The Online Photographer

Last Chance and Please Help!

I wonder if I could ask for your help. I know that most TOP readers regularly visit other photo-related websites and forums, and in many cases spend more time there than you might here, since we don't run a forum.

 Our current "Four Book Photobook Sale" ends in three days—Saturday is the last day.

If you wouldn't mind, would you please mention the sale on any other photo sites you know of that might have readers who would be interested?

The sale has been very popular and a big success—TOP readers have so far purchased more than 2,000 books all counted. However, we have more than 200 sets left, and the sad thing is, this is the last chance to find those books good homes.

(Plus, TOP gets $6 per set, and frankly I could really use the money. Every purchase supports the site.)

Would you please help spread the word? Here's a quick link to this post:

http://tinyurl.com/hkjsjgs

...Please pass it along.

The four books are:

Clarence John Laughlin: Visionary Photographer (1990)

Todd Webb: Photographs of New York and Paris 1945–1960 (1986)

George N. Barnard: Photographer of the Sherman Campaign (1990)

The Photographs of Dorothea Lange (1995)

Marked down from $165 to $48.

Here's the order page; to get the discount,
enter the code 175212 at checkout.

And if you meant to order yourself but haven't yet, please don't put it off much longer. Saturday is the last chance.

Clarence John Laughlin's images are lush, rich large format, wonderful to look at for their technical beauty, but far from "straight." He played with photography in many ways: ripped pictures, double exposures, extreme angles. Many of the pictures seem to touch on the spiritual or give a glimpse of the occult; he makes the spookiness of old things come alive. He came close to catching ghosts—a face where you least expect it, a ghostly hand in a ruin. The pictures contain secrets. I enjoyed getting reacquainted with this strange, spooky book.

If you can help out, grateful thanks!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

Tim Auger: "If I could find a cheap way to get them shipped to Singapore or London I would order like a shot. Otherwise prohibitive."

Mike replies: Sorry again about that. The Museum Shop sells very little through its website (mostly they stock the shop inside the Museum) and just isn't set up for efficient international shipping, of which they normally do almost none. Each international order requires a lot of special handling by the staff. Although it might sound self-serving to say so, actually they were quite accommodating to offer international shipping at all. They really did it as a favor to me, I suspect.

Bryce Lee: "Are there any other photo sites as engaging as The Online Photographer? Tell me where...."

Mike adds: Bryce has been a big supporter of TOP for many years and has made many donations to help keep the enterprise afloat. Always grateful, Bryce.  :-)

Wayne: "In my opinion, the George Barnard book, alone, is worth the money. Aside from having great photographs, it is a well written account of photographic history related to Barnard's time. It is rare that I read much of the text in book on a photographer's life; but, the Barnard book sucked me right in."

David Bostedo: "I'll add that I bought the set for the Dorothea Lange, but the Todd Webb book is unexpectedly terrific!!"

Two Deaths in Photography's Family

I'm very sorry to report that Dave Heath has died.

And that Bill Cunningham has died.

Bill Cunningham. Photo by Hugh Crawford.

Each deserves attention and respect individually, but I was personally struck by the contrast between the two of them. It could hardly be greater, given that each photographed real people on the street. For Bill Cunningham, a groundbreaking and influential fashion photographer who pioneered the practice of catching fashion "on the hoof" so to speak, wandering Manhattan on his bicycle photographing real people for the New York Times, the Times has published a widely read obituary, written by Jacob Bernstein. It's a rich read and a mini-profile of a very successful but dedicated and uncompromising life as a photographer. Although Bill Cunningham himself regarded the publicity he received and the fame he achieved as a hassle that interfered with his work, he received many honors—he was awarded the Legion of Honor by the French government, saw a lifelike mannequin of himself installed as an homage in the window at Bergdorf Goodman, and, when a documentary was made about him in 2010, it premiered at the Museum of Modern Art. He was so beloved in New York that he was designated a "living landmark" by the New York Landmarks Conservancy. His work and the way he went about it influenced many other photographers and their projects, from Scott Shuman's "The Sartorialist" to Brandon Stanton's sprawling Humans of New York. And, for such a humble man, he was highly revered in the high-powered world of fashion: as Anna Wintour, the legendary British editor of American Vogue, famously said, "we all get dressed for Bill."

Dave Heath's fortunes, on the other hand, are succinctly summed up in this headline from Philadelphia Magazine, especially considering that Dave Heath died on the day of his 85th birthday: "84-Year-Old Philly-Born Photographer, Dave Heath, Finally Gets His Due." No obituary yet, in the Times or anywhere else. Searching the Times for Bill Cunningham reveals a cascade of articles about him; searching the same site for Dave Heath brings up a hodgepodge of unrelated articles, many having to do with Heath Ledger.

What a dazzling "due" Dave Heath did finally get, though, and all of us are the richer for it, now and going into the future. I missed the show in Philly, no doubt something I'll regret for a long time, but the late-in-life career summation Dave Heath received from the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art not only rescues him from obscurity but will preserve this great photographer for posterity. Keith F. Davis's superb book Multitude, Solitude: The Photographs of Dave Heath was TOP's Book of the Year last year and is one of my personal favorite photobooks of recent times. I find it both incredibly rich and very moving.

Their deaths only days apart (Bill Cunningham died on Saturday, June 25th, and Dave Heath died on Monday, June 27th) is merely a coincidence, of course. But, especially if you're not acquainted with either gentleman, I highly recommend both Bill Cunningham's Times obituary and Dave Heath's introductory/retrospective book as a study in contrasts and similarities as well as rewarding glimpses into two long lives in photography, well lived.

Mike

Dave Heath. Photo by Kendall Townend.

[UPDATE Saturday 8:30 a.m.: The World's Best Photography Magazine (a.k.a. the NYT) now has an obituary for Dave Heath. Thanks to Craig for the tip. —Ed.]

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Ned Bunnell: "I had the pleasure of bumping into Bill once. Literally. I was photographing the famous Easter Day Parade in NYC, in 2008. I had darted to get a better view of this one lady with a neat hat coming through the crowd. Out of the corner of my eye I saw this blue arm extending in front of me with camera in hand. We bumped. I immediately turned and said something like Bill, so sorry to get in your way. He gave me a genuine smile and said 'nice camera, I didn't think Pentax was still around.' Here's the lady we were both going after. I checked and didn't see his version of the lady in his gallery in the NYT from that day. It was probably blurry from my bumping into him."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I knew about Bill Cunningham. Sorry to hear about Dave Heath. Cunningham was just a truly wonderful character. Anyone who wants to see pure, persistent joy of photographing a subject for decades must see the film Bill Cunningham New York. Warning: It's not about photography. (Cunningham used an old Nikon film camera and one lens for all of his daily work. As the NYT no longer has a darkroom he developed his film at a nearby quick-mart-type shop.) Rain, snow, or shine he was out shooting NY street fashions. Many nights he'd be photographing gala gals. He lived like a monk and devoted all his energies toward documenting the ongoing ever-changing parade of what people were wearing. What a life Bill Cunningham had!"

Sven Erikson: "I highly recommend the documentary Bill Cunningham New York (2010), an interesting and touching look into his life and works."

Rick: " I had the unusual (for me) experience of not just seeing Dave Heath’s art at the Philadelphia MOA last fall, but also hearing him speak about his work. It was unusual in the sense that despite a lifetime of photographic art appreciation, I was unfamiliar with his photographs until that very day, when I was at the Museum to see some classical paintings but wandered down to the Honickman and Berman Galleries almost by accident. I thought up until that moment that I knew most of the best work in contemporary fine art photography. I was wrong. Dave Heath was a revelation. And the pleasure of such a discovery is hard to overstate. I shall buy the book, which I should have done last year!"

hugh crawford: "I'll miss Bill a lot. I first started running into him at parties ( his lesser-known body of work is society party photographs) when he was about twice as old as me, and somehow we eventually got to be more or less the same age.

"Really wonderful afternoon light would attract street photographers to the corner of Fifth Avenue and 57th Street, one of the few places that you can routinely get sunlight coming in at a low angle from three directions and a pretty amazing assortment of people who are oblivious to photographers. If Bill was on the corner, impromptu discussions would coalesce around him.

"I was always fascinated by what else was going on in the photos, sort of like how Wegee's photos would be interesting if they only showed the bystanders without the murder victim at the center. I hope his archives are in good hands. Bill always said that no one was interested in old clothes or old news, but I think he was wrong.

"Here is a photo I took of him a couple years ago [I added it to the main post, and thanks much, Hugh.  —Ed.]. Note the manual-focus Nikon with the autofocus lens and the C-41 color negatives fresh from the one hour photo lab sticking out of his bag with a copy of the previous Sunday Times. I think we were talking about waist level vs. eye level photography and he pointed out that he needed to get the shoes in the picture.

"Sweetest nicest guy."

Mike Stanton: "For those interested in seeing the documentary 'Bill Cunningham New York' (2010), it is on Amazon Prime, free to Prime members."

Always Know Where Your Camera Is!

Dreams are one of the strangest things about being a human being. I had a girlfriend once, a lawyer, who claimed she never dreamed. Seemed suspicious. Me, I dream vividly and often and am frequently amazed at the intricate and involved plots of my dreams. I have no idea where my brain comes up with all the stuff it does.

A few nights ago, for instance, I had been assigned (?) to write a blog post about George Harrison. It was a pleasant encounter. Playing the role of a reporter, I accompanied George through a kaleidoscope of changing scenes and scenarios as he went about his life and talked about his music and his upcoming projects. I felt vaguely that I should have been taking notes. I was also troubled by the fact that I knew I should be taking some pictures of him for the report but I didn't have a camera with me; I had set it down somewhere and wasn't quite sure where it was.

In person he was confident, friendly, articulate and forthcoming, although you should take this with a grain of salt on account of it has no relation to fact or truth. Also revealing of my mindset and a telltale of my attitudes is that, as George and I ate lunch in a restaurant, I finally remembered I had my iPhone in my pocket. But I didn't get it out, thinking "I should wait till I find my real camera." By the way, he looked quite healthy and seemed content and in fine fettle.

In those very first confused moments as I woke up, I thought, damn, I should have looked harder for my camera, because George is dead and nobody else can take pictures of him now! I would have had quite the scoop.

Sure would have. As I say, my brain is strange.

Why George Harrison? No clue. I'd thought of fellow Beatle Paul recently because we mentioned Chris Floyd a week or two ago, and I had read Chris's interesting account of making a portrait of Paul. George and I share a birthday, but I know nothing more about him than anyone else does, am not particularly a fan, and hadn't thought about him or listened to his music in years. But I think I'll go put on "Pure Smokey." (Even though "Crackerbox Palace" might be more appropriate.)

So listen to this chorus one more time:

Always keep a camera with you! You never know who you're going to run into, or where.

Mike
(Thanks to the shade of George for the interview)

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Speed: "Always Know Where Your Camera Is and Beware of Darkness."

Roberto: "After having read your two last posts, I thought that the 'Sumkinda lillyus' must not be the only interesting weed growing in your garden."

Mike replies: An understandable thought! But no, the only drugs I ever do are ibuprofen and caffeine and both in moderation.

toto: "You know what they say—pics or it didn't happen."

andy webster: "In a previous life as a psychotherapist I would sometimes discuss dreams with my patients. Typically they would look for meaning in the content of the dream but very often we found that the emotions attached to the content were more illuminating. Feelings which are repressed when awake seem to surface in dreams!"

marcin wuu: "I have lots of cameras in my studio space, and they are scattered all over the place. And I usually shoot two at the same time—a digital mirrorless as a kind of Polaroid preview of lighting, and analog. The analog is a big beast of a camera and it's always on tripod standing in the middle of the set, while the mirrorless I shoot handheld. And when I put it away to shoot the analog or to modify the lighting or whatever, I instantly forget where it is. And then I have to look for it in between all those other cameras in the semidarkness of the studio. Very frustrating experience, so I kinda know how you felt in your dream. One of these days I'm gonna get me a keychain that beeps when you whistle, and fix it to that blasted camera."

Ken: "In dreams, I can print directly from my photographic memory."

Neilclasper: "Having left a Fuji X100t in a bag in the overhead luggage rack on a train four weeks ago—apparently never to be seen again—I concur. Always Know Where Your Camera Is."

Marc Rochkind: "A perfect opportunity to use the camera of your dreams."

The Eye Doctor and Soft Filters

I visited my new ophhthphthalmologist* the other day, a diminutive but very sharp young woman named Dr. Hindman, and one result is that I have new glasses, which is nice. My vision had deteriorated to 20/60 uncorrected (good enough that I often don't bother with glasses). With my new glasses I'm 20/25, but I have a lot of flare in my right eye due to the onset of Fuch's Dystrophy. Apparently the imbalance of fluid in the cornea that is a hallmark of Fuch's has not even started; the flare is due to the fact that cells dropping out of the corneal endothelium acts like a screen with pinpoints in it, which is one way to make a soft filter. You might recall that Waterhouse stops for pictorialist lenses had rings of small secondary apertures to create "confusing" secondary images. Well, now I've got a soft filter in my eye, oh joy. My brain has adapted by seeing detail with the left eye augmented by binocular vision cues from the right eye, and with my new glasses I can see a gnat's whisker at forty paces. For my age, can't complain.

I look at (no longer "through"...) camera viewfinders left-eyed now, however. I was right-eye-dominant in my receding youth. Best viewfinder I've found so far: Panasonic GX8.

Incidentally, I hope I'm not giving away any trade secrets here**, but when the eye doctor gives you a prescription for glasses, the one parameter they don't give you is PD, or pupillary distance—the distance between the centers of your pupils. This is measured by the optician when you go to have your prescription filled and your glasses made. Nowadays you can order glasses online, from China, but you need your PD. Consequently, when you go to the optician, they measure your PD but they won't tell you what it is. Because otherwise you won't need to buy your glasses from them.

...With which I sympathize. Retail outlets of all sorts are getting slammed, and we need opticians—they're the only source of eye exams for millions of people and people need to have their eyes examined on a regular basis. Opticians are on the front lines for public eye health.

So I did both—I ordered two pairs of glasses (regular and prescription sunglasses) from my local optician (cost, $465, ouch), and one pair from Zenni Optical online (because I know my PD). Well, not only did the Chinese glasses cost much less—$54—but they arrived first. I'm still awaiting my glasses from the optician eight miles from my doorstep but I've been wearing my glasses that came all the way from China for two days already. It's none of my business, but it seems like my local retail opticians are gonna have to raise their game. Based on my big sample of one experience, but still.

As for my Fuch's, it appears that medical science has another ten years or so to continue improving partial cornea replacement surgery before I get to try it. As I said, oh joy.

Mike

*This is an approximation of the Word that Cannot Be Spelled.

**As David Vestal of revered memory used to say, when explaining why he never signed non-disclosure agreements, "I'm in the disclosure business."

Original contents copyright 2016 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!

How Come Small Sensors Never Get the Love?

There were two comments from recent days that I'd like to highlight. This is the first:

John Krumm: "Having recently started using a full frame camera after many years of shooting with 4/3 sensors, one of the biggest challenges for me is getting shots with nice front to back sharpness (high depth of field). It's easy to take for granted just how simple it is to use the smaller sensor cameras. I imagine it's even more challenging with this camera and others like it, at least until they have some kind of automatic focus stacking option. Still, I'd love to play with it, and the touchscreen interface looks well designed. I hope they succeed with it."

This has been a mystery to me. Historically the push was always to make greater depth of field possible when you want it. It was the reason for the name of Group ƒ/64, of course—a small aperture (on a view camera, of course) that allowed for pictures to be sharp front to back. Along come the fingernail-sized digital chips, and suddenly the conventional wisdom flips. Everyone is all concerned with how little depth of field they can achieve. And, no surprise, I'm seeing far more pictures in which poor technique shows up as inadequate depth of field. (Along with a lot of great shallow-focus work, it should go without saying.)

Personally, I think the more limited d-o-f of a FF or larger sensor is possibly a disadvantage of that size of sensor, for some people, which must be overcome by other advantages offered. All things considered, a "crop sensor" (we are really dominated by 135 thinking, still) is more ideal for getting enough depth of field most of the time. I'd like to have a Hasselblad X1d-50c for certain kinds of work, but as an only camera it would surely be too disadvantageous to give up the APS-C or 4/3 sensor.

I would even go so far as to say that the ready availability of high-quality sensors that are appreciably smaller than 24x36mm is one of the central advantages of the digital age as far as equipment is concerned.

...But that's not the way the world is now. The conventional wisdom has flipped, and everyone wants shallow focus. Very often, too shallow.

Ah, the odd vagaries of group taste!

Mike
(Thanks to John Krumm)

Original contents copyright 2016 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 McMillin: "As I like to say, 'Your pictures are too sharp. You need a more expensive camera to take blurrier pictures.' My new 27-inch Retina screen is revealing how much fine detail lurks in all my old pictures, even the first digital shots from that 4-MP compact. Once we're into the Fuji X era, the photos are dazzlingly detailed. But are they better photos?

"I'm not sure. I do know that watching modern animated films can be stressful. Not just for my old eyes and antique, wetware visual processor—my teen daughter found 'The Lego Movie' just too hard to watch, with too much information presented at excessive speed. I preferred 'Finding Dory,' which depicts a vague, watery, low-fi environment in which bright, crisp and dynamic creatures come and go. Maybe this is the point that the animated film has finally mastered bokeh?

"Anyhow, I'm appreciating fuzzy backgrounds more and more. Not because they're realistic, but because they're not. They're a powerful tool for removing distractions and simplifying a scene, and that's always a good thing."

Jim Allen: "You can bet Macro shooters like extra depth of field. Ever tried to get the focus right on a spider's eyes?? I have stacked images with 0.002" movement between shots to get decent depth of field...."

kodachromeguy: "I agree that the availability of 'high-quality sensors that are appreciably smaller than 24x36mm' is an amazing tool of the digital imaging age. When I use a Rolleiflex, I typically use it on a tripod specifically so that I can stop down to ƒ/11 or ƒ/16 and get foreground and distance into focus. For my use, I am not sure if a 24x36 digital chip would offer any advantages. Many of the techno-dweebs on popular photo forums likely also have no real idea what a 24x36 chip would do for them, but they sure like debating the topic."

Tom Kwas: "I have to laugh, I always think of this too! After years working with big sheet film, and 120 minimum, the concept was always trying to get enough in focus, not as little! In fact, many times today, I see what we used to call 'subjective focus' (back in the '70s), and it makes no sense...the person is using the lens wide open (I'm assuming), but not enough of what is in focus, is in focus! It needs more to make graphic or design (or even commercial) sense. It's just people using the lens open all the way with no reason to do it. And of course, with commercial work, the art director is going to tell you what they need in focus, in the shot, and I guarantee it isn't going to be wide open. This too will pass. I've seen trends all through my career: posterization, shooting everything with a fish-eye, shooting everything with a tilted horizon, shooting everything with colored gels; it'll stop sooner or later, but it will stop...."

Mike adds: Don't forget light-painting, fill-flash at dusk, ringlights....

David A Bateman: "Exactly!! This maybe odd, but I think the new X1d-50c is a great companion to a Micro 4/3 system. For those few times you need or want something different. I also have run into many times on my 4/3 camera (E3) where I did not have enough d-o-f, and needed to focus stack for plate copy work. Maybe if you have something cheap and easy, people want to spend more for what is harder."

Dragan Novakovic: "This subject is discussed in John Kennerdell's excellent article 'In Defense of Depth.' Readers may also want to look up Jason Eskenazi's work for examples of masterly use of high depth-of-field."

John Krill: "I've always said that APS-C is the 35mm of the digital age. That's all that needs to be said."

Mike replies: You know, that probably is all that needs to be said.

Simple Is the Next Revolution

This is the other comment I wanted to highlight:

Gordon Lewis: "What I find most interesting is how Hasselblad opted for a minimalist user interface, with only a single dial and six buttons, including the shutter and on/off buttons. Everything else is apparently accessed via touchscreen menus. Contrast this with something like the Nikon Dƒ, which is bristling with buttons, dials, and switches. How ironic would it be for a $9,000 camera for pros to be faster and easier to use than a $2,750 camera for enthusiasts?"

Leica started it. The S has the courage to be simple. Relatively.

I personally believe that simple is the next frontier. Not for every camera and not for every photographer, of course—not even most, most likely—but radical simplicity married to high quality has just not been tried at anything like a real-world price point. I think there's a pent-up market for it out there, and I suspect a lot of potential customers for cameras have already drifted outside of the potential customer base due to the lack of radically simple cameras as an available option.

I would like to see the same camera come to market in relatively feature-laden and relatively feature-free variants. We're already seeing configurable cameras, which is a step in more or less that direction.

The variety within complicated cameras masks the degree to which the market is not offering sufficient choices. No affordable B&W options, no affordable simple options, no native square sensors, on and on. I can personally think of four or five perfectly rational camera products that no one would think are odd or strange, that don't currently exist.

Mike
(Thanks to Gordon)

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Eolake: "Good points on both your two latest posts. By the way, I think Danish medium-format camera maker Phase One had the simpler four-button interface before Leica came out with it."

robert e: "For me, simplicity is a large part of the appeal of Fuji's X cameras. I'd been missing shutter speed dials for forever before the X came along. Set up right, and with a lens with an aperture ring, they can be as simple to use as a complex camera can be while still allowing proper control over the key parameters (at least in the opinion of one who thinks all-manual cameras are simple). By 'proper' I mean instant, direct, and with analogous tactile, visual and audible feedback (or a perfect simulation of such). The fact that controls can be meaningful (to borrow a concept from Donald Norman via Charles Lanteigne) is too often overlooked."

Remember the Dogs (OT)

Ah, the 4th of July.

It's my least favorite holiday, personally. In Chicago where I used to live, it seemed to be the time for my fellow citizens to get drunk, blow off explosives for five days, and shoot guns into the air. There was one time when I actually felt unsafe walking down a sidewalk. Too many firecrackers too close for comfort. Drunk people throwing them at each other and laughing, and if a stray pedestrian got in the way, well, look out buddy.

As for fireworks...I'm ambivalent. I used to walk from my apartment in Georgetown and sneak up from the river to the Lincoln Memorial, and watch the national fireworks display on the Mall from the steps of the Memorial. The crowds are huge and you're surrounded by the monuments to patriotism. The fireworks rise above the obelisk of the Washington Monument and are mirrored in the reflecting pool. The Capitol building lit up in the distance. From every flagpole the Stars and Stripes flutter proudly in the warm Summer breeze. Bunting is everywhere, and people dress (or paint themselves) in red, white, and blue, and you'll see the occasional Uncle Sam or George Washington or Minuteman or Lady Liberty in the crowd. Arlington Cemetery, resting place of many of the nation's honored war dead, looks down majestically from the hills across the Potomac, above the broad span of Arlington Memorial Bridge. It's magnificent, quite the spectacle, and if you've never been I recommend it at least once in your life.

But it kinda spoiled me for ordinary, garden-variety, small-town fireworks displays, which I could take or leave. I've never really cared for fireworks, don't know why. Even when I was a kid.

Would you want to cause this guy panic and distress?
He's about the friendliest fellow you can imagine.

Worst thing about the holiday: tortures dogs.

By some estimates, at least 40 percent of dogs experience noise anxiety, which is most pronounced in the summer. Animal shelters report that their busiest day for taking in runaway dogs is July 5.

Veterinarians tell of dogs who took refuge in hiding places so tight that they got stuck, who gnawed on door handles, who crashed through windows or raced into traffic—all desperate efforts to escape inexplicable collisions of noise and flashing light. Ernie, a wired-hair pointer, was so terrified by thunderstorms that he would vault fences at his Maryland farm and run in a straight line for miles.

“It’s very serious,” said Dr. Melissa Bain, an associate professor of clinical animal behavior at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine. “It’s a true panic disorder with a complete flight response.”

—Jan Hoffman, writing in the New York Times

Yes, the 4th celebrates the founding of the nation, and that's good. But maybe we could give the rockets' red glare a rest on the days surrounding the 4th?

My Butters is one of those dogs who just wants to be friends. He's socially adept with both humans and other dogs. He wags his tail at the least provocation, has a natural and extremely reliable soft mouth (i.e., never bites down or snaps in anger), and he's gentle, perceptive, and attentive. He suffered from debilitating anxiety as a result of neglect in his youth, which I've worked very hard to help him with. And he's getting much, much better. When he gets anxious it's hard to watch. He really suffers. Why would anyone want to make him miserable and set his progress back? But that's what people do, to him or some other poor blameless canine, every time they set off an M80 to hear it go boom. I don't get the appeal. Could be just me.

This probably sounds more bitter than it is. Not really. I'm sanguine.

I'll concede the day of the 4th. Lots of people like July 4th, and they love setting off firecrackers and bottle rockets, and they have fond childhood memories of fireworks, and those good folks deserve their fun and who am I to say? So good for them then.

But I wish they'd go easier on the dogs on July 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th. As any dog owner will tell you, they're people too. In my next lifetime I'll start a populist movement: "Keep the 4th on the 4th"...to be kind to the animals.

Mike

P.S. I'm publishing this now so as not to rain on anyone's parade closer to the 4th.

[ADDENDUM: As if it were a coda to this post, the evening of the day I posted this I heard fireworks going off way up in the hills. First of this year. —MJ]

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Steve L.: "Well, dogs are not people too. They're livestock that some people decide is cool to have in their house. That's the reality of it, although the brainwashed will never see it that way. Dogs shit on people's lawns, they piss on people's lawns. They piss on the sidewalks and stink up the neighborhood. They scare the crap out of many people. And oh yeah, they bark. Add up the dB's the average dog bellows though a neighborhood in a year and the noise and annoyance factor far outweighs an annual weekend of fireworks. It would be really nice if people who want to keep an animal chose something that didn't annoy, and sometimes frighten, their fellow humans. Dogs ain't it. All IMHO of course."

Mike replies: Sounds kinda hateful, Steve, but I do see your point. So rejoice—the coming holiday is when you get revenge. Silver lining to every dark cloud and all that.

Daniel replies to Steve L.: "They also keep coyotes and foxes, weasels and mink away from the chicken coop, sheep, and cows. They live in peace with the cats and animals we keep and raise. They bite hell out of 'midnight riders' stupid enough to stop and try to siphon gas from the machinery or take items from the farmyard or barn. They warn of someone coming into the drive before we know they are there. They are very protective and go after those who would raise an arm to strike a member of the family. We feed, water, groom, treat for flea and ticks and consider them family. They are inside and protected when temperatures get below zero. You may not like them so you are cordially invited to walk into our barnyard area anytime after dark so they can greet you appropriately. If you are smart you will stay where you have no dogs to bother you and we will both be happy."

Rich: "I'm not a dog guy...but there's something about Butters. Every picture you've posted of him makes me think, 'that's a dog I'd fall in love with.'"

Mike replies: He really is a bit of a movie star, for livestock I mean. He has that effect on lots of people. It's very striking over time. Back in Waukesha I actually ran into people who remembered him from the shelter.

Geoff Wittig: "Like a lot of dumb ideas, fireworks seem to make sense when one is well-lubricated with alcohol. Sober, not so much. You really don't want to see what someone's hand looks like after miscalculating the fuse time on a large, semi-legal explosive device."

Mike adds: As friend-o'-TOP Geoff is a rural general practitioner MD, I think we can assume he speaks as a witness....

Dogman: "Totally agree. A few years ago we were in the midst of a serious drought. It was so dry the local authorities issued a ban on fireworks in most jurisdictions. It was the most pleasant July Fourth in years because our dog did not require sedation. Night before last, someone in the neighborhood got an early start to the holiday fireworks. Our current dog (who is just as sensitive to loud sounds as our previous one) didn't want to go out for her evening potty. Last night we had a small thunderstorm and, after the rain had finished, she balked at going out once again. I'm not looking forward to the coming days."

Carl: "Thanks for this post. As with everything, we humans have to overdo it. I live in the country and the Fourth 'holiday' weekend sounds like a war zone. Once a few years ago I attended the festivities in a neighboring county. As we were leaving in a long line of other cars, you could see frantic deer coming out of the woods and running across the road. So it's not only domestic pets; it's all wildlife, too."

Alex P. Schorsch: "What could be more fun than blowing things up? I've always had dogs and none of my canine family members ever got very worked up over fireworks. I think that people blow these things out of proportion. I remember going to the countryside with an uncle who had bird dogs trained to help in the hunt. I remember how excited they would get when they heard gunfire. Their reaction to a 'bang' was akin to a rush. I wonder how much of modern dogs' stress is a result of anthropomorphization which turns our dogs into wusses."

Eric Brody: "I'm with you Mike. All the dogs I've had over the years have been terrified of fireworks. It often starts a week ahead and goes on for a week after. I'm a military veteran but never understood the glorification of explosives. It's usually by people who've never seen real artillery or been on the receiving end (thankfully I haven't either). If you think about it just a bit, explosives were developed for the sole purpose of tearing human beings apart. Now, with so many vets suffering from PTSD, who needs more fireworks? Yes, it's a tradition but in my opinion, a stupid one. Fireworks and war are both often glorified by those who've suffered from neither."

Darlene: "I will never forget an eight year-old boy I met when I was an education major. He lost his eyes and nose to firecrackers. His mom brought him to the school to participate in a Braille challenge. The boy was angry and the mom was doing her best to keep it all together."

Del Bomberger: "Well, I love dogs and most animals, birds and even reptiles for that matter. I also love fireworks. That said, there are plenty of vets (as in veterans) around for whom the sound of fireworks brings back many unpleasant memories and worse. I had an uncle who lived in a town in the Sandhills of about 200 people for the relative tranquility he required after one of our little world-saving efforts. He had to leave the little town and retire to the even more remote areas around the 4th. Life is indeed complicated."

Bruce Appelbaum: "Back in the late 1980s, I lived in Pakistan in the capital city of Islamabad. The Russians were in Afghanistan and the pre-Taliban were our friends. Since US arms for the Afghan resistance were being funneled through Pakistan, and the border was fairly porous, there were regular terror bombings of civilian locations (markets, etc.) throughout Pakistan.

"I lived near a market and on multiple occasions car bombs went off fairly close to my house. My dog Babe (adopted as a stray) was badly traumatized, both by the noise and the vibration through the floor—the house was built on a a concrete slab on the ground. She panicked because of local fireworks after we came back to the States. And it took many years for me to fight the urge to hit the deck when particularly loud fireworks went off."

Fan Ho 1931-2016

 Guest post by Manuel Vilar de Macedo

An example of Fan Ho's lyrical window on Asia: White Windows, 1962

"Brexit" overshadowed the news of the passing away of Chinese-born photographer Fan Ho, who died last Sunday. Fan Ho was one of the most important and influential photographers of the second half of 20th century; his exploration of the relationship between light and shadow was remarkable, and made for a very strong and recognizable style, which is something only a few photographers can claim without sounding too pretentious. And his compositional sense was simply brilliant. His body of work is extremely rich and diverse, and it can't be limited by labels such as 'street photographer.' He was great at that, but his pictures weren't confined to street photography.

I was fortunate enough to be introduced to Fan Ho's pictures about a year and a half ago; since then he became one of the photographers I look up to.

The late Fan Ho. Courtesy South China Morning Post.

There are obituaries and selections of work at the South China Morning Post, Quartz, and PetaPixel.

Manuel

"Manuel" (the handle under which he comments) is one of the cadre of TOP's best commenters, which is saying something. He reads TOP from Porto (Oporto em inglês), Portugal. —Ed.

©2016 by Manuel Vilar de Macedo, 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:

Michael Miller: "Any chance of a TOP book sale around this stunning photographer? Amazon lists The Living Theater for $75 and A Hong Kong Memoir for $300. Such amazing imagery, such manipulated pricing. Doesn't he deserve a reasonably priced edition of his major ideas?"

Mike replies: Not "manipulated," I don't think, just out of print. The standard edition of the latest reprint was available until recently. It's common for the prices of photobooks to rise sharply when they go out of print. Sometimes they fall again after the "oh no I missed it" demand spike is over. Check back in a year or two.

I'd love to have A Hong Kong Memoir too, so I sympathize.

Rich: "I was fortunate enough to meet Fan at a couple of his book releases at Modernbook Gallery in San Francisco a few years ago. A warm, very friendly man. And his photographs just magnificent. A true inspiration for me and I can only strive to emulate his talent and photography. I treasure the two books of his I own (Hong Kong Yesterday and Living Treasure) and his autographs within. I peruse them regularly for inspiration but now will do so with a heavy heart. He will be missed."

Open Mike: The Unruliness of Assumptions

Life in these United States
I read recently in our regional newspaper that a local man has been accused of a crime and isn't quite sure why. He took several cans of food from near the door of a local civic organization, from a bin intended for collecting donations of canned food for the poor. The surprised man explained to the police that he was in fact poor, and also hungry, and he assumed (not unreasonably, really) that the food in the bin was meant for people such as himself.

He was arrested for theft and put in jail.

I wondered if I should offer my services to the public defender, in my capacity as an editor, to explain helpfully that a sign that says "Food for the Poor" doesn't actually as a matter of language specify that the food must be put into the bin rather than be taken out. It is only an assumption in the head of a given reader that makes one or the other meaning seem plain as day.

I imagined marching to the court to be a beacon of light with my copy of Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity under my arm. Editors needed everywhere.

But I had a vague insight that if I got involved, I might end up in jail too. Somehow. I decided to keep out of it, since I was already out of it and thus not threatened by the unruliness of anyone's assumptions.

I reasoned that the food "thief" is getting free meals in jail, courtesy of the county, so all is, if not well, then well enough.

Mike

"Open Mike" is the off-topic Editorial page of TOP, where we allow Ed. even freer rein.

Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

Dave Levingston: "Reminded me of the old story of the guy stopped because he was tossing trash out of his car. He couldn't understand what the problem was since he had just passed a sign that said, 'Fine For Littering.'"

Stan B.: "There's at least one country that has a more enlightened view."

Mike replies: Now that's very interesting, and what could be more Les Misérables? Although they did spend an awful lot of resources establishing a pretty simple principle. Christ or Pope Francis would have gotten to the same place a lot quicker.

Dogman: "I was served a subpoena recently to appear as a witness in criminal court. I was confused since I felt I had witnessed no crime. Eventually I figured out what this was all about but I was still unclear as to why I was being called as a witness for the prosecution when what I had witnessed didn't appear to be illegal at all. So I spent a confusing afternoon in court, still unsure of what was happening. I was eventually released, still confused, without being called to testify or receiving any explanation from the prosecutor.

"For some time now I've felt the reason so many people have so little respect for the legal system is based on confusing and ambiguous laws that essentially appear to make everything illegal. After spending an afternoon in the local city criminal court, I'm now certain of this.

"Admittedly, I don't know the details involved in this story. There might be more than was originally reported and that could have led to the man's arrest. But taking the information at hand, a poor and hungry man takes food from a box of food meant for the poor because he's...well, poor and hungry. In a simpler but wiser time, no one would have called the police, no police officer would have ever made an arrest, no police supervisor would have allowed the man to be jailed and no prosecutor would have pursued prosecution. Somewhere along the line, someone would have displayed a little compassion."

Mike replies: And speaking of novels, your experience sounds more than a little Kafkaesque. The Trial I think it was?

Anyway we gotta get back to photography.

GKFroehlich: "Imagine how long some road trips would take if, every time you saw a road-side sign that said 'Clean restrooms,' you complied!"

Speed: "Re 'I had a vague insight that if I got involved, I might end up in jail too.' A 'chilling effect' describes a situation in which rights, such as free speech, are threatened by the possible negative results of exercising these rights. The effect is to silence criticism and freedom of expression, even in cases where criticism is perfectly valid."

Alan Carmody: "Re 'I had a vague insight that if I got involved, I might end up in jail too.' Fear not. People appeal to judges all the time, and chip in with letters, advice and pleas. Fear not, unless you've thrown in the towel and decided that we've gone the way of Soviet Russia."

Geoffrey Heard: "Assuming he was actually poor, as you correctly point out, he was not a food thief, he was simply someone who took the sign at face value and accepted the helping hand offered. I think you should have stepped up, Mike. At least it would be an experience worth looking back on.

"I interfered in a brawl here the other night in which a young guy was set fair to be beaten and kicked to death. A few days later, my neighbors who were involved are quite happy with me; their wives and mothers and whatnot have pointed out to them that if they had killed the guy or even hurt him more badly than he was hurt, they would all be set for long terms in jail. I am seen now to not only have saved the victim but also the attackers!"

'Handmade in Sweden' Fact Check

Hasselblad X1D

The previous post already has more addenda appended to it than a David Foster Wallace novel, so let me just separate this out: the lenses for the new Hasselblad X1D are made by Nittoh Kogaku in Suwa, Japan; the body is a Swedish design and is made in Gothenburg, Sweden. In other words, it's a proper Hasselblad to the manor born. 

One of about 50 of the first "civilian" Hasselblads, the 1600F of 1949, designed by Viktor Hasselblad and Sixten Sason, with a Kodak Ektar lens. The basic design had many permutations and refinements over many decades, but always remained recognizable

The term "handmade," which Hasselblad pointedly repeats in many places on behalf of the X1D-50c (note engraving in top picture), might be just a wee tad disingenuous...many consumer electronics products including most cameras and lenses are assembled by hand because there's no other way to do it, as numerous "factory visit" videos make clear.

...But let's give 'em that one. "Handmade in Sweden"...yep. Check. Not a Sony with makeup like the ill-advised Lunar nonsense, and Fuji (which made the much-beloved Xpan once upon a time, among other things) is not involved.

So for those who care about such things (some people don't, but some people do), the X1D is a real honest-to-Odin Swedish Hasselblad. As for the lenses being made by Nittoh, it fits precedent. The lenses for the earliest Hasselblads were made by Eastman Kodak in the USA, and then for many years Hasselblad had a very successful cooperative agreement with Carl Zeiss of Germany. The outsourcing of fully dedicated lenses is right in line with Hasselblad's proud—and longstanding—traditions.

Mike
(Thanks to Darlene and Jeff)

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Christer Almqvist: "Sixten Sason, who designed the original Hasselblad, also designed the first SAAB car, among other things."

Verve: "The outsourcing of lenses is part of Hasselblad's tradition, as is the outsourcing of sensors. In the past, one would likely use a Hasselblad with Kodak, Fuji, Ilford or Agfa film. Today one uses a Hasselblad with a Sony sensor."

Cameron's Folly and Other News of the Morning After

• Destabilexit: David Cameron finally pushed his famous luck too far. Pride goeth before a fall, and we all know how he'll be remembered now. Just as an aside, do they not teach European history in the UK? Just wondering how 52% of the population could so easily dismiss the value of 70 straight years of stability and peace in most of Europe. Someone should tell them that Europeans haven't always gotten along with each other. That last is the understatement of the century—or rather the understatement of the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Didn't the UK already have all sorts of special dispensations from the EU to feed its exceptionalism?

But look on the good side—could be very good for Scotland, if it now leaves the UK and rejoins the EU. I'm part Scottish by ethnicity—related to the Johnston and Hamilton clans. The other part is English, though, and I'm sick about this. I hope it won't be, but June 23rd 2016 could be remembered as a very bad day indeed, in the UK and elsewhere.

• We love our British readers (should I say "like and admire"? Is "love" too strong a word for reticent British sensibilities?) But I have to say there has never been much love lost between me and Hasselblad. The company pursued a nasty vendetta against me for a number of years, in response to a snarky comment (one single sentence!) that I once wrote in a Bronica review. (Snarky? Moi?) Granted, that one sentence was...well, pretty bad. But the great lengths they went to for revenge was over the top and out of proportion. Still...

...How about that new Hasselblad?!? I really like the looks of that. I wrote to a friend recently that high prices help insulate me from GAS in a number of cases—I would really like a Sony A7rII and a Zeiss FE 35mm ƒ/1.4, for instance, but don't have to think about either one—and the X1D-50c (the "50c" bit refers to the sensor, indicating the same camera might get different sensors in the future) is well into that territory. But it gives rise to hope that some other company will compete with something similar. Hasselblad has left room for the X1D-50c to be undercut in price.

The X1D-50c would be the perfect counterpart and complement to an iPhone, if it turns out that it works well and has no problems. Wonder who's making the lenses?

• Panaleica cornucopia: Speaking of lenses, there are now six beautiful Panasonic/Leica Micro 4/3 lenses. That cup runneth over. The picture is courtesy Panasonic via Imaging-Resource. (One drawback of cameras made by multinational electronics giants is that the camera divisions get utterly lost in the vastness. I could not for the life of me find that image anywhere on Panasonic's far-flung web presence, nor could I figure out whom to call to ask where it is. Maybe Kevin Purcell can find it. He's a web-research ninja whose powers exceed even my own.)

Left to right, the 15mm ƒ/1.7 ASPH. (I saw lots of this lens when Ben Rosengart came for a portfolio review—beautiful prints), the famous DG Summilux 25mm ƒ/1.4 ASPH., the new lens, the amazing Vario-Elmar 100–400mm ƒ/4–6.3 Power O.I.S. (which underscores an advantage of 4/3 over cameras with bigger sensors—telephoto reach, without the sensor being too small), the beautiful 42.5mm ƒ/1.2 Power O.I.S. portrait lens, and the older 45mm ƒ/2.8 Macro (which gets relatively little love, except from me—I like its exceptionally nice bokeh).

The new one is the 12mm ƒ/1.4, a superfast ultrawide. (With all 4/3 and Micro 4/3 lenses, simply double them to get the 35mm focal-length equivalents.) Although large for a Micro 4/3 lens, it weighs less than 12 ounces and is less than three inches long, underscoring another great advantage of Micro 4/3.

Early tests of the new lens are highly positive, nay, glowing.

• Naked Miata: A nice video review of the 2016 Miata that shows the chassis and drivetrain with the body removed. I now refrain from gassing on further about that car. Don't think I couldn't.

• Bloomin' 'ell! Last item—come back later to see! [Added now—see below.] I have three or four snaps to post of what happened to the flower buds I showed you the other day. It's extravagant. You won't believe what happened. Astonishing! And you can see what happens when a non-flower-photographer attempts to photograph a Monarch butterfly with a 14mm (21mm-e) Fujinon. But I have to go run and then exercise Butters first—he's always raring to begin his daily project chasing down his beloved tennis ball wherever it goes.

More very soon.

Mike

ADDENDUM #1: Re Brexit...please know that I don't bear the slightest ill-will toward any British TOP reader—or any Briton period—regardless of their views or vote. I'm concerned about events, but I'm no expert, of course. I got a solid briefing from a thoughtful and informed British friend (thanks again, TB) and since then have been reading avidly about the issue. That's all. There's no nationalistic competitiveness here either—I'm just as concerned about the bizarre election season in the U.S.—and I certainly have zero stake in being "right" about anything. I do fear Britain has made a very serious mistake but will hope to be proven wrong about that. I very much wish for the best outcome from all this, for one and all.

Let's hope for the best and that the best thing has been and will be done. The passage of a few weeks will do much to soothe frayed nerves and worries.

ADDENDUM #2: Now as promised earlier...in the "Specialists" post on Tuesday I put up a picture of some plants that looked like they were plotting something. That picture was a few days old at the time. Well, you won't believe what those perfectly innocent-looking plants had planned! Check it out:

The crazy things have staged a riot! 

I think the scientific name for these is Sumkinda lillyus. They did this all on their own, too—I had nothing to do with it. All I did was water them when I noticed them drooping (we've had a bit of a mini-drought recently). And boom! Well, not "boom." It took a day or two. Still, the whole flowerbed bursting forth all at once was quite the thing. The previous owner of the house set all this in motion. I don't have much natural feeling for flowers, but I'm sentient and alive, and I think you'd need eyes carved of wood not to enjoy the show.

As I was waiting for the shot above—I wanted the sun to illuminate the flowers but not the barn wall—I happened to see a butterfly, so I had to while away ten minutes attempting to make his portrait. To say that a 14mm lens on APS-C (21mm-e) is not the proper tool for shooting butterflies is probably an understatement. Although I have no idea what would be better. Some things are your thing and some things aren't, and insects are not mine, and I'm resigned to my fate, and over the years have learned to live with it.

Here he is:

Handsome little fellow, eh? Not half bad under the circumstances I don't think. He wouldn't pose and hold still. With a lens as wide as this I really had to stick the camera in the little fellow's face, although he didn't seem to mind. Yeah, I'm an amateur...I'm not sure I've ever photographed a single butterfly in my life, at least as something I meant to do. And if this is indeed the first, it could be the last as well. But it was nice to have the challenge. I have always accepted that photographing insects is a challenge, often a formidable one, for those who are good at it.

As I believe you can tell from this picture, there might even be more blooms on the way. Things have been happening all over this yard. I don't have any idea what to expect next. Only one thing is for sure...

"Life is good."

—Mike the Ed.

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

D. Hufford: "I recall back in September of 2008 watching the financial crisis suddenly pick up speed and knowing my career and life were going to change completely. Though it seems less likely, I am getting a bit of déjà vu. I just bought a Panasonic 12–35mm earlier this year. Turns out I don't really like Panasonic lenses. Except for the Leica branded ones. I love the 25mm ƒ/1.4 and it is probably my favorite lens of the digital era. (Well, the Nikon 14–24mm would be, but I sold mine years ago.) Had I not bought the Panasonic 12–35mm, the 12mm would certainly have interested me...after the price came down a bit."

David Cope: "No, 'love' is fine. We need a lot of that right now."

Jim Allen: "Ya know Mike, you're really starting to draw me into that gravity well the Miata represents. I can feel the slow and inexorable pull as my wallet slowly accelerates towards another impulse purchase.... Seriously though, having an actual engineer discussing details like that in a review is awesome. I don't want that car, I need that car. I wish there were curvy roads in Florida."

Ed. Note: The following two comments came in one right after the other:

David: "I'd just like you to know that I find this at once insulting, condescending and ignorant, so please think a little more before dismissing a brave vote by 17 million people, that must mean a lot to them given the authorities that were telling them to do otherwise and the likely short term pain to be experienced in extricating the country from this institution. This is not like expressing an opinion on sensor size! It is condescending to think that those voting to leave don't know about European history and wars, especially given Britain`s involvement in WWII. It is a simplistic conclusion that recent peace is a result of UK membership of the EU, and that some special clauses you don't know about mean that the other rules of membership you don't know about must be acceptable. P.S. I am an occasional reader and used to pay a volunteer subscription, that is how I came across your post."

Richard Parkin: "No, the specific name is lower case: Sumkinda lillyus. [Fixed again —Ed.] When moving to a house with an established garden it is good practice to wait a year to see what you have so you are doing the right thing.

"Likewise on Brexit wait and see may be good advice because it is now even more obvious that Brexit politicos want something different from what the Brexit voters thought they were voting for. I voted to Remain in 1975 when I was 40ish and have voted to Remain again now I am 80ish so I think I can claim consistency and that I don't fit the demographic of the Remainers. As you will see from some of the comments, some of the most vocal Brexiters are still fighting WWII. I defend your right to have a view on Brexit—when the French asked the US to remove their soldiers from France I recall they were asked if they want the dead ones to leave too."

Mark Cotter (partial comment): "To understand the EU, one has, as an example to think of a pan-Americas organisation that had it's capital in, say, Caracas, and whose trade rules and economic rules and currency applied to everyone from southern Chile to the tip of Alaska: while it would be good for some, it would not be good for others and countries like the US and Canada would tire of the inept bureaucracy and politics of South American countries and the free movement of, say, Mexicans into the US. We live in interesting times over here in the UK and in US politics as well."

robert e: "Would we Americans tolerate an EU-style agreement? The irony! The US was established with an EU-style agreement—the Articles of Confederation. Further irony: the Articles were deemed too weak by our founding fathers, who found inspiration for our second, current, constitution in the far more sovereignty-obliterating Anglo-Scottish union of 1707. I don't suppose I need to rub in the further, sadder irony of the now imminent dissolution of that older union. In other words, we are the result of not only tolerating such an agreement, but doubling down on it, thanks to the example of Great Britain.

"Yes, it was a different time, a different place. But the stakes were even higher. It wasn't put to popular vote, but then neither had been the UK. And we doubled down again, waging bloody civil war to maintain it 100 years later. As Mike said, the arguments persist, and you'll even find active secession movements in several states (most notoriously Texas, Alaska and California)."

Brian Ripley: "In scientific taxonomic nomenclature (not just botany) the genus name is capitalized but not the species name. In butterfly terms, that is not a 'little fellow,' maybe 3x the size of a typical non-tropical butterfly. It is Papilio machaon, the Swallowtail. In the UK (since you keep talking about us) it is the largest resident butterfly and rather rare, but common in most of the rest of the world. Indeed, common enough to have been named by Linnaeus."

Mike replies: I could write a book chapter about this comment, but I shall spare you all, and you're welcome!  :-)  But thank you Brian for providing those facts.

David Dyer-Bennet: "Some people are trying to set up an analogy betweeen the EU and merging North, Central, and South America. But another way to look at it is that the EU is slowly making its way towards a European version of the United States. Do I accept my fate being governed by legislators who mostly come from states other than my own? As it happens, yes I do! And so do the residents of each and every other state. Even those from states that were formerly at war with us."

Mirrorless Goes Medium Format

...Looks like we're going to have to officially forgive 'em for the Lunar. Hasselblad, the maker of medium format cameras once heavily favored by studio professionals in North America, has announced the X1D-50c...a small mirrorless body with a huge sensor.

Huge in both ways. Acreage: 43.8 x 32.9mm (compare with the Leica S at 45 x 30mm). And image size: 8272 x 6200 pixels—that's 50 MP. The CMOS sensor is presumed to be the same one used in several other existing medium format cameras and backs, and is claimed to offer 16-bit color depth and 14 stops of exposure range.

Other features include an EVF that switches formats and includes an "X-Pan" panoramic mode, weatherproofing, GPS and Wi-Fi, full HD 1920 x 1080p video at 25 fps, and two card slots.

Initially there will be two not-too-fast but appropriately smallish lenses, a moderate wide 45mm ƒ/3.5 (35mm-e), and a moderate-tele 90mm ƒ/3.2 (70mm-e) in a new lensmount called XCD. A third lens, a wide-angle 24mm equivalent-angle-of-view (30mm nominal), has been promised for Photokina.

I'll take one!

...Except that the pricing will be a little closer to medium-format DSLRs and backs than to typical mirrorless offerings, at $8,995 for the body, $2,295 for the 45mm lens, and $2,695 for the 90mm lens.

Even so an exciting development. And it's handmade in Sweden*, so it's a real 'Blad.

Mike

*ADDENDUM: Several sources have claimed that the camera is being built by Nittoh Kogaku in Sawa-City, Japan. In my comment in the post I was referencing a caption on dpreview, at this link, slide 7, which says, "If there is one message that Hasselblad really wants to get across, it is that this camera is hand-made in Sweden. Equally, Hasselblad representatives with whom we spoke were at pains to stress that the X1D was designed and manufactured in-house and that Fujifilm isn’t involved in any way." Nittoh might be involved somehow, but I don't know if they are or in what way.

Original contents copyright 2016 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 McMillin: "So far, the weight and size savings of mirrorless haven't been convincing to me. My Fuji X-Pro1 is a little slimmer than my Pentax K5, with similar lenses, but that's not enough reason to choose one over the other. But when you can eliminate most of the empty space in the mirror box of a format this large, you're really changing the shape of medium format. Even the substitution of an artificial RVF for an analog OVF might be worth this kind of efficiency...but selling every other camera and lens I own, plus my computer, to afford this new wonder is not in the cards for me. This new 'Blad looks like the reincarnation of the Fuji MF rangefinder cameras. Maximum image inside a minimum package. It's definitely interesting."

marcin wuu: "Did you notice the 'X' and '1' in the name? I believe you were poking fun at photographic companies for abusing those.  :-)  One thing worthy of special note: Unlike every other mirrorless system on this planet, X1D will not take any third-party lenses. It has no in-body shutter, and will rely on leaf shutter in the lens. I am sure it will cost Hasselblad a solid chunk of potential customer base...."

Mike replies: As Ming Thein writes, "Before anybody asks again in the comments, the body contains no shutter. This means whilst the flange distance is very short and some 35mm lenses may well cover the format, they will only be usable if a) there is an electronic shutter implemented in firmware—that has yet to be confirmed, and b) some enterprising third party gets out the lathes."

Lynn: "But how well does it do selfies, cats and flowers? But seriously, congratulations to Hasselblad for finding their mojo."

hugh crawford: "I think they finally realized if they released the Hasselblad version first and then the Sony, people would think they were getting a Hasselblad at Sony prices rather than a Sony at Hasselblad prices."

Hard Day in the UK (OT)

Just a word to all our British friends—good luck today. Not voicing an opinion, but we're thinking of you today and we hope it goes the way that will be best for your country.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Mike Chisholm: "Thanks, Mike, though it's not luck we're going to need.... Maybe a little resolve? Never were Yeats' words more appropriate: 'The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.' The crazy thing is, this is a totally unnecessary referendum, an unwise gamble by Cameron to settle a long-running civil war within the Conservative Party. Grrr.... Trying to think of a witty photo-angle, but failing."

Stephen: "Looking forward to rejoining the world Mike.... Out of nearly 200 nation states only 28 seem to think that an anti-democratic cabal is the way to go! Hopefully by this evening it will be 27."

Gallitypes: A New Way to Shoot 8x10

If you're looking for something to do with that old 8x10 you've had in the camera closet for year now, here's an idea for you. I heard of this idea from Jim Galli's website, although my memory is a little hay-zee as to the specifics. I think I wrote about it some years ago.

It's a simplified way of shooting with an 8x10 camera that bypasses film.

What you need is an 8x10 camera, some 8x10 B&W photo paper, and a flat-bed scanner. You put the paper into the film holder, expose it (I assume some trial-and-error will be required regarding exposures times, and I assume exposure times will be very slow, like they were in photo-antiquity), develop it, then scan the negative image that results and reverse the tones in software.

If anybody tries this, send results!

I think we should name the process for Jim, who from what I hear is a great connoisseur of large format, a ceaseless experimenter, a polymath of old lenses, and a guy who appears to have more fun with photography in any given year than most of us will have in our lifetimes.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Wes Medlin: "Mike, I think this is the post you were looking at. I agree, Jim's site is a lot of fun."

'Photoart'

Now, I know full well that I don't get to dictate terminology. Nobody asked me and nobody cares what I think. And I'm fully aware that I don't have the power to change anyone else's usage of language—don't worry, I'm not laboring under any delusions.

And I am not worked up about this, so those whose knee-jerk response is derision can kindly keep that to themselves, please. I am copacetic, chilled, laid-back (with my mind on my money and my money on my mind...sorry, Snoop Dogg lyric).

But still, I think I'm going to start using a new term. When a picture is captured all at once in one exposure and the representation of it essentially respects the lens image (with color and tonal correction, or B&W conversion, or slight cleanup allowed), I'm going to call it a photograph; and if it's a combination of different exposures, or has special effects applied, or corrections applied to excess to make them prominent or stylish or decorative, and especially if there are changes made to the lens image in terms of adding, subtracting, or changing elements, then I'm going to call it photoart.

...With no prejudice. That is, one ain't better than the other. Just a different way of looking is all, a different way of seeing, different way of creating.

Where exactly the line is will always be debatable, and that's okay. Not everything is cut-and-dried, black-and-white, a binary this-and-not-that or that-and-not-this. Being a B&W photographer with a passion for midtones, I am comfortable with gray areas!

And I am not a mindless ideologue: I like some photoartists and not others, just as I like some photographers and not others.

Conceptually...well, that's a much longer discussion. Thou hast been forewarned.  :-)

Oh, and by the way: anyone who says such things don't matter is fighting progress and the evolution of culture. Because of course, in time, needed distinctions will enter the language because it will make sense for them to do so. Eventually, if it lasts long enough, culture will sort out and make sense of digital imaging and its nature and properties, and linguistic distinctions will follow. All I'm doing is taking one little step in that direction on my own.

So Steve McCurry, Julie Blackmon, and Jerry Uelsmann might be photographers, but what they are known for creating is photoart.

No one has to go along with any of this. I'm aware that I'm kinda eccentric.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Speed: "Photograph >>>>>>>>>> Photoart.

"It's a continuum and our view depends on where we sit. I get it."

Tom Halfhill: "some newspapers are using similar terminology already. For example, the San Francisco Chronicle uses the term 'photo illustration' to describe manipulated photographs. The term appears in the mouse-type photo byline, such as 'Photo illustration by John Doe,' etc."

Dennis (partial comment): "What do you say about someone who produces photographs much of the time and photoart some of the time ? (Therein lies the controversy; McCurry's lack of forthrightness means you can't trust whether or not a given photograph is straight). But, gray areas aside, it seems fine to label each work as one thing or the other, but if the person produces both, it's unfair/inaccurate to label him or her."

Mike replies: Very fair point, and one I didn't think of. I modified the post to take your objection into account.

Howard Brunner: "Photoart is fine by me. Under the terms of your definition, 96% of my creative output would qualify. Photoart also happens to be the name of my website."

Mike replies: If you say so, Howard, but a lot of your work looks pretty straight to me.

Ctein (partial comment): "So, are you going to say that my stitched panoramas or entirely realistic HDR photographs are 'photoart?' How about if I take a bit of a power line out of the corner of a landscape photo, because I couldn't levitate three feet to get exactly the right composition (yup, I've done that). Or that distant airplane or tiny bird that flew into the scene that I didn't notice when I was pressing the shutter, that I erased (instead of bleaching it out in a print) because not only not-wanted but the tiny damn thing looks like a data flaw in the file or dirt on the sensor, yet it sure grabs the eye. Done that, too."

Mike replies: This is a controversy, defined as a dispute that is ongoing and that doesn't admit of simple solution. But look, I'm only describing, or trying to describe, the broad differences that interest me, not defining or dictating them. People are consistently picking technical nits as if it matters. Of course it doesn't. The camera doesn't make the statement or determine the aims of the image. You do. That is, the artist/creator/operator does. The basic thing I think people should think about is what kind of statement they're making with their image. (You defined this perfectly well to me a couple of weeks ago, but I can't find it now.) How was it made weighed against how it is likely to be received. Is it naturalistic, or invented? Is is a "straight" report of the scene, or your personal interpretation? Does it reveal more about the visible world, or more about your imagination, how you wish the world looked?

I don't care about how anyone wants to define it because that doesn't matter. I'm not being legalistic. Just trying to get my meaning across.

And people consistently mistake technical parameters as being definitive. They're not. What you're talking about are just solutions to technical problems, like color correction or tonal corrections such as gradient or software HDR (either of which can be used to make a particular image more or less accurate—the creator's choice). If you stitch a panorama, the important thing is not that it's not a single exposure. The important thing is, what problem does it solve, and does it say anything about the intentions of its creator? You've printed a stitched panorama of mine that is a perfectly straightforward, naturalistic photograph—it was only stitched from separate exposures because that's the only way I could include that much arc of the compass. But a reader posted a link to a photoartist (again, can't find it now) who uses dozens or hundreds of exposures to represent all the times of a 24-hour cycle in one image. That's not a straightforward, naturalistic photograph of a scene, in the sense that someone else who was at the scene might have witnessed it at any given time. It's an artistic interpretation of something that didn't exist. An impression. Photoart. If you don't like that term or any other, then just say how the photo was made...if it's not obvious.

As for the bit of powerline—you're the author, you decide. If you think it's a pointless distraction and removing it doesn't affect the integrity of the image, then fine. What do I have to do with that? We all make our own decisions about things like that and we always will. Nobody else gets to say.

My motives here are entirely compassionate from both angles. First, I sympathize with the viewer, who would like to know what she is looking at. Is it a report of something real? Can it be taken as evidence so far as it goes? If you're going to be adding things that didn't exist in the world and subtracting things that did, such that your image doesn't represent anything real, then at least some viewers would like to know. Otherwise they might justifiably feel deceived.

From the other direction, a creator (you'll notice I'm avoiding the words, "photoartist," "artist," "photographer" etc., which are loaded in the context of the present discussion) might find it useful to be able to indicate that a picture that might appear to be one thing is in fact another, without the possibility of being accused of deceptiveness or dishonesty. Take the controversy over Robert Doisneau's "Le baiser de l'hotel de ville." Doisneau hired two people to model for him and wandered around the city with them taking different pictures of them in various situations. The result was a wonderful photograph that has been widely admired. He didn't consider that he had done anything wrong. But when it was discovered (from court testimony, in 1993) what he had done, he came under widespread condemnation...just this very month, A.D. Coleman said the discovery affected Doisneau's credibility, saying that by  "allowing its frequent republication as a perceptive cultural insider’s documentation of spontaneous public behavior, that forced confession calls into question not just this one image but all of Doisneau’s purportedly sociological observation of French life. (Certainly it forever changed the way I experience that photograph, converting it instantly and irrevocably from reportage into theater.)" Doisneau was upset and troubled by the effect it was having on his reputation up until his death the next year.

Wouldn't it have been better if there had been an easy and conventional way for Doisneau to indicate that it was not a naturalistic, "found," candid documentary photograph right from the start? By, perhaps, using some label for it like photoart? Then no one would have been surprised to learn that it had been staged.

As I said in this post, I don't get to determine terminology, and no one cares what I think. But the fact remains, I do think it would be handy if we had an easy, widely accepted way to distinguish broadly how camera-creations are operating, in the absence of more precise information and when they fall outside of specific genres with accepted norms. What should the terms be? I don't know. I'm not good at coining words. Photograph/photoart; straight/created; naturalistic/inventive; accurate/modified; whatever. Whatever they might be, I wish such conventional terms existed and that they would become widely accepted.

Remain Open to Your Ignorance

A picture that went viral recently.

This was posted on Facebook by Stacy Wehrman Feeley of her three-year-old daughter. She wrote, "I took this picture because initially I thought it was funny. I was going to send it to my husband to show what our mischievous little three-year-old was up to. However, The moment she told me what she was doing I broke down. She was practicing for a lockdown drill at her preschool and what you should do if you are stuck in a bathroom. At that moment all innocence of what I thought my three-year-old possessed was gone."

It's a good example of what I'm always preaching, which is that there is significance to most photographs even if you don't know what it is. Stacy's shift in understanding was a pretty wide swing, but I think it's always wise to remember that a) many photographs are made to be instantly understandable, but b) it's wise to work at maintaining an open mind about the real meaning of what there is to see in photographs. Don't make the mistake of assuming you know what you're actually seeing just from a superficial glance.

Mike
(Thanks to Stacy Feeley)

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Fred: "In 1955 when I was in second grade in a brand new suburban grammar school we practiced 'duck and cover' drills. I can remember thinking as I looked out from under my little desk with the chrome legs at the expanse of windows along the class room's outside wall that if the bomb or missile was that close the desk was not going to protect me. But I was seven not three, and a bomb is much less personal than an individual with a gun. The monster under the bed or in the closet should be the only thing that a child should be scared of."

Aaron Welton: "Because we always bring our own experiences and understandings to table when viewing a photograph, I always like to look at photographs with minimal or no background information first. Once learning the back story, I can reinterpret things and frequently end with a dual meaning. This photograph is fun because I saw it on FB but failed to read about it. Now, I've been allowed to reinterpret it. Thank you!"

Specialists

It's easy for humans to be dismissive. It's an integral feature of human nature.

I am not good with plants, so I've always been happily dismissive of flower pictures. But in buying a new house I have inherited the previous owner's garden, which I have to say has been an ongoing surprise and delight throughout the whole Spring. There is always something new coming along, sometimes where you least expect it.

So naturally I have been taking pictures of it. Not because I have any deathless need to commemorate flowers, but because I tend to take pictures of whatever interests me at any moment.

And I have to say, it's not actually that easy.

Who knew? I always assumed taking flower pictures was sort of drop-dead easy. Wrong-O, tulip-bulb-head. I've actually had kind of a hard time with it.

As with anything else it requires observation. Flowers come and go. You basically get to say, "Oh, that's nice," and then a few days goes by and you forget to look at them again and that's it, they're gone.

And everything's sort of chaotic, too. But if you stay sharp-eyed, you can kind of guess that something might be about to happen.

I'm no expert, but doesn't it look like something's about to happen here? I'm keeping my eyes on these bad boys, and will keep you posted.

Specialists
I had occasion to exchange words yesterday with a reader named Tony Roberts, who is a very accomplished golf photographer. (Check out his CV—if you follow golf, you've seen his work.)

Specializing has always struck me as a smart business strategy, and one that has the potential to make your life more fun, too, because you get to spend your life around what really interests you. I've known of people who specialized in thoroughbred racehorse portraits, motorcycle racing, cars (for advertising), cars (for editorial), sailboats, weddings of course, portraits of children, portraits of babies, architecture (interiors, exteriors), all sorts of things—the list is probably very long. I probably wouldn't have made a good specialist, because I'm distracted easily and have lots of interests. But the idea has always appealed to me.

Even art photographers specialize, in a way, some of them. Amateurs too—you might know people who are passionate about landscapes or trains or animals or something else.

I wouldn't want to specialize in flowers, myself. But I have more respect lately for those who do.

Mike
(Thanks to Tony)

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

jeffdmontgomery: "I consider myself to be a generalist as a photographer because I am a university photographer. I shoot athletics, grip and grins, theater, campus life, portraits, summer camps, architecture, food, and the list goes on and on. However when I take photos for myself I tend to point my camera in the direction of flowers. I like all kinds of flowers from wild ones growing on the side of the road to those in gardens. I really believe that being a generalist at work helps me be a better flower photographer."

Rene: "Mike, Over the years of reading your blog, I must admit that I did notice your distain for flower photography which always rankled me as I spent a solid decade doing mostly just that. I'm glad you've finally seen the light, as it were.  :-)  Shooting flowers (especially macro shots), particularly in the wild, can be devilishly hard. I've frequently spent as much as an hour and a half or longer on one flower, just waiting for the wind to die down and the light to be just right same time. After obsessing on flowers for a decade, I finally did burn out on them and couldn't shoot another one no matter how nice."

Kenneth Tanaka: "Specialization is very much essential to achieving success in many (most?) fields, particularly photography. Within what most people would call "flower snapping", for example, there are folks who specialize in photographing gardens and those who are expert in botanical documentation. I've met one of each and can tell you they are just as manic as neurosurgical specialists, particularly the botanical shooters. Then, of course, there are art photographers who shoot flowers, usually dead ones. LFI has a very nice feature on the work of such a photographer named Mike Tinney."

Steve Jacob: "To be financially successful as a photographer it's almost compulsory to specialise in one area, understand the market thoroughly and make sure you know where the commercial meat is. Only then is it possible to define a strategy and build up the competence, contacts and client base necessary to make money.

"The problem is that it becomes very hard to do anything else. You become type-cast, you are constantly competing for work, and if the market turns down, you can't reinvent yourself easily.

"Moreover, constant repetition of the same routines can become boring, and it gets increasingly hard for some to maintain any enthusiasm. A well established market is generally conservative. Taking risks is, well, risky.

"If you are one of those at the top of your game, you have some scope for taking the odd risk, in which case everyone else will soon follow, but in the main your paycheck still depends on giving customers what they want. I think many well known photographers are in that very rut—Steve McCurry included.

"Being an artist by nature makes it even harder. The market for 'art photography' is predominantly one of well worn stereotypical clichés of the kind you see on the walls of coffee bars and new apartments. The main market is interior decorators.

"To be a successful artist on one's own terms requires an extraordinary level of integration with the art establishment itself, which creates a market for you through its contacts with wealthy patrons. It is very seldom something you do in isolation, and in its own way, it is just as prescriptive. 'Be different' is just as tedious as 'be the same.'

"Hobbyists have no such concerns. Much of the time, hobby photography is just an extension of another consuming interest (or set of interests) such as your kids, travel, ornithology, motor racing, trains, horticulture, etc. It's a way to be involved in an activity you love, as is blogging or writing books.

"It just so happens that some hobbyists are also exceptional artisans and artists, and having complete freedom to do whatever they want, they sometimes come up with ideas and styles that are truly interesting. Not often perhaps, a very small minority possibly, but it does happen all the same. You just have to do a lot of trawling to find them."

JOHN GILLOOLY (partial comment): "I believe in most cases the type of job you end up in is a direct reflection of your personality type. For me specializing would not work as I need to be doing something different all the time. I would assume I first chose photography as a profession because it satisfied many of my needs as a person. Then once a photographer, you gravitate to certain areas of the business based upon what is suitable for your personality."

If You're a Pro, What Would You Think—?

Just a brief idle question. Last Friday I posted a link to "Frecklehead Goes Global," a post by English professional Chris Floyd about a personal iPhone snapshot of his, originally posted on Instagram, that was chosen by Apple's advertising agency for use in Apple's global "World Gallery" campaign, "which shows work by 41 photographers across 85 cities in 26 countries." He didn't mention if he'd been paid anything for the usage, but the general assumption seems to be that he wasn't. Probably because pros know that Apple's agency didn't need to pay for the work, and ad agencies don't tend to pay for things unless they have to. There's supply and demand to consider—the agency was looking for iPhone snaps on Instagram, so it's unlikely they were hard up for choices.

Now, I'm not judging, so don't kill me. It's a campaign using mostly amateur work, and amateurs aren't in business to be paid. Still, Chris happens to be a pro. Even so, he was clearly excited and delighted by the attention the photo received. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he and the other 40 photographers weren't paid. (Other than being covered in glory and honor...sort of the ultimate instance of the old adage "you'll get good exposure from it" much dreaded by exploited "creatives" in many fields.)

So I'm just asking—if you're a professional now or have been in the past, how would you feel about that if it were you? On the one hand, it was a personal snapshot, and yes, it's fun and gratifying to have something you did seen on such a scale. 

On the other hand, your picture is being used in a global advertising campaign by one of the richest corporations in the history of the world—in a straight-up professional rights contract, that would easily be worth tens of thousands of dollars. Which Apple can certainly afford.

How do those scales balance in your head?

Reason I ask is that when I was a pro—basically from '88 to '93—I did a lot of little jobs, some of which were almost more work than they were worth, but occasionally I would score a bigger, fatter job, and those occasional "scores" more or less kept me afloat. (Although, after the still-mystifying market downturn of '91—sort of the 1929 of professional photography—those good, "rich" jobs suddenly got fewer and further between).

Again, I'm not judging. There's no controversy here and I'm not trying to manufacture one. It's a hypothetical question—I don't even know the facts. And let's not speculate about Chris per se...he posted his thoughts and he's clearly happy about the whole thing, and he doesn't owe us any insider information about his compensation or lack of it. It's just that this seems like a sort of "signature case," an extreme version of an old, old issue that photographers have been bedeviled by literally since the 1800s...rights and payment, remuneration vs. intangibles, benefit vs. exploitation.

Just curious about how you'd feel about it if it were you.

Mike

UPDATE: It appears Apple did pay for usage rights, but participants were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) regarding the particulars. This might have been because the professionals negotiated better payment than the amateurs and the agency didn't want the amateurs to know about it? (Again I'm speculating. I should stop that. But it's always troublesome when there are disparities like that.) Several commenters had more about this. —Ed.

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Jim Bullard: "I'd want to be paid. Just because something is 'personal work' or a snapshot doesn't lessen its value to a worldwide ad program for a huge corporation. They are, in effect, making money off my work through the sales it generates and I'd want a cut. That's just fair. If I found a new iPhone in its packaging on the street that a delivery guy dropped, they'd want it back or to be paid for it. Why is my photo that they found on the web any different?"

Thomas Fitzgerald: "Apple does pay for those images. The terms are under NDA which is why anyone who was in the programme can't talk about it, although some did. (I was in the first round last year). Apple was in no way taking advantage." 

Jim Richardson: "I wasn't involved in Apple's World Gallery campaign, but I was involved with Apple when they used one of my iPhone pictures (from Scotland) during the launch event of the iPhone 6. Apple paid for use of the image. The rate my agency (National Geographic Creative) negotiated was appropriate for that kind of usage. We were happy with the transaction. In the case you are talking about for Apple's World Gallery my own opinion is that of course they should pay. It's an advertising usage, multiple countries, prime display, highly valuable to Apple.

"Usage rates should always be determined by the value of the picture to the client, not the value to the photographer."

Arthur: "There's never a bad time to remind people of the classic Harlan Ellison interview on the subject of 'publicity' vs 'pay.'"

Mike replies: Yes, everybody should see that at least once. I've posted that video on TOP...and eventually decided that, given the subject, I should pay Harlan for it. I did, and I got a great reply from him. Here's the post.

David Paterson: "Speaking as a retired professional photographer lucky enough to have enjoyed a 35-year career, I doubt if there was a single year during which I was not asked several times to work for nothing, or next to nothing. The question always came from some ad agency and instead of cash there would be—as you say—'good coverage' or 'prestige,' or they might say they regard this client as a 'charity.' The calculation you had to make was not 'can the client really afford my fees' (they always can), but 'how much do I value my relationship with this art buyer or art director' (who is doing the asking). If I thought there was the potential for good, proper, paid-for work I would go along with it once, but if the same outfit tried the same play again, I would reluctantly turn down this 'opportunity.'

"The problems of obtaining payment in the modern Internet age come down mainly to supply and demand. There are billions of images out there available for free; this echelon of photography has effectively been de-monetised and all photography has been de-valued; why would any corporation pay for something they can get for nothing? Right and wrong no longer come into this; we're beyond that; it's just how things are."

Lorne Black: "According to this year-old article at Cult of Mac the photographers are paid, but sign a non-disclosure about the terms. Dunno it the same is true for this year's ad campaign."

Warren: "As you mention, 'you'll get good exposure from it' is a manipulative abuse heard in many artistic fields. As a musician who has heard this and seen it, this sort of thing makes my blood boil. Anyone who allows their work to be exploited this way does their profession serious harm, victimizing themselves and their peers. Businesses which seek to use this strategy deserve contempt and scorn. While I strive to avoid rudeness or hostility I am always blunt about rejecting such offers. I am also not shy about expressing my thoughts to colleagues who perform for hypothetical incentives in lieu of real compensation."

Richard Parkin: "Don't you think it's interesting that out of the zillions of images on Instagram they picked one by a professional photographer? I don't know how many images they are using in the campaign or whether any/all are by professionals but it tends to show that maybe the camera is not so important.  ;-) "

Jake: "I'm certainly happy that I decided against photography as a profession when that option existed many decades ago but as a happy snapper today, I'd be more than pleased if Apple would use a photo I'd made with one of their iPhones. That is, if I had an iPhone."

Richard N: "Chris Floyd isn't stupid. Of course he got paid."

cameraman: "You can't eat a blue ribbon."

Bob Rosinsky: "Back in the day when I was getting commissions to photograph dogs, the Museum of Modern Art gift shop contacted me. A buyer asked if MoMA could reproduce my dog photos to insert in their new line of picture frames—the kind used for family photos, vacation snapshots, etc. I asked how many different images they wanted to use. The lady listed five or six different pictures. She added that MoMA would be marketing the frames in its catalog, so my pictures would be seen there too. I quoted $500 per photo—a reasonable price. She said they had no budget, but they would give me photo credits, and I'd be getting a lot of exposure.

"I asked if in lieu of payment, MoMA would loan me a few paintings from their collection to decorate my living room. I explained I would paste a card next to each artwork: On loan from MoMA, NYC. I explained it would be good exposure for the museum—a lot of people in central Florida are not aware of MoMA.

"She said 'forget it.' I told her, 'you're passing up a great opportunity for free exposure.'"  

Tim Swan (partial comment): "In my experience as both a designer and a photographer, ad agencies and large companies are the most likely people to not use art without payment or clearly negotiated compensation. They fear copyright lawsuits, and—especially designers—know what it's like for people to want free work in exchange for the exposure."

Twit

Follow TOP on Twitter at @TheOnlinePhotog and get early alerts to new articles, sales, deals, news and stray thoughts.

 

 

Sunday (Wait, What?) Open Mike: Getting Down the Road (OT)

[Ed. Note: ...Er, now this is embarrassing.

Having just changed the schedule, moving "Open Mike" to Monday and reserving Sunday for book-length projects, I have to...well, change back. But just for this week. I have a medical appointment tomorrow that's going to take up most of the day, so I won't be able to work much tomorrow. So, today, an Open Mike just like old times, and then I'll get to the new schedule next week.

Classic "SNAFU" ("situation normal, all f----d up"). Sorry. I'm going to have to keep doing this blogging thing for another decade, because clearly one decade has not been long enough for me to learn how to do it right.]

So do you have a perfect car? I mean not necessarily own it, but know what it is? (Another potentially interesting statistic that will never be measured: how many people actually own their ideal car.) Different for everyone, I know.

But do you? I do, now. The thought is making me happy.

ND (fourth generation) Mazda Miata, 2016–

I went to the local Mazda dealership the other day to inquire about an SUV, and ended up—well, taking a test drive in the new 2016 ND (fourth generation) MX-5 Miata. I know, I'm not good at staying on task.

For those of you who have not followed along, I owned a well-used 2001 Miata for a happy three years, but sold it to help raise money for a house move. Bought it for ten, sold it for six, put $1,400 of maintenance into it while I owned it—expensive, in other words. Got my money's worth.

The new one is...perfect. Fits my 6'1.5" 230-lbs. frame like a glove; pedals are in the right place; steering is magnificent, despite being electric; brake feel is good; top is super-easy to raise and lower (and I thought the old one was easy); corners like...well, a Miata, which is to say, will put a smile on your face every time; and it has enough naturally-aspirated power. Just enough, but that's part of the package: you're supposed to have fun staying in the right gear and keeping your momentum up, not relying on brute power to overwhelm all the inherent problems of proceeding quickly. For a car to be fun, it has to have a manual transmission, but for a manual transmission to be fun, you have to have a small motor. Didn't Top Gear once take a Corvette Z06 from a dead stop to over 160 MPH in one gear—fifth? No fun in having a manual if the engine makes it into an automatic.

And of course the engine is in the proper place, there are enough seats but not too many, the top can be removed, the car is light and small, the correct wheels are driven, and the transmission is operated in the way God intended. It all fits together. For example, with a small motor and stick shift, you have to be able to hear the engine so you know what it's doing...which is another great reason for the car to be a convertible. It's the whole interrelated package that makes life so right, you see.

Bad hat cars
Miatas have a reputation as "chick cars." Although I am not a chick, I fail to see any inherent problem in liking things women like. They are typically less idiotic than we men are about many things, shoes being the main exception that I can think of off the top of my head.

Miatas got the label because, when the NB (second generation) model was new, in 1999, the take-rate among females climbed just above 50% for something like a year or 18 months, up from about 35% for the first car, before subsiding again. This highly alarming fact caused the hysterical macho males of the world—and their designated proxies, automotive writers—to spin up into a frantic tizzy from which they have not yet recovered. Because, of course, as they and all six- to ten-year-old-boys know, girls have cooties, and eww.

Actually, like many such urban myths, that one is flat not true. Miatas are unusual in that they are bought overwhelmingly by males—two-thirds vs. one-third. That's according to Mazda, applied to new cars. (For most vehicles the ratio is within single digits of 50/50.) I would bet a hundred bucks that for used cars the percentage is even more skewed. But that's another of those forever-unmeasurable stats.

Granted, Corvettes sell even more heavily to males than Miatas do. And of course we all know what men buy when they want people to think they are Ram Tough, no offense. (Forgive me. I hate pickup trucks when they're used as cars.)

However, like the Corvette, the Miata is bought mostly by...bald and gray males. Wearing hats.

The reason for that is clear, too—two-seater RWD cars are "toy" cars, seldom usable as sole vehicles except by a few hardcore types. Not only are older men pathetically trying to recapture some of the élan of their younger years, not only are they trying to realize the idle automotive dreams of their youth before it's too late (which was why I bought mine), but, well, they're more likely to have enough money for a second car.

That's too bad, of course, because the Miata is the perfect car for anyone in their twenties. But twentysomethings have to drive well-used beater Camrys or Impalas or Accords or Fusions because they can't afford anything else. Life is unjust. Look at it this way: they have more sex, too. Life giveth and life taketh away.

Incidentally, there's a reason for the hat thing. My dermatologist recently suggested I start wearing hats outdoors lest I get sunburn, and eventually skin cancer, on my bald spot. I chose this and it's awesome.

Watch for convertible Corvettes and Miatas and notice who's driving. Chances are it'll be a grumpy-looking older male in a bad hat. Bro!  :-)

And they only look grumpy. If you could see them better you would notice a faint smile, which is how they register happiness and contentment.

A photographer's car
I would like to assert that the Miata is the perfect photographer's car. Small, handy, and maneuverable; with the top down, offering an unparalleled view of the earth and the heavens; and you can keep the camera handy on the well-bolstered seat next to you or else in the well-bolstered lap of the postulated sexy lady in the seat.

I say I would like to assert that, but of course it's just craven low-down rationalizing BS.

Soft stock
The new Miata is set up soft. It's a bit detuned; steering and clutch are light; a fair amount of body roll has been left in. This is surely by design, in the same way that the Subaru BRZ comes with skinny tires so they don't grip too well (the better to drift with, my dear). Many older buyers will want their Miatas not as sports cars but as sporty cruisers; and the wife doesn't want her teeth to rattle every time the adventuring couple encounters rough pavement.

Modified 10th Anniversary Miata that has an aftermarket turbocharger

Mazda is, of course, being crafty like the fox. The passion, the enthusiasm that is Miata mania is greatly nourished by the flourishing aftermarket for mods and parts. Flyin' Miata, Good-Win Racing, Moss Miata, and dozens of others sell a proliferation of bits and pieces to help you or your mechanic set up your Miata exactly as you want it. Tuner ECU calibration, turbochargers and superchargers, suspension kits, bigger brakes, all sorts of goodies. I bought super-duper spark plugs and spark-plug wires for my '01 and was amazed at how much of a difference it made. Of course Miata enthusiasts all have their favorite exhausts, of which there are dozens, if not hundreds, to allow you to get the noise you like. I'm kinda partial to the Racing Beat Power Pulse myself. Flyin' Miata will even sell you an exhaust with a button on the key fob that allows you to switch it into quiet mode, loud (bypass) mode, or a combination of the two—quiet unless you go hard on the throttle, which triggers a butterfly valve that lets the engine make a fine noise. Now I ask you, what kind of hat-wearing older gentleman would not want to get something like that for Christmas?

Buy it! Buy it! Buy it!
My "perfect car" really does have to be something affordable. Even in my daydreams, I do not hanker after supercars. I wouldn't want to be responsible for a finicky low-volume supercar; I'd resent the through-the-roof cost of maintenance even if I could afford it; and it's a matter of principle and of perspective, too. I don't like ostentation, and for me to feel comfortable driving a car, it would have to be something an ordinary non-1%er citizen a) could theoretically afford and b) wouldn't envy too much. I don't mind sticking out, but I wouldn't want to be "sticking anyone's nose in it" when I drive by. That's just me, and I'm probably in the minority.

Since I've lived here in Western New York State, I've been seeing a new car in my future. But I will most likely never own a brand new ND Miata. I already had my open-top roadster Summers, and I'm very happy I went ahead and did that. But the cars are light and rear-wheel drive—in my '01 I once got stuck on the ice on a hill so gentle and mild it was actually kinda hard to tell it was a hill. We have hills you could fall down around here. And big news on the new one is that although the trunk isn't any bigger, it's actually shaped differently enough so that you can put a couple of brown paper sacks full of groceries in it standing upright and not crush them with the trunklid! Wow! Technology!

My problem isn't that I couldn't possibly afford an ND...my problem is that once I owned it, I would still need a car. Something that will transport two dogs and occasionally lumber, that can claw its way up steep hills and isn't too fazed by Winter. Something like that CX-5 SUV I went to the Mazda dealer to look at, before my head got turned.

But O, Forester, O, RAV4, though I glimpse you on the horizon heading my way on an intersecting trajectory, you are not where my heart lies. In dreams, in heaven, I know how I'll be getting down the road.  :-) 

Mike

"Open Mike" is the off-topic page of TOP. We're not quite settled yet on when it appears.

Original contents copyright 2016 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:

Eric Brody: "I know how it feels. I just sold my 2007 Miata because my wife hated it, too close to the ground; my two black lab mixes did not like to ride in it, and I live in Western Oregon, where it rains a fair amount. Summary, it did not get much use. When I used it more, before my daughter left the country and I inherited the dogs, it was a lot of fun, most fun I've ever had in a car. It had a six-speed, and was way too fast (though I never got a ticket). I'm older now, definitely need a hat, and am most certainly gray, as are my dogs. The fellow who bought it has a wife and three kids. I hope he gets to use it."

Joe: "I love your phrase 'hysterical macho' since 'hysterical' originally meant 'a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus.' Plays right into your theme. You meant to do that, right?"

Mike replies: I did. Wordsmithy being my thang. Thank you for noticing.

Russell Guzewicz: "I'd like to think the new Volvo V60 wagon with the upgrades by Polestar would fit this families needs and that new Miata certainly recaptures some of  the élan of Lotus's younger years."

Mike replies: Ah, and you noticed that. My readers are sharp-eyed today.  :-)

Michael Matthews: "Lease it! Lease it! Lease it! When I shopped for a Miata in September, 2012, my eight year old Civic trade-in brought the monthly price of the Mazda down to $147 per month plus tax. With that cost—needing only oil and filter changes as maintenance during the 36 month lease—and a bumper-to-bumper factory warranty, the offer was too good to refuse. The car sits and drives like my '59 MGA did 50 years ago, but it has all the construction and technical advantages of a new car. It is exactly what the MG should have become, rather than rolling over dead in the face of U.S. emissions and safety rules imposed in the 1970s. Even if you have to buy a used Subaru for bad weather the extra outlay is worth it. You are living in top-down, two seat, manual shift, RWD heaven. Go for it!"

Mike replies: You readers are a very bad influence on me. And I am very appreciative, thank you.

Moose:

[Moose in an allegedly "proper" car and undeniably snazzy hat  —Ed.]

Michael Martin-Morgan: "Bentley Continental. Saves buying the hat."

JohnMFlores: "Not that I would recommend it for upstate NY, but I've made it through NJ winters with a Miata, four snow tires, and 80 pounds of kitty litter. With my current car, a Honda S2000, I can make it up a nearly Finger Lakes steep grade with 3" of fresh snow thanks to four snows and 50 pound plates in the trunk."

Mike replies: Like I said, hardcore.

Mani Sitaraman: "The Mazda MX-5 lists (and sells) for US$135,000 here in Singapore. That's not an extra zero; cars are very heavily taxed here."

Mike replies: I know! My Mom and stepfather lived in Singapore for three years when my stepfather was on loan from Harvard (or was it HIID?) to the National University of Singapore to establish a counterpart to the Kennedy School's Mason Fellowship program. They paid, I think, $29k for a well-used Toyota econocar, and $5k taxes annually to boot! Americans get gasoline that is effectively heavily subsidized, too. I've seen expert estimates which said that if the cost in military assets used to guard global oil shipping were added directly to gasoline, we'd all be paying $12 a gollon. We're not very grateful for the advantages we have here because we're just not very aware of them.

Alexander Thorp: "There are two features of automobile life in Germany which you might like: winter tyres and seasonal registrations. With winter tyres you can get up and down snowy hills in RWD cars with no ESP such as my E34 BMW 525i, and they are now mandatory when driving in winter conditions—you get a fine and points on your license if caught with summer tyres in snow. Meanwhile with seasonal registrations you can buy one car for winter (practical Subaru Forester, etc.) and one for summer, and just pay tax and insurance for each for those months of the year for which it is registered."

Mike replies: Whoa, I really, really like that second idea. Especially given the cost of insurance. I would go for that if it were possible here.