(Blog Note)

It's a funny thing, but I found myself "written out" yesterday. After writing that 2,650-word post about the Detour on Wednesday, I was depleted. Didn't have enough left in the tank to write yesterday. Out of gas.

One morning is really just not enough time to write a 2,650-word essay. It really just takes longer to incubate. It's like baking a cake—you just have to wait for it to rise. You mustn't rush it.

Anyway, my reservoir is partially refilled this morning, and I'm back to normal and working on something new. About large-format digital (because really, there's nothing "medium" about it. Let's face it, we blew the terminology for sensor sizes. We had a chance to start from scratch and we created a total mess instead).

More soon.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2020 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:

Dan Khong: "Sounds like a variant of 'writer's block' which can affect the best of writers and poets. Pat Butters and Lulu. They've got the right therapy to Man's woes of all sorts. Or fondle some shooting equipment—and that also include the billiard cue. Recovery can be instantaneous...until the next attack."

Peter Croft: "Only 2,650 words? I've just read the biography of Einstein by Walter Isaacson, about 550 pages plus another hundred of notes and acknowledgements. While reading it (at about an hour per session before lights out) I boggled at the detail and research in this book.

"Then I Googled the author and found that he's done the same for Leonardo, Ben Franklin, Steve Jobs, Henry Kissinger and several other major books. As well, he held top positions at Time, a partnership in a financial firm, a professorship and numerous other positions.

"This man is a powerhouse! When I think of the research he put into the Einstein book and realise he's done it for all those others, in his spare time so to speak, I surrender the canvas. Only 2,650 words? Buck up, lad."

Mike replies: Peter, I've written approximately 10–12 million words in my life, including 3–4 on this and my previous blog. I write every day of my life. I write when I feel like it and I write when I don't.

Different writers have very different appetites for the work. David Foster Wallace could write twenty-five thousand words in a day [Source]. That's somewhere between a quarter and a fifth of an everyday bookstore novel. Stephen King thinks anyone worth their salt should be able to write two thousand words a day, and if memory serves he wrote four thousand—until his "retirement," when he went on something like half speed, meaning he was still working harder than most writers. On the other hand, Hemingway toiled six hours a day producing a mere 600 words. That's fewer than your comment plus this reply. Is Stephen King better than Hemingway?

Dickens had a full life too but churned out novels in torrents, and he wrote more letters than most writers write anything, yet he pales compared to Trollope or Joyce Carol Oates. At the other extreme, Margaret Mitchell and Harper Lee each wrote essentially one book in their entire lives (I disqualify Lee's Go Set a Watchman—I'm in the camp who consider it the exploitation of a famous writer with diminished faculties, a set-aside first draft published to capitalize on her name). Some writers are miniaturists and toil over short-form pieces. Dylan Thomas drank copious amounts of liquor while producing sometimes no more than two lines of a poem in a day's work, while D.H. Lawrence once received a demand from his editor to cut 60,000 words from a manuscript and he returned it with 30,000 more added. (Or were the numbers the other way around?) Apropos of which, this reply started out as two paragraphs.

I'd wager that Thomas Pynchon covered as many words in a single book as Raymond Carver produced in his lifetime. Pynchon: Against the Day has 1,085 pages; Carver: "The bibliography of Raymond Carver consists of 72 short stories, 306 poems, a novel fragment, a one-act play, a screenplay co-written with Tess Gallagher, and 32 pieces of non-fiction (essays, a meditation, introductions, and book reviews) [Wikipedia]." Carver might win but it could be a close race. But if we had to trade the loss of all of Carver against the loss of one Pynchon novel, I know where I'd stand on that.

I have a middling amount of energy for the work—more than some, less than others. Probably less than the median, I will concede. Do I wish I had more energy, more capacity? Yes. But we each have the resources we have; we are what we are; we can do what we can do. And everyone has ups and downs. Every now and then a certain exhaustion sets in. I'm very familiar with it. I'm very familiar with the rhythms of this life. It'll pass.

Ideally, writing should not look like it's hard. But it can be.

Dogman: "I'm in awe of Belgian writer George Simenon, best known for his series featuring the detective Maigret. According to Wikipedia, he wrote almost 500 novels of various genres using numerous pen names. He was also known for his affairs with the ladies. I've read that he ended his affair with dancer Josephine Baker because he said she distracted him from writing. In the year they were together he said he "only" completed one novel a month. Well, I understand. She was quite a distraction."

anthony reczek: "Hi Mike, I'm not sure Peter's comment was to be taken seriously; I was surprised—though quite impressed—by your response. Oh well, such is the state of virtual/online communications in this day and age. Maybe someday I'll develop an app to address that (not), but in the meantime, we all do the best we can...."

Kye Wood: "Long time TOP reader here. Your writing has been at the top of its game of late (last few months, at a minimum). No sign of being forced. Better to take a break than grind out forced work. You'll lose more readers from reduced quality than you ever would from a well earned break—especially when you give notice. I second the call to grab a camera, take a trip (just a day trip) and fire up the visual cortex. OCOLOD (yep, one camera, one lens, one day.  :-)  "

Mike Chisholm: "If you don't know it, look up the word 'skeuomorph,' possibly the ugliest useful word (most useful ugly word?) I've ever come across. It may not explain our sensor-size confusions, but it certainly describes them."

Mike replies: Thank you! I didn't know that word, and it is indeed useful.

Comments

[Kodachromeguy]

We blew the terminology? You mean, "full frame" is really the "miniature format?"

[Full frame is really digital's medium format, isn't it? --Mike]

[Michael J. Perini]

Digital sensors COULD have been any shape or size, and Digital cameras could have been also, there was no "Film size" or aspect ratio that had to be adhered to.
That Ship has sailed.......
But there were practical considerations like many decades of experience with what shape & size cameras were expected to be as well as a huge installed base and lens collections that no one wanted to make obsolete 'overnight'
So we got mostly cameras that looked like film cameras and could use existing lenses. Except actual sensors couldn't be made cost effective in the 24x36 format that so many people liked, so we got the same aspect ratio in a smaller, more economical size for the first several generations from the major manufacturers. -....and had Crop factors thrust upon is.
I know everyone knows this, but I recount it here only to say that the only reason we talk about 'Full Frame" is because after several digital generations of APS-c , 24x36mm sensors became feasible and we had to call them SOMETHING. They were the Full 24x36mm Frame. And then got rid of the initially annoying and often misunderstood 'Crop Factor'. That seems quaint now, but I certainly remember being annoyed by it.
While I understand your point about FF being the new MF, I don't really think it 'helps' . FF gets us back to the size most of us learned on and learned to visualize what different focal lengths looked like.
Its sort of a 'home base'. It is the one sensor size that's the same as the most popular film size in history. I guess we're stuck with the unnecessary 'Full Frame' appellation, we're not going back to calling it 35mm.
It even makes sense for young folks who learned on Digital because FF still means it is the same size as the newly popular Film that they all also know.
But then , for me MF was a 54mm Square nee' 6x6 , I never liked 6x4.5 or 6x7 (or Fujifilm's 6x8) Though I did have a "6x 12" black for my 4x5.

So I vote no on calling 24x36 the new MF. --Even though no one called for a vote.......; -))

[Jim Arthur]

Maybe we should just use candy industry terms.

Fun Size = Phones
Travel Size = 4/3 & APS-C
Regular = Full Frame
King Size = Medium Format

[Brad]

I may enrage many with this post. I believe that aps-c is the digital form of the Leica 35mm camera.

[Robert Roaldi]

Is there a healthy ratio of reading vs writing for you? If you write too much in one day, does that mean that you didn't read as much that day, and that throws you off your game?

[Christer Almqvist]

You have no obligation to anybody regarding frequency or amount of writing. I do enjoy your writing, but you are not responsible for my enjoyment.

[Helcio J. Tagliolatto]

"[Full frame is really digital's medium format, isn't it? --Mike]"

I totally agree! And results speak for themselves.

[Bill Tyler]

When I was young, "miniature" meant full-frame 35mm.

[Dogman]

I'm in awe of Belgian writer George Simenon, best known for his series featuring the detective Maigret. According to Wikipedia, he wrote almost 500 novels of various genres using numerous pen names. He was also known for his affairs with the ladies. I've read that he ended his affair with dancer Josephine Baker because he said she distracted him from writing. In the year they were together he said he "only" completed one novel a month.

Well, I understand. She was quite a distraction.

[Robert]

I am enamored with bigger formats, be it film or digital. Can‘t wait for your essay - please, go to the fullest!
2nd please: Do not waste words for weight and volume - it can be done! ;-)

[Richard Parkin]

I think what Kodachromeguy is referring to is that I’m sure I never heard or read the term ‘full frame’ in my youth, for most people 620/120 film was the norm and I remember 35mm was written about as the “miniature format” and hence sub-miniature for those 16mm Minoxes. I remember reading a column somewhere (Amateur Photographer mag?) headed “Miniature Format” so this “full frame” terminology is quite funny and strictly speaking doesn’t make sense. The only thing that might be “full frame” is “half frame”, related to its origins as a movie format :).

Mike replies:

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2018/10/the-remarkable-persistence-of-24x36.html

[Richard Parkin]

I bet you’ve heard “ Skeuomorph” before because “Skeuomorphism” was widely praised & condemned in Apples UI, particularly I remember the Calendar which looked like a paper diary, which I always liked. Apparently “neomorphism” is the new thing which is said to embody the virtues of skeuomorphism and ‘flattism’ (or whatever the current look is called :) ).

(Thanks for the ‘meta-comment’, yes, I remember that excellent post now.)

[Bob G.]

+1 for Jim Arthur’s candy formats!

[scott kiripatrick]

Skeuomorph is indeed useful. Here's a great example --

[David Lee]

I agree with Brad. Fully.

[Patrick Dodds]

Write when you like about what you like Mike - we'll still come back. I thought Peter was being not quite serious too by the way, if that matters at all.

[Bear.]

There is a story (apocryphal, I assume) that the late Prof. Harold Bloom, the famously prolific literary critic, was to meet with a post-doctoral student who duly arrived at his apartment. His wife answered the door and apologised that the professor could not make the meeting because he was caught up with writing his latest book and would not be interrupted during his writing process. The student replied, 'No problem. I'll wait.'

[Kodachromeguy]

"[Full frame is really digital's medium format, isn't it? --Mike]". Oh, no. Full frame is all that any "pro" will ever need for any photo project. Med. format digital is totally unnecessary, is for poseurs and rich ameteurs, has the wrong equivalence, is "outrageously" priced, requires lenses that are outrageous size, does not create better 8-bit jpegs as viewed on a phone, etc., etc.