The Online Photographer

The Fateful Plunge

Well then, I've done it. Yikes, and gulp!

My first three computers were all-in-ones, successive versions of the basic original Macintosh. The last of those, called the "Classic," didn't last very long—it was conservative, casting backwards, and progress was afoot in the computing Universe. After that came an early Powerbook, which was revolutionary in its own way but still an all-in-one. As screens got larger, I began to wish for what by then was standard in the PC world but persistingly antithetical for Apple: a separate computer and monitor. Serious and luxurious.

Can't recall when that started. I know I very much wanted a Power Mac G4 Cube, the first of Steve Jobs' design-driven CPUs. It was very expensive—the hazy figure of $2,000 comes to mind—and of course I didn't already own a display. As the Cube came out in the Summer of 2000, that means I've been wanting a separate computer and monitor for at least 16 years.

And I've finally done it! Encouraged by certain friends who are now on the hotseat (no they're not—just kidding), and after weeks of research into the arcana of displays (I don't quite understand half of some of the reviews), I gulped hard, took the plunge, and ordered an NEC PA272w-BK-SV. That's the one with the included colorimeter. (The ColorMunki Photo with any monitor is also a very powerful contender.)

A nice thing happened, though. Just as I was getting set to order the NEC at $1,549—literally that minute—the screen refreshed and the price dropped by $300.

I have high hopes for the NEC's non-glare screen

It's the Rolls-Royce option, at least for me. But it's a business expense, and certainly my computers give me back more than my money's worth—my current one has been on and working all day almost every day since 2010 (I do mean almost every day—one year I worked 352 days. I even packed it into the car and took it on vacation with me one year—Lulu and the giant box of the 27" iMac shared the back seat). But it's always tough to part with such vasty bergs of cash.

So I have thirty days to figure out if a) it's an improvement when printing with the Epson P600 and b) if I can figure out how it works. Meanwhile, I still haven't decided what to do about a new computer; given the expense of the monitor, I'm back to looking at Mac Minis. Along the winding way of my long life with Macs, though, I've learned that trying to get away on the cheap can sometimes be false economy; I'll be wary of that.

More updates anon, if you care.

Mike
(Big thanks to all of you who contribute to TOP in any 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.

See past the glare
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Antonis: "I have spent a year with this exact monitor (and spent $30 more than you!) and I can assure you it's a pleasure to look at all day long—and, yes, to work with as well. My calibration setup has to anticipate how my Photoshop files will print not just on my trusty old Epson 3800, but, crucially, in the pages of the New York Times and such for movie ads. I don't miss my old Eizo and saw no reason to spring for the latest from that brand. If you are looking to buy a Mac 'on the cheap' don't neglect to look at refurbs from Apple or OWC."

'Fishermen and Kings' (Olive Edis)

Photo courtesy Norfolk Museums Service (Cromer Museum)

Self-portrait by Olive Edis, c. 1912

Oh, for Pete's sake—I've forgotten Olive Edis!

Olive was the instigation for the British-themed post yesterday. And then what did I go and do but leave her out altogether. I'd say I'm getting absent-minded, but I've always been absent-minded. I'm just getting more absent-minded. (One of my takeaways from the otherwise overwhelming The Thing About Life is that One Day You'll Be Dead by David Shields, a book about aging, is that as we get older, we tend to get better at the things we were always good at and worse at the things we were always bad at. Which means I ought to be a superhero as a lover by now, and yet...oh, never mind.)

Anyway. The excellent Olive Edis (later Edis-Galsworthy), who was a discovery for me, is in the middle of a show called "Fishermen and Kings" at the Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery, in Norwich, a city in East Anglia, an area rich in photographic history. "Although relatively unknown," says a posting at the Heritage Lottery Fund, "Olive Edis was one of the most important photographers of the first half of the 20th century and the first accredited female war photographer. Edis also used portraiture to record the lives of influential women of the time to demonstrate the changing role of women in society." There are 190 of her photographs on display in Norwich, taken between 1900 and 1955.

Here's another self-portrait—taken for a tour, she's wearing the badge of the National War Museum to signify her status as an official war photographer.

There's more (much more) here.

Mike
(What's worse, I can't recall who sent me this tip—thanks, whoever it was. UPDATE: It was Andrew Lamb, who sent me the link to this article at the Times Literary Supplement. Thanks Andrew!)

ADDENDUM:

Mrs. Einstein and Albert were leaving the house for a dinner. Before they got in the car, Albert turns to his wife and says, "Do I look all right?"

"Albert," says Mrs. Einstein, "your socks don't match. Go back in the house and put on matching socks."

Albert is gone for ten minutes, too long a time, and when he returns he is wearing one sock.

"Albert, you got distracted and forgot what you were doing, didn't you? You were to put on matching socks."

"Oh, yes, I remember," says Albert, and disappears into the house again.

This time he is gone even longer, and when he returns he is wearing no socks at all.

"Albert! We're going to be late! Go back in the house and put on socks!"

This time he is not gone very long, but when he returns, he is again wearing socks that don't match. "I've forgotten what I went in there for," he says, "But I noticed I'd neglected to put on socks. Have I forgotten anything else?" he asks.

"You look fine, dear," says Mrs. Einstein. "Get in the car."

Best joke I know about absentmindedness.

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.

Remember
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

David Miller: "thank you for the introduction to Olive Edis. Wow! (And other inarticulate exclamations of amazement.) Let's see—with the money I'm going to save because these images have wiped out my desire to buy new flash equipment, could I get a cheap flight to Norwich before the exhibition closes?"

Andy Crouch: "It's a great exhibition in my home town of Norwich, England. The exhibition is in the Norman Keep of the Castle in the centre of our 'fine city.' The Castle has had many great exhibitions, e.g. Jeff Koons, and a permanent display of Norfolk Artists. If you're over give the Castle a look! N.B. I haven't received any money for saying this!"

Looks Like It's Great Britain's Turn...

1985 and now: a brother and sister, or a couple who are still
together? Don't know. Photo by Chris Porsz.

I love projects like this, and (the Design You Trust article's claim notwithstanding) there have been many of them over the years, from The Rephotographic Survey Project on down.

Rephotography is thought to consider only sites, but just as many have been done of people (for example, Young Me / Now Me). The new one from which the photos above were taken was done by a professional paramedic and amateur documentary photographer named Chris Porsz from Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. The project is called Reunions. (I don't think Chris has much of a gift for titles—his earlier book, New England, is not about New England, but about newer towns in England. You know what I always say, "editors needed everywhere." But I digress.) Over the course of a decade, Chris tracked down the same people in Peterborough who he originally photographed as much as 40 years ago, and recreated the poses, sometimes in the same places.

Some examples of such comparative rephotography inevitably work better than others, but it's always fascinating to me how photographs themselves change in time, as well as how photographs show change. There's a book of Chris's project, Reunions, that you can buy directly from him, or you can see various examples of his work in this article at Design You Trust or elsewhere.

Fascinating.

Britain's turn for the great GX8
Looks like it's Great Britain's turn for the excellent deal on the Panasonic GX8, the Micro 4/3 camera I liked so much and keep yammering on about.

My further rummaging in the wilds of the Internets has suggested that the "shutter shock" problem that the GX8 has been asked to shoulder alone is only relevant with certain lenses...a statement which of course I am in no position to guarantee, which is why I have to be careful when I talk about it. But although I have read many good things about this kit lens, the 12–60mm ƒ/3.5–5.6—lenses generally really are good these days, and this one seems to be a case in point—I haven't heard anything about people detecting any evidence of shutter shock with this camera/lens combination.

I can't guarantee that.

Anyway, you can pre-order the camera and lens in the UK for only £869. It's also available with the 14–42mm lens, with the excellent 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 (which also is allegedly immune to shutter shock), or with the 14–140mm. The body only is already out of stock.

Jane the incomparable
Finally in the UK category is a new book that came out a year ago of the work of Jane Bown. (No, not "Brown"—no "r." It's Bown. I believe it's pronounced not like "bone" but like the bow of a ship with an "n" added on—rhymes with crown.) A modest photojournalist who made unfussy pictures with minimalist equipment, Jane's spare yet eloquent style puts her into the very top rank as far as my opinion is concerned—she's among my own favorites, certainly. I admire her greatly and always find things to love in her work, as well as things to admire and emulate. She died around this season of the year two years ago, after a successful career that saw her receive appropriate appreciation and recognition as the years warped and woofed onward, and at the end. The trajectory of her career was something that went just about right for her, and stands as a model for what every photographer of her talents ought to get.

(A brief insight into her character, quoted from Wikipedia: "She described her childhood as happy, brought up in Dorset by women whom she believed to be her aunts. Bown said she was upset to realise, at the age of twelve, that one of them was her mother and her birth was illegitimate. This discovery precipitated her into delinquent behaviour in her adolescence, and acting coldly towards her mother.")

The book is A Lifetime of Looking. It's also available in the U.S., but barely (a handful of used and new copies from third-party sellers).

Like Harry Gruyaert's book was for color photographers—inspirational!

Mike
(Thanks to Marcin Wuu)

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.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Peter Wright (partial comment): "I have A Lifetime of Looking by Bown (and the Gruyaert). I agree, it's inspirational, and should be in your collection if you have any interest in street, portrait, or the UK in the second half of the 20th century. However I was astonished when I read that there is no 'r' in her name. I had to go and check the covers of my books by her—and right enough! All this time I was 'seeing' an 'r' where one didn't exist! (Especially ironic given the title of the book!) So that's my humbling experience for the day...."

Tom Burke: "I haven't seen that particular Brown book, but I have seen other collections of her work. She worked for The Observer, a U.K. Sunday newspaper, and her work didn't necessarily appear every week, so normally you just saw one portrait in isolation, once a week or less. In that context I think it works brilliantly. But I did wonder when I saw a number of her images all at once if perhaps there was some similarity, possibly even a certain sameness, to the collection. Of course, it could also be that portraits aren't my thing. Certainly her work is highly regarded here, and has been for a long time."

Tom Burke: "(D**n spelling auto-correction! I wrote her name correctly....)"

Random Excellence: David Carson's Supermoon

Photo by David Carson. There's a nice vertical version at his website.

This past weekend was the "supermoon," so called—the time at which the moon comes closest to the Earth, and is at its largest and brightest—and the National Geographic collected 11 photographs of it by photojournalists. This shot by David Carson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is particularly excellent, although I think Tom Fox's shot is original and all of them are enjoyable to see.

I tried to photograph the supermoon too, being a lunatic. (That is, the moon is one of those "trigger subjects" for me—every time I see a nice moon scene I reflexively think it's an opportunity for a photograph. Which is lunacy, of course.) The full moon rising through the trees behind my house is a lovely sight. Unfortunately it's way beyond the DR abilities of any of my digital devices, because there's a steep ridge behind the house and the moon is already high above the horizon by the time it rises into view from here.

Here's the scene exposed for the moon...

And here it is exposed for the scene...

Those two shots are a whopping 13 stops away from each other, if I counted 'em up right. Way beyond the capacity of the aging Sony A900 to record. The top file has no information in the dark areas—it's pure noise—and the highlights in the file on the bottom are thoroughly blown.

HDR is a wonderful tool—I use it all the time—but with this camera, no exposure in between these two extremes has acceptable detail in both the moon and the trees. Even though I want only slight information in the trees, that is, black on dark gray in a B&W print.

How to?
So what's the solution? Well, the way to photograph this scene would be to do a multi-exposure HDR merge, which is beyond my capability (because in general it's beyond my interests—with photo technique you learn to do what you want to do, and the rest you let go).

And the way to shoot very bright subjects in general is to balance the lighting. That is, with the moon, catch it when there's still light in the sky, so the brightness range of the whole subject—called, not surprisingly, the subject brightness range or SBR—is within the range of the sensor or film to record. It's possible, of course, to "shoot* the moon" when the brightness of the moon and the sky are nearly the same (here's an example of that; photo by Becky Anderson).

What I ended up doing was driving out to the countryside, stopping on a lonely abandoned road, killing** the car engine and the lights, and just enjoying the sight of the moonlight on the fields and farms and distant hills. The cold night wind in the telephone wires made an eerie hum like a distant keening. 

Getting back to the original subject: nice work David Carson!

Mike
(Thanks to Charles Heuer)

*Not with a gun.

**Not murdering or assassinating. I turned it off.

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.

Over the moon
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Tom Walton: "I admire Mr Carson's editorial discipline. I would want, with every fiber of my being, to nudge that moon ever so slightly to the right. On the other hand, the slight lack of symmetry adds a little tension to the image."

MJFerron: "See that photo by David Carson? This is why I did not attempt to shoot the moon. (Nice job David.)"

JG: "One doesn't need to photograph the supermoon itself in order to take advantage of the photographic opportunities it presents. For example, I photograph mostly at night and the additional light provided by the moon over the past few days has made it possible for me to photograph scenes I otherwise couldn't or wouldn't, by raising the shadows and reducing the exposure range my camera is required to capture. Here is an example...without a brighter-than-average moon overhead illuminating this scene, the highlights would blow out and the shadows plug up, making a single-exposure photo impossible to take. (I know this for a fact, because I've tried to photograph it many times before, always without any success.)

"So rather than fret about not having the proper equipment, think outside the box a bit and before it's too late, get yourself outdoors tonight and take some photos! A little sleep is all you stand to lose....  8^) "

Geoffrey Heard: "I don't want to mention that I have trouble sleeping at the full moon! Supermoon? Perigee full moon is the term you are actually reaching for—which caused no photographic hysteria back in the day when it was called that before someone labelled a slight increase in visual size (about 7% above normal) 'super.' Here in paradise, where natural phenomena really count, life just went on as normal. Your supermoon did not affect the crops we live on. Or fishing."

Latestitis

It's a disease, latestitis: gotta have the latest thing.

Sadly, I had to cancel my order for the forthcoming Sony A6500. Why? Well, 1.) I need to get a new computer, and 2.) I've been printing more lately and would like to continue with that, so 3.) I'd like a calibrated monitor, therefore 4.) it would be nice to have a separate computer and monitor finally (something I've been thinking about for at least eighteen years, probably more) and also 5.) if I had a separate computer and monitor, it would be nice to be able to either a.) take the computer along when I travel or b.) secure it when I'm not home, which means 6. a laptop as my main computer driving a big display would be ideal. BUT all that is ungodly expensive compared to an entry-level 5k iMac, and I'm struggling—have been struggling for weeks—with biting that bullet. I ain't rich, and I still have one more semester of college to pay for.

First-world problems are still problems.

I already have a perfectly good camera, of course. The Fuji X-T1. Although, of course, the first-world problem with that is...

...That it's no longer the latest thing.

Which, yes, also isn't a real problem. I know; don't lecture me.  :-)

Still, it's a thing, as they say. Here's the thing, which you might have noticed: with digital cameras, even when you're just standing still you have to suffer periodic demotions. A new camera comes out—the gleaming, hot-rodded and turbocharged X-T2, in this case, which everybody is smiling radiantly and making happy noises about—and suddenly your formerly top-of-the-line X-T1 is cold leftovers; yesterday's news. Formerly respected, now relegated to "the dustbin of history."

I mean, you want to keep up.

But of course, while it might make a little sense to step sideways to an A6500 because it has a crucial feature I need that the X-T1 doesn't have, it makes no sense at all to rubbish a perfectly good, functioning X-T1 just because the X-T2 now exists.

Still, I think that's a feature of equipping yourself now—that inevitable day when you no longer have the latest thing. We experience it as a loss, and human beings are very sensitive to loss. And averse to it.

And by the way, the laptop I'm fretting over is the last-generation MacBook Pro...not the latest thing. This is a complicated subject!

Another wrinkle of complexity: after writing the post about The Fabulous Fourteen the other day, I went and printed several pictures made with the X-T1 and the XF 14mm ƒ/2.8 that's now on sale, and they look gob-smackingly beautiful. Even a file that needed a lot of HDR and that I had to despeckle twice in Photoshop, and that looks alarmingly bad when pixel-peeping, printed just fine.

Oddly enough, the old equipment being totally sufficient in terms of results sometimes still doesn't completely cure latestitis.

Although it probably should.

Mike

P.S. Please don't say anything in the comments about how great or wonderful the Sony A6500 or the Fuji X-T1 might be. (Or how good the latest MacBook Pros will be, dongle kerfuffle aside.) I'm having a hard enough time already!

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.

Only if you can afford it
Join our support campaign or buy something for yourself

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

Richard Skoonberg: "Get the calibrated monitor. It is fantastic to pull a print and have it match your monitor. I have an ASUS ProArt monitor (PA248Q; I paid $289.), a 24" monitor which has excellent reviews on Amazon and is well priced, and a DataColor Spyder 5 Pro. You are going to see more difference in your pictures with a calibrated monitor than you are with a newer Sony camera."

MarkB: "My Pentax K-3 hasn't ceased to provide me with both an income and the pleasure of use and results, despite the arrival of both the pixel-shifty 'II' model, and the apotheosis of K-mount digital in all its full 35mm frame glory. My 2012 iMac keeps happily burping along, despite a drifting monitor and the untimely death of its optical drive (the SD slot still works). Even my most recent lens purchase was a 20–40mm impulse buy well over a year ago. What happened to me? Why do I have some sort of existential satisfaction with where I am, cameragear-wise? Oh yeah...Lensrentals.com. Somewhere in Tennessee, Roger Cicala is laughing like Dracula.  ;-)  "

Jon Schick: "I hear you...for a while I bought nearly every generation of Pentax DSLR but I'm sticking with the X-T1 and...15-year-old Olympus E-1. Once you've got past the initial shock that your new camera has been superseded, if you wait for long enough you'll eventually get to the stage where you're surprised at what it can still do, how well it stacks up to newer and better cameras of much later generations, and congratulate yourself for being able to churn out good looking images from such antediluvian kit. You just need to keep the Fuji for approximately 10 years to feel those full benefits!"

Speed: "The Photographer's Prayer: There are things I need and there are things I want. Lord, give me the wisdom to know the difference."

Jim Metzger (partial comment): "I remember when I was into mountain biking back in the 1990s. Every magazine said you have to have active suspension; I thought I was the only one without it. Then the 5 Boro Bicycle tour in NYC went by my front door. Thousands of riders, only a handful of suspension bikes. I still have my Hoo-koo-E-Koo steel frame. I will not be competing in the Olympics anytime soon. Here is my takeaway on this: If you are not getting the photographs and prints you want with any of today's cameras, it is not the equipment."

Dave Van de Mark (partial comment): "Thankfully I've gradually moved into a lifelong lasting syndrome of 'that's ititis' So what I have now is very close to 'that's it.' :-)  "

Bri: "You spread latestitis and you're clearly not an asymptomatic carrier. I'm immune though. Mac Pro early 2009 still going strong along with an Eizo 24" (low end). D700 from point of release until it died from a serious accident last year. Now D810 which I envisage I'll have for at least another five years, if not more. An apple a day and all that...."

Brian Taylor: "I think there may be scope for a self-help group here!"

A Foundation Stone of Your Photography Library

My old book stand is an antique—I inherited
it—but here's something similar.

Our current book sale is ending soon. Sorry, I should set that off for emphasis—

BOOK SALE IS ENDING SOON!

The fire-sale price is only $32.50 for brand new, unread copies of Keith Davis's excellent The Origins of American Photography. It won't be the last opportunity to own the book, but it's probably the last time you'll be able to order a new copy easily, and for so little.

It's not too late. To order, go to this link and then enter the code "12555" at checkout. (Note that the discount doesn't show up until the last screen.)

Get it while you can! (Did I miss my calling as a marketer? My son is just about to graduate from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh with a degree in marketing, and I'm near to busting with pride that he's accepted a very good job at a very good salary with a major corporation. He's a comer. Raised by hand, he was.)

I think of certain histories as being the foundation of my library. The two-volume set of Keith's An American Century of Photography and the present volume—telling the story of photography in America from its beginnings to approximately the year 2000—is one of those foundation-stones.

Guys with guns

This book covers less time than the other volume, but just as much change. The 19th century in America was tumultuous and fractious. Think about it: this book covers the Civil War, the building of the railroads, waves of immigration, and the exploration of the Wild West.

There's something elemental about the deliberateness of early portraits.

I've noted before that you don't actually have to read books like this to get a lot of out them. This is a large, thick, heavy book, with copious amounts of illustrations, and the repro quality is very good. You can enjoy it just as a picture book, paging slowly through it and savoring its curated collection of hundreds of fine historical images.

I use the word "curated" advisedly—Keith Davis's own origins were as a connoisseur. He was the curator in charge of putting together the Hallmark Collection, one of the major photography collections in America and in the World. (Someday I will get to Kansas City and write up my visit for you.) He has a great eye for photographs, something that can't quite be said for every museum curator out there.

The opening of the West falls within the time period covered

A feature of both books is that the illustrations are not just "the usual suspects." Lots of photography books are put together, let's just say, a little more cynically—the authors are book-aggregators hired by publishers to churn out coffee-table volumes for stocking bookstores. Not so here. Keith deliberately made the decision to mix well-known images with lesser-known ones. As an example, I have a number of volumes in my library about Daguerreotypes (I'm not exactly certain why, except that when you buy books, sometimes you just get started down a particular trail and it becomes self-perpetuating—I have a poet friend who found himself collecting volumes of Dante that way, despite not having a particular interest in Dante. But I digress.) Anyway, I'm familiar with a lot of Daguerreotypes, and this book has a lot of them that I've never seen.

A book for readers as well

I don't mean to short the text! Keith is an excellent writer, and the text is erudite but accessible, meant to be read, and able to be read with pleasure. And this isn't just a picture book with an essay or two at the beginning to underpin the pictures with a little intellectual weight—the text is generous and runs throughout the volume.

A wonderful earlier book is Photography and the American Scene by Robert Taft, reprinted by Dover and available as a free download. These books easily supersede that one, though.

I don't have a very current count, but I believe we've already sold around 300 copies. There should be plenty left, so if you'd like to Tweet this, or mention it on other forums you visit, or put it out there on other photography websites, please do. (For one thing, TOP gets a little cut, and every little cent [the United States doesn't actually have coin called a "penny," did you know that?] will go toward my new computer. I seriously need a new computer...it took fifteen minutes to get this one started this morning, and that handwriting is very much on that wall.)

How to order: go to the book page at the Nelson-Atkins Museum bookstore and then enter the special discount code "12555" at checkout. If you have any problems for any reason, let me know and I'll pass your email along to the bookstore staff, and they can help you.

If you already ordered, shipments begin Monday (November 14th). So if you order now you'll get yours before very long.

I think you'll like this! Hope you do.

Thanks again to Keith and the good folks at the Nelson-Atkins Museum for making this possible.

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.

Book it!
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Get the Heck Out!

The "Photography and Procrastination" post the other day was popular and got a lot of attention. I was elaborating on Jay Maisel's idea of "shoot it now."

But there's a parallel or complementary idea that goes along with this, and it's this: get out there, and good things will happen. When you get equipped for going out photographing, and go put yourself in one of the situations that tend to make you happy when you've got a camera in your hand, you'll get something.

Even if you don't know what it's going to be.

You don't necessarily need a plan. Your don't need an idea. Just get out.

There's an idea afoot recently that creativity benefits from being treated like work. I have a couple of quotes taped to my computer: "A man may write at any time if he will set himself doggedly to it," which is Dr. Johnson quoted by Boswell; and the characteristically more pithy "Do your work," which is a quote from David Vestal. Sometimes, just slogging along and grinding it out will lead to creativity and positive accomplishment. The only essay that I ever read that was worth a damn as guidance for writers is a thing called "The Getaway Car" in the book This Is the Story of a Happy Marriage by Ann Patchett. In it, she points out that if you want to be a writer, the very first thing you need to be able to do, the essential requirement, is to sit down and write for an hour a day for thirty days straight. If you can't do that, you're not going to get there. No matter how much you study and prepare.

These things translate to: get going. Get out there even when you don't feel like it.

Do your work.

I had the pleasure of interviewing Ralph Gibson for Camera and Darkroom many years ago, in Manhattan. Ralph might need an introduction to younger photographers, but probably not to older ones. He's a fine (I mean outstanding) art photographer with a distinctive high-contrast B&W 35mm style ("I like a negative that fights back," he told me), so identified with Leica that Leica put out a special-edition camera as a tribute to him. In his darkroom he printed with an old Leitz enlarger that happened to be the very same enlarger on which Robert Frank, a mentor and friend of Ralph's, printed the original repro prints for the book The Americans.

Photographer unknown—self portrait, maybe?—Ralph Gibson
in his younger years

Later we went out, and I accompanied him to lunch. Ralph took along a Leica M6 that had a braided leather lanyard as a strap, and only a 90mm Elmarit. As we ate lunch—baskets of steamed vegetables at a café called the NoHo Star—can you tell this visit made an impression on me?—I asked Ralph what he was planning to shoot.

Alas, I cannot remember exact quotes; my mind doesn't work that way and I never trained it to, more's the pity. But he said something like, "I've been doing this long enough that I know that whenever I get out and start looking around, I'll get something. I don't know what, but I'll come back with some good pictures."

(Sorry to paraphrase. That was the gist.)

By the way, I made no impression on Ralph. The next time I ran into him, he didn't remember me.

Anyway, I used to say that photography was like jogging. There's no such thing as "quality time" with jogging. It's more like just...time. Get out and put in the miles and it'll give back. You'll get benefit back out of it. (The trouble with the analogy is that it provokes runners to start arguing the fine points of training, and believe me, it's better to not go there.)

Photographing is like that, though. Get out of the house with a camera. Be playful; be open-minded; look around; try stuff. You'll find something.

Always a caveat
I suppose I ought to add that you still have to be perceptive about what situations work for you. I like to photograph people and animals best—something happening—and I'm happiest doing portraits. I'm always aware that when I just go for a walk and photograph found scenes that it gives me a sort of nagging dissatisfaction. It's because I'm not shooting what I really want to shoot. I'm only shooting what's available to me. To me, lots of photographs of landscapes and streetscapes feel like settings—that is, they're like a stage with no actors on it. I yearn to see people there somehow. I have a friend who feels the opposite. He likes arrangements of objects and static scenes, and the presence of humans "ruins" pictures for him. I'll wait for a person to appear in a shot; he'll wait for the people to leave.

We're all different, and respond differently to different shooting opportunities. Nobody will tell you what you respond to and what makes you happy when you're photographing. You have to figure that out for yourself. Get out of the house, yes, but you do have to be smart, too, and put yourself in situations that are amenable to your vision. Target-rich environments, in the jargon of the Gulf War.

We can't always do that. But in general the rule holds—the more you get out there, the more likely you are to find good photographs. So get the heck out there!

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.

Remember
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Stan B.: "It really is like fishing, you go out where you hope they're biting with no guarantee whatsoever. And often, you just end up buying a burger on your way home (i.e., you sit yourself down and peruse someone else's work to fill the void of coming home empty-handed). Fate doesn't care how well prepared you are, how well studied, well equipped, or sincere you are—sometimes the moment comes on your way to get a coffee on the corner during break. Did you get it? Or did you think it would happen only when you deemed it to? Sometimes the stars align, everything checks and you get your prize; it's an intermittent gambler's high, the most addictive there is."

Ed Kirkpatrick: "I am like your friend; I wait for the scene to revert to its natural state with no human sign. I am uncomfortable photographing people for some reason. I would like to do it more but it just doesn't come naturally to me. Landscapes, those I see by the dozens every day. As I travel around the country in my RV I get a chance to shoot most days. I don't even think about it any more, it just happens. I have learned that the best shots happen when you left your camera home so I always have mine with me. It's true, get out and do it."

Mike replies: As a coda to today's post, today I walked my two miles along my lakefront road—it is a wild, blustery Fall day, with roiling clouds and gusting winds and kaleidoscopic shafts of sunlight. Of course I saw an absolutely wonderful picture...created just for a few minutes by the shifting light on the far side of the lake. Not only did I not have a camera with me, but I don't even own a lens of the right focal length (about 135mm-e, I would estimate) to have shot it. Serves me right for not taking my own advice? I stood there and stared for as long as it lasted.

Jim Richardson: "Certainly there is much virtue in trusting to serendipity, which is also a kind of deeper faith, that the world has wonders waiting for you if you just go looking for them. (And that you will never know they exist if you don't go.) But there is danger there, too, that you'll be contented to just take whatever comes along, either in the way of the subjects that present themselves or (more perilously) in your willingness to settle for your first impressions. Too many of the stories photographers tell me about their pictures are shaggy-dog tales of lucky moments with a camera or curious twists of photographic fate.

"In the end I find myself more drawn to photographers who treat their craft like a great string quartet treats a work by Mozart, going back to it over and over again until the first flush of virtuosity gives way (perhaps after many years) to deep insight. It is not a relaxing way to work; it is fraught with anxiety. I don't recommend it to anyone who want their photography to be relaxing. But if you seek the satisfaction of building a body of work over decades, then I think you have to consider it."

James Weekes: "A friend of mine, when he was young, was assigned jobs around the house by his father. One day he complained, as young boys do, about the onerous tasks and how hard they were. His father answered, 'Just do it until you get used to it.' That quote is up in my office and reminds me to go photograph."

Struan: "If I go for a walk with the main aim of taking photographs I usually end up reinforcing my worst bad habits. My photographs, especially those more creative, break-a-mental-block photographs, benefit more from an open, empirical bent and an emphasis on the walk itself rather than how it may or may not be a productive investment. Forcing myself to take photographs is the worst way I know of getting out of a photographic rut. Art galleries, books, conversation, or going for a walk without a camera are usually better ways of reminding myself why I take photographs and why it is worth persevering even when things don't look promising."

Mike replies: Point taken, but I'm not necessarily advocating just taking a walk. If you have a plan, you still have to work it ("plan your work and work your plan"). Whatever it is you do, whatever your plan is, you still have to get out there and get to it. Your suggestions are good too, but I believe if you're stuck, the best way to oil the gears and unstick the machinery is to go work. Whatever that means for each of us.

Stephen Scharf: "While I wholeheartedly agree with the 'Get the heck out' sensibility, I don't agree with not needing a plan. All my best work resulted when I got the heck with a plan."

Gary Nylander: "As a daily newspaper photographer, I am often tasked with finding a picture or two for the next day's paper, sometimes for the front page. I call them enterprise photos. I don't have a real plan, but I have found the best pictures come from walking around somewhere, street, park or whatever. With my personal work, sometimes I just get out of the house and get in may car and drive and go and photograph what I can see. Usually I have a place in mind which I often return to time after time, seeing it under different lighting and seasonal conditions."

Wesley Liebenberg-Walker: "I have been using (or trying to use) those words—'Get Out There'—as a sort of mantra lately. I apply them to the act of shooting something, but also to the act of being outside, in the real world, rather than inside, on the couch, in the virtual one. It works, mostly. Now if only I could get off the computer...."

Joe Holmes: "My favorite quote along these lines is from Chuck Close: 'Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work.'

"The full context: 'I always thought that inspiration is for amateurs. The rest of us just show up and get to work. You sign onto a process and see where it takes you. You don't have to invent the wheel every day. Today you'll do what you did yesterday and tomorrow you'll do what you did today. Eventually you'll get somewhere. Every great idea I ever had grew out of work itself. If you’re going to wait a around for the clouds to open up and lightning to strike you in the brain you’re not going to make an awful lot of work.'"

Housekeeping (Blog Notes)

Thanks for the feedback on the Facebook "Like" button I just added at the bottom of every post, at reader Larry's request. It turned out that was possible in the template settings. I've since added a "Tweet" button. The other options that I haven't activated are Digg, del.icio.us, Google+, Pinterest (which I dislike), and something called "Reblog," which I think means "steal this."

There's no option for a simple "like" (or "dislike") button, but, as I understand it, the purpose of the "Like" button isn't to simply indicate approval; rather it's to bring more traffic by enlisting readers' help by publicizing posts they like on their Facebook pages, isn't it? Same with "Tweet." In other words, it spreads the word, it's not a poll.

Maybe I misunderstand this. I'm just a writer, not a programmer, and I don't know very much about social media. I don't really use social media. I'm kept hopping just by keeping things going around here.

Traffic has certainly gone up in the past couple of days, but it's because of the political post—strong opinions always bring more eyes. I'll keep an eye on things and see if I can detect whether the Like buttons have any effect.

In other news, I'll be declaring a moratorium on politics and Trump-bashing (well, Trump period) until at least the inauguration. I've worked hard to make my little corner of the Web a place where people feel welcome and not affronted by things that make them angry or anxious or upset. Sometimes the world intrudes. As it does. But then we go back to being friendly and cordial with each other, while we are here at The Online Photographer.

More soon, after I take care of the dogs. Butters needs a little discipline refresher this morning, and he and I have work to do.

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.

Like this
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Fabulous Fourteen for Less

One of my favorite lenses of recent years is the Fujinon XF 14mm. It's not the fast glamour-glass near its focal length—that would be the 16mm ƒ/1.4—but, really, with an ultrawide you just don't need a lot of lens speed. (Think about it—the more telephoto the lens, the more small amounts of camera shake are amplified; the wider the lens, the less so.) ƒ/2.8 is not a downtown hip-crowd aperture but don't let that put you off. It's fast enough and the lens is quite special.

Anyway I just thought you might want to know that the fabulous Fuji 14mm is on sale for a whopping $300 off right this very moment. Here's the link, and here's the link for all the Fuji stuff that's on sale right now.

Three hundred off for this lens is significant; it makes an expensive lens into an affordable lens. (Fuji has sales on such a regular basis that it doesn't make sense to buy their stuff except on sale.)

I own this lens (bought at full price, alas) so when I say "highly recommended" I both know whereof I speak and have also voted with my own bux.

Check it out. You will not be sorry. It's the first ultra-wide I have ever fallen in love with in my whole life as a lens nut.

Mike
(Thanks to Izzy)

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.

Widen your horizons.
Special Deals for today at B&H Photo

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

Ken Bennett: "Hear, hear. One of my first two Fuji X lenses and still a favorite."

Stan Banos: "After using a 20mm Nikkor for some 30 years and thinking that was as good as it gets, I could not believe the stunning IQ of this lens. Wish it was a tad more compact like the snub nose Nikkor, but...."

Steve G, Mendocino: "I'm not using the Fuji system, but I'll second the opinion that ƒ/2.8 is fast enough, at least for my work. I'm using the Sigma 19mm and 30mm ƒ/2.8 Art lenses on a Sony A6000, and have yet to either want or need a faster aperture."

OVF vs. EVF

[Note: I've consolidated a number of comments featuring a range of opinions here. These are the responses to reader Mathias Gullentops' question yesterday. There were many other excellent comments, which can be seen in the main Comments Section of that post. —Ed.]

-

OVF = optical viewfinder: typically (though not exclusively) the direct view through the lens rectified by an SLR prism and eyepiece.

EVF = electronic viewfinder, a display like a miniature TV screen inside the camera eyepiece.

Neither type is monolithic, i.e., there are many different implementations and degrees of quality.

Gordon Lewis: "The basic advantages of an EVF are: 1.) It can be set to reflect exposure changes and white balance so you have a better idea of what the actual image will look like, and 2.) You can manually focus much more accurately than with an OVF, which is optimized for brightness rather than acuity. Drawbacks are that EVFs are often more contrasty (shadows block up), can be laggy (not real-time viewing), and can display distracting artifacts in low light. The lagginess is less of a problem with single-shot images and more of a problem with continuous shot sequences. Pay your money and make your choice."

John Krumm: "As, others have said, judging exposure is pretty simple on an EVF, easier than with an OVF, especially if your goal is to shoot just below blowing highlights. I've often said that EVF's are about perfect exposure, OVF's are about perfect composition. I struggle a bit seeing the shadow detail with an EVF, but eventually became used to it with my E-M1.

"Now I've returned mostly to an OVF for several months with my Pentax K-1. I like it for its strengths, but don't really prefer it overall. In fact, if in a few years there is a K-1 Mk II and it has a good EVF and is fully mirrorless (keeping the K mount) I'll welcome it."

Rob: "The live histogram in an EVF is a godsend for judging exposure. At this point, I cannot imagine being without it. But more generally, an EVF shows what the sensor is seeing. To me, that is more valuable than knowing what the lens is seeing. Also, the image quality of EVFs has reached the point of being very good to excellent, which was not always the case. I have no problem visualizing a scene when using one, though it is a different experience than with an OVF. One downside to mirrorless cameras and EVFs is that focusing is done at the taking aperture, not maximum aperture, which means that in dim lighting and a small aperture, it can be difficult seeing the subject clearly. The EVF will lighten the image, but sometimes not enough. This is more of an issue with manual focus than auto focus."

DavidB (edited comment): "I use OVF and EVF cameras and like both. The primary downside with EVF for me is night shots. It's difficult to aim the camera at the correct portion of the sky using an EVF. And, then, after staring at the EVF I've lost my night vision for at least several minutes. For almost everything else, EVF can be very nice especially if you have set it up so that it reflects your camera settings."

G Dan Mitchell (partial comment): "When you think of the two types of viewfinders as being 'different' rather than as being generically 'better/worse,' I think you are on the right track. I use both, and each has relative advantages and disadvantages in certain situations."

Florian: "Hello. My very first experience with an EVF was at the very beginning of the technology and I though the whole idea was a joke—the EVF image was incredibly bad and lagging so that it was hardly possible to move the camera. Several years later, I tried out a Panasonic GH1 and the experience was completely different. I liked it immediately, loved the advantages (you see the actual image the camera sees, it is possible to overlay grids and all kinds of information), even though the EVF of that camera was, by today's standards, still rather bad.

"In my opinion, the only disadvantage of an EVF is the fact that you only see something when the camera is switched on. Nevertheless, I would never go back to an OVF!"

Dogman (partial comment): "I'm not a huge fan of EVFs. However, I admit they are excellent indoors and under low light conditions outside. In bright light, I much prefer OVFs because the EVFs I've used darken considerably outdoors in bright sunlight. Indoors, I find EVFs are good at previewing exposure when used in conjunction with the histogram."

Oleg Shpak: "There is no need to guess exposure with EVF. I shoot in manual mode for many years. I am sure I never switched my last couple cameras into any different mode ever. With very little training you will set exposure the way you want EVERY SINGLE TIME. There is no guessing game there."

PhotoDes: "I have never understood this question. I have used both EVFs and optical VFs (DSLRs) since the beginning (about year 2000 for me). I switch back and forth without a second thought. Early EVFs were pretty poor, I admit, but never so bad as to interfere with my shooting. I'm more concerned with other handling features of my cameras."

[A different] mike: "Hey Matt, it truly depends on the implementation of the finder. I do find that the Lumix cameras are excellent for judging exposure, while other cameras can be, in my experience, quite a bit more difficult. You can set up most EVF's however you like. I make mine show a bit less contrast and saturation so I can see the highlights and shadows better, and the color is less distracting, but still easy to judge. Since I shoot RAW, each file gets adjusted to my internal set point anyway, so what I see in the finder will never match my final output.

"Also, when making black and white images, it's pretty cool to be able to see the images that same way when you shoot. I switched from DSLRs to mirrorless about four years ago, and really it took me only a few sessions to get used to it, and only a few more to realize that going back to an optical viewfinder would never happen for me."

Luca: "First of all: with all brands that I know of you can generally set EVFs in two different ways. You can either choose for them to show a faithful-ish preview of the exposure, in a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) fashion; or you can set them to mimic an optical viewfinder, i.e. set them so they automatically compensate to keep light levels even and the image clearly visible. This second way, in my opinion, is useful only if you're using flash in a studio setting, because basically you give away one of the main vantages of an EVF, but hey, YMMV.

"If you decide to use the EVF in the WYSIWYG fashion, then in my opinion (I have an A7r, an X-T10 and an E-M10) Sony has the best implementation, followed really really closely by Fuji (my only gripe with Fuji is that, for some arcane reason, it doesn't show 100% of the image...why??? It's a readout from the sensor, for crying out loud!!!).

"Olympus comes a more distant third; at least my E-M10 if I go too far with the exposure settings, so that it should show me a black or conversely a completely overexposed image, still insists in showing me instead a relatively decent (as in 'visible') exposed image (yes, with all the right settings in place).

"Not a big deal, because you shouldn't rely on the EVF to judge the exposure anyway. The real secret weapon of the EVF is the ability to show you the histogram in real time. Just be sure the highlight ('right') end is not clipped (assuming a 'normal' image; obviously you may have different artistic intentions) and you're good to go.

"After the histogram, the other great characteristic of an EVF is the ability to show you the world as the camera sees it; this will let you discover, especially if you're photographically 'green,' many interesting images or way to capture a scene that you otherwise would not have even started to consider.

"Not to mention you will be finally able to see the real extent of your depth of field, and the exact point where you're focusing (no more focus errors, at least not focusing manually).

"I've started shooting 'seriously' in 1988, with in succession Minolta (some of the best viewfinders ever made, even better than Nikons, IMO), Nikon and then Canon EOS, almost always using top of the line models (F4, 1n, 5D Mark II etc.); but after using the first EVF (it was the relatively poor one, by current standards, in a NEX-7) I've never looked back."

Glenn Bittle: "Hi Mathias, I've had my Fuji X-T2 for a month and that's my first use of EVF after 40 years using SLR/DSLR. Was tossing up with X-Pro2/OVF as I found EVF a bit strange. However, I took the plunge and really within an hour of using EVF I'd completely got used to it. Love the fact that as you change various settings (with the lovely tactile dials!) you see what's happening in the viewfinder. Wonderful."

Thanks to all, and sorry for the delay in posting!

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.

See through us
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Esa Kivivuori: "So far I've used only two cameras with really good EVFs. Leica Q and Leica SL."

Open Mike: Who You Gonna Call? (OT)

Sorry I'm late getting started this morning, but I'm feeling physically ill.

Can't quite figure out why. It's not my stomach; I don't have a headache; I don't have a fever. What could it be?

Oh yeah, it's my soul.

My soul is nauseous and it feels like barfing. Yeah, that's it.

Let's just stipulate right here that I probably shouldn't write anything this morning. The reason I'm getting a late start is that I had to take a block of time and bash out a towering screed—just to try to make myself feel a little less ill in the soul, you know? But my English reader/friend Tom, who screened it for me, says it's "a little raw" and I take it that's an example of English understatement.

But I have to ask my fellow Democrats and anti-Republicans (and now, anti-Populist-Insurgents) a question: who we gonna get next time? Who are we going to choose to champion the flag of traditional American liberal democracy in 2020? Should be someone who sees clearly, if you get the allusion. (Waaanh-waa.)

It can't be a cranky hundred-year-old Jewish socialist with a clear view of what's wrong but no plan to make it right.

It needs to be somebody with enough moxie for the fight, someone broadly likeable, someone without a lot of baggage—and, clearly, a male, because America would probably, I don't know, elect a male orang-outang from the forest over a highly qualified female with tons of experience who spent her whole life preparing for the job. Hypothetical example.

Russ Feingold is one of the best politicians in the history of the United States, but he's going to be 67 in 2020 and he just lost a Senate campaign to a [highly insulting description deleted] plastics manufacturer, albeit one seated high atop a giant heap of Koch millions, which doesn't speak all that well for his (Feingold's) draw in the hinterlands. Elizabeth Warren has the moxie and her views are right on track, but she didn't want to run this time and darn, she doesn't have the right chromosomes for this particular country, more's the pity. And she's going to be 71 in 2020. I'm only 59 and I get tired at the thought of driving to Buffalo once.

So who we gonna get? We need a champion. We need somebody good. And we need to start looking right now, because I don't know if you noticed but the house just caught fire.

One thing seems clear—20/20, pardon again the same bad pun—we have to decide. The party rank and file, that is. Us grassroots. If we let the DNC decide, the DNC that served us up the female Walter Mondale, avatar of the Clinton Restoration, '90s nostalgia, business as usual, it will no doubt give us whatever loyal insider who's next in line, and then any fool fake billionaire from reality TV could probably beat her. Him. Whatever.

Suggestions?

I've written too much, I see. I really shouldn't write anything today. I know that.

I have a feeling I will, though. It'll be good for my soul.

Mike
(Thanks to Tom Burke)

"Open Mike" is the off-topic editorial page of TOP, when Yr. Hmbl. Ed. rambles afield. It normally appears on Wednesdays.

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.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Terry: "Mike, Mike, Mike! It's not that America doesn't want a woman president. It's that the Democrats don't. Let's look at the numbers:

Turnout 2012 for Obama: 65.9m; 2016 for Clinton: 59.1m; difference = –6.8m

2012 for Romney: 60.9m; 2016 for Trump: 59m; difference  = –1.9m

"Bear in mind that we just elected a person with negatives in the 60% range. The Democrats own this mistake. They didn't even have an opposition candidate like the Republicans did—Evan McMullin."

Mike replies: It's true. It looks very much like this election was the fault of Democratic voters...about 5 million of them, or thereabouts, who all told pollsters of their support for Clinton and then didn't bother to go vote.

Ironically, many (as individuals) might have not voted because the polls were so certain Clinton was going to win. It made them complacent. The pollsters weren't even that wrong, although it certainly looked like they were. They just needed to add a crucial caveat to their forecasts: "Clinton has an 85% [or whatever] chance of winning assuming everyone who supports her actually votes." 

Bruce: "God bless America. And keep Trump safe. Personally, I'm having a great year. First the Scottish referendum, then Brexit and now Donald. I can't see how any sane person could possibly have considered voting for Clinton given everything that's known about her. As Trump rightly said, 'A nasty woman.'"

John: "Any other Democrat could have beaten Trump. The system needs a shake-up. The problem is that the voters picked the wrong person to provide it. What amazes me is that half the country could vote for such a vile person. Where's decency?"

Michael Roche: "To the concerned outsider looking at America it is blatantly obvious your country is a deeply unequal society in both opportunity, living standards, healthcare, education, etc., etc., and your political establishment is either incapable of doing anything to remedy these problems or the people elected to public office are not concerned about these injustices. Quite honestly there was not a lot of difference between a career political insider of long standing who seemed to be happy with the status quo and could not be bothered to come up with even half a plan to improve things and a charlatan TV personality/business tycoon whipping up hatred and division and false hopes for the poor and disenfranchised of the richest country in the western world. All this played out in some sort of dystopian reality show daily for all to see on TV and in print media and all the overpaid pundits and so-called experts could contribute was that Trump cannot win, i.e. Hilary will win, and we can carry on as normal, nothing will change, people will continue to lose their jobs and homes, African Americans will still get shot by law enforcement officers and stand a much greater chance of getting put in prison than their white fellow citizens. None of this will improve under Trump but if these are the only choices presented to the electorate of this once great land of opportunity then no one should be surprised if tweedledum gets elected and not tweedledee."

Al C.: "Mike, another crushed soul here. I am a naturalized citizen. America gave me so much, for which I am eternally grateful, and which I can never fully repay. However, is this still my country? Why do 50% want to take it back? Back from whom?"

Mike replies: My sister-in-law had a neighbor explain to her that he supports Trump because he hates immigrants. My sister-in-law has a heavy Ukrainian accent. Evidently her neighbor did not make the connection.

John Camp: "I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat, voted for Hillary, was stunned by the election, and at the same time, think the Democrats (but not the county) got what they deserved. The Democrats were beaten by people for whom they've shown nothing but disdain for decades, Democratic elites who have lived lives that began with Harvard and Yale, and who constantly let slip their disdain—the 'clutching to guns and religion,' from Obama, and 'basket of deplorables' from Hillary. Our free trade agreements have undoubtedly helped lift much of the poor world, from Mexico to India to China, to some prospect of prosperity, while leaving our own Midwestern rust belt in despair.

"Trump is a racist, a sexist, quite possibly a criminal in several different ways. I'm hoping the shock of his election will help create a Democratic Party that goes back to its working-class roots; that would not include anyone like Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris, but there are a number of good solid Democratic governors out there who might fill the bill, though they are not yet political stars."

Mike replies: A book for ya.

Amin (partial comment): "I didn't sleep at all last night. My kids woke up this morning asking if this means everyone hates us. Have been trying to convince them and myself that everything will be okay.

"I do admire you for writing about this today. You could easily lose some readers over it."

Withheld: "Well I guess this is the last time I read this blog, despite having enjoyed it otherwise for years. I felt the same as you four years ago. Life goes on. Take care."

Mike replies: Wait, you're confused. Your guy won this time.

Alan Carmody: "Mike, I know this is your blog but with the greatest possible respect, one of the reasons I come here is...to get away from the politics."

Mike replies: Well, there won't be much of it. With a blog as wide-ranging as this one, not everything is for everyone. Some things are for most of the readers, some things are for just a few; like a newspaper or a magazine, as a reader you have to pick and choose.

I'd hope that as much as 80% of the contents are appealing to most readers, and I don't know how low the percentage could go before a particular reader would go wandering away...60%? 40%? But not everything is for everyone, that much is certain.

Reader Question

Reader Mathias Gullentops has a question:

I'm contemplating a mirrorless camera after using a DSLR for several years. A brief try-out at the store confirmed that the electronic viewfinder (VF) is very different from what I'm used to. Not better, not worse; different. I don't have the possibility to borrow a mirrorless camera so my best bet is to ask you.

My question: how did you experience the change from optical to electronic VF?

I understand that the electronic VF doesn't show what your eyes really see, thus making exposure judgment perhaps more difficult.

Can you guess exposure just as easily as with an optical VF?

Do your files turn out the way you saw them in the VF?

Thanks for the feedback.

Can anyone provide an answer for Matt?

Mike
(Thanks to Matt)

[UPDATE: I'm a bit overwhelmed by the response to this and have gotten behind today. Please check tomorrow to read some of the many great comments! —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.

Like what you read?
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Open Mike: Fantasy Politics

Don't forget to vote. Elections are the best thing about the United States.

They're also among the worst things. I hate election season—it makes me view my fellow citizens, with whom I otherwise get along fine, as weak-minded ideologues and moral nincompoops, and I dislike that. Election season is not worth the stress, aggravation and worry it causes. At least we can start shifting our anxiety, dyspepsia, anger, depression, and feelings of dread to somewhat different topics tomorrow morning. (We hope. It didn't go that way during the miserable, grinding election of 2000, when Vice President Al Gore received half a million more votes than Governor George W. Bush.)

A recent newspaper article I read explains how America should consider becoming a constitutional monarchy; a new book argues Against Democracy, as its title states; and, this morning, David Brooks, a conservative columnist at a liberal newpaper, calls for a new political party, in a column called "Let's Not Do This Again."

It does seem to be the time for reconsidering the system. Except that there's zero chance all of us could agree on what system to adopt. We can't agree on anything, so why should we be able to agree on that?

Over in Mikeland...
But here's what we do, sez me. First, we build a campus in the middle of the country somewhere. Kansas would be good; they were giving away land for free in Kansas a few years back, to try to entice people to come live there (it didn't work). Then, we impress into service a Tribunal consisting of 5,200 people from all across the U.S. These people will work for the rest of us for seven months.

This 5,200-member Tribunal of the People by a rotating committee of statistics professors from thirty American and five foreign Universities and members of the U.S. Census Bureau to statistically represent the U.S. voter population by gender, race, region, age, marital status, wealth, and religion or lack of religion. Otherwise the choice is random (like jury duty on steroids). Each Tribune is be rewarded by receiving an average of double their own usual income, averaged from their tax returns over the previous three years, plus a fancy plaque thanking them for their service to the country. These people must only be citizens of sound mind (and, obviously, they must have filed tax returns for the prior three years).

The Tribunal is charged with doing what the rest of us ought to do, and would do if we had the time, the leisure, and the sense of duty to do it: give the election of our leader proper attention. That is, they would be charged with vetting presidential candidates thoroughly and intelligently on behalf of the rest of us.

(The above isn't my original idea, by the way. I read it somewhere. I just can't remember where. Sorry I can't give attribution where attribution is deserved.)

Proper safeguards to protect the Tribunes from undue influence (such as bribes) would be put in place.

Up to fifty candidates would be considered. These must be between 42 and 59 years of age (the latter the so-called "Reagan Rule," named for Ronald, who had senile dementia during his last two years in office; the former is the age of Teddy Roosevelt when he assumed the presidency after the assassination of McKinley and became the youngest man ever to hold the office). Up to six recognized political parties with the largest party memberships may propose up to four candidates each; each additional prospective candidate must present a petition of at least thirty thousand signatures of voting-aged citizens. All candidates must have previously held a minimum of three elected public offices, or been a member of the U.S. Congress for at least five years, or be or have been a governor of a U.S. State or the mayor of a U.S. city of more than 500,000 population, or be a present or past cabinet member, to be considered.

Then, the Tribunal of the People and the >51 candidates repair to the campus in Kansas for seven months. During that time, the candidates give speeches and make their cases, each one meeting everyone present personally; each candidate is vetted for past behavior, past accomplishments, ideas for the future, knowledge of policy and international affairs, physical health, psychological health, general intelligence, honest, moral character, likeability, and anything else anyone can think of; and every night people gather in rotating groups for discussion. Experts can be called in to evaluate or quiz the candidates. The candidates are held up to the light, poked, prodded, examined, and listened to until the cows come home.

In a series of votes, the Tribunal, beholden only to itself, whittles down the field; first to 35, then to 20, then to 12, and finally to five.

Eleven weeks before election day, the five candidates proposed by the Tribunal are presented to the American people as the candidates for President, along with a short written summary and a short video summary of why that candidate was chosen. The general campaign begins. And last eleven weeks. Total. No more.

And—this is important—the members of the Tribunal return to their homes across America and make themselves available to their local press and their friends, family and countrymen as sources of information about the five candidates.

Voting
Not everyone can vote. Here's how it goes:

Resident: Anyone who resides in the United States but meets no other qualification can cast an advisory ballot so their opinion can be heard, but their vote doesn't count.

Citizen: Anyone who is a U.S. citizen and between the age of 26 and 76 and has either taken two years of high school civics courses (which by the way become mandatory for all public and private school students, one course taking place in eighth grade and the other in junior year of high school) or has passed a test similar to the one immigrants now take to become citizens, gets one vote.

Vested Citizen: Anyone who meets the above conditions and also is both employed at least half time and owns the property they live on, even if mortgaged, in conjunction with fewer than two other people, gets two votes.

Leading Citizen: Anyone who meets all of the above conditions and is the principal and independent owner of a business employing at least 50 people, or is or has been a member of the U.S. Congress, or is or has been the Governor of a U.S. state, or is or has been a chief of a police force of more than 150, or is a tenured professor at a State University or one of the top 50 private universities who has also served as department chair or department head, or has achieved the rank of full Colonel or higher (or the equivalent) in the U.S. Armed Forces, gets three votes.

The vote is a runoff, and there is no electoral college—whoever gets the most votes wins.

So there's my Utopian thought for the day. (Imagine, doing away with the electoral college! That should appeal to everyone, regardless of party, dogma, or faith. Which is why it's so utterly preposterous.)

What do you think?
Rather than discus this useless Utopian fantasy, which is only .01% more likely to come to pass than the U.S. suddenly becoming a constitutional monarchy (of which the chances are –.01%), let's limit the discussion to the following:

The "who gets to vote" requirement in the above scenario is intended to screen out the blatantly ignorant. Note that "ignorant" doesn't mean "stupid": it just means that someone doesn't know about something. For example, I am a smart guy, but I am ignorant of particle physics. Consider this passage from a recent New Yorker article:

Roughly a third of American voters think that the Marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" appears in the Constitution. About as many are incapable of naming even one of the three branches of the United States government. Fewer than a quarter know who their senators are, and only half are aware that their State has two of them.

Should people who can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with the very most basic fundamentals of the United States be allowed to vote? Would the increased likelihood of a better outcome for society as a whole be a adequate justification for depriving the blatantly ignorant of the right to vote? Why should native-born citizens be allowed to vote who know less about America than immigrant citizens who were born and grew up elsewhere in the world?

(Incidentally, I don't know the names of my two Senators, so I'm not exactly Simon Pure here. However, I do know the names of Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin, the two senators from Wisconsin, where I lived until a year and three months ago. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.)

Just wondering. Your comment is not binding and will not be passed along to anyone in a position to do anything about it.

And cheer up, eh? It could be worse.

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.

Vote yes to TOP:
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Paul Macdonald: "I should know better than to take this seriously, but there is one 'qualification' meant to display evidence of knowledge, I guess, that I just can't let pass. What exactly does membership in Congress demonstrate? Presumably, some knowledge of how government works, but certainly not an appreciation of the distinction between facts and opinions. Case in point, rich in irony, would be the chair of the House committee on Science. Current or former chair, take your pick."

Peter Wright: "There are some problems with this system! First up would be determining who exactly gets to be a 'Leading Citizen.' Is a Chief of Police to get three times the votes of a Chief of Paediatrics, or a Colonel to get three times the votes of a Ph.D. in Economics? Second, the 'Leading Citizens,' as the brokers of power, would soon set up a system that worked very much in their interest and to the detriment of others, as has happened throughout history. Finally, as the US government's possible actions (like collapsing the economy, or starting a world war) can have major repercussions on every other citizen of earth, the rest of us (if qualified of course!) should also vote: Thoughtful Canadians like me should get ten votes each."

Mike replies: Hmm, letting Canadians pick our president...not a bad idea, not bad at all. You couldn't be any worse at it than we are. Maybe we should have voted on Brexit for the Brits?

But seriously, as to your objection (also made by others): remember that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was not a recipe for revenge but constituted primitive legal reform...it was intended as a limit on revenge. That is, if someone put out your eye and knocked out your tooth, you were enjoined not to slaughter his cows, burn down his hut, rape his daughters, murder his babies in their cribs, and then declare a deathless vendetta against all his kin until the end of time. The argument here is that institutionalizing advantage limits the privileged to only that advantage; and no more. As in, "you already get three votes, that's all the influence you get." In other words it's intended as a limit on privilege, not a license for it.

Of course in reality, this kind of exercise would best be done by a laboratory full of scientists...statisticians, game theorists, sociologists, etc.

Michael: "Thanks for that, Mike. Sometimes, in moments of stress and discomfort, a temporary escape into fantasy lets the rest of the mind/body system settle down and recalibrate itself. This really hit the spot. The two threads running through your utopia, actual relevant knowledge and reasonable prior experience, are particularly soothing to my frazzled system. There is also a hint of disinterestedness in your vision, and a dash of looking to the greater situation. I feel strengthened now, and I may be able to sleep tonight. And perhaps even wake with hope, who knows?"

Mike replies: Grateful thanks for that reaction, and I'm glad it helped. I had to realize about a month ago that whenever I was feeling the dread of anomie and the doomcloud of depression, it was due to the political situation—and I had to learn how to talk myself into feeling better.

Jim: "A Brit here, so no skin in this particular game, but there's an equalities issue I'd be uncomfortable with around your voter requirements. On the specific point of giving extra votes to 'vested citizens' (or, equivalently, downgrading non-vested citizens), it feels like you would be partially disenfranchising those who are already disadvantaged. Some of those who are out of work will already be victims of a system that is failing to provide enough jobs, or jobs that meet their needs as carers or whatnot. Similarly, there's nothing inherently superior about owning as opposed to renting, and in some places renting will only be an option to the better off (or put the other way—poor folks will get fewer votes because they're unable to get a mortgage). Those are the people that a civilised society should be striving to provide better outcomes for, and you perhaps don't optimise for that if you tell candidates that appealing to them will get fewer votes than appealing to the people who are already doing alright.

"Is it perhaps also the case that those from poorer backgrounds will have had poorer educational experiences growing up, and so are less likely to meet your criteria for having passed civics classes?

"I've framed all that in terms of things like income inequality etc., but given history, I'd suspect that there's a high correlation between low income and being from certain ethnic backgrounds (African Americans, I'd guess—though I stress I'm writing from thousands of miles away without local knowledge of your nation's problems). So your proposal might be backing in racial inequality. At the top end for leading citizens, the situation is probably either that there is the same problem—i.e. you're designing a system that favours those that had better chances growing up—and/or is so small in scale that it's not worth the hassle and perceived unfairness of giving them bonus votes.

"But the other bits are more interesting—run-off voting as opposed to electoral college sounds eminently sensible. And the idea you mention about generating high quality candidates sounds like it has some nice features. The age range for candidates does sound a bit narrow. And are there any risks of limiting the types of people that might end up as candidates? Over here we have accusations of people being 'career politicians'—I don't think that's unambiguously bad, but it seems like you might have a richer pool if you ensure your system is compatible with people building up experience in other fields before transferring into politics."

The Apple Engineer

An Apple engineer talks about the new 2016 Macbook Pro.

-

-

[This won't be as funny if you speak Spanish. The speaker is Juan Joya, commonly known as "El Risitas," which Google-translates as "The Giggles." He's reportedly a well-known character in Spain, famous for his infectious laugh. —Ed.]

Mike
(Thanks to Nic Mainferme)

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.

Read our lips
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Andrew Hughes: "'Get used to it, Fanboy'—LMAO!"

Mike replies: That was my favorite line too. Made me LOL.

Are High Prices Always Bad?

Reader Robert Roaldi wrote (in the discussion of the E-M1 Mark II's unprecedentedly high price): "I'll make another comment about pricing. People's complaints about prices are most often arbitrary. I know people who balk at spending $10 on a JPEG of themselves competing at a bike race, after spending $5,000+ on a racing bike and accompanying gear.

"Speaking personally, I wish some prices would stay high. If Apple had kept the licensing price of Aperture high, like it was when first released, they might have be able to make the case for continuing pro support for it, instead of racing to the bottom with its price prior to abandoning the product altogether.

"We are not better off because the price of Aperture went south. My original license for it cost a little over $200, and the last time I bought an upgrade it was about $80. I would gladly have paid the difference of $120, and more, if it meant that they continued support and development for it. That $120 difference is chicken feed.

"I honestly don't understand why people think that inexpensive is always good. Another unrelated example is air travel. It used to be fun, then they deregulated the industry, sort of, air fares dropped, and now flying is the most obnoxious way to travel, an ordeal to endure that has come close to ruining my past two vacations. Instead of pleasant memories of a trip, the first thing that comes to mind is the lousy flight home."

Mike comments: Gas stations too. I would love to pay a little more to have cheerful attendants pump my gas, clean my windshield, and check my tire pressure every time I pull in—being waited on is a pleasant luxury—and provide the nation's teenagers with entry-level jobs. (I refuse to help put the nation's checkout clerks out of work by scanning my own groceries.) "Sometimes you get what you pay for," as the saying goes.

Back in the '90s, one of my watchwords, often repeated, was "you can never spend too much on the lenses you use most!" Back then it was common for people—even enthusiasts—to carefully select and save for the best possible camera body, and then skimp on the lens for it. Back in the film era that made even less sense than it does today. 

Of course, that landscape has changed now. Good lenses still matter with digital sensors, but direct comparisons are much more difficult to make; certain properties of lenses (such as "vignetting" and, to a lesser extent, geometric distortion) that were formerly flaws in lenses can now be corrected in software; and manufacturing tolerances and standards have improved to a remarkable degree, resulting in a "bunching at the top," another way of saying that there's less difference now between the best lenses and merely good ones, to the point where I really question spending thousands of dollars on the highest quality lenses. I've had a $5,000 Leica lens in the house for years now—not mine; long story—and I trot it out to try it every now and then, but it's just not detectably any better than my usual $650 Fuji (that's the sale price effective right now—it's $250 off). Now we really can spend less money on lenses. But aren't we glad that we can still spend as much as we want to? I am.

Speaking of Aperture, another class of event to complain about is when a huge megacompany buys a small company because the small company was unusually successful, then kills all or most of the products because they're not profitable enough. (Why does the word "Nik" come to mind there?) But maybe that's a different subject.

Another of my old watchwords, still true today I think, is that photographers should just spend as much as they need to on their cameras. Yet another common aphorism in that context: "the bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten."

Mike
(Thanks to Robert)

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.

Don't spend too much.
But do join our Patreon campaign or go shop for yourself

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

Ed Hawco: "My guide for (usually) deciding to buy the more expensive item is based on how much swearing I want to do. I can swear when I pay for it and never swear again, or I can not swear when I pay for it but swear every time I use it."

My Favorite Camera Right Now Is a Panasonic...

...That I'll never own...

...And that doesn't exist yet...

...And that might never exist.

It's the GX[x], where x > 8. It's the hoped-for next iteration of the GX8 that will incorporate the improved shutter from the GX85. And a larger battery.

Ever since I had the GX8 here a few months ago I've missed it a fair bit...

...Which surprises me. I wasn't immediately impressed by the GX8 when I saw it at the big trade show in NYC with Gordon when it was new. Using it, however, was a different story. Many things about the UI seemed pleasing to me, including the ability to move the focus point on the fly with the touchscreen (I'm pretty clumsy with most cameras' means of moving the focus point—I like joysticks too, like on the X-T2). But especially the tilting viewfinder.

The viewfinder on a camera most fundamentally determines its basic character, like steering feel in a sports car. Methods of "finding the view" is also the root determinant for camera types, generally speaking, and a history of viewfinding methods would be an interesting and inventive way of looking at the history of cameras. It's curious to compare the groundglass screen on a view camera with an iPhone [x]+ held up in front of but away from your face. Outdoors with the latter, you actually need a dark cloth, too!

The tilting VF on the GX8 is a work of art, and the team at Panasonic that developed it should get a BIG round of applause. It's big and clear to the limits of the technology at this point in time, but it's also ergonomically comfortable—the eyecup fits your eye and blocks stray light, and setting the angle to however your head and arms are most comfortable is very sweet. (It's the camera for left-eye-dominant people.)

I really liked the GX8. There's the shutter-shock issue with certain lenses, but that's like a pesky fly—annoying, but it's not going to kill you. You just have to study up on the issue and learn how to sidestep it. It's bad publicity as much as anything, since other mirrorless cameras exist that have the same basic issue. The GX8 caught all the heat for it, that's all.

I wish I could do more comparisons of the GX8 IQ with the IQ of some of the other mirrorless competitors from Fuji, Sony, and Olympus. It seemed impressive to me, for Micro 4/3, but I don't have the greatest sense of context right now, having been out of Micro 4/3 for some time. (Did I mention that my current favorite camera is in a format that I don't even shoot?!?)

I like Panasonic lenses too, but I'll stop now.

Let's just say I hope there will be a successor (many, actually) to the very nicely designed Panasonic GX8. I like Panasonics.

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.

No shock.
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Aaron: "The GX8 is a fantastic camera, but for some reason has been heavily criticized for issues many other cameras exhibit. The more I use it the more I appreciate its size, control layout, image quality, and especially the tilting EVF. Any follow up to the GX8 that includes more recent developments in shutter design and IBIS will only improve what is already a great imaging device."

Mike replies: Well said, well said.

Gordon Lewis: "Had you accompanied me to this year's PhotoPlus in NYC (no recrimination, just stating a fact) you could have had the pleasure of playing with the newly introduced Panasonic DMC-G85 (aka G80 outside the US). Quite impressive. Imagine the GX8 mated with an Olympus E-M1 and you get the basic idea. It doesn't have a tilted EVF but it does have an articulating rear display. Other features that might interest you are dual IS (in-body + optical), quiet, shock-free shutter, and a variety of automated focus modes. Examples include focus-stacking, and post-exposure focus control. You probably could not care less that it also has stabilized 4K video, but others might. The biggest complaint about it so far is that the IS is so aggressive it causes jumpy video when panning from side-to-side. For some reason the G85's sibling, the DMC-GX85, does not have this problem. You'd have to shoot video fairly often to care much either way.

"Bottom line: You are not alone in realizing that Panasonic mirrorless cameras are serious contenders. Don't be too surprised if dozens of your readers write in to voice their agreement."

Dave Levingston: "I'm still loving my GX8 (purchased on the sale that you announced here last month). I am starting to think that I won't be using my Nikon D7000 much any more. And the 12–60mm lens that Adorama was 'giving away' with it is really a great lens. Very sharp, very little distortion and a near perfect range of focal lengths. I have yet to see the shutter issue. I've not tested for it and really have not studied up on it. I just keep shooting and getting excellent results. My only complaint so far is that the lens and sensor are so sharp that I've had to introduce a touch of blur in Photoshop for portraits. You could see pores in the pores."

How You Know the Season Is Really Over in the Finger Lakes

N/t.

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:

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Photography and Procrastination

I've been a procrastinator all my life. I keep meaning to do something about that.

Procrastination—putting things off till later—doesn't mix very well with photography. To the best of my knowledge, Jay Maisel is the strongest sane voice regarding this, in his book It's Not About the F-Stop, which I recommend for all photographers, especially young ones or beginners of any age.

Jay writes short. He's pithy. He packs a lot of wisdom into few words. The short section titled "Shoot It Now" ends with the line, "Never go back. Shoot it now. When you go back, it will always be different."

I chose photography in part as a corrective. It compensated for many things for me. My frustration with drawing, for one. And I needed a subject to master and make my own—intellectually I'm a generalist, ranging broadly but not deeply, and I was an expert in nothing. (I still know very little about photography; I just know more about it than most people do.) I needed to learn the culture of something in order to give a useful core to my thinking, my experimenting, and my observations...but it had to be something complex that had a lot of different facets to it. Photography fit that bill. And I needed something to write about—I love to write, but you can't write about nothing. (Well, Proust could, but most people can't.) Mostly, I was introverted and cerebral and tended to get lost in my head. I needed something to get me out of the house and out into the world. Photography served that last purpose particularly well.

I also chose photography because I had no aptitude for computers, and I needed a field that didn't involve computers!

(Sigh.)

But another corrective was this: I had an entrenched tendency to put things off till later, a tenacious mental habit of always thinking I'd forego doing something now and instead wait until some unspecified "later" when I would ostensibly be able to really do it well. Oh, the wonderful things that I've put off, the accomplishments I've never gotten around to! I'm getting much better at that as I get older—my current kitchen has never been left messy—but to be honest it's something I still struggle with.

A case in point happened just yesterday. I was driving down to Bath, New York, to the aptly named Bath Plumbing. As I drove the winding road along the shore of Keuka Lake I was thinking to myself, this is it—this is the most beautiful Fall day I've ever experienced, Number One, never better. When I got below the lake and away from the crowding woods, on the flat valley floors that offered vistas to the rising hills, I saw a spectacular sight—a vast hulking mountainside completely covered with peak Fall foliage, brilliantly lit by the slanting sun, with a huge stormcloud behind it.

Now, I'm pretty much the furthest thing from a Fall foliage photographer, but even I will stop to pick up a twenty-dollar bill lying at my feet.

So what did I find myself thinking? Wow, that's really stunning...I should think about stopping to photograph that on the way back from Bath.

@#%!

Remember Jay's words: when you go back, it will always be different. I drove on a ways, wrestling with myself. Finally I thought no, I'm going to shoot it now. I turned the car around and drove a mile or so back.

You know the upshot. I looked for a spot, parked the car, got out—and the hillside was shrouded in shadow. The sun had gone behind a vast, magnificent cloud.

So I waited.

And when the sun reappeared, ten minutes later, the dark cloud behind the mountain was gone. And so was my picture. The picture that had been right there was no longer anywhere.

Now, landscapes have the reputation of being lasting—a subject that's unchanging, a subject that will wait for you to take your time.

Don't believe it. Don't believe it for a second. Had I screeched to a stop and leapt out of the car I still might have missed the picture. Or maybe I would have gotten it. But I would have had a chance. Sometimes you have to be just as quick shooting landscapes as you are shooting kids or sports.

Whatever your aim, fight the impulse to procrastinate. When you see it, shoot it. Get the moment. Shoot it now.

Someday I will learn!

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.

Do this now...
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Mark Hobson: "When the wife and I are traveling by car—to a specific destination or just to enjoy the beautiful place in which we live (the Adirondack Park—I live in a park)—the wife always adds at least 20% more time than the the navi estimates to reach our destination for, you guessed it, my picture making. And every time I stop for picturing, the navi lady asks if I am having a car problem or experiencing heavy traffic—she never asks if I have stopped to make a picture."

Jeff: "Reminds me of Ansel's famous 'Moonrise' shot. He saw the scene and pulled his car over despite the end of a day's shooting, couldn't find his meter, had to quickly remember the brightness of the moon to estimate exposure, in addition to getting his view camera set. After the first shot, he pulled his film holder to get a second exposure just in case, but the foreground light went dark. I wonder how much money he made off that split-second."

Mike replies: Daniel Grant, writing on Artnet, says, "In 1996, Adams biographer Mary Alinder estimated that 1,300 prints of Moonrise, Hernandez had been made over 40 years—often produced by Adams whenever an order for a copy came in, most of them done in the 1960s and ‘70s—worth a cumulative $25 million." The value on the secondary market has been much greater than that; Grant notes that the presale estimate for a 1970s print offered at Sotheby's in 2011 was $300,000–$500,000. The highest price ever hammered for a "Moonrise" print was $609,600 in 2006.

Joe Holmes: "Yes, what Jeff said—that Ansel Adams story sets the standard for me. Slam on brakes! You can read Ansel's telling of it. I, too, had too many of those 'I'll shoot it next time' moments, so that I've finally trained myself not to fall for that. Remember what Elvis sang. 'It's now or never.'"

Manuel: "Photographic opportunities don't have the habit of popping up whenever we need them. Once lost, they're lost forever. Which is not bad, as it assures uniqueness to the photographs. (Would we value that famous picture if all Parisian police officers would routinely jump over a pool behind St. Lazare's railway station?)

"This entry brought a little episode to my mind; not exactly a case of procrastination (I can't help thinking about Lee Morgan when I read this word!) [I have that on vinyl, CD, and as an MP4 file —Ed.], but one of opportunities never repeating themselves: some three years ago I was walking by the seaside on a sunny sunday afternoon, camera hanging from neck, when I saw this rustic family sitting on a concrete wall by the beach and facing the sea. It was a typical Portuguese countryside family, which added strangeness to the landscape and made for a scene Cartier-Bresson and Doisneau wouldn't have disdained. I got close and shot the rustic family; I rejoiced, imagining I had a keeper there, but then, as I was going through the routine of checking the pictures taken so far and deleting the failed ones, I accidentally erased the photo of the rustic family! Even though I was alone, I swore loud when I realized what I had done. (I screamed the portuguese equivalent of the f-word...)

"As this mishap occurred shortly after I took the photo, I went back to that spot to see if the rustic family was still there. As you might have anticipated, they had already left. The portuguese equivalent for the f-word came to my mind again, but this time I was able not to shout it. I went back home—the debacle made me lose my enthusiasm and end the photographic session earlier than expected—and posted an entry on my blog asking my readers if they knew of any means to retrieve the lost picture from the memory card. Fortunately one of the readers informed me there was an application for that. And it worked. But the Portuguese equivalent for the f-word haunted me again when I realized the picture wasn't that great. (Well, you can judge for yourselves.)"

Mike replies: Hmm, maybe not a stone hit, but good to look at. My eye went right to the six boats and the boy and bird on the rocks. The activity of photographing is so interesting, isn't it?

John W.: "Years ago I was in charge of a group of foresters working in China to help train some Chinese foresters in modern forestry techniques. At one point we were each assigned a trainee interpreter. One day we were all walking through a new plantation when the trainees started asking their assigned experts what they were 'experts' in. Each explained their various expertise. Finally my trainee asked me about mine. I told her I was more of a generalist. She thought for a while, then her face lit up and she said, 'I understand. An all-round genius.' I never heard the end of that, and one of the wise-asses even had cards made up for me with that title."

Terry Letton: "Mike you have picked up a mirror and I think we all see our reflection in it."

John Camp: "Several years ago I was in Washington D.C. when a bus passed me and suddenly jerked to the side of the street a hundred feet away, and the panicked passengers began piling out. I realized then that the bus was actually on fire, with fire running up the back of it, and fire actually dripping onto the road (burning fuel, maybe diesel). People were yelling, 'get back get back,' and so on, and then the fire truck arrived, with the back end of the bus now fully involved in flame. The firemen put it out in a couple of minutes with foam (or maybe some kind of powder, I don't remember.) About the time they started the cleanup, I remembered that I had a camera hanging off my shoulder."

Price of Olympus EM-1 Mark II Announced

B&H has recently put up its pre-order page for the forthcoming Olympus OM-D EM-1 Mark II, and the price is...

...Two grand.

Minus a dollar.  vjn.fdjbnkj nbck m cmjf

Wow! I had to pick my jaw off the keyboard there.

Granted, it's not Leica territory, but you can get a full-frame Sony with IBIS for $300 less, and as far as I can tell or recall, it's the most expensive Micro 4/3 body ever. (Is that right?) To put it another way, that's more than two E-PL7 bodies more than the EM-5 Mark II. It's more than three E-M10's.

It looks like a nice camera, meaningfully improved, but, well, that's a load of dosh.

Several possible reasons:

• Cameramakers are realizing they have to earn a greater share of each new model's profits from early sales to non-price-sensitive customers.
• E-M1 II is aimed at professionals, for whom equipment is a business expense and who are used to depreciating equipment costs. Lesser mortals can dang well buy cheaper Olympuses, or the premium but not professional Pen-F ($800 less!) that's made for enthusiasts.
• Two words: Veblen Good! High price = high status.
• Strong yen, Brexit, falling camera sales, election FUD; sundry other rationalizations and excuses.
• Maybe it's just priced to make a good companion for the new 25mm ƒ/1.2 lens.

I haven't been able to find the cost of the E-M1 when it first came out (it's $1,100 now), but I think it was $1,300 or $1,400. The new E-M1 II is $400 more expensive than either the Fuji X-Pro2 or X-T2. The Sony A6500 is stiffly priced at $1,400—almost three times the cost of its similar but lower-spec'd stablemate the A6000—but the EM-1 II is $600 more...with its somewhat smaller sensor.

On the other hand, there's...

...And we loved the E-M1. Nicely designed and ergonomic little camera. Still, is the value equation in the ballpark? Discuss....

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:

Peter Wright: "I think your last point may be the one. I got a 25mm ƒ/1.2 from my local dealer a couple of weeks back to try out with my old E-M5. I then re-read "How To Stress a Camera Lens" by our 'hmbl. ed' from some years back, and set to it.

"It was like trying to stress Hulk Hogan. (My Zeiss 50mm Macro Planar gave up earlier, and so did my Panasonic Leica 25mm ƒ/1.4.) Perhaps we have a new 'normal' to add to the pantheon? The thinking at Olympus may be, that if phones are taking over the casual and low-end market, then they need products that can hold the high end market if they want to stay in business long term. Now I'm going to have to buy a E-M1 Mark II to use with my 25mm ƒ/1.2. Dang!"

cfw: "After my painstaking analysis of factors comprising the value equation for this camera, my conclusion is: I'll wait a couple-three years to buy one."

Mike replies: I've reached the same conclusion regarding buying another Miata, except I have to wait five-six years. Maybe I'll treat myself to one for my 65th birthday, in lieu of retirement.  :-)

c.d.embrey: "Not a Veblen Good. It's just Olympus's flagship model. Check out Canon's flagship 1DX Mark II 20MP @ 14 FPS, 4K/60p video at $5,999, and Nikon's flagship D5, 12 FPS, 20MP FX, 4K video at $6,496.95. If you look at the specs, these three share many features needed by professional photographers. A fried of mine happily plunked down the money for a 1DX Mark II plus lenses (he was switching from Nikon). He thought it would have a great ROI, and didn't give the cost a second thought. Your mileage may vary."

Keith: "Lost—one large bag of marbles. If found please return to Olympus Corporation, Attn: Marketing Dept., Tokyo, Japan."

Trecento: "I know I tend to see these things a little off from most people, so please bear with me.

"I think this high price is not just a consequence of the manufacturer's margins getting squeezed, but also of the sufficiency of camera tech. Cameras aren't likely to get too much better at producing technically excellent images (I think we have about two stops left in possible noise/dynamic range, and maybe, possibly, another stop worth of pixel density. After that, we'd need something different to make another great leap forward), so it's plausible that you could market the end point cameras at the 'top of the line.' I'm thinking of the Super Speed Graphic, introduced in 1958, which successfully addressed every shortcoming of the press cameras before it. There was nothing left to improve.

"I don't think this pricing strategy is going to work for us though. Enthusiasts—particularly camera hobbists—like cameras, like playing with cameras, complaining about cameras, and especially, buying cameras. Prices in this range take away the fun. We can't play with something like that.

"We can't 'stretch' the way one can when one crosses their fingers, and swallows some existential dread and goes from the entry-level $550 camera to the mid-level $850 one, or from the low prosumer $1,200 to the full prosumer $1,500. The jump may only be $300-ish each time. But once you cross that single-car-payment level into that single-rent-payment level, it doesn't look so good.

"I don't think the camera companies have really figured out how much of the great run-up in camera sales was due to that enthusiasm: pay a bit every year or two, get a whole lot of improvement, yay! This transition is going to squeeze them from every side. The collectors are going to lose interest, the enthusiasts are going to run out of money, and new people are not going to get in to the hobby because the reward of incrementally better pictures is not going to outweigh the punishment of abstruse lingo and interfaces, nor the discouragement of being unable to readily share what they've shot. Not being able to post directly from the camera is akin to not being able to make prints! We are at the point where the iPhone takes pictures that are better than any point-and-shoot of the film era, and (thanks to the terrible product design) better than most digicams. It's good enough for ordinary purposes.

"They'd be better off taking a page from their awful compact camera playbook, and just re-release the same thing over and over with lots of inconsequential changes, at an affordable price.

"Meanwhile, what shall we do? Panasonic still makes affordable cameras for Micro 4/3, and Fuji makes really nice APS-C ones with lenses to match. Sony makes full-frame cameras that you can now adapt all kinds of stuff to. It looks like folk who want to take certain kinds of pictures will be buying mid and entry level cameras (I'm curiously okay with a Panasonic G3, a tiny little un-pro looking camera from about two generations ago, but I know I'm weird, a niche, population: 1), and watching for the flagship cameras to roll off into the discontinued zone. After all, we've reached a point of sufficientcy, haven't we?"

Phil Stiles: "I'm a sports shooter who has migrated down to Micro 4/3 from Canon, because the gear is a lot lighter and a lot cheaper. The Panasonic/Leica 100–400mm is a great lens, and I can a see an EM-1 Mark II wringing some excellent results out that lens with its improved focus and frame rates. So I want one. However, I will wait for the inevitable price cuts after it's been out for while. Almost as exciting for me is the 12-100mm, as it's reported to finally be that one-lens-that-does-it-all with pro quality."

Andrew Leinonen: "It seems to me that the issue with pricing is that the E-M1 II is simply more camera than the vast, vast majority of people need.

"It seems like people have been waiting for a bit of a sensor upgrade for Micro 4/3, and while the E-M1 II represents that slight bump, it also carries with it a whole bunch of features that most Micro 4/3 enthusiasts don't need or will ever use. Those enthusiasts have become accustomed to purchasing the top-of-the-line gear because it's still relatively affordable by the standards of other systems.

• The E-M1 II shoots full resolution RAWs with the mechanical shutter at 15 fps, and then when the buffer is full, it shoots at 9.5 fps (!) forever.
• It has 5-axis IBIS that is good for 5.5 stops of compensation. So you can shoot your 300mm ƒ/4 at 1/15 sec. and still be assured a sharp shot.
• It has a 120 fps viewfinder with no blackout in continuous shooting.
• It has a software focus limiter that lets you choose the distance range any lens will focus within.
• It shoots Cinema 4K video at 237 Mbps. That's more than twice the bit rate of the GH4 (less compressed is not always better, but still).
• The RAW files from its High-Res mode, which now compensate for subject motion to some extent, are 80 MP. Enough to pixel peep when printed on the side of a bus.
• It uses its IBIS gyroscopes to detect panning motion to help its 121 PDAF cross-points determine your intentions while using Continuous Autofocus.

"The X-T2 and A6500 have a few of these features. The A7r II has some more of these features. The D500 has some more of these features. The D5 and 1DX II have some more of these features. None of those cameras have all of these features.

"I shoot mainly 6x7 film and a Panasonic GX7, these days. If this camera was priced lower, I would strongly consider buying one. Because I want one. But there is no way that I need one. And unless you're the kind of photographer that already owns a D500, D4, D5, 7D II, or 1DX, it sounds like you don't need one either."

Jim: "Overpriced, under-spec'd, and an ergonomic nightmare. Nothing is intuitive on that camera's UI except maybe the shutter button."

Bill Tyler: "A lot of my photography is nature/wildlife/macro. This body addresses almost all the major issues that I have using the OM-D E-M1, assuming it lives up to the advertising.

"First, battery life. The original E-M1 just goes through batteries too fast. I don't mind carrying spares. What I do mind is missing shots because I'm changing batteries.

"Second, the much improved EVF. Try shooting a sequence of a flying bird with the Mark 1, and you'll find that you can't hold it in the viewfinder. A faster EVF should fix that. If Olympus can be believed, the Mark II will do a better job of holding focus on that same bird. And I absolutely love the 14-frame pre-capture mode, where the camera buffers the 14 frames before you fully press the shutter. Watch a predator (I used to have geckos) stalking prey (like a grasshopper). The actual capture happens at an unpredictable time, and with lightning quickness.

"I could go on, and I'm sure that the new features aren't quite as perfect as Olympus would have you believe, but even so, this is a very significant upgrade."

Thursday Open Mike: Cubs Fans Morose (OT)

Chicago, USA—Fans of the Chicago Cubs are dismayed this morning that the team has broken one of the proudest and longest records in sports.

A hundred and eight years is longer than the lifetimes of all but 43 Cubs fans, of whom 17 were capable of understanding the latest perplexing development in the team's fortunes. "If they start not winning again right now, they'll only be at 71 when I'm ninety," wailed Jimmy Appledongle, 19, of Logan Square. "Why would they throw that all away? Why?"

Sid "Pap" Wikolsky, 89, reminisced about the first time he saw the Cubs lose. "Ah, it was grand, it was," he beamed. "They were ahead 10-4 at the seventh inning stretch, but still managed to flush it down the drain," on a series of quasi-comical infield errors. It was 1934 and Pap Wikolsky was seven years old. He cherishes the memory.

"The Cubs taught me how to deal with setbacks, with failure, and yes, even the inevitability of my eventual death," said an unidentified female fan of older middle age. "I've seen them shut out, I've seen them blow leads, I've seen them not come to play, I've even seen them lose on bad calls." Asked if there was a particular occasion she remembers best, she said there wasn't, then mentioned a time when the Cubs had two out and bases loaded and Ryne Sandberg was called out on a low and outside pitch that very clearly caught the corner. She was able to nurse the resulting sense of injustice for many years. "After 1985, the one thing we in Chicago could count on was the Cubs not succeeding."

Then she added softly, "All gone now."

Image courtesy of the Cubs Suck Club, and no, that's not a joke.

Many fans are distraught about the implications of the World Series win for their long-held superstitions. Dr. Darnwell Milkit, a psychologist, explained that those superstitions have been subtly integrated as an organizing principle of many Cubs fans' lives. He explained that it might take a while to sink in, but that many fans might wake up one day soon to a feeling of interior dread and alienation as the unnatural event starts to settle in as real—a sense that the world has somehow lost stable meaning. "I've advised them to become Libertarians for a while, to help ease the transition," Dr. Milkit said. He cited Ed Reszewski of Lake Forest, who has been working for more than three decades to influence the Cubs' fortunes by wearing the correct socks. "On Wednesday morning I didn't even pay any attention to the socks," Ed reported, shaking his head in amazement. "Wait, maybe that's it!"

Wrigley Field has always been a peaceful place, a place of only transitory exultation, a place where placid fans can go to get some reading done. Each time the Cubs won, those fans could take fatalistic solace in knowing it wouldn't matter in the end, that the wistful autumnal melancholy so many Chicagoans inevitably associate with Wrigley would always return. Pitchers used to sign with the Cubs so they could be assured of having Octobers off to rest their arms. Fans always enjoyed the self-flagellation and self-denigration they felt was their birthright. It's going to be different now, and it may take fans a while to adjust.

The city of Boston has sent an emergency team of veteran counselors to help distraught Chicagoans with the transition. "They'll be all right," said Ed Gaffney, a Red Sox fan who could only bring himself to watch Sox at-bats during their World Series in 2004, leaving the room each time the Cardinals were up. "You do get used to it. They'll see."

Then he thought for a moment. "...Although I still can't quite wrap my head around the idea that the Curse isn't real." Baby steps, Cubs fans. It takes time.

Mike

Open Mike is supposed to appear on Wednesdays, but yesterday the dog ate my homework.

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.

Take a swing at it
Join our support campaign or buy something

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

Kenneth Tanaka: "Very cute. But this Cubs fan isn't morose. This Cubs fan went to elementary school two blocks from Wrigley Field. This Cubs fan used to know an usher who would let a few of us kids into the park for free on home game days at bottom of the 7th (and after school). This Cubs fan used to clean sections of seats to get a free pass to the next home game (circa early 1960s). This Cubs fan used to wait patiently outside the old clubhouse entrance on Clark Street for autographs from Banks, Williams, Santo, et al.

"But this Cubs fan never saw the Cubs in a World Series game, let alone win the Series. Until last night. And this Cubs fan cried like a baby last night, for all the losing efforts. For all his boyhood pals that didn't make it to see this unbelievable game. For his long-gone grandmother who listened to every Cubs game on her gray Motorola radio. No counseling needed here. Just some time to absorb the experience of the Chicago Cubs winning a World Series. Just some time."

Mike replies: Wait, you were at the game last night? In person? In all seriousness, that has the be the #1 game to have seen in person of any game in baseball history, or at least since about 1927. A mortal lock for the top 10.

Ken: "Nope. I watched the game on tv. I doubt I could have survived seeing that game in-person. Wow."

Mike: Good to know. You know there are already more than 40,000 Chicagoans telling their friends they were at the game in Cleveland, a number that is sure to swell as the years go by. (Progressive Field seats about 35,225 people.) Me, I just need to move up to TV.

Darlene: "Kenneth Tanaka's post makes me smile."

Norm Nicholson (partial comment): "Around 1990 there was an article in the New York Times stating that left-handed people didn't live as long as right-handed people--that put me in a funk. My wife said that I had to do something to snap out our of it. So I took my 15-year-old daughter to Indonesia.

"Everywhere in Bali, kids were riding on mopeds wearing T-shirts that said, 'Take Me Out, The American Baseball.' My daughter and I wondered, what in the world does that mean? A few days later we were in a cafe, and there was Harry Carey on TV leading the crowed in 'Take Me Out to The Ball Game,' and all of the fans were standing and singing and holding hands and swaying. WGN was a TV superstation and the Cubs were carried worldwide on satellite.

"Because of Wrigley, the people I met in Bali thought America was this wonderful place where everyone got along. It must be true, they saw it on TV.

"I learned patience being a Cub Fan, and I learned that fans of opposing teams were well tolerated at Wrigley. I also learned that there is a fine art to the game; it has grace, skill, luck, an awareness of the passing of time, and so much more.

"I'm 83 now, still photograph a lot, and have steady hands. I'm thankful that I have lived to see the Cubs win the World Series. The Cubs are no longer 'lovable losers.' They are 'lovable winners.' It's a new era. Baseball is on an upswing. May the country benefit.

"Take Me Out To The Ball Game."

Thomas Turnbull: "Thanks, Ken, so very much for sharing such a wonderful facet of your life with us! I was late to the party, myself, but I'm there wholeheartedly now—enthusiastically, hopefully, nailbitingly there—as I was via TV for every game of this Series!

"The reason I made it to the party at all was knowing and watching my brother, Warren. He started rooting for the Cubs in 1948, when he was six years old, and he kept at it, steadfastly rooting for the rest of his life. He died three years ago, so he never saw them win the World Series, but that didn't stop him.

"I was impressed and curious, so a year or so before he died I asked him why he'd picked the Cubs. 'I liked their uniforms,' he told me! I laughed, of course, but still just had to watch this Series in his honor. Now that I have, I've found my team! I hope I can carry his torch with something approaching his unassuming flair and faithfulness...and Faithfulness. 'Go Cubs' and all the best, Tom Turnbull."

Chris Y.: "Best line I've heard so far: 'The last time the Cubs won the World Series was [looks at watch]...seven hours ago...."