well, that can occasionally be found in used bookstores and libraries. The Old House Journal Guide to Restoration was our bible when we were restoring our 1929 house, and I blame that book for both how nice that house came out, and for my love of old houses."

Random Excellence: Paul Heartfield

Johnny Rotten by Paul Heartfield

A beautifully done portrait that stopped me in my tracks and made me meditate on youth culture, the generations, my generation, music, image, attitude, and aging and the passage of time.

Paul Heartfield is a photographer and former magazine publisher based in Bloomsbury in central London, mainly known for portraits of musicians and politicians.

Johnny Rotten (John Lydon) of the Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd. is now 60 and a U.S. citizen.

I don't know much about Paul H., but I'd think if a person could make a decent living photographing and also do a portrait as great as this one once a year or so, that would be a good thing to be doing with a career.

Mike
(Thanks to davesailer and Dave Stewart)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Kenneth Wajda: "I like this. It's interesting though if that were Johnny Not-So-Bad, we wouldn't even look at it because he's not well known. It's the known factor, the ability to recognize something in a scene that makes it have extra value. So celebrity photographs are always more interesting than non-celebrity photographs. Or at least they get more traction. If you see a picture of a fat old man in a black suit you may not share it but if you see Alfred Hitchcock, you immediately recognize and relate to the photo. I guess it's the old 'If your photos aren't interesting enough, find more interesting subjects.'"

Jeff Markus: "Just finished reading John [Lydon's]'s autobiography, Anger Is an Energy: My Life Uncensored, found it to be a good read. In it he mentions doing a photoshoot with Norman Seeff, for which he had high hopes, but ended up being disappointed with the results. He also mentions how, back in the day, he used to like doing speed. John was moving pretty fast that day.

"Norman's forte is gently coaxing people to be relaxed and natural in front of his camera. He primarily has shot performers, most of them musicians, many of whom are surprisingly (or not) quite camera shy when not in performance mode. Shoots generally would start very low-key, even those that would later get pretty lively.

"John came out of the gate running, literally. No head shots here. He ran in circles around the perimeter of the set, pogoing, bobbing and weaving liked a demented prizefighter. Almost impossible to even keep him in frame. As he ran past camera position he would pull a face or a pose, then go for another circuit.

"After doing this for awhile, John giving no sign of slowing at all, Norman called for a break to try to come up with a plan to cool things down a notch or two, or five or six. As the most junior assistant and gofer, I was told to ask John if he wanted me to get him anything to drink, and to go get it. The studio was coincidently, or not, next door to the best-stocked liquor store on the Sunset strip. When told that the record company would pick up the tab, John ordered Courvoisier. I took everyone else's orders and left.

"When I got back I found that the rest of the crew had left the shooting room, leaving John there alone. We talked while I sipped my beer and he polished off his bottle. I went next door for another one. As he slowed down to earth speed I found him to be quite an intriguing and charming guy, with a seriously wicked Irish sense of humor. I alluded to his friend Sid Vicious, to which he replied 'He weren't my friend!' Why not? 'Because he was an eedjit.' Why do you say that? 'Well now, he's dead, isn't he.'

"Norman has a page of photos from that shoot on his website Normanseeff.com. Worth a look."

Edd Fuller: "I have no idea who 'Johnny Rotten' is so I came at this without the celebrity vibe. To me it looks like a photo of an actor playing a character, not a portrait of a real person. More movie poster than portrait."

Gabe: "Must disagree with K. Wajda—I never saw the caption (below screen edge) before looking at the picture for a minute or two. I wouldn't recognize Johnny Rotten if he bit my ear off. What I saw was a great picture of an old Brit (some faces have national character) looking punkish with a faint smile. It's a great face—full of character and unique charm.

"Although I'm far better at vintage cars, I did photograph a bunch of celebrities, bands, actors, etc. in the '90s. Most, if they saw my camera, automatically assumed a 'crank best 3/4 face, practiced smile,' and the picture looked like every other picture ever taken of that person. When I was at 'zoom tele' distance, and was much less noticed, sometimes real personalities were captured—real smiles as well as frowns. I don't know if this is Johnny's Rotten angry face or not, but it's a fine picture of a unique looking man. Cheers!"

The E-M5 Mark II: Dissenting Opinion (Shell Station)

Words and photo by Bob Rosinsky

I nearly always agree with Mike's assessment of cameras. However, I think the Olympus EM-5 M II is more versatile than the EM-1 (I own both cameras). As much as I love the EM-1's first-rate ergonomics, I often reach for the EM-5 II instead. For the money, the EM-5 II is Olympus's best offering. There are two main reasons why:

IBIS (in-body image stabilization):  The EM-5 II's 5-axis IBIS is a miracle of modern technology. The difference between that and the EM-1's IBIS is noticeable, especially when hand holding the 40–150mm ƒ/2.8 PRO + 1.4X teleconverter. It works great with the 75mm ƒ/1.8 lens too.

High resolution mode: The EM-5 II's high resolution mode is fantastic. The multi-shot technology works well for reproduction (color accuracy, micro contrast, resolving power), still life, and static landscapes. The dynamic range is amazing. I am looking forward to the next iteration of Oly's multi-shot feature. Imagine being able to handhold a camera that shifts the sensor eight times within 1/60th sec. and delivers a high resolution RAW file with super-accurate color.

Last night, I took a picture of the neighborhood Shell station with the EM-5 II in high-res mode. The native resolution is 9,216x6,912. That's 25.6x19.2 inches @ 360 DPI. Exposure data: .3 sec. x 8, ƒ/6.7 @ 12mm with the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 PRO lens.

Detail—click for 100%

I corrected the perspective in two steps. First in ACR and then in Photoshop CS6. All image data adjustments were made in ACR (curve, HSL [hue, saturation, luminance] for the red, orange, and yellow channels, color temp., and one local adjustment to decrease exposure on the Shell logo).

I manually content-filled the lower left-hand parking lot and the bottom of building (that section got cropped out when I corrected the perspective).

From start to finish, I spent approximately 30 minutes on the picture. The print, on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, looks great.

Bob

[CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article stated that the E-M1 has 3-axis image stabilization. "E-M5, E-M1, E-M5 Mark II and E-M10 Mark II all have 5-axis image stabilisation. It's only the E-M10 (original) that has 3-axis IS. (Ignoring PENs)." Thanks to Josh for this.

Bob Rosinsky adds, "Mea culpa; the EM-1 does indeed utilize 5-axis image stabilization (rise/fall along the y-axis, shift along the x-axis, pitch, yaw, and roll). The second generation 5-axis IBIS in the EM-5 II is noticeably better. I must have been thinking of the EPL-5, which only has 3-axis IBIS but employs the same sensor as the EM-1. Sorry for the confusion...."

Yr. 'umble Ed. would like to remind readers that errors in a published article are not the writer's fault, but the editor's. The culpa is all mea's. —Ed.]

©2015 by Robert Rosinsky, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2015 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: "Not understanding Bob Rosinsky's exposure time...what does '.3 sec. x 8' mean?"

Mike replies: The E-M5 Mark II's innovative high-resolution mode combines eight separate sequential exposures made with very slight sensor shifts into one image. Olympus says the resulting file is equivalent to one made with a 40-megapixel camera. The feature offers versatility for higher-quality shots of unmoving subjects when the opportunity presents itself, such as with still lifes, product shots, and many landscapes.

BH: "I agree that the E-M5 Mark II is an excellent camera. The list price does seem to run about $200 too high though; it feels like it should sit right between the EM10 and the EM1. Why'd I shell out for the EM5.2? Exactly because it walks the line between the two. Smaller than the E-M1, still has weather sealing unlike the E-M10. Plus I really like the rotating LCD that I can turn around...NO CHIMPING! (Seriously, this was a selling point for me.)

"I have to admit I'm kind of taken with Micro 4/3. I don't like the RAW files as much as Fuji's, but that's rather subjective. Excellent build quality, super-smooth and quiet AF and truly small bodies and lenses are what makes the system."

Jack Kurtz: "I have to agree with Bob Rosinsky's assessment of the E-M5 Mark II. The image stabilization is amazing. A real game-changer. I'm able to handhold my 40–150mm zoom with the 1.4X matched teleconverter, total focal length of 210mm (or 420mm in full frame terms) at 1/10th of a second. I've made handheld timed exposures at 2.5 seconds with a 12mm lens. I wish the E-M5 Mark II had the E-M1 autofocus, but otherwise I think the new technology packed into it makes it a real winner."

Phil Stiles: "I join the dissent. I own both cameras. For me the option of using a silent electronic shutter is the key feature that the EM-5 has that the EM-1 doesn't. But they both use that oh-so-sweet 40–150mm ƒ/2.8."

Mike replies: Be sure to read Moose's comment about silent shutter mode in the Comments Section.

Raxtich: "I have both an E-M5 and the E-M1. While I love the E-M5, I could not get comfortable with the ergonomics, so I was reluctant to switch to the Mark II when it came time to upgrade. I chose instead to spend a couple hundred extra for the E-M1 and have not regretted it."

Two New Cameras Announced

So what do you think of "Mark [x]" updates? Should those be considered "new" cameras?

In the auto industry the categories seem a little more settled. Cycles are set at 4–10 year intervals, more or less; "mid-cycle refreshes" are common and understood; and "unchanged since last year" might prevail even when minor enhancements have been made.

Seems like "Mark [x]" really means "You want the latest and/or the best, right?" It speaks to the optimizers in all of us.

But on to the news. Refreshed:

Two for one: If you can't afford an E-M1, get this little beauty for half the price

The major reason the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II is so appealing is that Olympus doesn't give its cameras away. The E-M1 is really the camera in the lineup to have, but it costs $1,300. For that amount you can get a lot of DSLR, or, say, two Sony A6000's with $200 left over.

What should be is that the E-M1 should cost $950 and then every Olympus fan should have that.

The budget E-M10—it's only been out a year and a half—was originally a stripped-down E-M5. But at $600, the price was a lot easier to bear.

I said "was." The E-M10 Mark II will add Olympus's well-sorted 5-axis stabilization from the E-M5 Mark II, among other improvements, for only $50 more. Should you pay $50 for Olympus's IBIS? Beyond a shadow of a doubt you should. The E-M10 is maturing beautifully.

The E-M5 Mark II is the orphan in the lineup, to be honest. (From a cost/value perspective, anyway. Notwithstanding which, it sells well.) At $1,100 it's only $200 less than the E-M1, and we'd much rather have an E-M1. And it's hundreds more than the new E-M10 Mark II, despite only being a little better. With that small a difference, it might be best to find a way to save up the extra $200 for the E-M1.

If you can't have an E-M1, the E-M10 Mark II will soon be the Olympus to have. The savings are significant, the sacrifices few. Wait for it.

The World's Best Camera made better

Different companies make haste...differently. If it's been a year and a half since the just-replaced E-M10 was brand new, it seems like it's been almost that long just since the Leica S (Typ 007) was announced. And it's not shipping yet, quite. (Should be by next month.)

Here's what the press release leads with:

New image sensor and new processor for increased image quality and higher speed:
The Leica MAX CMOS image sensor and the Leica Maestro II image processor deliver lightning-fast speeds and dramatically increase the versatility of the Leica S (Typ 007). With a burst shooting speed of up to 3.5 frames per second, full-HD video in full-frame medium-format sensor size, 4K video recording in Super 35 format, fast Live View mode and exceptional image quality at all ISO settings, the Leica S (Typ 007) demonstrates its status as the benchmark in the medium-format segment. The 2 GB buffer memory ensures smooth shooting of rapid sequences and, despite its more than doubled burst rate capability, the new focal plane shutter in the camera offers a further increased service life of at least 150,000 cycles.
 
Faster autofocus for subjects in motion:
The revised autofocus system brings not only higher speed, but also more reliable and more precise focusing. To ensure optimum sharpness and precise tracking of moving subjects, the Leica S (Typ 007) features a predictive autofocus mode: the camera registers the motion of the subject and determines the distance to it at the moment of exposure. In combination with its astonishing image quality and high burst rate, the Leica S (Typ 007) sets entirely new standards for dynamic medium-format photography.

There are other improvements, including integrated Wi-Fi, GPS, a position sensor, a stainless-steel bayonet mount, and an improved viewing screen. The screen features Corning Gorilla Glass (or, as Leica styles it, Corning® Gorilla® Glass®), made by Corning, Inc., based in the town of Corning, New York, just down the road from my new home. As far as I know, which admittedly isn't very far, Gorilla glass was developed for Apple, for iPhones.

It's one way in which, as Leica says, "Leica S-Cameras are designed and constructed for many years of daily use." No doubt true. But we have to note that the universe has changed a bit since the S v.1.0 came out...both the Sony A7R II and the Canon 5DS have now surpassed the pixel count of the extra-large S sensor. Maybe somebody who can will do an IQ shootout, which would be interesting as a snapshot of the state of the state-of-the-art.

One thing hasn't changed: the Leica S lenses are the best you can buy for pictorial photography. It's a bit of a question how significant that is, or how much better they are than other "merely great" lenses for other systems. But hey, some people really do want the latest and/or the best.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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: "The big Leica news was the price, only 16 times the price of the Olympus rather than the initially announced 24 times."

Random Excellence: Mark Wallheiser

It's very seldom you see perfect pictures—especially from the campaign trail, although there have been some exemplars over the years. If this picture doesn't make you laugh and shake your head....

Mark Wallheiser's amazing shot of (I'm going to have to write these next five words, so steel yourself) Republican front-runner Donald Trump greeting supporters after a rally in Mobile, Alabama, looks like a seamless cross between Norman Rockwell and Mad magazine. Almost every square centimeter of it tells, from the fact that Trump's famous weasel-fur toupée is now dyed blond to the policeman's shoulder patch in the lower right corner. Virtually every face in the crowd is wonderful. (We'll discount the remote, though not unimaginable, possibility that all these people are actors hired by Trump operatives.)

I also like its ambivalence: I suppose you could think it's the same degree of perfect whether you are a Trump lover or a Trump loather. It expresses both points of view simultaneously. (I first ran across this odd property in Kyle Cassidy's book about guns: I think those pictures could be equally eloquent for gun freaks or gun control freaks.)

I don't think I need to mention which one I am. I disliked Trump (who Rex Huppke calls "America's car alarm going off for no reason") when he was just an egomaniacal fake billionaire*, much less a cartoonish, buffoonish TV star, much less a presidential candidate. The only step down from here would be if he got elected Pope.

The picture follows an unintentionally funny analysis in The New York Times saying that Trump gets his strongest support from Americans who don't actually vote.

Of course the center of the whole picture—in that field rich with mini-vignettes—is the amazing woman at the center of it all, overwhelmed that her baby (whose hilarious "well, whatever" expression is just as perfect as any of the others) is actually being touched by the reality-show star turned candidate. Chris Cillizza, writing in The Washington Post about this photograph, said, "the sheer joy apparent on her face from being close to a celebrity like Trump is near-perfectly symbolic of our current political culture." Comma, gulp.

I'm guessing this is the right website for the Mark Wallheiser who took the picture.  Looks like a real vet. Great eye. Got a masterpiece this time. Kudos to Mark.

[UPDATE: I heard from Mark Wallheiser and he says "Yes, it's me and thanks for the kind words." —Ed.]

Mike
(Thanks to Michael G)

*The New Yorker, in a carefully researched article several years ago, concluded that Trump's peak wealth never reached more than a fraction of one billion dollars, much less the five or ten he routinely claims. Picture Alfred E. Neuman: What, me exaggerate?

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Frank Petronio (partial comment): "I support Trump. I understand the aversion to his pomposity and the ease at which his hair can be ridiculed, but compared to the rest of the field he actually articulates economic policies that would improve things for most Americans. Would he actually be effective in Washington? Probably not, but not any less than any other idealistic president. I welcome him simply for disrupting the status quo."

Mike replies: I thought I'd hear from you, Frank! Politically you're the anti-me and vice-versa—but our shared interest in photography bridges that divide and makes us friends "despite."

So do you like Mark's picture?

Robert Roaldi: "I wanted to bring a non-photo book to your attention: Enlightenment 2.0 by Joseph Heath, a University of Toronto philosophy professor who works and writes primarily in matters of social policy."

"Being reasonable is not nearly as natural as we think it is. Our brains, Heath writes, happen to be very good at some things, like matching patterns and identifying our team against the other team, but we perform rational tasks like considering hypotheticals or following complicated arguments only as a last resort.

"Without forcing ourselves to be reasonable, humans fall victim to a familiar set of cognitive biases, which feel reasonable, but are not. To name a few, our intuitive minds are irrationally optimistic, self-serving, short-sighted, terrified of loss, prone to see patterns where none exist, and mostly inclined to confirm our own suspicions."

—from a review of the book by Ivor Tossell

Marv Van Drunen: "Photos being taken by people in the crowd: Cell phone cameras 11, traditional cameras 1."

Jeffrey MacMillan: "I have photographed Trump a couple of times, including recently at the launch of one of his golf courses where he actually said 'golf matters' to an attentive all-white audience!

"However I will say, I have never otherwise been approached, after a shoot, by a celebrity or even a CEO (not his handlers), and asked if I had everything I needed, and to volunteer to do more if needed. Trump did that. I was stunned. He, unlike so many other 'movers and shakers,' knows the impact of image in modern media. And that is one reason why he is doing so well...."

Wolters: "Martin Parr meets Weegee."

Mike replies: Good. Very good.

Roger Bradbury: "Another phrase which expresses both points of view simultaneously is, '[Prime minister] Maggie Thatcher made this country (the UK) what it is today.' Many people here agree, but some think it's a very good thing, some think it was definitely not. I noticed that a large proportion of the gun owners in Kyle Cassidy's book owned cats, but perhaps I'm just, as Ivor Tossell says, prone to seeing patterns where none exist."

Darlene Almeda: "It is nice to see a local Tallahassee photographer get coverage. The last time I saw Mark was at a local art and photography exhibit where we both had pictures chosen for display in our City Hall. Great job Mark!"

Have Fun With Any Camera

This picture covers a relatively mind-boggling span of the history of camera technology, and deserves a bit of deconstruction. It shows, of course, a smartphone, resting on the beautiful new "Non-Use Device," acquired for decor in the recently completed TOP Headquarters atrium, a.k.a. the old table just inside the front door of my little house.

The Non-Use Device*, which turns out to be exceptionally beautiful and exceedingly well preserved, was built c. 1903–06 in Rochester, New York, not far from my new environs. The largest of the Pony Premo cameras of the era, the No. 6 also was a whole-plate (6.5x8.5-inch) size camera of a type called "self-casing." It folds into a neat little leather-covered box with a handle, like a small valise.

The smartphone, of course, is an iPhone, currently the most-used type of camera on Facebook, which in turn is the largest collection of publicly-accessible photographs in the history of the medium.

That's not quite all. Do you remember earlier this month when I wrote about "Mr. D.," the Illinois high-school photo teacher who came by HQ 2.0 in Wisconsin to pick up my once-prized SaltHill print washer? You might remember Jeff came by sporting a very cool axe, his Horseman Multiformat 985. I took a snap of Jeff using my phone, and he took one back using his Horseman.

So the picture being displayed on the iPhone in the above picture is his picture of me...which he took on B&W film and sent to me by email.

So in the top picture we have a medium-format film picture emailed to a smartphone which is itself a camera of sorts, and a turn-of-the-last-century "portable" view camera.

I dunno, it just seemed kinda around-and-about to me, weaving this way and that through the dense thicket of the history of image tech.

 Mike

* The name derives from the Single-Use Device, a whole plate Chamonix view camera I once argued was good for only one thing—black-and-white contact prints.

Original contents copyright 2015 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 Willard: "And what did you use to take that picture? And then post on the web...this is almost like a room with mirrored walls where you see an infinite number of your reflection."

Mike replies: Right, taken with my Fuji X-T1, a digital camera designed to be "retro" and reminiscent of older film SLRs....

Random Excellence: Jan Kwarnmark

Shot on Street Photography Day 2015 by Jan Kwarnmark, using a Leica, 35mm Summicron, and Tri-X.

Posted by: Mike
(Thanks to Jan)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Tom Kwas: "...This reminds me that I always think digital is pretty good and getting more 'film-like' every day, until I see something done on film again...."

Why the Sony A7R II Can't Be Any Good

So there was this fable. The fable has been associated with Aesop and La Fontaine, the Greek Babrius in the 2nd century and the Latin writer Phaedrus. In the fable, a fox sees some delicious-looking grapes hanging from a vine. He tries his utmost to reach them, but he can't. Rather than admit defeat, he walks away saying to himself, "those grapes were probably sour."

That must explain the Sony A7R II.

It can't be very good. Probably no better than my Fuji.

I don't even like grapes.

Now I feel a little better.

Michel le Reynard

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Amin Sabet: "I can't say enough good things about this Sony. I took a huge loss on selling my Leica M240 and 1-month-old A7II, but a couple weeks with the A7RII have removed any doubt in my mind that it was the right move to make. Body image stabilization is high up on my priority list, and the A7RII sensor is a really nice upgrade from the A7II sensor. All that said, the Fuji with 23mm ƒ/1.4 is considerably smaller, lighter, and has (IMO) nicer controls than the A7RII and FE 35mm ƒ/1.4. Also, the Sony has lousy battery life, my one real knock to mention."

Duncan: "There are a lot of things that fall into this category for me such as fancy cars, houses and stereos to name just a few."

Mike replies: Right you are, Ferraris aren't worth the money and Porsches are awful.  :-)

iPhone = Leica

The iPhone is the Leica of today, when you strip the encrustation of legend off the latter.

Think about it—in the early days of Leica the little cameras were a) low in prestige compared to larger, more "serious" cameras; b) technically inferior; c) not taken seriously by initiates and cognoscenti; quick and stealthy and not often noticed or given much regard; yet d) capable of "good enough" results. The pictures were often "better" in terms of being visually dynamic and lively rather than in bourgeois technical fastidiousness or perfection. Leica photography was (or could be) iconoclastic, disruptive, subversive.

It's the same "place" that the iPhone occupies in today's universe. It's the meaning of Leica that has changed in the meantime, not the original potentiality of a small, sly, subversive note-taking camera to which people tend to pay little or no attention.

Law office receptionist. iPhone 6+.

(You think? Just a notion. Thinking out loud. I'm not saying I actually believe this.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

David Dyer-Bennet: "Certainly your characterization of the Leica's early days is spot on. 'Good enough' is so important, most especially for documentary photographs (by which I mean those whose value is significantly in what they show). Being able to get photos showing 'real' things people couldn't photograph before was a huge change for photography, and I'm pretty sure it's what made it important in the 20th century. Cell phones obviously fail in the 'quick and stealthy' area (particularly quick); however, they win big in 'ubiquitous,' which you didn't list.

"But then, each revolution pretty much must be different from the previous one."

Manuel: "No comparison. The Leica came at a time when nobody would shoot in the streets, save for Eugéne Atget, Brassaï and a few others. Today it looks as if everybody is shooting with whatever they've got on hand (especially if you live in a city plagued by tourists, as I do). The analogy is essentially correct, but comparing those pioneering times with the present age of selfies and vertical videos is a tad sacrilegous. Nothing against shooting with the iPhone—there are lots of people at it, and sometimes with surprisingly good results—but it's a matter of different times and circumstances making any comparisons impossible. The Leica became successful because it was portable and convenient (just like the iPhone, I could add), but, unlike the aforementioned smartphone, not everybody had one. What the iPhone is doing is adding to the photographic overdose we're going through today. Which was hardly the Leica's case. Some people don't like massification. I surely don't.

"And remember—there were no selfie sticks for the Leica."

Bernard: "That's funny. When I read the title, I really thought you were going with 'it's an expensive branded item that isn't materially better than the competition.'

"I get what you mean by 'iPhone = Leica' but, to me, smart phones are more like the ubiquitous Kodak cartridge cameras of the 1960s and 1970s. They are part of the background fabric of our lives, you are never far from one, and one will magically appear when summoned. Then as now, family events always involve a procession of aunts and uncles lining-up to squint into their tiny cameras, taking the same shot from the same angle (always a little too far away). The difference is that 'I'll send you a copy' has been replaced with 'I'll put it up on Facebook.'"

Bob Rosinsky: "As I walk along the beach at night, I see glowing phones. If not for the phones, not a soul I would see. The 'phones' encroach upon my field of vision and compromise my solitude."

Paul De Zan: "H. C.-B., if alive and not painting today, would be using an iPhone 5S. The 6 is too big."

Mike replies: Heh. But do you remember those early "multimedia storage viewers" like the Epson P-5000? The 6+ screen is about as big as the screens on those, and of better quality. Nice way to look at pictures.

Bill Tyler: "I'm old enough to remember when Leicas were 'miniature' cameras, and it was hotly debated whether such tiny negatives could ever be useful for serious work."

It's Street Photography Day

I'm a little late getting on this, but today is Street Photography Day (Henri Cartier-Bresson's Birthday). The idea is to get out and find a photograph today, no matter what kind of photographer you are.

I have only this to offer—Lulu in the back hall / laundry room, snapped with the phone.

I'm not sure this counts. Then again, strict observance is optional. I hereby give you permission to celebrate Street Photography Day tomorrow, too, and the next day and the next day.

Mike
(Thanks to Jan Kwarnmark)

P.S. To put an image in our Comments, please use this code:

Where the bit in quotes is an image on the Web. Make sure the original image is not wider than 470 pixels wide, or it will be cut off.  —Mike the Ed.

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Move Complete

...And we have liftoff.

Scott the Cable Guy (Time Warner contract technician) just left, and a speed test shows 41.51 Mbps download speed and 6.3 Mbps upload speed, so The Online Photographer is once again deserving of the middle part of its name—I am back on the Internet in Office 3.0, reassembled by lamplight last night.

TOP Office 3.0, avec mes chiens

I'd to thank everyone reading this for their tolerance and patience as I've struggled to get re-situated.

If you're new to the story and haven't been following along, I've been quite a nomad these past 18 months.

First, I bought my old-old house, the one in Waukesha, Wisconsin, which I'd previously rented. That's where I toiled for nearly nine years to establish this little corner o' the Web. Then, after three years of preparation, culminating in a resuscitated credit score among other things, I moved to my intended "last" house, also in Waukesha.

That was supposed to be the peak of the disruption.

Fortunately for me, but decidedly awkwardly, five days after I closed on Wisconsin House No. 2 I reconnected with a woman with whom I'd been friends many years before. She lived far away. This whole past year—August 27th to August 19th, when I was supposed to be settling into my old new house and getting back to work on TOP in a serious way, my life actually became more upended than ever, as she and I struggled with the deservedly dreaded "long-distance relationship*." Delta Airlines still sends me emails constantly, as if I am still its best friend. I should be part owner by now, is all I can say.

So, never one to be daunted, I did it all over again.

My second move in 12 months has landed me near, but not on, the shores of Keuka Lake. (Say "k'YOOK-uh.") Google it and hit "Images"—the views should make you feel happy. At the north end of Keuka Lake is Penn Yan, New York, and at the south end is Hammondsport. After some delays, I closed on the new-new house on Wednesday. Last night was my first night reunited with the pups, and my first night here. As I said, the Internet got turned on this morning.

As Telly Savalas used to say, I'm back, baby.

Well, almost. Getting there. I've only been here for a day. But after an extended period in which I've felt myself suspended in mid-leap (and mid-air), at least I've landed.

So where's "back"? I've never lived in the State of New York before. TOP Rural Lakeside-ish HQ is roughly equidistant from Ithaca, home of Cornell University, and Rochester, home of Eastman Kodak and Eastman House Museum. I'm a two-hour drive from Buffalo, New York, and Canada; 105 miles from Niagara Falls; 25 miles from Watkins Glen; and 45 minutes from the Pennsylvania border. Three hours east is the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown and an hour and ten minutes away is the where Mark Twain wrote his most famous books (and where he's buried) in Elmira.

Famous landmarks are a bit thin on the ground out here—it is not a populous area—but the Finger Lakes are one of the most beautiful districts in the Eastern United States, drawing tourists by the coach-load throughout the short but intense Summer season.

Last night a storm cleared at twilight. A snap from the grocery store parking lot.

I am all fired up to do workshops here. There are not a lot of a lot of things in this area, but brother and sister, there are pictures everywhere. I don't want to overpromise with the workshop idea, because I'm well aware that I've been quite bad at doing what I say I will over the past year and a half or so. (What can I say? I took time for my personal life. All work and no relationship had made Jack—er, Mike—me—a very dull boy.) Let's just say I will be looking into workshops very seriously and that I "promise" (that p-word again) to keep you posted as we go.

So, the upshot? It's a beautiful day. The dogs lie at my feet. S. will be here for dinner. As I sit here writing I think I'm as happy as I've ever been in my adult life. "Honeymoon period" it may be, but then, people should enjoy honeymoon periods, right? I'm seeing upsides in every direction I look with no downsides anywhere to be found. I feel more like myself than I have since I was 13 and riding a horse called Balderdash all over the Rocky Mountains at Lost Trail Camp.

Life is good and good for you in the Finger Lakes in August.

More soon.

Mike

*...Which you've heard so much about. Lots of it bad, as in painful/hard/not exactly conducive to mutual happiness and smooth sailing. Much of which is true. No matter how much you like someone, making a go of it with a great distance between you is not ideal.

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Carl Siracusa: "I'm sure your long-distance relationship was wearing. But take consolation in the fact that it could have been a lot worse. My wife—who is British—and I first met almost 20 years ago while we were both on the same tour in India. We then conducted our courtship trans-Atlantically for over a year, me from NY, she from London. Luckily we both had well-paying jobs at the time, so we could afford the airfares—plus the then-horrendous long-distance telephone charges. And bosses who didn't mind us taking time off to spend (very) long weekends together once a month.

"All our friends thought it was very romantic, but it did finally wear us down. I moved to England and we got hitched shortly thereafter."

Robert Roaldi: "We're never too old to completely change our lives."

Daniel Sroka (partial comment): "Never apologize for making your personal life a priority. Never."

Jim Wright: "Okay, I give up. What is the large device on the [low] table [on the left]?"

Mike replies: It's an AC regenerator. It takes line (mains) AC, converts it to DC, then reconverts it to AC...clean AC. No RFI, constant voltage. It's made for audio—it's a PS Audio Power Plant—but it actually has the most effect on video screens, especially TV. I certainly don't need it for this application—a Dectet Power Center would be fine—but I have it, so I use it. 

Paul McGowan, the owner (and the "P" in the name) of PS Audio, is a photography enthusiast and occasional reader of TOP.

Gill R: "Long time reader, almost-never-poster here. Mike, I've been following your updates avidly and am delighted for you that you're all moved in. Your house looks gorgeous—and I would give my eye-teeth for an office that looked like that  :-)  . I wish you many happy years in your new home, and many happy years with S."

Mike replies: Thank you Gill.

Chris Y.: "I've been following this blog since way back—2006? and I knew your name from the magazine days...I think a lot of us readers are still trapped in old-school white collar cubicle-anchored jobs that would be unbearable without the Internet and blog presences like yours. Your written voice is like that of a friend who stops by to chat about our mutual interests; photography, yes, but also cars, coffee, music—examinations of taste in all these pleasurable things. As a bonus, we get to meet each other in the comments too. I am sure an untold number of us have followed this latest happy and constructive move as a vicarious one of our own. Your combination of instincts and hard work must point the way to some sort of 'new journalism' for these weird, great-unknown, big-bang feeling times. It looks like you've picked a beautiful spot. Please accept my own humble thanks. Long may you share."

Mike replies: Thanks very much for that extraordinarily kind comment, Chris. Made my day. And thanks to everyone for all the good wishes.

[Mike Update 4: Notice!]

TOP has been on hiatus lately, although, largely thanks to Ctein, it often hasn't looked that way.

Speaking of which, my thanks to Ctein for doing such a good job filling in. It marked the first time since 2005 that someone else has run TOP, even for a short time.

I might be offline for several days starting soon. Finally, finally, finally we are scheduled to close on the new old house (it was built in 1880 but it's new to me) tomorrow at 11. The moving help comes at 2:30 to help me with some of the larger furniture. With any luck I'll be in the house for the first time on Thursday night, after reuniting with Butters and Lulu for the first time in weeks.

Don't know when the Internet will start working, though. So The Online Photographer may be offline briefly. (No, I will not be changing the name.)

Hopefully the next news you hear will be keystroked from the main office computer in TOP's new Nearly Almost Sortakinda Lakeside World Headquarters. (I'll be about seven miles from Penn Yan, New York and about two stones' throws from the lake. As I may have mentioned already I have already bought a copy of Penn Yan and How It Got That Way, by Frances Dumas, in not one but two volumes. Um, yikes.)

And after that, he said very hopefully, NO MORE MOVING for a while. Hopefully a long while. In case you're wondering: twice in one year is too much.

Thanks to all our loyal fans for your great patience with all of this! It's my midlife adventure—everyone wants one, and yet it's probably a good thing they can't go on forever.  :-)

—Mike, Chief Logistics Technician and Harassed Personal Assistant to Self
(Big thanks to S. for putting me up and putting up with me for these past 18 days)

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:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

A Few More Pieces of the Vivian Maier Puzzle

Interest in photographer Vivian Maier, the formerly anonymous, reclusive Chicago nanny whose work burst on to the world stage only as she was on her deathbed, seems to have shifted to the legal fight over the rights to the increasingly valuable work.

Along the way, various private parties have taken it upon themselves to try to unravel the mysteries or influence the proceedings in some way or another. The latest is Ann Marks, a retired New York businesswoman who says Internet research is "...a hobby of mine. I do it to challenge myself."

Marks has scooped Pamela Bannos, another researcher who is writing a book on Maier, in revealing some facts both claim to have uncovered about Vivian's equally obscure brother Charles. The facts of Charles' life might influence the legal ownership of the estate. The Chicago Tribune has the story, in an article called "Hunt for acclaimed photographer Vivian Maier's long-lost brother heats up." (A brief warning: read this one soon—from what I hear, Trib articles only stay free online for a few days after publication. [UPDATE: It's already behind a paywall. Go to Google News and search "Vivian Maier" and you can access it. —Ed.)

The article notes also a "chilling effect" that the legal fight is having on Maier's celebrity itself, noting that exhibits have been cancelled around the world.

Mike
(Thanks to Jeff Goldstein)

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:

Bernd Reinhardt: "It is so sad how the vultures are circling over Vivian Maier's estate. This is such a rare story and I do believe that without Maloof's efforts, nobody would know about Maier's work. Whether he deserves the full fortune or only a part, which common sense would say he definitely does, it is a shame that exhibitions are cancelled. This is definitely art that should be enjoyed by the public."

In Memoriam: Joe Saltzer

I was reached by the news yesterday that Joseph Saltzer of SaltHill Photographic Products died back in 2008, of complications resulting from triple bypass surgery.

I wish I could write a proper obituary of Joe, whose death appears to have gone unmarked in the online world. I can't, I'm afraid. I reviewed a number of his innovative and deluxe high-end darkroom products for Camera & Darkroom magazine over a number of years, talked to him on the phone many times, and finally met him in person when I visited his beautiful contemporary/modern style house at the end of Wildcat Road in Chappaqua, New York, an hour outside New York City. In the words of Andy Grundberg, "SaltHill [was] what you might call a small manufacturing and marketing firm," which Joe ran from the lower floor of his home, where he also had a laboratory-quality, state-of-the-art research darkroom.

His chief designer was a genius from Eastern Europe who spoke little English. Together they conceived, designed, built and marketed products which were certainly overbuilt for their purposes, and which had the same relationship to more commonplace darkroom products that Leica has in the world of cameras today.

Joe was the one who recommended me to S. Tinsley Preston III for the job of chief editor of Darkroom Techniques magazine in 1994, a challenging, sometimes maddening job that was, overall, an experience that I would not have missed. For six years it was a wonderful lookout post from which to watch the changes then happening in photography, affording great views back at the past and toward what lay ahead.

Alas, fate had it in for Joe. His business faltered around various disasters and betrayals connected to his quixotic fiber-optic enlarger. I could tell the whole story, but the story is not mine to tell. The enlarger, which did eventually briefly come to market, had a superlight head made possible by its radical light source—a "cloth" consisting of a weave of fiberoptic strands, some emitting green light and some blue, the two colors of light to which variable contrast papers are sensitive. Joe's misfortunes multiplied upon themselves, and he lost his designer, his business, his fortune, his house...and his wife, who left him as his business crumbled. Joe and Tinsley Preston had a falling out over unpaid advertising bills, and Joe ended up working in the darkroom department at B&H Photo for a time, a relationship which unfortunately also did not end very well as far as I know. He moved house more than once, having come down considerably in the world, and I lost track of him during that time.

I knew Joe, and will remember him, as a bright light. He had vision, and talent, and taste. If he didn't leave a large mark on photography it's because he was in the wrong business at the wrong time, and paid too dearly for the boldness of his vision. His is one of the more tragic tales of the Transition Era. 1979 was the peak of the darkroom hobby in the U.S., and if Joe had started his business 15 or 20 years earlier, he would probably have been much better known and far more widely admired.

At the very least, his passing would have been more noticed by the world at large. I hope some photography museum somewhere (Eastman House, perhaps) will collect an example of each of his products so they don't disappear from history altogether. A belated goodbye, Joe.

Mike
(Thanks to Adrian F.)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

TOP Classic: That Sinking Feeling

[An article about "wrong facts" that was originally published on Photo.net and elsewhere in 2008. This was also where I put forth the argument that 4/3 and APS-C sensors are more alike than different, which did not exactly convince anyone at the time, although I think the world has, on its own, slowly come around to something resembling my point of view since then. —MJ]

Ah, epistemology. The study of knowledge—what we know and how we know it—can always be counted on to be fascinating. Especially, I think, when it’s out there on the dance floor with psychology, doing the foxtrot.

One thing I’ve been aware of for a long time now is that certain bits of knowledge just “seem reasonable” to the human brain. In some cases, these bits of knowledge might be true. But sometimes they’re just completely wrong. And most people go right on believing them anyway.

In photography, there is a whole class of assumptions that fall into this category. They’re just not true, but they seem reasonable to people.

An early example I encountered was a claim by a man named Fred Picker, who owned and ran a darkroom products company in Newfane, Vermont, for a number of years (Mr. Picker died a few years back, and his company, Zone VI, got sold to Calumet a few years prior to that.) Picker wrote that fixer is heavier than water, therefore fixer sinks to the bottom of a print washer, therefore print washers that drain from the bottom are best.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. People believed it. In fact, people believed it so strongly that it became an article of faith…despite the fact that it’s wrong.

Fixer is heavier than water, all right, but fixer being washed out of a print goes into solution with the water and doesn’t separate back out again. Especially in the turbulence of a typical print washer, this happens nearly instantly. And irreversibly. If you take a pint of water and a pint of fixer, mix them together, put them in a bottle, stand the bottle on an out-of-the-way shelf, and come back again after six months, do you have water on the top and fixer on the bottom? No*. Fixer doesn’t separate out of solution with water and “sink to the bottom” of a quiescent bottle over the course of six months, and it certainly doesn’t do so over the course of an hour or two in a turbulent print washer.

In fact, almost all of the fixer carried over by a fiber-based print into the wash is rinsed away in the first few moments. Only minuscule amounts remain, mostly trapped in the fibers of the paper. It turns out that letting a print sit perfectly still in a water bath will usefully leach fixer out of the print and into the water. David Vestal demonstrated that you can wash a fiber print perfectly well in only a few milliliters of water simply by letting the print soak in successive water baths. Try it yourself: with a fiber print fresh out of the fixer, rinse it for a minute or two. Then put it in a tray barely covered by distilled water for ten minutes. Agitate a bit at the end of the ten minutes, drain the water, and repeat the process twice more. Then test the print for residual fixer. You’ll find you’ve gotten a very good wash.

Still, that old idea—that fixer “sinks to the bottom”—persists to this day. I can’t tell you how much time and energy I’ve expended trying to disabuse people of the notion over the years. And when you finally think you’ve settled the matter once and for all, you’ll find that people go right on believing it anyway. Why? Because it seems reasonable—and that’s that. One guy actually told me that he understood and appreciated my arguments, but that he had “heard” so many times from so many sources that fixer sinks to the bottom of his print washer that he was simply unwilling to disbelieve it!

There are several dozen of these persistent myths in photography. The same thing is happening with the newer field of digital—seemingly-reasonable misapprehensions that people can’t be talked out of. One of the ones that annoys me is that 4/3 sensors are “too small.” There’s a vocal minority online who are utterly convinced that the comparative size of APS-C and 4/3 are very far apart and that 4/3 is at a crippling disadvantage in comparison, always, no matter what. Heck, the focal length factors are 1.5X and 2X, and that’s a big difference. It’s true that, as a rough rule of thumb, 4/3 does cost you some fraction of a stop in high-ISO noise. But so what? There are lots of things that determine the speeds at which you can shoot. In fact, 4/3 and APS-C are very close in size. People can’t tell which is which from looking at prints, except when the prints are pushed to extremes and the viewers are told what they’re looking at and know what telltales to look for. And of course many people defend digicams, the sensors of which generally really are much smaller, as being very usable under many conditions and very high quality if used within their limitations. If you think of 4/3 and APS-C as being functionally the same, or at least lump them together in the same general category, you’ll be closer to right than all the people who wail about how small 4/3 is. It just seems so reasonable to them…they must be right.

That’s just one. I could list more, and discuss each one in turn. But it wouldn’t really do any good in the long run, of course.

I have a SaltHill Archival Print Washer—a beautiful thing crafted of smoked Lexan, long unavailable now and rare on the used market. For current products, I’d recommend Robin Whetton’s Nova washers if you live in England [the same company is now called The Imaging Warehouse —MJ] or John Bicht’s Versalab washers if you’re in the USA. The Versalab units are the opposite of the SaltHills in that they’re plain and utilitarian, but alike in that they are expertly engineered and work well.

There are still a few Zone VI products in the Calumet Photographic catalog [...in 2008. —MJ]. One is a circulating washing tray called “The Zone VI Studios Washing Machine.” Sure enough, the description touts the fact that water enters from the top and drains from the bottom—although the bit about fixer sinking because it’s heavier than water, mercifully, is gone now.

Mike

* Ever the experimentalist, Phil Davis actually tested this. He mixed working-strength fixer and water 50/50 in a liter bottle, let the bottle sit for an entire year, then carefully removed samples from the top and the bottom of the bottle using pipettes. The samples were identical. No fixer had "sunk to the bottom."

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Remi: "Paul Krugman (who you may or may not agree with) calls those 'zombie ideas': 'a classic zombie—an idea that should have died long ago in the face of evidence that undermines its basic premise, but somehow just keeps shambling along.'"

Mike notes: Below, John's comment answers Peter's question, and Ctein's link explains why.

Peter Wright: "I haven't washed a print in the last thirty years, but I washed a tank of films yesterday. (As usual—ten minutes under running water.) I wonder if the same ideas you write about might also apply to film washing: does a quick rinse followed by two or three sessions standing in still water remove all the fixer residue? In these water-scarce times that would be good to know."

John Ironside: "Having learned the hard way about negative reticulation due to changing wash temperature, I read (in AP/BJP?) of an expert's experiments with film washing by multiple short rinses in still water. I can't now remember the detail, but it was based on measurements of the diffusion rate of fixer leeching out of the emulsion. I think it might have recommended five rinses of three minutes to get an archival concentration. So I pre-mixed a large bucket-full of clean tap water at room temperature before developing. At each interval, emptying the developing tank and refilling it from the bucket. That method was successful for many years until I gave up darkroom work altogether. Earliest negs still look OK after 40+ years."

Ctein adds: Dear Mike, Same here, from the other direction. With pix, even! 

Sal Santamaura: For anyone who seeks high quality film and print washers today, I enthusiastically recommend those made by Alistair Inglis."

JK: "I should have guessed that TOP had already tackled the APS-C vs. Micro 4/3 shibboleth. APS-C sensor sizes range from 15.7mm image height to 13.8mm. Image height of an M4/3 sensor is...13mm. It takes some pretty magical thinking to imagine that a millimeter or two should make the slightest difference in image quality. All you really lose is a bit of sensor area to either side. So here it is in simple terms: M4/3 is basically the 4:3 version of APS-C."

Stan Rogers: "About that 'magical thinking'...that mere 2.7mm height difference (compared to the Nikon/Pentax/Sony/Fuji format) amounts to just over 45% more sensor area at a 4:3 aspect ratio, and 84.5% more sensor area at 3:2. Almost half again as much area for the same image is not negligible, not does it require anything like 'magical thinking' to believe that it can make a difference, whether that means getting half again as many pixels to play with or getting sensels that are half again as large at the same resolution (or something in between). Whether or not that difference matters for your photography is another question with a different answer, but you don't get to answer for anyone else any more than they (or I) get to answer for you."

Ctein replies: Since we're dispelling myths and taking on "magical thinking".... Almost no aspect of image quality scales with the area of a sensor. They scale with the linear size of the sensor. So, yeah, it is kinda "magical" to compare areas and claim a marked superiority based on that. In other words, it's a 20% gain, not 45% gain, in your same-format example. Which is visible...but just barely (differences in any of the metrics below about 15% simply aren't). The full-sensor difference works out to about a 35% gain, which is visible...but variations in sensors and camera electronics within the same format can produce bigger differences than that. At best, you can say that "on average" across all makes and models, you'd see that gain. 'Cept no one buys an "average," they buy a specific instance.

Mike replies: I've typically been what Phil Davis dismissively called "an eyeballer," which admittedly is getting more problematic as my eyeballs get worse. However, I have to say I've been consistently impressed by big jumps in numbers of pixels, intermittently impressed by specific sensor implementation (i.e., my current Fuji X-Trans sensor is wildly better than the same size sensor in, say, the early Pentax *ist D), and frankly unimpressed by incremental differences in sensor size, which seldom gives me enough to float my boat. The old seat-of-the-pants rule-of-thumb for film formats was that you have to move up or down two sizes before you see clear and consistent differences, and I think that more or less holds true for digital as well—meaning, if you want to see clearly detectable improvements, you need to jump up two levels in sensor size. Going from 4/3 to APS-C or vice-versa just isn't going to be visible in pictures, consistently. See Moose's comments on this in the Comments section.

I've always held other aspects of sensor size are more important than absolute IQ—the angle of view of particular focal lengths (important, say, with the Leica M), the size of lenses, the size of viewfinders, and whether you want more d.o.f. or less more easily.

But, as Stan notes, we each get to decide for ourselves, ultimately.

You Can't Be a Real Photographer Unless You Have...

...One of these. So eat macaroni if you have to.  :-)

Mike
(Thanks to Eolake)

Original contents copyright 2015 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:

Anthony Shaughnessy: "I like it but I'll wait till the mark IV comes out, I hear it's going to have better dynamic range."

Doug Sundseth: "Please. Everyone knows that the lens should have been made in white gold.  8-)  "

Two Cool Film Cameras [and Mike Update]

This post has no point. I just wanted to share.

First of all, a very kind supporter who might or might not remain anonymous (s/he hasn't told me yet) donated the funds for the purchase of this lovely artifact, which shall decorate the front hall of the TOP office / photo museum at the Eastlake House:

It's a Rochester Optical Pony Premo No. 6 "self-casing" camera, very popular at the turn of the 20th century, manufactured a few hills and dales away from me in Rochester, New York, probably between 1903 and 1906. The camera was developed when one W.F. Carlton ran the company, whether he designed it himself or not. I am delighted to have it to welcome visitors inside the front door of the office entrance of the house. My remaining decision is whether to put it on a contemporaneous vintage tripod or just let it sit on a table. It's going to look fetching either way.

The new house is a very complicated little house. I've been working out the placement of furniture and functionality...on paper, as I'm still not moved in to the place yet. But if things go like I think they will, on a large table opposite the Rochester Optical camera will sit either an Epson P600 or P800—right there in the living room! The living room (where the photography books will also go) will function as part of the office. (I mean, assuming TOP survives this year+ of moves, and I still need an office. (I do know we haven't been covering the world of photography very well of late. (That will change this Fall. (I know I said that last Fall. (But this time it's more likely to be true.)))))

Another fun thing: there will be a permanent sign out front that will say "The Online Photographer / Eastlake House." For this year the sign will be made of vinyl stick-ons, but in a year or two (or three?) when I can afford the $6–800 it costs, I'll get one of those hand-carved gold-leaf wooden signs. Or maybe I won't, but I will sure enjoy thinking about it.

Summer is gorgeous on Keuka Lake (I'm told Fall is too) and the Finger Lakes are a target-rich environment for photographers. It sure seems like a no-brainer to host workshops. Could you see it? A primary instructor in a field of expertise, with me doing hosting duties, portfolio reviews, and helping to lead discussions. There are plentitudinous B&B's and hotels in the area and lots of nice restaurants, and we could meet at the Eastlake House for group and individual discussions and one or two shared meals. Sure seems like something to think about for 2016.

Horseman
Here's the other cool film camera mentioned in the header. When I was (very sadly) de-accessioning my beloved but long-unused darkroom equipment, retired high school photography teacher and TOP reader Jeff Dionesotes, who turned out to be a very nice and interesting person—and, of course, like all TOP readers, well above average—came by the house to pick up my superb SaltHill print washer. So check out the man's box:

Naturally it shoots film; digital photographers are not known to have a great deal of use for print washers.

It's a Horseman Multiformat 985, and Jeff says he does everything with his, from snapshot memories to careful artwork. Which, if you ask me, is several shades of awesome (English translation: brilliant). Of course, he did take a return snap of me, and mentioned that it would be at least several weeks before either of us would see it...if either of us ever does. Jeff, you listening? Any progress to report?

By the way, I didn't charge Jeff for the washer. Ancient journalistic scruples, still in play: I didn't pay for it in the first place, so I couldn't profit from it now.

And as an aside, anyone know where Joe Saltzer of SaltHill is these days? I'd love to say hello.

Mike
(Thanks to anonymous and Jeff)

Original contents copyright 2015 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: "Ah, the living room. A strangely named space in my experience—why would the room filled with an Epson 7900, 54" print timmer, rolls of paper, heavy duty copy stand, backdrops, props, light stands, C-stands, boom stand, lights, tripod, camera, and lenses, be called the 'living room'? Surely, 'photo room' would be a much better name for it."

Rob L: "That Horseman's a wonderful machine; I have its German cousin of sorts, the Linhof Tech 70, and use it for about the same purposes(the looks you get shooting on the playground, or soccer, with that critter...). The Rochester's a pretty Pony too:) Good luck with getting the house set up, and I have to say, workshops sound like a grand idea!"

scott kirkpatrick: "Your new camera looks very close in style, function, and content to the Wright Brothers' camera, the one which took the picture of their first flight. Theirs was made by Gundlach (a few blocks from the company that made this one, and they had a rapid rectilinear, the kit zoom of the day, which could be assembled in wide, normal, and telephone configurations."

Mike replies: Mine has a Gundlach Rapid Rectigraph lens, which may or may not be what you meant. Many of the Rochester camera companies were either close to each other or "in bed together," and I suspect at least a few were started in the hopes that George Eastman would eventually buy them, which he did in the case of Rochester Optical.