« August 2021 | Main | October 2021 »
A reader noted that I often champion and defend the use of prime (single focal-length) lenses, so he asked me to do the same for zooms. When, he asked, is a zoom necessary, or best?
Well, I'm probably not the one to ask, and the thought of trying to write a post about all the situations in which zooms are useful makes me tired just thinking about it. That is a swamp into which I hesitate to wade. But I'll tell you one situation in which a zoom would be highly useful:
The one I'm in.
I live in a beautiful and picturesque region where there is nothing consistent about what one might consider a suitable subject for a picture. Sometimes I'd like to clip a little bit out of the distant landscape, or compress space for dramatic effect; sometimes I'd like to take in half the dome of the sky or capture a broad view of cows dotting a hillside. Sometimes the subjects are close, sometimes far. Sometimes the light is great, other times I want to shoot at the edge of darkness. Sometimes I'd like to shoot an interior and get the whole room, sometimes what I want to do is a portrait of just a person's face. There's just nothing consistent about the focal length I'm going to need...even at one single time standing in one single place, much less hour upon hour or day-in, day-out.
You might say I could take a variety of primes, but even then I'd fall short, I'm pretty sure. Unless I really wanted to make a pack animal out of myself and jeopardize my back. The only thing I've learned for certain here is that a lens that is longer than 70mm-e on the long end comes in very handy up here. I learned that when I was shooting with the Panasonic GX9 and 12–60mm (120mm-e) last year. A fair number of pictures needed more than 70mm equivalent just to work, never mind work well.
On the other hand the Fuji 100–400mm was too long. A beautiful lens, and one I'm glad I had an opportunity to use—I learned a lot from the experience—but whenever I was out and about with only that lens (something I often do with lenses I'm reviewing, to force myself to shoot with them), I often felt I was in need of something shorter.
If I were someone else and I were advising that guy with practicality and thoughtfulness uppermost in mind, I'd tell him to get an Olympus 12–100mm zoom and be done with it.
I love primes. But myself would tell myself to not be a dolt and get the zoom. One and done. It would cover about everything I need here. As it is, though, I don't shoot Micro 4/3. I already shoot nine other systems and formats—or is it 13?*—and I don't need one more.
But that's one situation for you, Reader Who Asked!
Mike
*Methinks myself exaggerates.
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Stephen S.: "Pre-COVID, I was shooting behind-the-scenes promotional photos for a TV series, while also performing other duties on that series. I had the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 but often found myself needing something longer, but couldn't give up the wide angle. I couldn't carry a second lens and swap over to it, nor could I carry a second body with a second lens.
"I had originally dismissed the 12–100mm ƒ/4 as I expected it to have poor images quality like a typical cheap superzoom, but the more reviews I read, the more it seemed to be quite good. So I did an experiment: I shot for a day with the 12–40mm at ƒ/4 and smaller, to see if I could live with the smaller aperture. I shot a few times, when I could, with the 40–150mm at no more than 100mm, to see if the longer focal length would make enough of a difference.
"The conclusion was clear: I bought the 12–100mm and sold the 12–40mm, and was so glad I did. The added size and weight was a compromise, but the image quality wasn't, and the extended focal length made an incredible difference, giving me the ability to go from wide environmental shots to instantly sniping close-up headshots in cramped quarters where I couldn't move. It was the lens that literally made my job possible."
Jim Simmons: "A super-wide zoom (16–35mm equivalent) is very useful for interior architecture/real estate photography. Limitations to where you can position the camera and what you want to include can require very precise framing requirements that a zoom can be very helpful with. One of my most-used lenses when I did architecture was the Pentax 55–100mm zoom on the Pentax 67. This was a ~28–50mm equivalent."
Dan Khong: "I'm one for extremes. Nothing cuts it like a 25–600mm zoom, constant ƒ/2.8 aperture. Leica V-Lux4."
JH: "The original reason for zooms was convenience—to have one lens replace a number of lenses, with the tradeoff being lower image quality and slower apertures. When I started using them 50 years ago, I typically limited their use to telephotos and kept a 28/35mm wide-angle prime as my normal lens. Now it's two zooms, short and long.
"In the digital era, if you mate a manufacturer's own zoom with their bodies, digital processing will correct for many of the imaging issues of zooms. But in the modern lenses, computer-assisted design and advanced optical materials correct many of those issues before correction by the camera.
"I've written here before, I have used zooms for so long that I find myself frustrated by a single focal length lens.
But for you Mike, it's probably a bit like your preference for manual transmission cars—you have probably not spent sufficient time with a modern automatic transmission and you don't live in an urban traffic area where you learn to appreciate their convenience—and find out they get better gas mileage. If you drove a lot here in L.A., you might think differently.
Perhaps you should try a more realistic version of your OCOLOY challenge—for only a month—with a zoom. Or even a week.
"By the way, if the quality of optics bothers you, here is an example of what the Nikon Z 16–50 kit lens can do.
"While getting to know the camera, I took this photo looking south from the mountains at Will Rogers Historical Park looking South toward LAX—12 miles/20 km away through L.A. smog."
Mike replies: Oh, I've got much more experience than a month with a zoom only. My first digital SLR, the Konica-Minolta 7D, came with Minolta's version of the venerable Chinese-built Tamron 28–75mm FF lens (still available for Sony and Canon), and I shot with that lens exclusively for the entire time I owned that camera. A very nice lens on APS-C; I wouldn't know about how it does on FF. My son has it now.
I also used the Panasonic 12–35mm ƒ2.8 II as my main lens on the Panasonic GX8 while I had that. I still have that lens too. It's another one I really like.
Also, the little 2008 Mercedes C-Class I bought used in 2010 was an automatic, as was the RAV4 that replaced it in 2012. They drove me crazy! I kept wanting to know what gear the Mercedes was in, and although I forced myself to accept the status quo in the Toyota, I found it bland to drive. I still feel guilty for trading it in too soon, but I'm happier with my current 2014 Acura ILX 2.4—the last car, and the last year, Acura offered a manual. I got a great bargain on it, new, because the dealer couldn't unload it—Wisconsin, where I lived at the time, has a lower take-rate on manuals than the national average, which is low enough already.
My next car will be...my current one. My Acura is only at 91k miles, and I hope to keep it until 200k miles or even longer if I can. I could only afford a used car now, and I already have a nice used car I like.
I am now officially a dinosaur, did you know?
For those few people who are following along, my solar Seiko quartz watch, the one I wrote about in June, passed the 90-day mark running one and one-half seconds slow. Considering Seiko only claims accuracy to within 20 seconds a month for this ordinary $150 watch, that's remarkable. It extrapolates to accuracy of six seconds per year, which puts it easily into the category of HAQ—high-accuracy quartz. Meanwhile, I have a watch which is purported to be a real HAQ watch—a Bulova Precisionist 262 kHz similar to this one—that was 23 seconds slow at 60 days!
A reader who is "in the know" told me that many garden-variety solar quartz Seikos and kinetic quartz Seikos can be accurate to three seconds a year, which is closer to perfection than Seiko claims for its deluxe Grand Seiko models—such as this one that has the company's innovative part mechanical, part quartz Spring Drive.
Enough of this now,
Mike
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Kye Wood: "I am that someone in the know and I heartily endorse that post. Super odd addition, I've had 30 G-Shocks from lowly to insanely expensive models. Bombproof all, but the lousiest accuracy I've ever gotten, every one."
My friend the farmer and beekeeper Dave, up the hill, is wont to say: you've got to look for the motive, then for the motive behind the motive, then for the motive behind the motive behind the motive.
Ticking seconds
Here's a reason I like wearing a watch again: it helps with anxiety.
Strange. I never expected that.
If I get anxious I watch the seconds tick steadily past for a few minutes and it soothes me. It seems to say, "this too shall pass." If I'm grateful for something, I'm reminded to savor and enjoy it. If I'm going through something difficult, it reminds me that eventually this, too, shall recede and fade away. If it doesn't resolve, eventually it dissolves.
I can almost get into a meditative state watching the seconds tick past. When I resume whatever I was doing, I feel more centered, resilient, and calm. The anxious feeling subsides. It's a deep breath, a time-out. A pause, like the proverbial "count to ten."
Time flows. And heals.
Soften!
I got a knock on the door the other day. It was Dave with a box of peaches. An organic heirloom cultivar called Iron Mountain, from the trees behind his house. He was driving around distributing them to all his friends. I'm waiting for them to soften, counting the seconds, minutes, hours and days.
Mike
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Peter: "We planted a peach tree in our Boulder backyard two years ago this fall. No blooms or peaches last year, but this year we harvested over 30 incredibly juicy and fruity tasting peaches. Left them on the tree until they were fully ripe and ready to be eaten. They were incredible. In late spring I culled 75% of the olive-sized peaches so the tree would have a fighting chance, and good thing I did. The 30 or so I left were really weighing it down at the end."
Mike replies: I'm no gourmet, but everyone should taste a perfect peach at least once in their lives. I had a perfect white peach last Summer than was out of this world. Can't buy them for love or money—you either have to grow them yourself or get lucky. (I feel like Kramer with the mangoes....)
Here's what Charlie Dunton of Yorktown, Virginia, had to say about his submission for the "Grandkids" Baker's Dozen portfolio:
"I took this photo of my granddaughter during a visit to a local Five Guys restaurant for lunch. I spent the entire time photographing her, ending up with over 200 images. This [picture shows] one of the few times she gave any indication I was even there.
"Once home, I imported all the photos into Lightroom and discovered I had a nice story board of our lunch together. I selected 35 images that best told the story and added captions to each from her perspective. The caption for this one is, 'Oh, hi, Dadada, you are getting this aren’t you?'
"The story in brief: dip your french fry in a small cup of ketchup and lick the ketchup off the fry; try the same with the end of a crayon from the restaurant followed by a big yuck face; Dad notices ketchup on your chin and brings out a towelette resulting in strong objections; notices she has dried ketchup on her fingers that’s hard to get off so sticks fingers in ketchup cup for a bit, then finds to her amazement that the ketchup now wipes off easily; decides it’s time to change her dress which immediately brings out the finger of doom from Dad followed by a terrible pout face; lays head on table dejected at how long grownups take; new idea, draw Mommy a picture with the crayon; then sing Mommy a song they just learned, 'The Itsy Bitsy Spider,' complete with hand gestures and facial expressions followed by a big high-five from Dad.
"I saved everything in a Lightroom collection and didn’t share it with anyone for over 13 years. Then I had them made into a hardcover book and gave it to her on her 16th birthday. I think she liked it almost as much as I because the first thing she did when she got home was call her best friend and share it with her.
"We still have lunch together on occasion, but I don’t bring my camera any more. She wouldn’t stand for it. But what if I pull out my iPhone and pretend to be playing with it like all the kids do? There’s an idea.
"Sorry for all the words, but how else could I share 35 images when only one was allowed?"
Having not seen the other 34, I'll venture to say that one seems to do nicely!
I have only a couple of comments: first, that photographing active children in motion is actually a pretty good exercise of shooting skills. I was once asked to photograph four small but highly energetic brothers playing in their enclosed but well-outfitted back yard, and since I wasn't being paid I decided to try to do it on the fly, without asking the kids to hold still or pose or otherwise help to make my job easier. It was surprisingly challenging—getting coherent pictures was like trying to swat flies. They were in continual motion and seemed to never pause for long. Pointing the camera seemed a signal to move away. I shot three rolls of 135, which was 105 exposures, and had to settle for a couple of dozen competent shots, five or six to please the parents, and one photograph I thought was really good. Lots of blurs and shots just after the visual peak of the action.
I do like the relaxed, candid quality of this shot; it's clear it's not formally posed and that Charlie wasn't going for formal perfection. I think that makes the picture stronger. Despite the natural, candid feel it's still formally beautiful. The cropping, which would be too tight for some pictures, works with rather than against the gesture of the body and cock of the head, which in turn works with the expression of the mouth; the light is lovely, and the colors are harmonious and complement the lighting in turn. But nothing's excessive or overdone. A nice shot of a happy child mid-flight.
Taking 200 shots of one subject is what I'd call "working a subject." It's quite possible to get a shot this good with one lucky shot with a smartphone, but it will happen only occasionally. If you want to do it on purpose you usually have to work for it, like Charlie Dunton did. As a big-name photographer once said to me, "nobody sees how many shots you throw away."
Children disappear quickly—I still find it hard to believe that Sally Mann's son Emmett, memorialized as a boy in a number of his mother's famous pictures, has lived his whole life and is dead and gone now. Seize the day, they say. While that might be literally impossible, every now and then you can seize a good picture, which, although also impermanent in the long run, will at least outlast the moment.
Mike
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Sharon: "What an adorable child! Well done."
Charlie Dunton: "Mike, Thanks for the kind words. I must confess, this photo of my granddaughter was originally going to be the 'Oh, hi Grandada...' shot, but I had another that worked as well for that purpose and I decided the one I submitted made a much better final photo in the series. The caption for it is actually, 'Well, that's all from adorable moi. We had a lot of fun at Five Guys. TTFN. That's Ta Ta For Now, in case you didn't know.' If you would like to see the other 34, the full series with captions is here. Click the upper left image and then use the 'next' button on the site, or the right arrow key on your keyboard. Thanks again, Charlie Dunton."
This post relates to the next one pretty well. (Coming up.)
In a recent email, our friend the book author John Camp wrote:
"A couple of weeks ago you had a guy who wrote that if a street photo isn’t something a friend would tap you on the shoulder about—'Hey, look at that'—then it probably wasn’t a worthwhile street photo. I thought about that for a few minutes, and decided that the shoulder-tap was a great criterion for a street photo.
"Then I went and ordered that Bystander street photography book (from your site; I’ll thank myself on your behalf), and it really is a refutation of the should-tap idea. A very large proportion of the street photos I liked best were not shoulder-tap photos—they were photos of something a skilled photographer saw and snapped in an instant. For example, the very first photo in the book is the famous Cartier-Bresson shot of a man jumping across a puddle. If you tapped somebody on the shoulder and he turned to look, all he would see would be a man in a dark suit walking along. The moment would be gone. There are all kinds of shots that were made because of transitory facial expressions or split-second shots of kids acting out and in several cases, or because of shadows and contrasts that you walk through all the time…and they’re really good. So I’m somewhat down off the shoulder-tap idea, although it may still may have relevance for a certain kind of shooter."
It's a fair point, and broadly I agree. But to me, Kenneth Wajda's "shoulder tap" idea (here's the original article again) isn't exactly that you should be able to tap a friend on the shoulder and say "look at that" before making an exposure; it's that what you photograph ought to be something that someone else might agree is worth a second look.
There's at least one complication: we all differ over what's worth looking at. As an example of that, a reader sent me a link to a camera review recently. I thought the illustration pictures were particularly dreadful, and I said so. He wrote back and said he'd had the opposite reaction, that "they seemed of much better quality than the usual rote images." Another friend sent a group email with a link to some photos he liked, and one of the recipients thought the color was out of whack "in a way that makes the pictures really unpleasant to look at." Clearly, one person's trash is another's treasure, and vice-versa.
So then where's the useful nexus of this idea?
For me it's that we need to be sufficiently demanding of ourselves, our subjects, and our photographs.
I got this idea from photographer and artist Shirley True many years ago. She taught at the Corcoran, where I studied photography, but I wasn't in any of her classes. We were working in the school group darkroom once, and I asked her opinion of the picture I was printing.
Well, she didn't like it. She thought it was too flat, for one thing (she was probably right; I was really into low contrast for quite a while). That was the response everyone expected while printing—amounting to, how's my judgement here? Have I got the exposure and contrast right? But she went further—she said she didn't think much of the picture, either. She thought it was missing something, that it looked more like a reject than a select, you might say. Almost offhand, she made a curious comment—she said I wasn't "demanding enough" of my subject.
I chewed on that for a while afterwards. At a gallery show opening a few weeks later I asked her what she had meant by her comment. It's difficult here to put Shirley's own words back into her mouth when I've long since forgotten what the original picture was—and because thirty-odd years have passed!—but the meaning I took from it was that we have to have the courage and perseverance to get the best out of what we're photographing or we haven't really done our subject justice. She'd probably intuited that I'd been too shy to really confront the woman in my photograph, because I'd been afraid of the reaction I might get if I more aggressively went after the picture I really wanted.
She was doubtless right on. I was just too egotistic at the time to agree.
I've had that thought many times over the years since—I'll look at a portfolio or set of pictures and it's just clear that the photographer isn't demanding enough of his or her subject. They haven't made enough exposures to get the shot they were after, they didn't want to follow the subject or get into their space, they photographed them surreptitiously in some way—from the back, say, or when they weren't looking—or the camera was just too far away from the subject, the photographer not close enough. The result is not entirely a "no," but not completely a "yes" either.
Snapcrap
I think the same concept applies to pictures themselves. We're living in an era of anti-editing—anyone can post their own pictures anywhere. On the one hand, we congratulate ourselves on the freedom this allows, and decry the former world in which self-appointed gatekeepers kept our pictures from being seen. It's a fair point, but the opposite hasn't proved to be much better—now we live under a virtual Niagara of pointless snapcrap because many people don't even try to edit the good shot from all the ones they took around it. They just chuck everything up on the Web, presumably to let the hypothetical viewers sort it out themselves.
I think you could also call this "being demanding," but of our pictures. You'd think it wouldn't be so hard to just show the good ones; but of course it is. In an era of freedom and self-direction, more discipline and more principle and more restraint are needed, not less.
I get the feeling I've done a poor job of explaining my ideas here. This should probably be a five-day essay, not a one-day one. I hope you're able to fish from this gob of words the ones that got to the point. As a summary:
• Photographers should be demanding enough of their subjects, applying enough of whatever is needed—courage, boldness, energy, persistence, or whatever it is—to get the shot they really want. To go to whatever lengths necessary.
• As self-editors photographers should be demanding of their own work, recognizing the real successes and having the self-discipline to realize when they almost succeeded but didn't quite, or when a decent shot was just part of the process of getting a better one.
Anyway, that's the context in which I think the "tap on the shoulder" idea is useful. I can easily see that if Cartier-Bresson showed his puddle-jumper picture to ten friends, probably at least nine of the ten would understand why he thought it was a picture worth looking at. He has in effect tapped them on the shoulder and said "look at this"—and they knew why. Whereas with a great mass of the effluvium on the Internet these days, I can all too easily imagine showing a print to a friend or a passer-by only to elicit a response of, why are you showing me this? Why should I look at this?
I think that's the essence of the tap on the shoulder idea. It's a sort of minimum indicator of whether a photo works or is simply self-indulgent. Although, as I say, tastes vary, and sometimes a photographer does take pictures other people don't get.
I'll try to get the next post done today, since I think it at least partly relates to this one. [UPDATE: To be posted Saturday.]
Mike
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Rob de Loe: "Someone once asked me for my opinion on their work, which took the form of a Flickr site. There was a huge mass of images. Some of this and some of that. A sea of pictures. I think she uploaded her camera card each time it filled, with no curation at all. Definitely not demanding.... So I asked her to choose five pictures I could look at. Apparently that was an impossible request because no pictures were forthcoming."
Wiley Bogren: "I very much appreciated both the topic and the thoughts and experiences that went into it. Thought you did a perfect job (for me at least) conveying the intended gist, without extra vapor or grist. Well written on a great topic. Thank you!"
Mike replies: Thank you. I should really take more time.
Q: "At the risk of sounding persnickety, may I suggest a slight change in wording?
"I'd like to suggest that we should be demanding of ourselves or our processes, as you originally suggested, rather than of our subjects. In your summary, you do say this yourself: 'Photographers should... [apply] enough of whatever is needed—courage, boldness, energy, persistence, or whatever it is—to get the shot they really want.'
"As someone who's terrified of walking up to a person on the street and saying, 'Excuse me, may I take your picture?', my initial reaction was to think, 'I'm already asking them to do something for me; now I need to demand that they hang around until I'm satisfied that I've accomplished my goal?' Also, as primarily a landscape photographer, I can't exactly say to a wave, 'I love that curl—hold it right there!' or to the fast-setting sun, 'Wait—keep the light on the tops of those trees for just a few more minutes while I try different angles!'
"The salient difference, to me at least, is who's doing the work. Saying that we need to be demanding of our subjects suggests that it's the subjects that need to do the work; what your article says (I think) is that we as photographers need to do the work: anticipation and timing, perspective, framing, and so on. And I agree completely with that.
"I also agree that we need to be rigorous in editing. Here you've been very helpful, to me anyway: I've (more or less) adopted your process of selecting a few pictures from each outing and sitting with them for a few days to see which ones have staying power. Thank you for that."
Well, this is pretty funny. It turns out I actually waited too long to get rid of my phone. Far from being sensible, I missed the boat.
I dropped into the local Verizon store yesterday and here's the upshot: They'll give me a trade-in on my old phone—the guy said six to eight hundred dollars. Great. Then I asked about the iPhone 11 and 12. They no longer have 11's, and the 12 Pro Max is exactly the same price as the 13 Pro Max. But, they don't give any trade-in allowance on the 12; only on the 13.
So that makes the 13 the no-brainer choice...which I'm sure is how Apple and/or Verizon wants it.
Then he looked up my trade-in, and...uh-oh. Guess what? The 7 Plus is too old now. Apple no longer sells them as refurbs, so the trade-in value takes a nosedive. I could have gotten $600 to $800 credit if I had traded it in on a 12 or an 11 when those were new, but I waited too long. Now it's only worth $200 in trade.
You know what they say: Oh well.
So the iPhone 13 Pro Max would cost me $910 in cash or on payments. That's actually less than Apple sells a loaded 11 Pro Max for as a refurb ($1,019).
So I missed my window. Kept the 7 Plus too long, such that now I pretty much have to pay full boat to get a new phone. It's no tragedy; I could buy one if I wanted to. But I'm leaning toward just getting a new battery for the old 7 Plus. It's kinda like a car after it's paid for: you get this golden sunset "no payments" period when the thing is paid off but still working smoothly. Besides, I'm waiting for the A6600 to go on sale again and I'd rather blow the $$ on that.
I'm sure another year or two with the old phone won't hurt me. And who knows what the 2H22 rumors will yield? I'll try to be ready for that, if and when it happens.
The moral of the story: If you want keep current with developments in phone cameras, don't hang on to your phone too long.
Mike
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Niela: "Sorry Mike. I have no idea what you are talking about. I just buy my iPhone directly from Apple and sell my old one to whoever wants to pay the most. Picking and changing my carrier whenever services or pricing is convenient just makes so much more sense."
Dan: "I shall upgrade my iPhone SE when it can no longer do what I use it for…reading The Online Photographer and Jalopnik. Should be quite a while."
Dave Pawson: "Excellent (sensible) decision. I look forward to the A6600 review!"
Thanks for all the thoughts on phones. It's pertinent to photography, as these are now our point-and-shoots and our pocket cameras. To me they've never replaced larger cameras and are unlikely to do so—but then, I was using an Olympus XA in 1982 along with my Contax SLR, when digital was just a gleam in our friend Steve Sasson's eye.
By the way, did you know the XA was designed by none other than Yoshihisa Maitani (1933–2009), the father of the Olympus OM system?
As I was saying: we use phones as our point-and-shoots and pocket cameras. They are better now than ever before, closer to the ideal. The handy, pocketable, carry-everywhere, easy-to-operate camera has been one of the longtime themes in the history of cameras, traceable back many decades.
True reform stems from the root
As to Robin's claim that I am remorselessly ruining the planet by seeking to wantonly discard my five-year-old iPhone 7, no fair! I just live in society, I don't direct it. Solutions need to be systemic. I believe, for example, that the root of America's political problems is that we've allowed individual wealth to get out of hand, which in turns allows a tiny minority of individuals to have undue influence over how society is run, and that all of those problems would be solved in a single stroke by limiting individual wealth to the equivalent of $38 million in today's money, per Thomas Piketty. That's what I mean by a systemic solution. And I believe most (no longer all, sadly) environmental and extinction problems would be solved—or would have been solved, shall we say—by capping world population to the sustainable carrying power of the planet, which to a good educated guess is about 1.5 to 2 billion people alive at any one time.
Unfortunately both these systemic goals appear rather difficult to achieve. By anyone, but especially by yer li'l ol' and exceedingly 'umble Ed.—as noted above, I have not yet been put in charge.
I'm just a guy who has a smartphone, like 85% of Americans over the age of 12. And am trying to figure out when to replace it. I've kept my old one for five years, or 60 months; Internet says users in Great Britain hold on to their smartphones for the longest time of any people in the developed world, and the thrifty Brits keep theirs an average of 27.7 months. Although that figure comes from before the pandemic. Plus, I think I should get extra credit for the fact that I never discard an old TV, on account of I don't own one.
In any event, I don't think I am the most suitable poster boy for the environmental problem where phones are concerned. I agree with Robin in spirit, though.
Readers homed in on one of the factors affecting my personal decision, which is that I have at least a modest obligation to be up on current camera technology in contemporary phones*. But there's one more, which is that I use the phone for a lot of the pictures I post on TOP. For instance the picture at the top of the recent post about Bill's book Eleventyone Portraits 1841–1950. With a maximum size of 800 pixels wide per the blogging software I use, even the phone is overkill, really. So it's a business necessity for me, a tool I use for working. That still doesn't mean I need a new phone camera, because actually I don't, but it's a consideration.
Behind the curtains
Re the state of the market, here is my guess as to what's going on. Apple has been working on a phone with a dramatically improved camera, sometimes referred to, as Kent pointed out, as the 2H22. It's probably intended to offer a leap in performance on the order of what Apple achieved with the recent M1 chip.
Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, quoted at MacRumors: "In terms of pixel size, the iPhone 12, iPhone 13, and new 2H22 iPhone are about 1.7um, 2um, and 1.25um, respectively. We believe that the new 2H22 iPhone may support direct 48MP output and 12MP (four cells merge output mode) output simultaneously. With 12MP output, the CIS [CMOS image sensor —Ed.] pixel size of the new 2H22 iPhone increases to about 2.5um, which is significantly larger than the iPhone 12 and iPhone 13, and larger than existing Android phones, and close to the DSC [digital still camera —Ed.] level. We believe that the camera quality of the new 2H22 iPhone will elevate mobile phone camera photography to a new level."
So my guess is that originally that camera was slated to appear with iPhone 13, and that's why people were suggesting upgraders should wait for the iPhone 13; but the new technology, whatever it may be, is not ready for prime time yet, so Apple issued a rather tepid incremental update and called that iPhone 13 instead. But really, iPhone 13 is only "just noticeably" better than iPhone 12.
Those are guesses. Please don't give me credit for having an oracular crystal ball. As you know the psychic convention was cancelled due to unforeseen events.
Significantly degraded
In any event, it's reasonable for me to consider myself a candidate for an upgrade. As a number of readers pointed out, in the past Apple has generally assumed a 5-year lifespan for its phones, after which a.) the battery begins to fail (mine is at 77% of original capacity and fading fast. The phone itself tells me, "Your battery's health is significantly degraded"); b.) OS updates won't be applicable; and c.) security updates won't apply. Apple is already not accepting iPhone 7's to become factory refurbs, and is no longer offering refurbed 7's for sale on its website. OS 15 however will work on my iPhone 7 Plus, and apparently the security updates will continue to be supported for another year. Have I got all that right? So presumably I could wait for iPhone 14.
It's still not a straightforward decision for environmental best practices, however. If I replace the battery, the new replacement battery will need to be discarded relatively soon, with most of its useful life ahead of it. After all, I'm certainly not going to be able to keep using the old phone for another five years. Surely old batteries are a big part of the environmental impact of discarded phones?
Again as a number of readers pointed out, my phone is nearing the end of its planned lifecycle. Soon, all of those things I mentioned will render it obsolete. In the sense that it will continue to turn on and make pictures and calls, it will presumably remain viable for a while after that...
...But perhaps not viable for me, considering that I use it for my work and that I should stay abreast of developments, thus to avoid hastening my own obsolescence unduly. I'm becoming irrelevant fast enough as it is! Well, at least to cute young women.
I shall not want
One last point, though, on the question of "want vs. need" which several people brought up. I never actually want to replace my computer devices. I waited until the last minute to replace my antiquated iPad, and only did so because I had to; I've only owned three iPhones, in total, ever; and, in its box, I still have my mid-2011 27" iMac sitting here, which I used daily for seven years. (Want it? It's been refurbished and cleaned and has had a clean install of a new OS.) So I'm not a "churner" of computer devices. My rather chicken-hearted philosophy is, if all the magic computer-y stuff is working, don't rock the boat.
I have no talent for computers, never have had, and I consider the whole claptrap shebang to be precariously balanced at the edge of collapse on any given day...even if it isn't. If everything's functional to some reasonable approximation of the word, just tiptoe around and don't disturb anything. I never want to mess with it, much less replace it.
It's just that sooner or later you have to.
Mike
*I mean really...how would you feel if you knew a tech writer who still listened to vinyl records, drove a car with a manual transmission, wore a wristwatch, didn't own a TV, and amused himself by playing a physical game popular in the 19th century rather than video games like everyone born in this century?
Er, wait, never mind.
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Aaron: "'Whose fault is it?' with respect to systemic issues can be understood as a collective action problem in ethics. If one person cuts across the grass, no harm done. But, if all of us cut across the grass we wear a path. Whose fault is it? All of us? But, no one individual of us caused the path. If none of us individually are at fault, how can all of us be at fault? So, none of us are at fault? But, clearly if we hadn't cut there would be no path. So...?
"It's not only abstract or theoretical. On the one hand one individual blogger won't contribute to climate change or excessive trash. On the other hand, if he's one of lots and lots and lots of people 'walking across the grass' does he bear some responsibility? This is a mostly consequentialist way of thinking about this—wrong is conceived in terms of bad outcomes. But, there could be nonconsequentialist ways of thinking of it. Perhaps we simply have a duty not to waste irrespective of whether the outcomes are trivial. Or, perhaps we should cultivate virtues like thriftiness and moderation? All in all, I think holding on to a phone for five years is pretty good—and pretty good is better than bad. So, go for it."
Peter: "I think, after this explanation, we all can approve your request for acquiring a new iPhone."
Asking the experts: So do I need an iPhone 13?
My iPhone 7 Plus, released five years ago this very month, is getting out of date, but it still works perfectly. I have no complaints with it other than that the battery is getting a little weak. I have to remember to charge it every day, and I do run short of power every now and then because I get caught out. I take a lot of pictures with it, though. I'm guessing the newer ones are better at that.
What would you do if you were me?*
Mike
*You can say you'd switch to Android but not me. Apple loyalist since 1984, for better and worse, through thick and thin.
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jean: "I would imagine that you would be very pleased with the new iPhone. I use the regular iPhone 7 and the 12 Pro. The old one is the perfect size and weight in my pocket. The new one is a superior photographic tool. It doesn’t replace my Fujifilm X-Pro2 and X-T2, but the low light is performance is unreal with a fast lens, image stabilizer and up to 30 seconds exposure time. Apple’s special ProRAW is also a favorite for me. You can have 30 MB files with multiple images combined (tone mapping), data available for adjusting your white balance to your preference, and lower noise than JPEGs. You can lock the exposure of your sky to protect the highlights and bring up the shadows before you trip the shutter. If you still want to edit, the data is in the files. Great for landscapes. Shoot your house in the middle of the night and get the stars as well. The super-wide-angle lens is the so-useful and often used 13mm-e. On the iPhone 13 Pro, a new faster super-wide-angle lens and improved autofocus makes it even more useful. The portrait mode lets you adjust the depth of field after the fact.
"Every feature I have described here is available in the standard camera app. The convenience is great and video is quite stable and useful. Battery capacity is improved and great."
Clyde: "I went from an 8 to a 12 Pro last year and the image quality improvement was stunning! So yeah, it's worth upgrading."
Richard T: "My suggestions:
"1.) If you want or need to minimize costs in the short run, Apple can replace the battery for you (which I think costs $49 in the US). You can do this in an official Apple store or authorized service centre, or can mail out your phone if you can live without it for a few days. The iPhone 7 generation is still supported by the upcoming newest iOS (version 15 launching soon). It is unclear though if the 7 generation will still be supported by September '22, though likely that iOS version would still get security updates, so if you go for a battery replacement you'd have at least one year, probably two, and potentially more years of use out of this. By the way, in the settings menu you can find the current battery health.
"2.) You are very right that an upgrade would also get you a better camera—though perhaps slightly less so than you may think. The 7+ was the very first model with two cameras (~26mm/52mm equivalent), and if you get the iPhone 13 (non-pro version) you will still only have two cameras (except 13mm/26mm, so lacking the 52mm). Based on your love of 35–40mm equivalent lenses, that would be a significant omission. So in your case I'd go for an iPhone that also includes that 52mm lens (which Apple calls 'tele'). But note that in the iPhone 13 Pro generation they went to 3X, which equates to 78mm equivalent, i.e. a little tighter than I think you'd prefer (Apple uses 26mm as 1x, which it calls wide, and 0.5x for the 13mm, which it calls ultra-wide). The iPhone 12 Pro Max has a 2.5x tele lens, so it's 64mm equivalent. This 2.5x is only for the 'Max' version, i.e. the bigger one which is roughly the size of your Plus model. The iPhone 12 Pro (non-max) has the same 2X (52mm equivalent) lens.
"3). Possibly a nice compromise for you might be the iPhone 11 Pro Max, which has the 0.5/1x/2x lenses and gets you a similar sized phone as the 7+. You might be able to get a refurbished directly from Apple—and you can use https://refurb-tracker.com/ to keep track of stock. There's also eBay of course, though battery quality varies—I'd ask sellers to check battery health if you take the eBay route. When I upgrade I usually go for the t–1 model [i.e., last generation —Ed.] since there is about a 50% depreciation after the first year (not unlike a new car!)."
David Place: "I once had an iPhone 6 and kept it through the XR (10) but shouldn't brag...since then I've fallen for the camera upgrade every year. I pass on my current model to my other half and trade in the two-year-old iPhone. So the 11 is traded in / the 12 is passed on / the blue 1TB 13 Pro Max will be here Friday (I also tend to get the new color each year). The iPhone is now my main camera (that's my only excuse). Suggestion? Move on to the 13."
Kirk: "I would rush to pre-order the iPhone 13 Pro. You can go to the Apple website and see everything they've improved on. It's now an amazing camera in addition to being a phone...and a computer...and a health resource...and an entertainment center.... I'll be buying one for the video capability alone but I'll end up using it for everything I photograph that couldn't be better photographed with a full frame, higher resolution camera (and attendant lenses...).
"The perfect moment for a tech straggler to leapfrog into the cutting edge."
Soeren Engelbrecht (partial comment): "The new phones are a bit like buying into a new camera system without the ability to choose your own set of lenses. :-) ."
Aakin Patel (partial comment): "I think it's worth upgrading. [...] The iPhones usually get security/software updates for five years. Yours is hitting that limit, and in today's world where phones are big targets for cybersecurity attacks, it's pretty worthwhile to stay on top of that. Having a new phone that gets the updates is pretty important, and worth upgrading if you can swing it."
Øyvind: "I would go with the 13 Pro. The camera system is just more complete, and is given the biggest camera bump ever this year. The wide/ultrawide combination of the standard model just never appealed to me as someone who uses normal to short tele quite a bit. If you're coming from an iPhone 7 the new models should be a massive leap (as Apple likes to say for every model increment). That goes for battery life, operational smoothness and convenience, display quality and sheer computing power. And the cameras are just way better.
"Still I respect you holding on to your phone for its useful life."
Robin: "No-one needs an iPhone. Some people might want one. Big difference. It's clear to see that Apple is the most hyper-capitalist, resource-extracting company in the world. Even on my doorstep here in Ireland, I see the damage...as they avoid paying any tax while keeping desperate employees in dead-end jobs. I would never support this company. No matter what pretty things they dangle. The world is on fire. We are in the Sixth Great Extinction. Time to take a more moral stance. Even in an array of bad choices, some are better than others."
Fred Haynes: "I’m the last person to give advice, since I don’t own a cellphone! I am a dinosaur! But considering the ‘business’ you're in, I think it would be a good idea to have the best, assuming this latest model is the best. Regarding your thoughts about the iPad, I’m one hundred percent with you on that! I could not be without mine, I’d go nuts!"
els: "Absolutely buy the iPhone13 Pro. If you already take a lot of pictures with your iPhone 7, you will be so happy with the iPhone 13. Let's face it, it is the only camera we all use every day. So why not have the best one available?"
A report:
The book I'm trying to write is going well enough. It's full of digressions and stories—I can't seem to help heaping on the stories!
I'm going to dish a bit of dirt, too, because now's the time—it's past mattering in many cases, and if I don't tell some of my stories it's likely I'll carry them unintentionally to the grave, at which point they'll be done for. And what's the good of a juicy story but to tell it?
The working title is The Education of a Blogger, and it would be insolence to offer apologies to Henry Adams. It's loosely (very loosely) the story of TOP. It'll contain lots about photography and a fair bit not.
The biggest problem is working out how to juggle TOP and the book. I have a definite appetite for writing—if I don't get to do enough of it, the appetite builds up until I'm hungering to do it. But on the other hand I also have only a finite amount of energy for it. I think of my capacity for it as "writing energy," and it's a mysterious thing. If I write too much too many days in a row, I can empty the tank to the point that even answering emails becomes torture. The writing gets bad, too; with the reservoir depleted, the words don't flow out. Five hours seems about the ideal workday for me as far as writing is concerned, and a couple of thousand words the upper limit. One thousand or fifteen hundred is more comfortable. Looking back, I notice that most of what I consider to be "full length" posts are right around that range. For example, "Sands of Time," the post about my trip to see my brother Scott, has 1,605 words of text.
All writers are different this way. Hemingway worked six hours a day but produced on average only 600 words, or so I recall reading; Stephen King says in his book On Writing that any self-respecting writer ought to be able to produce 2,000 words per 24 hour period—and he kept right on doing so even after he supposedly "retired"; Larry McMurtry wrote five new pages every day and revised the previous ten, meaning, if you work it out, that he went over everything three times before moving on. I don't know what a "page" was for Larry so I don't know what his word count was, but the typical double-spaced typed page, back in the days of those quaint mechanisms known as typewriters, was maybe 250 words. He told me back when I knew him that he worked 364 days per year, every day except Christmas, and that he missed it on Christmas. All that adds up.
Anyway, when I work on the book, I keep meaning to write for only an hour or two and then get to TOP, but what I find is that I can't stop. By the time I come up for air, my writing energy has dissipated and I don't have any mojo left to give to TOP. But on the other hand, if I write a full-length post for TOP, like "Sports Has a Bad Scriptwriter" or "Honesty...Isn't It Refreshing?", I have nothing left that for the book. The upshot is that I seem to be doing a less-than-adequate job on both.
I'm sure I'll be able to work out something. I just have to work it out.
I should note that in general I don't have a lot of energy. I know guys like Thom Hogan or John Camp AKA Sandford or Kirk Tuck have far more energy than I do, and I'm sure they work much harder than I do as an ordinary thing, and they must look askance at slackers like me when we whimper our woes. However, all of us humans have to work with what we're given. You know what they say, or used to say: if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and if a frog could fly he wouldn't bump his ass so much. It's no good wanting to be what we're not—if you're a frog you're a frog. Five hours and 1,500 words in a day is all I'm good for, and it does no good to pretend I'm Anthony Trollope or Kathleen Mary Lindsay. Trollope, of whom you might've heard, strictly wrote 250 words every 15 minutes for three hours every day whether he felt like it or not, beginning at 5:30 every morning; and Kathleen Mary Lindsay, who you've probably never heard of unless you enjoy The Guinness Book of World Records, wrote 904 books under 11 pseudonyms. At my peak as a reader I read 60 books a year, meaning it would take me 15 years just to read all of Ms. Lindsay's books. I had never heard of her before now, so I don't know if I would want to. But then, our score so far is 904 to not yet one, so I shouldn't go casting shade.
Well now I'm coming up on 850 words, so I had better conserve my energy.
Mike
Product o' the Week:
The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Thom Hogan: "1.) Figure out when you write best. 2.) Write during that time, block all other activity. 3.) Outside that time, jot ideas (notes, idea statement, etc.), but don't get deep into them. 4.) Prioritize jot ideas into writing time.
"That's basically how I do it. I'm usually writing by 8 a.m. and until at least 11 a.m. Outside of those hours I'm less efficient and it becomes 'work' (as opposed to natural).
"Having 'other things' to occupy your non-writing time is actually more useful than people think. I don't mean chores, like cooking, cleaning, etc. I mean something that engages you in a different way. For you, that's probably pool. I've learned the brain is really good at subconscious processing, as long as it's distracted with something else interesting.
"But, as prolific as I am, I have four unfinished books I need to find time to tend to. They're just not getting prioritized at the moment, so they stay simmering in the background. One is virtually done, but requires a full-on word-by-word edit, along with getting all illustrations in place. I'd tend to agree with King's statement, though, again, I'd say that those 2,000 words are going to come in one attentive session, not scattered through a 24-hour period. I tend to average more like 5,000 words/day, but I have days where I just can't get started."
Mrs. Proudie: "Thank you for mentioning Trollope, my favorite Victorian novelist! I've read just about everything he wrote, and I love his characters so much that I'm changing my screen name from Bandbox to Mrs. Proudie. Trollopians will know who I'm talking about. If Mrs. Proudie were here today as a contemporary photographer, she'd be taking you to task for worrying about the latest iPhone and your word-count instead of being out in the field using your perfectly serviceable Wista 4x5."
Mike replies: Trollope is the guilty pleasure of many famous writers, intellectuals, and discerning readers. Even if people don't read him, it's worthwhile to read about him.
Fred: "It all depends on your point of view. From where I am looking you seem to be very prolific.
"Since you mentioned them peripherally, I do love manual typewriters. I believe that in some (let me emphasize some) circumstances typewriters or writing by hand can be a better choice than a computer and word processing software. Having said that I think that word processing software and especially good spell checkers are way way more significant than the invention of sliced bread.
"Whew! That is the most I have written in the last three days."
Christopher Feola: "I made my money as a photojournalist for a couple of decades, and I always felt something similar: I have a certain amount of words per day, and when I'm out for the day I'm done. I could pound out articles for the paper daily, or I could work on a book...but not both."
I'm reluctant to talk about a book until I've finished it, and I haven't finished reading this one.
It's not long, but it's dense. And rewards thought.
However, this is definitely my "Book of the Year" for 2020–21. It's never going to be a mainstream book, because there are only 250 copies in existence. Although there could possibly be a reprint someday.
By way of a disclaimer I'll remind you that I used to be a portrait photographer and have always liked portraits. And I mean always—I got in trouble at age six for clipping portraits of the Presidents out of my parents' back issues of National Geographic to make a "collection."
The premise is very simple: a doctor collected old portraits to hang in his office. As a labor of love, he has self-published a book in which he presents 111 of them. On the page facing each, he tells you everything he could find out about each portrait. Some of what he found out is remarkable. The essays are sometimes no more than a description of the photograph, because nothing is known about it. But Bill is an excellent writer, and his words draw you not just into the photograph, but into the life of the person depicted. Many of the subjects are anonymous (some are not). Same for the photographers. But all are informed by the same collector's eye and each one is lovely and fascinating (to various proportions) in its way.
"With a whimsical look at lives known, cultural and historical circumstances, and the ever-changing aesthetics of portraiture, the lives and characters of the sitters and photographers are imagined, and the question of the revelation of their characters explored."
The book is Eleventyone Portraits 1841 to 1950, by William Cowan, who I'm pleased to say appears to be a TOP reader.
A labor of love...but what labor! Everything about the book is beautiful. It's been professionally edited and professionally designed, so it fooled me at first into thinking it was the product of an established publishing house. It's not; but it doesn't have any of the awkward telltales typical of many self-published books.
Now I've finally decided it's not actually a book to "read." It's a book for delectation. I'm going to continue to engage with it as I have over this past year: taking it to hand, leafing through a handful of portraits at a time, reading or re-reading an essay or two, and putting it aside again. The copy Bill sent me last year is so much the worse for wear (I've dropped it, and crushed a corner, and marred the cover) that I had to ask him for a second one! But now I want to send the second one to a museum curator I know while it's still pristine, so I'm going to need a third.
Bill and I will be working together on an interview to publish here. And I guess sooner or later I might have the temerity to attempt a review. I thought you might like a heads up, in case you want to have your own copy in hand. Check the website; if it looks like you might enjoy it, I think you will.
Mike
[UPDATE: As of mid-day Monday, Bill had sold about 70 books, approximately a third of all he had. —MJ]
Book o' the Week:
Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Maris Rusis: "I have Bill Cowan's book and it is glorious in style and scholarship. And yes, it is both dense and moving. A few pages at a time is all I can traverse. All those beautiful and interesting people are now gone. I find this poignancy and sense of loss passes into sadness very quickly. Bill quoted me on page 21 and sent me his book by way of compliment. Much thanks to Bill Cowan."
Many things have changed in the digital imaging universe over the past 20 years, and it's been a wild and fascinating ride. One thing I noticed the other day: I seldom look at "sample galleries" in equipment reviews any more.
Not only am I surfeited with the kind of pictures that appear—and I'm just as guilty of perpetrating them as anyone else, so my own "sample" pictures are just as soulless to me as anyone else's—but I just don't get much useful information from them any more. About the only thing I can really deduce from them is that I can get a rough idea (just a rough idea) of the bokeh of lenses, assuming the sample shots show that. Sometimes (not always) I can get a sense of what my maximum ISO would be if I were shooting with the camera.
I no longer look at falloff—that can be changed to taste in post. I no longer look at noise—offhand, the last time I can remember that being a real impediment for me was with the GF1 (2009). I certainly never look at "sharpness"—we've long since passed the point where all cameras and most lenses are sharp enough.
...Well, my iPhone 7 is not sharp enough! But that's not even fair to the iPhone, much less all other cameras. Now that the iPhone 13 is here.
I have a sense that I'm forgetting something, that there is indeed something I look for sometimes that I'm just overlooking. Maybe it will come to me.
One issue: post-processing skill has surpassed the raw material produced by the equipment as the biggest determinant of the quality of the final image. The best fine printer whose work I'm familiar with is Ctein, and he has never bothered to shoot with anything more than Micro 4/3! It gives him the raw material he needs to make perfectly beautiful prints on 13x19" and 17x22" paper. Of course he's a virtuoso, but the point holds.
So the kind of "sample" shots I would most like to see would be...prints. That would be interesting. But of course no online provider can present prints for me to look at. (TOP readers who have purchased prints in our print sales will be well aware of how different a fine original print is from seeing the same image as an online JPEG. And what the heck is wrong with that TOP guy, anyway? Why haven't there been any print sales lately?)
But the telltale in the end is that when I read camera reviews now, I find I seldom bother to look at the samples very carefully. I might click through them dutifully, but I seldom come away thinking I've detected much of anything useful—other than about the shooter's skills in seeing. This is a big difference from 15 and 20 years ago, when I used to pore over sample shots with great attention and study them to see what I could glean from them of a camera's or a lens's performance.
It's not that there aren't differences in lenses and sensors any more—there are. They're there. It's just that I have a hard time getting a handle on them from online samples.
I guess I still do want to see what the bokeh might look like in lens reviews—but galleries that only show bokeh wide open are of limited value too. I've never shot for bokeh as a primary value—it's never the point of pictures for me—so the subtler bokeh of stopped-down apertures are useful to know about for me too. Those can be a little harder to find. (I've always found that to get a sense of a lens's bokeh, you need to look at lots of samples. It's easy to be misled from just a few.)
For the most part, it might be all right with me if reviewers dispensed with sample shots altogether, and just told me in words what they are seeing from the equipment in their own work. But I would need to trust that they actually investigated in their shooting what they are telling me about! Not everyone is reliable about that.
Oh—flare, that's what I was forgetting. That's something I look for in sample shots in lens reviews. But reviewers don't always test for it or show samples.
What about you? Do you still find sample shots informative? Do you still look at them and study them? See if you can remember how you used to look at them and how you look at them now. Any change in that over the years?
Mike
Book o' the Week:
Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Mark Rouleau: "I do look at sample galleries, but usually for color more than anything else. I find I am very sensitive to the default color palettes that the various camera manufacturers have. Sony colors often seem a little off to me (YMMV). And I know people wax eloquent about the Canon and the Olympus, but I think the new winner might be the Sigma fp models. Odd camera with a ton of usability issues, but the sample images I've seen almost make me want one."
DavidB: "A few of my current lenses are used for astrophotography. It is important to know how well these lenses obtain pin-point star images—especially in the corners. So before buying I often will look at astro photographs posted by others. For all other purposes, no."
John Krumm: "I do look at them, but often find them lacking. They seldom take enough stopped down shots for my taste, and I make most of my shots with lenses stopped down. Despite claims otherwise, not all lenses look the same stopped down. If I had my druthers, there would be a few wide open shots, but many more at different apertures. These days they tend to just take a pile of wide open shots like that's all that matters. It's annoying."
Mike replies: It is. Especially since you have to be careful to know what you're looking at. At times I've been fooled into thinking a lens is worse than it is because most of the samples I saw were shot wide open.
Peter Jeffrey Croft: "I used to really enjoy the sample galleries on DPReview while they were in London. I loved the shots around their offices, with all the details and the candid people shots. But when they moved to Seattle, I lost interest. I just don't find their new location interesting. The samples are dull and boring. Some of their UK based reviews and sample galleries were so good that I've kept a lot of the shots. I remember their review of the Sigma DP series and the SD14 especially, and I still look at the shots for enjoyment. I bought the Fuji S100FS in 2008 much on the basis of their review and samples, and I still have the camera and the images I took on a trip to Europe in that year. I'm still marveling at the images I got. So apart from finding Seattle boring, I think I'd say I do like sample galleries."
Mike replies: Come to think, I actually wrote a post to this effect in the early days of DPReview, when the founder Phil Askey owned it. It might not have been here; could have been at another venue. I did enjoy the cumulative virtual tour of London. Paris gets all the love, but London is even more historic and almost as photogenic. But of course we weren't looking at those pictures as technical trials, but for their content.
xf mj: "I guess I don’t look at them as a scientist and don’t know if I want them to be scientific evidence. Probably because I don’t know what I’d look for. Instead, once I’m convinced that the camera or lens is probably technically good enough and that I’ll like it, I just want to see that people did good or beautiful work with it. So I try and find personal blog posts showing nice work they’ve produced with the product and see if I approve and like the look. This has gotta be less than objective, maybe useless, but it gets me excited for my purchase, and makes me feel part of the community that uses the product well. The community I’d like to join. And it’s just nice to see others’ good photography. I suppose this is why I’ve gravitated to some brands and products over other equally good brands and products. Oh well.
"Most larger/popular/pseudo-scientific camera sites' sample photos are just dumb and uninspiring. The pictures are so uninteresting, it makes me want to find a different hobby and never lay cash down for a camera ever again. (Same also with their attempt at objective writing.) It’s more fun to feel inspired when I spend my money. Most on-line sites seem instead to want to tell their readers that they’re not making a mistake with a purchase. And then make me feel a year or two later that it actually was a mistake. Must’ve been, because the latest and greatest has gotta be bought to correct that 1- or 2-year old technology that has become a shame to own, right?"
Mike replies: I have felt what you describe! I've gotten enthusiastic about a product only to have the sample images actually dampen my enthusiasm...because, after all they're just more digital images, nothing special, undistinguished and indistinguishable.
Nikon has, as per its earlier promise, released a highly sensible everyday normal lens for full-frame Z-mount that happens to have my personal favorite spec: 40mm ƒ/2.
Forty millimeters splits the difference nicely between 35mm and 50mm. When I shot with a Leica M6 and owned both the 35mm Summicron and the 50mm Summicron, I was forever torn over which lens to put on the camera. And ƒ/2 is perfect because then the lens is fast enough but not too big.
Background
I'm probably as much an expert on 40mm ƒ/2 lenses as anyone, only because I've been obsessed with them for such a long time. I've owned and used a large number of them over many years, whether the specification was exact or merely close, or whether it was a digital equivalent. These ranged from the Leica 40mm Summicron-C for the CL rangefinder and the 40mm ƒ/2 OM Zuiko to the Pentax 43mm Limited, on into the digital era with lenses like the Panasonic 20mm for Micro 4/3 and the Zeiss 24mm for Sony...among many others. I've owned many older examples such as the 40mm ƒ/1.7 on the Canon G-III 17 fixed-lens rangefinder of 1972 and the 42mm ƒ/1.7 on the earlier Olympus 35 SP.
Of course I've also used a great many 35mm, 45mm, and 50mm lenses too. It's the range in which I'm most at home, and I've been writing about equipment—lenses especially—since 1988. As to which one is best of all, I do have a clear all-time favorite, but I'm not going to say what it is. I don't want to do anything to encourage its prices to spike. Read on for more about that!
My portrait of Sally at the time of our visit.
Shot with a Nikon N8008 and 85mm ƒ/1.8.
A casual word
What got me started? In the 1980s I visited the American photographer Sally Mann at her cabin on the Maury River in Virginia. One of my photo students, Lely Constantinople, had gotten a case of hero-worship, so I simply wrote to Sally and asked if we could come visit. Sally generously invited us to come for a few days. I slept in the woods in a tent! There was no room for a non-family male indoors. Lely ended up working for Sally for a while.
Sally's artwork was eventually done with a large-format 8x10, of course, but she started out her career doing photographic odd jobs around her home town of Lexington with a 35mm. She shot Olympus, and her favorite lens was the 40mm ƒ/2 OM Zuiko, which she said was "about right"—it had no trace of the wide-angley feeling that 35mm's sometimes have, but not quite as restricted an angle of view as a 50mm. I've owned no fewer than six of them over the years. One of my best scores was that after the price had risen to the $500 range I found one marked $55 in an out-of-the-way camera store in Chicagoland.
Curiously, the OM Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 was not popular when it was new. Apparently no one quite knew what to make of the in-between focal length, or the "pancake" form-factor, with the odd aperture ring at the very end of the lens mount (you screwed the lens hood directly into the aperture ring, and could change the aperture by turning the lens hood! I've never seen that on any other lens). I later learned that the production run was 3,000 units, 1,000 of which were for North America. I recall seeing the lens selling on closeout for $69, a steep discount, in the small-print discount ads in the back of Modern Photography and Popular Photography magazines. They went begging for what seemed like forever, being listed month after month and, if memory serves, year after year.
Lately, the very same lens has been all the range among DP's (directors of photography, i.e., cinematographers) tired of "perfect" rendition and searching for lenses with a "look," and the old 40mm ƒ/2, has been all the rage, with used ones selling recently for at least $2,900. I believe several sold for north of $3,400, but those have scrolled off eBay's records now. And today, of course, a 40mm ƒ/2 is the new "nifty fifty." It just doesn't rhyme, is all.
The new Nikkor-Z
Sadly, to me anyway, Nikon has not yet to my knowledge published the block diagram of the new lens (six elements in four groups), nor has it published MTF charts. [CORRECTION: published here—thanks to Andre Y. for this.] From what we do know, however, the new Nikkor-Z 40mm ƒ/2 ticks all of my personal boxes:
In addition, the "focusing ring" can be assigned to manual focus, or programmed to adjust aperture, ISO, or exposure compensation. I don't know if that's usual for Nikkor-Z lenses, but it sounds like a nice touch.
B&H is closed for the religious holiday, but Amazon is guaranteeing its pre-order price.
All things considered
Finally I'll just note that the sample pictures provided by Nikon for this lens are solid tier better than the usual, and two tiers above the general run of the lamentable "test shot" genre (which I am guilty of perpetrating too, of course). I particularly like the shot of with the two figures way back in the bokeh. To whomever is responsible, good job.
Of course I haven't seen or shot with the new 40mm, and image quality would overshadow everything else. But I'll approve and applaud on principle. Nice move, Nikon.
Mike
P.S. Sally Mann also paid me one of my favorite compliments I've even gotten about my writing. "Your writing is so...tasty," she said. It's remained my goal ever since. :-)
Book o' the Week:
Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
James: "Mike said, 'And today, of course, a 40mm ƒ/2 is the new "nifty fifty." It just doesn't rhyme is all.' I'm sticking with my usual 'Sporty Forty.' :-) "
Mike replies: That works! Where were you when I was titling this post? ;-)
Richard Parkin: "Or ‘Shorty Forty’ for the pancakey ones?"
Aaron: "As much as I love 40mm lenses—the Panasonic 20mm (Micro 4/3) continues to be one of my favorite lenses of all time—Nikon's stellar Z 35mm ƒ/1.8 S will be a tough act to follow. Field of view and aperture differences are small, though we don't really know the full extent of image quality and performance of the 40mm yet. If the 40mm was a true pancake, I would have already pre-ordered; as it stands, I'll wait on some user reviews of the 40mm before I consider adding to or replacing my 35mm S."
Earl Dunbar: "As if the asking price for the Zuiko 40mm ƒ/2 couldn’t go much higher—there you go! 😂 "
Mike replies: That's pretty nuts. I wonder if these outlier asking prices actually have a psycho-marketing underpinning...as in, maybe a much higher price signals to some buyers that the sample really is superior to all the others—in this case, all the others currently listed in the low $2,000's. You'd have to have a buyer who is rich enough to be immune to any sort of price sensitivity to a bauble in this price range.
But what I really like is the pop-up next to the "Make Offer" box:
Given that the cheapest one of these lenses I ever bought cost $55, do you think he'd take $55?
Andrew Kochanowski: "Mike, I saw an earlier post of yours about the Oly 40mm ƒ/2 selling for insane prices on eBay, so I rummaged around for mine in the back of the drawer. I bought it for maybe $350 some years ago more out of nostalgia than anything else. I shot with another sample in the late 1990s on an OM-4Ti and liked the way it felt more than any concrete reason.
"I posted a simple eBay ad with a Buy It Now price of $2,ooo and waited for the order. And waited, and waited. I did get over a dozen 'offers' of about $1,500 to $1,700 from dealers or tire kickers, and long emails how I am being unrealistic and so forth. eBay had turned into Craigslist so fast I didn't even notice!
"So don't feel bad. There may have been a few sales in crazy numbers but only to crazy collectors. I may just dust off my old OM-4ti and shoot a few rolls with the lens just for the heck of it."
...I'm still intending to try out the Fuji GFX 100S. Unlike most cameras, I don't want to try that one. Why? Because I could never afford one (viz. the recent "Stained Glass Windows" post) and I'm afraid I'll like it. Trying one is risky. The things I do for ya! :-)
[UPDATE: Dan said it best in the Featured Comments: "It would either disappoint me deeply or ruin me for anything else."]
By the way, if you haven't seen DPReview's "Shelburne Hotel with Corey Arnold and the Fujifilm GFX 100S" video yet, highly recommended—head and shoulders above most camera marketing videos. I was glad to "meet" photographer Corey Arnold and I definitely want to see more of those crab-fishing photos. The film is at the Amazon link for the GFX 100S, in with the product pictures. (Amazon owns DPReview.)
Mike
Book o' the Week:
Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Phil: "Thanks, Mike, for that link about Corey Arnold. I first saw his work in Portland, Oregon about seven years ago. It was one of those nice serendipitous moments as a tourist where you are just aimlessly browsing though galleries and come upon something that is arresting and memorable. They were his big colour prints of fishing in Alaska, complete with eagles and bears and hauling in the catch on the deck of a fishing boat. How he kept his gear dry (enough) I'll never know!"
Eolake Stobblehouse: "The Warhol book has very high reviews. But I don't think I'll get it. There is something about Warhol, both his personality and his work, which I find...creepy. He seemed so intensely, uhm, disconnected. Completely without feeling. And in his work he seemed to revel in that, celebrate it and emphasise it."
Dan: "That’s the same reason I have never driven a Porche 911. It would either disappoint me deeply or ruin me for anything else."
I think I'm getting over my initial "IWT!" (I want that) reaction to the upcoming Ricoh GR IIIx.
For one thing, I remembered my Summer-long longing for a Sony A6600 and Sigma 30mm (45mm-e).
That lens seems to be different in a way from many other recent lenses I've tried—it tilts just a little more toward high contrast rather than high resolution. From what little I've seen so far, I'm guessing the GR IIIx's 26.1mm (40mm-e) lens does too. It's tough to know without trying them for myself, and sometimes, these days, it's tough to untangle true lens characteristics from lens+sensor characteristics. (It was easy as pie with film because you could change the lens but not the film.)
By the way, if you don't know what I'm talking about, the best explanation I've seen was in the old Canon EF Lens Work III (which Canon seems to have stopped updating some time ago). The appendix about the optical characteristics of lenses in that book is the best basic text about the optics of camera lenses I know of. Regarding this topic it has some illustrations that are worth a thousand words.
I once tried to suggest to Canon that they should publish the sections on optics as a separate publication, without the quickly outdated lens catalog. But my importunings fell on deaf ears. Or, more probably, no ears. It would have been a nice thing to have. When Canon stopped updating Lens Work the baby went out with the bath water.
But back to the subject—it does seem like a shootout is called for here, doesn't it? The Sony A6600 and the Sigma 30mm ƒ/1.4 DC DN Contemporary vs. the upcoming Ricoh GR IIIx which should be along before the end of October. Two very different cameras, but equally appealing to me, each in its own way. I've already tried the Sony for a week and very much want to use it some more. But I think I should also "demystify" the Ricoh, too—I've never used a GR, and the series has been around for a very long time. It's past time I tried one for myself.
And while the cameras are different, their results are potentially very close. Both lenses have similar angles of view and both sensors are 24-MP APS-C. The biggest difference is the lens speed, ƒ/1.4 vs. ƒ/2.8. I think it would make it a good comparison. The very different layout and design of the two cameras could make for interesting discussion. I'll put it in the queue.
Mike
Book o' the Week:
Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos."
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jeff1000: "Hey Mike, Nikon's coming to market very soon with a compact pancake 40mm Z lens. It's sure to be a stunner. Pair it with a Z5 or Z6 and you've got a pretty svelte package there."
brian: "For what it's worth, if you're willing to stray as far from your favored 40mm focal length as a 30mm lens on an APS-C camera would take you, you might be interested in the little Sigma 45mm DG DN ƒ/2.8 lens—on a 'full frame' body. The little Sigma 45mm seems like it might appeal to you since the designers opted to emphasize bokeh but still achieved good resolution with the lens stopped down a bit. A Sigma engineer [actually it was Yasuhiro Ohsone, Sigma's Head of Product Planning —Ed.] reported receiving 'a surprising proposal from our optical engineers in charge: to develop the lens with the highest priority given to its expression of bokeh.' The Sigma 45mm lens seems to puzzle people who prioritize wide-open sharpness, but it's been well received by some who look for a good balance of rendering and sharpness. As for me, I'd be interested in your take the GR IIIx. I use manual-focus Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses on my Sony A7R III, and the tiny Ricoh seems like it might be better than a phone as an autofocus complement to my kit."
Mike replies: Yes, the Sigma 45mm ƒ/2.8 DG DN Contemporary is a true lens connoisseur's lens, and a rarity on today's market. If I shot full frame it would be my main lens, and anyone who shoots L-mount or E-mount and has multiple lenses really should own one.
Albert Smith: "I love that Canon EF Lens Work book. I bought mine in the mid '80s while never having a Canon camera from that era. I also had the Eyes Of Nikon book, but the Canon book put it to shame in the amount of great info it contained. Besides the contrast/sharpness skewing in the designs that you mentioned, it also had one of the best sections on picking out a selection of focal lengths to cover your specific interests and subject matter. Terrific book that I still pull off the shelf today.
"It was simpler to test one lens against another it those days, even different brands. Just load the same film in each camera and test away. Today, how much is the sensor more responsible for the end item image than the lens? Direct comparisons of lens A to lens B might have little to do with the lenses."
Bill Allen: "The feel of the GR is very difficult to convey. The rubberized grip was the first thing that hit me when I took it out of the box. It just makes you want to go out and shoot. The heritage of the GR line really shines through. I have the GR II, and I was skeptical after the X100s didn't do it for me. But that skepticism went right out the window when I received it. You just have to try it. It's quite a nice landscape camera in its own right too. Even QT Luong used a film GR when mountain climbing, if I recall. Even if the GR IIIx is a bit on the pricy end, try getting your hands on an older model to get a feel for the GR ethos. I also recommend this article from Chris Leskovsek."
[UPDATE: Emma Raducanu of Great Britain won the United States Open Tennis Championship Women's Singles, 6-4, 6-3. If you are ten years old and live to be 110, you will never see this again—a qualifier ranked 150th in the world winning a major championship without dropping a set. It's the very first time and highly likely to be the last time it will ever happen.
Wonder what it's like in Old Blighty tonight?]
Malcolm Myers answers: "We have all gone Emma crazy in Blighty. It's been decades since we've had a female tennis player who was even in contention, so for Emma to storm through the way she has—breaking every record on the way—is quite astounding. We all got to watch it free-to-air and it was a really competitive match. I think Leylah Fernandez played extremely well. As one commenter here said, shame that only one of them could win. However, Fernandez will no doubt have her day, probably may times, over the next decade. Brilliant stuff."
I've been following the U.S. Open closely, or as closely as I can given that I don't own a TV. It's been a fascinating and wonderful tournament so far, really fun to follow.
The big news, apart from the fact that Novak Djokovic of Serbia is still in contention for the first true Grand Slam in men's tennis since 1969, is that two previously little-known, unseeded teenagers (one a qualifier, no less) are in the final of the Women's draw for the first time in more than two decades—since a young Serena Williams of the USA, age 17, defeated Martina Hingis of Switzerland, who was 18 at the time, in the 1999 final.
The two are Leylah Fernandez of Canada and Emma Raducanu of the UK. Emma is 18 and Leylah just turned 19 a few days ago, in the midst of the tournament. Leylah is ranked 73rd in the world, and Emma, ranked 150th, is the one who had to come through the qualifying tournament. Since rankings were initiated in 1975, only five women outside the top 50 have ever reached the U.S. Open final. Both young women will make meteoric rises in the world rankings following the tournament, Raducanu especially. Both will probably emerge as the No. 1 ranked female players in their respective countries.
Photo courtesy of Sirobi Tennis Photos
Leylah Fernandez of Canada at this year's French Open
Leylah has been a true giant-killer, beating a succession of formidable opponents to make it to the final. These include defending champion Naomi Osaka of Japan, the first Asian woman ever to hold the World No. 1 ranking; three-time major champion and former World No. 1 Angelique Kerber of Germany; No. 5 seed Elina Svitolina of Ukraine; and World No. 2 Aryna Sabalenka of Belarus, a seasoned and particularly powerful player. Fernandez is the youngest woman since Serena Williams in 1999 to beat three Top 5 players on her way to the final, and only the fourth Canadian, male or female, ever to appear in the final of a major.
Photo courtesy of Sirobi Tennis Photos
Emma Raducanu of the United Kingdom in 2018
Emma, meanwhile, playing dazzling tennis, has steamrolled her way through the draw without dropping a single set—and that includes her three qualifying matches. She is the first qualifier ever to reach the U.S. Open finals, and the first British woman to reach the finals of any major since Virginia Wade—who is in attendance at this year's tournament—in 1977.
Leylah's mother, Irene, was born in Canada of Filipino parents, and although her father Jorge's family moved to Canada from Ecuador when Jorge was four, he later played professional football (soccer) for Ecuador. He is his daughter Leylah's coach, and, more's the pity, he's not at this tournament (think about it. They never know how far she'll advance. How was he to know this would happen? Nobody else in the world did). Emma's mother Renee is Chinese and her father Ian is Romanian—both are financial executives. Although she lives in London and plays as a UK citizen, Emma too was born in Canada.
It probably doesn't hurt their exploding global popularity that both of the teenage finalists are beautiful, charming, and well spoken, with dazzling smiles. In interviews they come off as typical giggling teenage girls, bright and happy. These off-court outward attitudes contrast sharply with the unyielding killer instinct and no-nonsense confidence each of them shows during matches, when they have seemed as composed and mature as players in the primes of their careers.
Spectacular and rare
It's such a pity to me that my brother Scott isn't here to see this. He would have been loving it. He was a fan of women's tennis no less than the men's—he thought the women's game was a subtly more relatable form of the art of tennis because brute force and strength don't play quite so much a part. This year's finals could possibly be the sensational first flowering of a new rivalry in women's tennis, but, even if it isn't, it's a rare and spectacular occurrence all on its own. Too bad I can't watch it! I hope I'll get to see the whole match someday. My prediction: Raducanu in three, and I'll say one set will go to a tiebreaker. As they say in tennis, sometimes it's a pity there has to be a loser.
If my prediction comes true, it would be the first major tennis tournament ever won by a qualifier. If you're able to, you might want to try to catch it even if you're not normally a fan. It's only the eighth time two teenagers have contended in the finals of a major. As Emma Raducanu herself said, "we’re both playing good tennis so it will be a good match." The women's finals commence at 4:20 p.m. Eastern U.S. Time tomorrow, Saturday, September 11th.
If you do get to watch, enjoy it for me!
Mike
[CORRECTION: I deal with dozens of names every day, and try hard not to make mistakes, but the original version of this post spelled Leylah Fernandez's name wrong. All eight times it appears. That is a bad one. Sorry for the error. —Ed.]
Book o' the Week:
The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
robert e: "I agree with Scott. I find that nuances seem to both matter more and are easier to discern in the women's game. There are dimensions of tennis that don't really come across on TV, while other aspects are easier to see, and this may have something to do with the difference as well. Relatedly, there's more stylistic variety in women's tennis at the moment, which makes for more intriguing matchups.
"It's been an Open full of surprises and an extraordinarily high level of tennis. Notably, the fans packing the main stadium seem more than ready to make their presence and preferences known, and they've found in these two teens willing and charismatic partners. That's yet another precocious quality these teens share—they seem very much at ease engaging with large and enthusiastic crowds, especially at critical moments. They're also surprising everyone with their tactical smarts.
"At least in my area, the free trial of YouTubeTV includes ESPN, which carries the U.S. Open. Possibly goes for other online TV services as well.
"But for some a service isn't even necessary, as increasingly in the US many without TV are able to watch at least some TV thanks to their internet or cell phone provider's relationship to one or another media giant. Might be worth checking USopen.org or ESPN.com and seeing what you can see. I understand that in the UK Amazon Prime is carrying matches."
Lisa S. Gorrell: "Maybe you could hang out at Best Buy or Sears to watch the game."
Mike replies: Actually I got a trial to YouTubeTV like robert e suggested and it works (this time). But your comment reminds me that when I was young I used to stand in the photo section of the bookstore in Georgetown and read whole books of photo criticism! The clerks knew I was a poor photo student and they let me do it. I read all of A.D. Coleman's Light Readings and most of Robert Adams's Beauty in Photography that way, among others.
AndrewH: "Happily Belgium is showing all of the US Open. I am backing Emma and Novak for wins in the finals (sic), one for the huge achievement (Novak) and the other for the sheer charm (Emma). It is so nice to see a happy professional sport player."
[You dial Customer Service. Phone rings.]
Recording: Hello, you have reached the offices of _______ Corporation. Please listen to all of the following, none of which will apply to you. We need time.
[Long list of options follows. None of it applies to you.]
Now that you've listened to all that, press 2.
[You press 2. Phone rings again. Recording answers again.]
Recording: We are currently using COVID-19 as an excuse to offer poor service. For that reason, you are going to wait on hold for a long time until talking to you suits our convenience. We know your time is just as valuable to you as ours is to us, but we ignore that. You want something from us, which means we have you over a barrel. We make you wait because the longer we make you wait, the greater the chance you'll go away on your own and we won't have to deal with whatever you're calling about.
To increase the chances that you'll hang up on your own, while you are waiting, we are going to make it impossible for you to do your own work! We are going to play a very poorly reproduced snipped of crappy anodyne music over and over and over again until it burns its way into your musically-sensitive brain. As a consequence, the tune will occur to you randomly as you go about your life over the next four days. There will be nothing you can do about it.
[Music starts to play and plays over and over again.]
[After many minutes, music fades, and there's a click, at which you get your hopes up. But it's the...]
Recording: Thank you for waiting, and now we pretend to apologize for our convenience. We're busy helping other people who mean more to us than you do. But now, while we've got you held captive against your will, we're going to play some gratuitous commercials for our services into your ear! Ignoring the obvious fact that you're already our customer. These are going to be irritating and utterly irrelevant to you, to your life, your health, and your increasingly miserable existence, plus they will make it even harder for you to work while you're waiting. We don't care. A consultant told us to do this. He used the word "optimizing," and that was good enough for us.
[Commercials begin to play and continue for several minutes. You let them assault your brain with the fatalism of a prisoner enduring some slow, wearing sort of torture. Just as you are beginning to think pre-suicidal thoughts about the meaningless and futility of continuing to live, the same music comes back on.]
[Music plays over and over again.]
[Music fades again, and there's a click again. Like some sort of Pavlovian dog, you get your hopes up again even though you know better.]
Recording: Hello? Hello? Ha, just kidding, it's still a recording. Still on the line? Well, we're still helping other people who are way more important to us than you are. We would have hoped you'd get that message by now, but evidently you're obstinate. The consultant told us about people like you. When you've had enough of our excellent caller service, you can press eight and leave us a message. We will never respond to that message. We'll say it's because of COVID-19 and that none of this is our fault. Really, though, it has to do with the fact that providing phone service is not a profit-generator for our ownership. In fact, we lose money on it, so the more of you we can make go away, the better.
[Music comes back on and plays over and over again.]
[There's that click again, and you think, ah, no, I'm not falling for that again. Fool me once. Er, twice. But this time, there's a pause, during which you hear the desolate sound of disembodied electronic emptiness, the sound of cavernous endless space that doesn't actually exist, and then...
[A human voice answers! Could it be the recording again? No, it's a real human voice! The effect on you is like the effect on a prisoner in solitary confinement whose cell door has swung open, letting in sunshine and fresh air for the first time in days.]
Human voice, in unidentifiable foreign accent: Good afternoon and thank you for calling ______ , where our call-in service is the best in America and your every need is our top priority. That's what we say—actually that's just scripted boilerplate verbiage, totally meaningless. This is "Doris" and I'm here to shine the light of our corporate power and benevolence on you while we taunt the poor dumb saps we have waiting on other lines.
You: Hello Doris, this is—
Doris: Sorry, can I put you on hold for just one minute?
You: What? No, I've been holding for quite a long time now and—
Doris: Thank you. Just one short minute, very short. Just kidding! That's just what we say. By the way, sometimes when we put people on hold, they get cut off. But...
You: Please don't put me on hold.
Doris: ...But if you get cut off, it's no problem. You can just call us right back!
[Click sound. And...]
[Dial tone.]
Mike
Book o' the Week:
The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Dale Fryar: "Quite possibly your best and most relatable post ever."
Kevin Crosado: "You forgot the half hour of 'Expected wait time less than one minute.'"
Kirk: "Were you here, in my office, just last Monday? Did you overhear my phone call (set to 'speaker phone') as I attempted to make contact with any living organism at the IRS? Because I think you have captured the four hour (yes! four hour) hold time, complete with the same canned music. At the end of four hours there was a garbled message and then the phone clicked off and I was back to dial tone.
"I knew I could go two different ways. Indescribable rage or total capitulation. My better half suggested I take the second course for my mental health's sake. I gave up completely, dropped a check big enough to pay for a new car into an envelope and tottered off to the Post Office to send it along certified mail. It was one of the most frustrating experiences of my life. I'm almost certain they will lose this check (again) and we'll start all over. ARGH."
Mike replies: I'm so sorry. That sounds acutely miserable.
Mark Sampson: "You've just written the story of my last two days. I had that experience with no less than five organizations (who shall remain nameless) and I'm almost done, with some success. Remember that corporations have only two goals: 1.) enhanced shareholder value and 2.) increased executive compensation. Providing service advances neither of those. Don't forget to fill out the online survey when you're done, and give them five stars!"
Will: "I had a very similar experience calling my airline this Summer, to address problems with a flight that (at the time of the call) was 14–12 hours away. Same resolution, same overall structure.
"One key difference: instead of hold music, complete dead utter silence. I’d never encountered that before, and it seemed a novel ploy to get you to hang up because it felt like a technical problem (the silence between recordings lasted ten minutes, give or take, each time). I was better able to get stuff done, but I’m not sure I’d choose silence if I could. The feeling of isolation was actually chilling. 'Actively listening' for hours to a dead line, it turns out, is utterly unnerving."
Mike replies: Applecare provides silence as an option, and I much prefer it. It means I can work, and just leave the phone on speaker sitting next time. When they come on, I can break and go back to the call.
But then, I never prefer to listen to bad music. My theory about that is that some people are simply not sensitive to music because they have no aptitude for it, and to them, any music is just pleasant noise. To me, bad music playing everywhere is soul-pollution. When I was a young teenager working in a pharmacy, I found I could identify songs on the PA just from the baselines, which was often all I could hear. When I mentioned this to various co-workers, none of them were aware of listening to anything over the PA at all. But I couldn't ignore it.
Bill Tyler: "Recently, a few customer-friendly companies have offered to call back when the wait time is up, rather than keeping me on the line for an hour. It's worked out rather well. I wish it weren't the exception."
RayC (partial comment): "I've certainly experienced this but I've also found that the phone is no longer the best avenue for support. I had a new inexpensive lens develop a focus issue. Small company/importer of a Chinese lens. My expectations for resolution were low but I sent an email to support and got a response in four hours! With an RMA number! Two weeks in the shop and free return shipping and the lens was back and working flawlessly."
Wayne Bruzek: "That had to be a cable provider!"
Mike replies: Good guess. Actually I started writing that post while going through the menus and being put on hold at my doctor's office. But they actually gave me an early appointment only the next day (I had a hemangioma I thought might be cancerous) and I had a pleasant visit with my doctor (who is very good) and got all my issues resolved. So I can't really complain about the experience that inspired this post, although, like all of us, I've had some other experiences that were pretty bad.
The real price of the Leica M10 Monochrom is $8,379.95, not $20,396,742,085,730,953,837,592,380,750. On Kelly Blue Book, I just looked up the value of my car, an Acura I bought new, and it turns out it's worth between $10,400 and $11,900 in trade-in, or between $12,300 and $14,100 in a private sale. I was actually pleased to see this; the value of used cars has gone up. Three years ago, the same site thought my car was worth considerably less, maybe about the value of the Leica. In any event, I'm never going to spend the value of my car or even half the value of my car on a camera. Just ain't happening.
But that's just me. One thing I've learned over the years is that everyone's price sensitivity is particular to their own situation. There are whole swaths of the world population to whom a nice quartz wristwatch or a new digital camera is so far above their means that it's incomprehensible; and yet, down the road from me, someone just paid a million and a half dollars for a house that will most likely be a Summer home, not a place the owners will occupy year round. There's no virtue in what we each consider affordable. What you can or can't afford just depends on how much money you have and how much of it you're willing to spend.
Still, each of us can have our own standards that serve to ground us. Here's an old story that sticks in my mind.
At the Congregational church I attended during my formative years, there was a plain transparent glass window in the nave above the altar. In size it wasn't imposing or ostentatious; it was proportionate enough, but not large by any means. The proposal was made that the church should commission a glass artist to create a stained-glass window to fill the existing modestly-size aperture in the wall, to dress up the presentability of the nave. The proposal passed, and money was raised for the project—at which point it became controversial. A contingent of the congregation thought perhaps the expense was an extravagance, and that the money could go for something more appropriate to the church's mission. The controversy grew and was debated at length, albeit respectfully and without rancor as far as we kids knew. The discussions went on for months. Finally, the majority of the congregation just couldn't bring themselves to spend so much on something that amounted to decor. In the end, the money went to a mission that fed disadvantaged children in a South American country. The window in the church stayed as it was.
Another example of price standards is an opinion I used to hold when one of my hobbies was being an audiophile. My personal standards of appropriateness were that 1.) you shouldn't have more money invested in your stereo system than in your record collection, and 2.) your stereo shouldn't cost more than your car.
Those were just personal value judgments. They came from knowing people who had elaborate stereo systems but few records, and from a certain stereotype, the (usually single) male who lived an impecunious lifestyle, with a small, shabby apartment and a beater car, but who owned a lavish stereo system and loved nothing more than to argue the relative merits of expensive pieces of gear.
Of course there's nothing wrong with either of those things; free country, to each his own, and all that. Why not? It's none of my business.
I left the audio hobby behind in the mid-2000s, when I bought a particular issue of Stereophile magazine (or maybe it was The Absolute Sound—the two kind of ran together in my mind) in which there were not one, not two, but three reviews for individual components that each cost more that $45,000 (you need five or ten individual components to make up a system). The thought hit me like a bolt between the ears: what in the world has this got to do with me?
The value equation reached back to the stained glass window. Even if I had 5 x $45,000 to 10 x $45,000 in disposable cash to spend on a stereo, I certainly wouldn't spend it on a stereo. If you have enough money for a stained glass window, maybe you have enough money to feed some orphans in another country.
There's another funny/peculiar aspect to my own price sensitivities: I like value. It appeals to me. I get pleasure out of things being utilitarian, plain or at least not too fancy, and, especially, not ostentatious. When I briefly worked at a high-end audio salon, I was much more comfortable in the mid-price rooms than around the price-no-object displays. It's not my nature to want to puff myself up or rub other peoples' noses in their relative misfortune (I mean, assuming I could).
In human terms this is just weird. We're wired to covet status and display it when we have it. I just checked online, and there's now a stained glass window in that church I used to go to! And an organ, even. The entire altar has been renovated.
At any rate, an $8,400 Leica isn't actually expensive. Not unless it is to you. If you want one and it makes sense in terms of your particular price sensitivities, then it's quite possibly merely the correct camera for you.
Mike
Book o' the Week:
The second edition of old friend Bruce Barnbaum's The Essence of Photography is just out. Bruce wrote for Photo Techniques when I was Editor. I always enjoy his insights into the art and craft, even if his technique isn't the same as mine. I still learn. Mastery is fun to read about.
The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's the new edition of The Essence of Photography at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:
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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Joshua Rothman: "I think I have retrospective price sensitivity. Over the past couple of years, I've bought some big, fast primes for my Fuji system; now, I'm looking back at my photos and regretting it. The pictures I've taken with the cheaper lenses (the Fujicrons and the 35mm ƒ/1.4) are perfectly good! I should've stuck with those cheaper lenses to begin with, instead of going on an expensive lens odyssey. I'm actually a little shocked at how I was thinking about value-for-money. Pixel-peeping cast a spell over me, making me vastly overpay for sharpness about which I no longer care."
James: "I can only afford the best I can afford. I started saying this to myself when auditioning stereo in the 1970s, but I apply it to everything."
GKFroehlich: "One solution is to get a more expensive car."
