The Online Photographer

Open Mike: Razor Love (OT)

Oh, this is so off-topic, and that's bound to annoy a few people. If you're one of those, I'm sorry.

This post is about...well, razors. But before we get to that, here's the song. It's not high period Neil Young. In his later work you have to pick and choose; there are great songs here and there, but even the albums are spotty, with whole albums being indulgent messes that are all but musically worthless. Neil does what he wants. "Razor Love" is a beautiful song, though, IMHO. But I digress.

So here's the razor saga...

The Sudek Negatives

Guest post by V.I. Voltz

Found things often have good stories. In 1997 I was working in a darkroom in Prague. I was really working: when doing enlargements, I had three minutes per standard print and six minutes for "custom" prints with dodging and burning across a seven-and-a-half-hour work day. When developing, it was not uncommon to have to develop three Nikor ten-roll tanks at a time, all day. In busy periods I would load the rolls of film back-to-back.



Cleaning a dusty forgotten corner (all old darkrooms had these) one day, I found some old negatives, a mixture of 13x18cm and other big sheet film sizes and quite a few glass plates, all in sleeves. They looked beautiful. Out of hours, I got them out for a look. I recognised them instantly: Sudek.



I made two sets of contact prints, the very best I could, on Foma fibre base paper, with my best dodging and burning, printed the highlights a little dark and bleached them back for contrast, hot developer where they needed it, every trick I knew. I dried them slowly, taped to glass with gum packing tape, so they dried totally flat. They were really magnificent, even if I do say so myself.



I then gave the negatives to Sudek's archive. They weren't sure if they were the originals or copy negatives, but they had them. Pleased with myself, I gave one set of the prints I made to my cleaning lady, a native of Prague born during the World War II occupation who should have been able to retire but had been left close to destitute by the Velvet Revolution. I had the prints valued, and explained to my cleaning lady what the prints were worth and how and where she could sell them.



Plaque in Prague in memory of Josef Sudek

A few weeks later, with my departure from Prague imminent, my travel wallet went missing in my flat, with a lot of US dollars in cash in it. No sign of a break in. Worse, my passport and paper plane tickets were missing. I had no idea where they had gone. Just before I was about to go to the embassy to get a new passport, the Czech police (fairly scary) arrived at my work with my tickets and passport, but no cash.



In 2012 I got an email from the daughter of my cleaning lady, telling me my cleaning lady had died and asking if I wanted my photos back. I was busy with work and a young family, and I was not thinking, so I said yes. Some weeks later the second set of prints from the Sudek negatives appeared, beautifully packed, in my post box. In a letter, her daughter said her mother could never bring herself to sell them, but looked at them often. Her mother had also mentioned me occasionally and said what a "big favour" I had done her.



I am still not sure if my cleaning lady stole my cash, but I suspect so. I like the circularity of the story, and that I now have a set of those prints for looking at, and one to keep pristine on the shelf. And the negatives ended up where they should be.

V.I. Voltz

[Ed. note: Josef Sudek, 1896–1976, Czech photographer known as the "Poet of Prague," lost an arm in the First World War, and his army disability payments allowed him to pursue art. His pictures are atmospheric, romantic, frequently lyrical and lovely. Often taken in low light or shrouded with rain and mist, many of them have an undercurrent of mystery and a hint of melancholy. They almost never include people. He was widely celebrated, the subject of major exhibitions at home and abroad. He was personally something of a hoarder, and managed to amass a large classical record collection despite living under communism. He published 16 books in his lifetime. The first in English was Sudek by Sonja Bullaty (1978, reissued 1986). She was an early assistant of Sudek's and later became a lifelong friend; she went on to become an accomplished photographer in her own right. He often wrote letters to her on the backs of photographs.]

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Mike Plews: "I have the Bullaty Sudek book. It has been a joy to me for decades. If you love photography you need to own a copy. Enchanting."

Kenneth Tanaka: "What an excellent story! I love these personal connection stories with renowned photographers of old. In addition to Sudek's moody, atmospheric imagery, he's equally known for his commercial illustration work. Wonderful examples of the modernism that was sweeping Europe in the late '20s and into the '30s. The collection at the Art Institute of Chicago has some excellent examples of Sudek's range of notable work. Thank you for sharing that terrific story!"

The Point of Sufficiency Revisited

Ed. note: This is a repost of an article I wrote 14 years ago, at this time of year in 2009. I've edited it anew, and added a comment at the end.

The Point of Sufficiency

Our late friend Eolake Stobblehouse once said that when it comes to ISO speed, we always want a little more, and then a little more.

That's true...until it's not.

In the history of photographic equipment and materials there have been various "competitions" or "races" to see who can provide the most/fastest/best. But if you read back into the history of these competitions in the still-surviving literature, you find that in most cases, a point of sufficiency is reached, and customers decline to pay for further improvements. The race or competition then "backgrounds." That is, it still sort of exists, and a few people think it still matters, but mostly it doesn't any more.

This happened with film formats: film basically got down to 35mm size, which was small and convenient enough—further efforts to popularize still smaller formats all failed. It happened with lens speed: ƒ/1.4 was deemed sufficient by the market, with further increases in maximum aperture being rare and not especially popular*. It happened with telephoto reach: the "Olympia Sonnar" for the 1936 Olympics was a widely admired and popular achievement, but now, 1000mm and 1200mm lenses are mere curiosities. It happened with shutter speed: consider that the Nikon N8008's 1/8000th shutter speed was a big selling point, but the Minolta 9xi's 1/12000th was met with a yawn. It happened with fine grain in B&W films: Panatomic-X was enough; only a few fanatics followed the Tech Pan craze. Reducing the size of SLRs was a brief race in the '70s: the Pentax ME was small enough. Even build quality in cameras and lenses: the current market supports—barely—one carriage-trade brand. And beyond that, deluxe build quality has not been consistently rewarded with sales. 

And so on.

Note that this is not a technical matter—it's a marketing matter. It has to do with meeting the need for what people want for as long as enough of us are willing to pay for it. The trend is for the race to continue among the manufacturers for as long as the buying public is rewarding the improvements. But sooner or later the buying public has what it needs, and has had enough, and stops wanting to pay for further improvements, and the manufacturers (save perhaps for one or two niche products in each case) basically give up the chase, and go try to find some other idea that will sell.

My prediction, which I've mentioned many times, is that this will happen with ISO speed in DSLRs, too, and with megapixels in Bayer-array sensors of the current type**. I don't know where the end point of either will turn out to be, and I don't know whether we have arrived at those points yet (is 24 MP enough? Is ISO 12,800 enough?), but history predicts that sooner or later, you will have enough and won't want to pay more for more.

Here are the original footnotes from 2009, which are interesting to revisit:

*People will trot out the example of the Noctilux or the Noct-Nikkor to refute me, but those never sold in significant numbers. One could even argue that with rangefinders, ƒ/2 was the point of sufficiency: the Leica 50mm Summicron always outsold the 50mm Summilux greatly, at least until Leica became primarily a status symbol. Before the introduction of the current Summilux-M, Leica decided that a new 50mm Summicron would have to be priced beyond even their market, but that a new 50mm Summilux could be supported. That's why the 50mm Summilux got a remake but the old Mandler Summicron soldiers on.

**The size of sensors is just a matter of marketing, because there's a formidable technical stopping-point at 24x36mm that has to do with 35mm-legacy camera and lens design. So far, customers—core customers, at least, meaning enthusiasts—seem to find great appeal in larger sensors, up to at least 24x36mm. The next couple of years should indicate whether sensors larger than that are going to be rewarded with sales sufficient to support their continued development.

Obviously, 24 MP turned out to be both enough and not enough: it's now very common in high-quality cameras of several sensor sizes, but ~50-MP cameras are still desirable to many consumers and ~100-MP cameras exist to push that envelope. The  situation now might well be the point of sufficiency, however. I hear zero people wishing for more than ~100 megapixels. The same comment applies to 24x36mm sensors: they're obviously the standard and common size used for premium MILCs, and have been since the great FF-M evolution of 2018, but larger ones do exist and still have cachet in the market. But how many people do you come across who wish for sensors that are larger still? About the only ones I encounter are people who want larger camera types, not necessarily just larger sensors. For instance, they want a digital 6x7 or a digital 4x5.

Here's my new comment re sufficiency c. 2023: It's occurred to me in recent times that lens quality might have reached a point of sufficiency. Lens "fanaticism" used to be my "parallel hobby"—let's put it that way. I loved to pursue and test new-to-me lenses of all sorts. I probably tried more than 30 50mm lenses and at least 50 lenses in the 35—45mm range. But it's been a fairly long while since I cared very much. Even ordinary lenses are very good these days. I no longer hear a lot of aspirational talk from enthusiasts about how greatly they're pining to own, say, the latest Leica 50mm APO Summicron or a Zeiss Otus 85mm—are a regular 50mm Summicron or a Canon RF 85mm just so deficient that you can't be happy with them? It's much more common to hear people say that they really love the lens they have, even if it's a mid-line or even a lower-level lens. I love my Sigma 45mm, which impresses me all the time, but I can't say it claims much mindshare out on the internet. I still love lenses, and you can still say meaningful things about the best ones, especially in terms of build quality, but these days they're mostly all bunched up at the top.

Just a thought.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Sensor Sizes

It's a bit late in history for this topic. But this is probably how we should have standardized sensor sizes: just give the long dimension of the rectangle in millimeters.

Would that be too confusing? Too tough to remember?

Maybe. But I'll bet not one in 50 photographers (and not one in 5,000 ordinary consumers) could name all the common sensor sizes off the top of their heads, much less rank them in ascending or descending order of size. The designations are completely confusing on their face.

Here's what that would have looked like:

Small format
1/3" (iPhone 6) = 4.8
1/1.29" (iPhone 15) = 4.98
1/2.5" = 5.76
1/2.3 = 6.17
1/1.8" = 7.18
1/1.7" = 7.6
2/3" = 8.8
1" = 13.2

Medium format
Four-thirds = 17.3
APS-C (Canon) = 22.3
APS-C (Nikon et al.) = ~23.6
"Full-frame" = ~36

Large format
Pentax 645D, Hasselblad X1D-50c, Fuji GFX 50S et al. = 43.8
Leica S-series = 45
Phase One backs = 53.9

Film
8mm movie film frame size = 4.8 (Super 8 was 5.79)
16mm movie film frame size = 10.26 (Super 16mm was 12.52)
35mm movie size (~half frame in still photography) = 22
35mm still frame = 36
6x6cm = 56
4x5" = 121
8x10" = 254

(I added the film sizes just for comparison purposes.)

Granted, these numbers are too confusing to remember, and they don't trip off the tongue, obviously, but at least they would put you immediately in context and provide a basis for rough comparison.

About the only format that suffers in this nomenclature is Four-Thirds, because it has a 3:4 aspect ratio instead of the long "full-frame" aspect ratio which is 2:3. (Some other sensors are 3:4 too, but those don't suffer by comparison in marketing terms.) Most Four-Thirds fans like its proportions better, not worse, but it emphasizes the difference between it and APS-C. If the "full-frame" rectangle were cut off to 3:4 aspect ratio, it would be 32mm in the long dimension rather than 36mm. This is the main reason why Four-Thirds is actually closer to APS-C than people think; if you either lengthen the long dimension of the Four-Thirds rectangle to match the proportions of APS-C or cut off the APS-C rectangle to match the aspect ratio of Four-Thirds, they're less different in size.

Anyway, too late now for any of this, but there really has never been any excuse for the deliberately obscure labels for sensor size. They serve only to confuse.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Keith B: "The fractional-inch sensor size naming is idiotic—it's based on the size of a circular TV tube face that contains the stated picture area. I admit that it is slightly simpler and definitely fewer keystrokes to write 1/2.5" instead of 10.16mm x 7.20mm, but absent a legal requirement to force industry to make it better, we're stuck with the current convention. Also, the current vogue for the naming of aspect ratios is wrong, albeit mathematically accurate; 4:3 is correctly specified as 1.33:1, 3:2 is actually 1.5:1, etc. Once the Marketing Department is put in charge of writing tech specs, obfuscation is the usual result."

Richard Alan Fox: Three-to-four matches the paper sizes I print. 7.5 x 10" on 8.5 x 11" paper with a 1/2-inch border; 15 x 20" on 17 x 22" with a 1-inch border. With either my APS-C cameras or my full frame, the image size is smaller on the paper with no real benefit gained in image quality. I think it was Ctein who used the term sufficiency."

Terry Letton (partial comment): "You are correct the horse is so far out of the barn it no longer remembers that there was a barn."

Alan Whiting: "Then, of course, there was the chaos of film size designations: 120, 620, 116, 126, 127, etc. But much of that was a deliberate strategy by Kodak. Since they made most of their profit on the film, not the camera, they'd come out with a camera in a new film size. Then they'd be the only ones who could supply it for a time, until another company thought it worthwhile to produce the new size. There was no practical justification for many of these. In fact I use my 620 cameras by re-rolling 120 film onto the very slightly different 620 spools. The film and backing paper are exactly the same."

Alan: "Don't forget the Canon 1D Series that had the APS-H size (28.7 x 19.1 mm). a 1.3 crop size CCD sensor. I always thought is was the best sensor size and a pity it never took a widespread hold. I think it was only made in the Canon EOS 1D series and this was available back in 2001 when the 1D was first introduced. Now that camera rendered beautiful images and only 4 MP! I think the sensor size and it being a CCD sensor made it a beautiful combination. I still shoot with one and it can still rival new cameras when printed to moderate sizes."

Mike replies: APS-H would have made a great long-term standard size. If we knew then what we know now. It's 3:4, too. [CORRECTION: I was wrong! APS-H is 3:2, not 3:4. Thanks to Jeff for setting me, and the record, straight.]

Robert Roaldi: "Count me among the confused. I managed not to know that there were different flavours of APS-C. I didn't know that Canon's and Nikon's were different. It's adolescent of me, I know, but I get a kick out of the fact that 'full-frame' isn't the biggest."

Paul Judice: "I never gave much thought to the digital sensor until I bought a cottage in Nova Scotia. A short distance from my cottage is the Wallace Museum, which is mostly focused on the maritime culture of the area over the past 250 years. But, I noticed something odd that was tucked away in a dusty display case—a Nobel Prize. It turns out that my late neighbor, Willard Boyle, was co-inventor of the CCD sensor. Boyle ended up in sleepy Wallace with his painter wife, where they helped launch an art gallery. He had a remarkable life that included flying Spitfires in WWII to supporting the Apollo program and working at Bell Labs."

Thrift-Store Luck

I needed a pair of thick work gloves recently, to deal with locust seedlings.

If I had the money, I'd chop down the locust tree on my property. Very aggressive reproducer, that ornery son-of-a-bitch, and its progeny are vigorously defended by long, stiff, sharp thorns. The local Tractor Supply had gloves like I needed, but for more than $20. Inflation's been killing me. So I went to the local thrift shop and asked. They might have some, the lady allowed; upstairs, third room on the right or whatever. When I got there, there was one pair of work gloves, just sitting there all by their lonesome, and they happened to be exactly what I needed. And they fit. Back downstairs at the counter: 20¢. I gave her $2, in furtherance of their mission. One-tenth the price of new still seemed like a stellar bargain to me. 

That's how I get lucky at thrift stores, and it seems like it often happens. I'm grateful!

But my luck pales on comparison to the luck of a woman who was browsing through the framed art in a thrift store in New Hampshire and happened upon this:

She didn't recognize the artist...but I would have, instantly. I loved illustrators as a boy, and I knew N.C. Wyeth from his many illustrations for a series of books called Scribner's Classics, big black hardbound books with letterpress pages and tipped-in illustrations. I can tell a Wyeth from thirty feet. He illustrated titles like Robin Hood, Treasure Island, and The Boy's King Arthur. He inspired me to commit larceny once: I liked one illustration so much that I carefully detached it from the school library book where I found it, and stole it!

The woman who found this painting made the right move. She purchased it. Price: four dollars. It ended up at her home buried in a closet with some other stuff. Eventually she found out who painted it, and learned that it was the original. You can read more about that here. It's called "Señora Gonzaga Moreno and Ramona," painted as an illustration for Helen Hunt Jackson's Ramona.

This story has not one but two happy endings. After feeling guilty for a good long while—more than a year—I signed out that library book again, carefully glued my pilfered illustration back in where it belonged, and resolved not to be the kind of person who vandalizes books. And "Señora Gonzaga Moreno and Ramona" was successfully auctioned by Bonhams Skinner a week or so ago for $191,000 including premiums. Now that's thrift-store luck!

The fate of art
Personally, I'm glad for her, but you know what I'm most grateful for? That the painting didn't perish. The fortunes of art in the world are various and perilous, and you never know where things are going to end up or what their fate will be. For every valuable old painting that's found on the curbside in the trash awaiting pickup, there's probably another than actually ended its existence in a landfill.

An item on my bucket list: to pay a visit to the Brandywine River Museum, which has many of N.C. Wyeth's paintings. Yes, it will be nothing but indulgent nostalgia, but what's wrong with that? Jim Schley suggested to me that each of us—all of us who like art—should "engage" with a few selected authors and artists in our lifetimes, really get to know them and their work, simply because it's a good way to get to grip with art and we can't do it with everyone. Newell Convers Wyeth is one of those touchstone artists for me.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

David Lee: "I friend of mine ended up with an Edward Weston print, right out of a box that belonged to his father. He had no idea that it was valuable. His wife just hung it on a wall behind the bar. I am pretty sure I already shared this story here, so I won’t bore you. The print was a gift from Weston to my friend's grandfather."

Mike replies: I'll just point out that Matt Witkovsky, Curator of Photography and Media at the Art Institute of Chicago (to whom I was introduced through Ken Tanaka), once said to me, "You can't get a good Weston for less than $800,000 these days." And that was probably ten years ago now.

Kenneth Tanaka: "Didn’t you recently announce that off-topic posts would be henceforth limited to Wednesdays?"

Mike replies: I'm not scolding you, but can't see how this can be considered off-topic. Goes to interacting with art, the visual life, caring about images, personal influences, the place of art and artists in our lives, the fate of art-objects, looking at art, recognizing style, etc. If this is off-topic, then I'm writing the wrong website.

Jim: "In the early 1970s I was a poor photography student. Driving around near Waxahachie, Texas, I was driving down a dirt road when I passed an old barn. In the open door was the unmistakable front of a Rolls-Royce! As I was getting out of my vehicle, an elderly lady came out if her house. She asked if I wanted to see the Rolls-Royce, which I certainly did! It was a 1928 Rolls-Royce Phantom, which I recall as being like Scrooge McDuck’s vehicle. The chauffeur sat in an open cockpit, while the passenger rode in sumptuous splendor, surrounded by beautiful woodwork and luxurious velvet. The lady told me it still ran, as far as she knew, and I could have it for $4,000. At the time, I would have had to scrimp to come up with $40!"

How to Enjoy Photography

I wouldn't say there are as many ways to enjoy photography as there are photographers, but there are a lot. I wish I was a list-making kind of guy, who could keep a list going until it reached some sense of completeness. In the last post I mentioned a few. Here are those and a few more off the top of my head:

Camera collecting. A way of exhibiting status in parts of Asia, and the main interest of any number of enthusiasts. You could say you're a collector as soon as you arrange the contents of your "camera closet" (or drawer, or cabinet, or wherever you keep your gear) as a display. Jason Schneider, one of the major editors of the photo magazine era, has always had a strong interest in collecting, and even concocted a list of The 100 Greatest Cameras of All Time.

Photograph collecting. There are a large number of subsets, from Elton John all the way down to people who clip photos they like from magazines. You can collect postcards, or antique-shop portraits, or de-accessioned newspaper file photos, or prints from art fairs. One guy I knew collected photographs by students, most of whom are very grateful to make a sale. Another friend of mine, Jim, decided he couldn't be a photo collector because he didn't have enough money, so he decided simply to buy himself one nice photograph every year, the best he could afford, on his birthday. Forty-odd years later, his home is full of rare photographs, and they've appreciated so much that the sale of just one picture paid for a daughter's college education.

As a way to organize vacations. Michael Reichmann used to lead tours to Antarctica and Iceland, and Peter Turnley gives workshops in Paris and Cuba. You can find workshops in the American West and expeditions by ship up the Alaskan coast, all manner of things, all in the service of photographing.

As tech. Some people love to concentrate on various aspects of the tech; my friend Max knew everything there was to know about print developers at one point (I think he's given that up and moved on now), and one of our readers was an expert on sensors and sensor fabrication.

The industry. With the advent of the internet, some forumers got very interested in the fortunes, workings, and strategies of the camera companies. There used to be other kinds of companies as well, like film and paper companies, accessory manufacturers (some of which are still around), darkroom specialty companies, and so forth, and now there are software companies to get interested in, too, such as Adobe and computer companies that make smartphones such as Apple.

For that matter, as a forumer. People who photograph love to talk to each other, and a few would rather talk about it than do it. There's nothing wrong with any of this, by the way. Suit yourself.

As a family chronicler. A friend of mine, Jerry, was very assiduous in documenting his family and their activities, and now in his retirement he's working to put in all in order so it makes sense to his children and grandchildren.

As personal expression. People who practice art photography might either incorporate photography into art of different kinds, or create unique work that expresses their own vision or concerns distinctively. You don't have to succeed at this from a monetary standpoint to practice it.

As documentary. The opposite of personal expressivity might be subordinating photography to its subject; that is, you're more interested in what the photograph shows than in the photograph in and of itself.

As shopping. Some people get happily immersed in a neverending loop of research, desire, and acquisition, and they really enjoy that.

As a way to get out into nature, from hikes in a local park to mountaineering or hiking the Appalachian Trail with a camera.

As a focus for walks or driving trips. Lee Friedlander's son Erik, a jazz and avant-garde cellist, talked in an interview about the family's epic car trips when he was a boy, during which his father would photograph. Henry Wessel's working method was to go places and walk for many hours each day with his Leica and its old Canon lens.

Printmaking. If you didn't read Clay's Featured Comment on the previous post, you should go back and do that. Photographic fine printmaking is an old and honorable craft that continues to thrive here and there, both in terms of old alterantive processes, traditional analog printmaking, and as fine-art inkjet printing.

-

[To be continued...but if more of these come to your mind, by all means drop a comment.]

The Secret of Happiness?

Idle thought this morning: maybe the secret to happiness, or at least to a good attitude through the day, is to enjoy the things we have to do anyway.

Have to brush your teeth? Enjoy it. Have to go somewhere to do an errand? Try to enjoy the drive. Have to cut the grass? Might as well enjoy it. Do you have the knack?

There must be a corollary, too. Stop concentrating on what I can't do. Don't regret the past—I can't change it. Stop wishing I were wealthy—I'm wealthier than a whole lot of people. Stop wanting to do all the things I once thought were attainable aspirations—no one can do everything.

I used to go through the day grumpy and resentful about chores. But some people I know enjoy keeping their kitchens neat. Some people enjoy cooking (how, I have no idea, but I'll work on it.) I learned to enjoy laundry, even, after our discussion of washers a while ago, when I learned, thanks to a reader, that it's a way sociologists measure privilege in the world! So now I do laundry and feel lucky. (Weird, I know.) And there are some things I enjoy mainly because I did them as a kid and remember fondly the feeling of accomplishment I felt when I finished—from yardwork to cutting green beans, which for some reason was always my task in the household.

Anyway, I'm learning to enjoy more and more of the things I have to do anyway. To bring this back onto topic, maybe in middle age and onward, a simple calculation of enjoyment is the best way to measure whatever we're doing in photography. Enjoy it? Do it more. Don't enjoy it? Stop. Or do less of it. Maybe we should evaluate the various things we do and rank them according to how much we simply enjoy them. Shopping? Going on hikes with the camera? Printing? Forum discussions? Photoshop editing? Learning? Organizing? Shooting? Interacting with people? Making money? Whatever we enjoy the most, do that. And whatever we have to do along the way, learn to enjoy that, too.

You think?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

MikeR: "Yes!"

James Pilcher: "This is one of the most profound posts you've ever made Mike. I've copied it into my iPhone notes for future reference. It's more than a small bit of genius."

Clay: "I teach a handful of alternative-process photography workshops every year (polymer photogravure and platinum-palladium), and inevitably during these two or three day affairs a discussion will arise about why the hell would anyone want to make prints with these weird, difficult, and old-fashioned methods.

"I don’t have any quippy concise answer, but I always provide one rubric to evaluate one’s workflow: Break down all the steps involved in producing a finished result and for each step, decide if it brings you joy or irritation? Keep the joy and do whatever possible to minimize the irritation.

"I call it ‘reducing friction.’ For me, and only me mostly likely, there are really two parts of the process that really race my motor: ‘Seeing’ and securing the image, and getting involved in a hands-on way for the final print.

"Once I recognized this, I made the gradual move to mostly digital capture of my images—understanding how the camera works and how the lens sees makes them tools to aid that first part of the process. The tools become invisible helpers when I am trying to find an image.

"And I love making a handmade print—understanding all the nuances and factors that are involved allow me to ‘lose time’ when I am deeply engaged in making a print. For me digital negatives are a lifesaver, because it allows me to invest a little time upfront and then never have to sweat the negative making part again. I know how to make traditional enlarged negatives in a silver darkroom, but for me it was always a tedious pain the butt that I couldn’t wait to finish so I could finally make a print.

"But I have friends who really, really enjoy the craft and knowledge required to make great traditional enlarged negatives, or carry around 12x 20" view cameras to make enormous negatives in the field. But for me, this always represented a necessary evil, and was not something I particularly enjoyed doing.

"I now try to apply this thought process to other parts of my life. I don’t really enjoy doing laundry, but you can be sure that am trying to optimize it in a way that it takes the least amount of time and provides the least friction to my day-to-day existence so that I can move on and to the things I do enjoy."

Ben: "I tell my students this all the time. It’s worth learning early and repeating—find satisfaction in the small, necessary things. Not only those, of course but if we follow small resentments around, they’ll work their way into the rest of everything. Clay's comment is great as well—this idea of reducing friction or increasing efficiency. And I’d sure love to learn how to make a pt/pd print from a digital negative; that sounds like the perfect way (for me) to do that!"

Calvin Amari: "'You need to let the little things that would ordinarily bore you suddenly thrill you.' —Metaphysician, Life Coach, and General-Purpose Wiseacre Andy Warhol."

Grant: "Inspired by your words of wisdom, I decided to try to increase my happiness by mowing the lawn. The mower wouldn't start; there was water in the gas. I went and got fuel stabilizer and eventually the engine started, but it ran rough and didn't cut the weeds evenly—there is no grass on my lawn, it picked up and moved to my neighbors place. Then I had to hunt high and low for the battery for the trimmer and the blower. Just then one of my sons showed up and told me to sit down and he'd take over. Right at that moment his girlfriend called and asked to be picked up from work. Guess who did the trimming and blowing?  After I finished that I sat down to rest and I noticed that one of my rear tires was low. There was a Phillips head screw comfortably residing in the tire. I'm too tired to take care of it now; maybe tomorrow I'll plug it.

"I imagine that you're thinking that your words have inspired me to look on the sunny side of things.

"Not a chance!

"However being able to rant to you has made me absolutely giddy.

"Thanks Mike, you're the pal we all need."

Mike replies: "Sometimes the magic works, sometimes it doesn't." —Chief Dan George as Old Lodge Skins, in Arthur Penn's Little Big Man

Just Announced: The Nikon Zf

To the manner born: the brand new Nikon Zƒ

Has Nikon finally done it?

As I reported when the Nikon Z-fc came out, my memory is that people have been asking for something like a "digital version of the FM2/FE2" for twenty years. (Before that, they were asking for a digital back for their actual FM2's and FE2's and other metal, mechanical, manual (MMM) cameras, and a scant few such backs, as well as a fanciful product called "digital film," appeared briefly seen above the waves a long time ago.) Nikon's been listening all along. First try was the Dƒ (2013), which was actually a pretty nice camera, with a wonderful sensor from the big pro D4 (if memory serves). It took most of the old AIS lenses without an adapter. But its faux-retro knobs 'n' buttons 'n' dials sprouted up all over it like out-of-control growths, and the whole alarming shebang stuck most people as a Frankencamera. Too honkin' big, too identity-free, too "neither-nor" to satisfy either the neo crowd or the traditionalists. Still, the guy I know with access to the most cameras of anybody in the world—Todd Gustavson, curator of the gargantuan camera collection at the George Eastman Museum—had one as his daily driver when I wrote about him, and he liked his. That's not nothing.

Did Nikon stop there? No. Next came the Z-fc (2021), which everyone agreed was closer to the retro-nostalgic design brief, even though it had some distinct nods to social-media uses. That one (still available, for $957) was a truly nice little camera that lots of Nikonophiles really liked—even, it's rumored, some photographers who didn't remember the originals on which it was based.

God love 'em, Nikon was still not done. Now we get the new version of that camera—the just-announced Nikon Zƒ. Not only is it even more like the original, in responsiveness and to-the-manner-born good looks, but it packs in some serious digital tech from the Z-series. Debuting at around $2k, it's larger overall than the FM/FE series of olde, which actually might make it an even more ideal size (we'll have to wait and see). And we'll happily overlook both the tiny little handgrip which closely resembles the F3's, as well as the flippy screen, since it means you can turn the screen inward and shoot in no-chimping mode like God intended.

Here's the supercool Zƒ at B&H Photo , body only, and as a kit at Amazon.

More about the innards in a future post. But seriously, thanks for this, Nikon. On behalf of graybeards everywhere. Thanks for continuing to try.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

robert e: "An unglamorous but very practical improvement: the new Zƒ's battery has twice the capacity of the older model's, as far as I can tell. That might have something to do with the slight size increase and substantial weight increase (50%-ish!)."

Jeff1000: "You nailed it Mike! I couldn’t agree more. I’m thinking about getting one to complement my Z6 and Z7 and eschewing the Z8 and the Z9. All I’ve been looking for is a little snappier autofocus performance from my Z6, and the Zƒ seems to offer that. I’m all set with my terrific Z7 since it’s dedicated to landscape and the like, and I only use single point autofocus anyway. It looks like Nikon is going to make a lot of photographers happy with the Zƒ."

Wolfgang Lonien: "Sadly, you can not turn the LCD inwards—as far as I've read elsewhere, it's the focus point selector / movement...too bad, but with this alone they screwed it up once more."

Mike replies: Obviously it does interfere with using the screen as a touchscreen, but you can do it:

Christopher Perez: "When I see these kinds of nostalgia cameras, I get nostalgic for a time when photographs seemed to matter and people valued them."

John Krumm: "I will be torn with buying this for a while...until I buy it. I absolutely don't need it, but I of course want it. So kudos to Nikon for hitting my vulnerable 'buy now' spot. I also already have the 'muffin' 40mm ƒ/2, and both the 28mm ƒ/2.8 and 26mm ƒ/2.8. The 40mm is the tops, a solid lens. And then there is my Voigtlander APO 35mm ƒ/2, which would look at home on this camera. It's kind of calling for it."

John Camp: "A strong resemblance to the Fuji X-T5, though the Fuji is a half-inch less wide and a half inch shorter, and has a 40-MP sensor."

RIP Panasonic G9 (and a Few Other Follow-Ups)

The original Panasonic G9

To expand on a few items on the last few posts:

—> A number of people asked what I meant by the comment about "the new site." We're working on overhauling The Online Photographer. The plan is to create a new version of this same blog more in line with modern potentials and with readers' desires and suggestions, yet also adjusted for current interests among younger photography enthusiasts in the culture. Specifically, one that offers:

• A new look
• Mobile-friendliness
• Larger (enlargeable to full screen) images
• An option for you to sign up to be notified by email of new posts with their titles and a brief description of their content
• Content more in line with the wishes of a majority of readers (and, um, a little less indulgent of Yr. Hmbl. Writer's peculiarities and peccadilloes)
  
• More immediate comment posting
• A possible option for a permanent web shop for ongoing print sales, including sales not just of my prints but also editions of prints by readers and expert printmakers suggested by readers.

Probably something I should have done years ago, but better late than never.

—> That idea of losing weight by eating nothing after 5:00 p.m. is called "time-restricted eating" (TRE), "time-restricted feeding" (TRF), or "intermittent fasting" in case you want to research it further on your own. A basic pair of videos on the subject are: "Time-Restricted Eating Put to the Test" and "The Benefits of Early Time Restricted Eating." It was how I lost 55 lbs. in 2020–21.

—> Edsel (in the title of the previous post but unexplained), intended to be a separate automobile brand, was created by Ford Motor Company in the late 1950s. After an extensive and expensive promotional buildup, which created high expectations, the first model was a big fat flop, in part because its radiator was thought to resemble (I'm sorry, there's no polite way to put this) a certain part of the female anatomy...possibly one of those notions that "can't be unheard" once people hear it, whether that was fair or not. Edsel Ford was Henry Ford's son and had been a progressive in the company prior to it becoming a publicly traded corporation. Ever since, the Edsel, along with New Coke, has been synonymous with crash-and-burn marketing failures.

—> And finally, the original Panasonic G9 really is an appealing bargain right now. It's a unique camera the form and control layout of which has been abandoned by Panasonic in the refresh (they also orphaned their GX8 which I personally loved), but it was designed and built to be the "stills" top-of-the-line when it was introduced six years ago. It's a very persuasive and highly competent working tool, assuming you can deal with complex and fully-featured cameras. The viewfinder is luxuriously generous, and the hand-feel with the oversize grip is great. And the price of $898 is a stone steal, not only compared to the original selling price when it was introduced, but also compared to full-price mid-level cameras and even entry-level kits. It's way cheaper than a Fuji X100V and the same price as a Sony A6400. It's simply a hell of a lot of camera for not very much dosh at all. The huge number and variety of Micro 4/3 lenses is highly satisfying for aficionados to play around in. Personally, I'd start out with a two-lens "nested" kit: the tiny 20mm (40mm-e) to make the combination light and portable when you're doing other things but want to carry a camera around, and the Leica 12–60mm (24–120mm-e) as an ideal do-everything lens for when you're out doing nothing but photographing. There's even a less expensive 12–60mm for those who can't spring for the Leica one. Either way, it's really nice to have 120mm-equivalent reach with a smallish normal zoom. It's preferable to the 12–35mm (24–70mm) that I have. I love that lens, but I admit I often felt constrained by the 70mm-e limit in the landscape up here where I live.

I realize this is a very niche product in today's environment, but the whole notion of the "outgoing camera that's a great bargain" has a powerful nostalgic appeal! This used to happen so often back in the glory days of the digital camera market. I'm sure most of you remember.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Grant: "Not only is the G9 a good price, it includes a free battery grip and you can extend the warranty to three years at no cost."

Dave Millier: "My G9 is a wonderful camera and one I pick up in preference to my Fuji GFX50s for everything except long exposures. If you are working from a tripod, the in-camera pixel shift reduces aliasing and noise and extends dynamic range by a couple of stops, yielding images on a par with full frame high-res cameras, and has the convenience of everything merged automatically into a large raw file. The grip and overall feel is amazing. I use mine primarily with the 14–140mm superzoom as an alternative to a bridge camera. It doesn't feel bulky or heavy at all (much less so than an A7rII for some reason).

"It does have one ergonomic flaw that it shares with the FZ1000 Mark II: the Canon-style front command dial is just ever-so-slightly too far towards the rear of the camera. Because the grip has a huge overhang below the shutter release, I find it requires a shift of the hand to reach it if I want to avoid arthritis-inducing pressure on the joints through stretching for the dial. The new G9 has a similar-looking front dial arrangement around the shutter release as the older G7. I found the G7 arrangement more comfortable than the G9. On such tiny details does perfection hang...."

Simon Grosset: "I learned from a Panasonic rep that the lovely little LX100 II is also discontinued. Apparently there’s a part inside it that is provided by a third party supplier, and they’re no longer making that part. So Panasonic have been forced to stop making the camera."

Mike replies: I have an expensive Accuphase integrated amp that's apparently useful only as a boat anchor for a similar reason. The little IC that controls the turn-on delay mechanism is wonky, like it is in most of these, and it's not available any more. The circuit can supposedly be painstakingly rebuilt by hand, but it costs $600 plus shipping both ways, which was another $170.

And I don't even have a boat!

Speaking of unobtainable parts, and boats, another story: My mother bought a gorgeous Peugeot 604 back in the '80s that I totally loved. Leather seats and a marvelous floaty suspension, and a great big greenhouse which spoiled me forever after, even though it would no doubt have killed me in a rollover accident. My brother managed to run the car into a stopped car in front of him at a stoplight, and the parts evidently had to come from France by boat. It took months and months. I think it was seven months before my mother got the car back.

I learned that if you're going to buy a used car, make sure it is one that sold well—and locally—when it was new. I've even suggested finding your mechanic first and then asking them what car to buy! They'll tell you to buy whatever they like working on and can get parts for. My mechanic here specializes in Toyotas and Hondas, so it'd be Toyotas and Hondas for me.

What Do "Edsel" and "Lumix" Have in Common?

A very minor point, but I found myself wondering—why is it that the name "Lumix" has never caught on?

People seem sensitive to brands in a way that is at times absurd. Why, for instance, should the Baltimore Colts still be the Colts when they move to Indianapolis, but when the Browns move to Baltimore and become the Ravens, they also used to be the Colts?!?

Or consider that the Volkswagen Phaeton (an excellent luxury car) failed because it was a Volkswagen, and the Cadillac Cimarron (a cynical rebadging of a mediocre Chevrolet) was expected to sell because it was a Cadillac.

When is a Toyota not a Toyota?

When Toyota decided to make an upscale brand and call it Lexus, everybody accepted that. If your neighbor buys a gleaming new Lexus, you wouldn't say to her, "your new Toyota is beautiful."

You can probably think of more examples.

Panasonic itself historically made Technics stereo equipment (it's pronounced teck-NEEKS), and in recent years relaunched the brand with a completely re-engineered revamping of its old bestselling turntable, among many other products. I've never heard anybody refer to any Technics equipment by the Panasonic name, even though they sometimes used to brand it "Technics by Panasonic."

But do we ever call Panasonic cameras "Lumix" cameras? I never have, and I've owned several of them over the years. It's sometimes reproduced as part of the model name ("the Panasonic Lumix G9"), but if someone asked you what camera you shoot, you wouldn't say "I shoot Lumix. My camera is a Lumix G9."

So why do they persist in using it? I'm not saying they shouldn't, I'm just asking. Nobody seems to accept the Lumix brand name seriously as a brand name except...Panasonic themselves. Otherwise, it just hasn't caught on.

Mike

[CORRECTION: The original version of this post said "succeeded because" in the third paragraph, which I changed to "was expected to sell because" due to Speed's comment which you can see in the Comments Section. Thanks Speed!]

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

hugh crawford: "How is Lumix pronounced anyway? Lummox? Cut and paste from Google:

Synonyms for lummox:

• blunderer
• boor
• bumpkin
• chump
• clod
• clodhopper
• clown
• dolt
• dunce
• fool
• goon
• half-wit
• hayseed
• idiot
• imbecile
• klutz
• loser
• lout
• lunkhead
• moron
• nincompoop
• ox
• sap
• simpleton
• dumb ox
• yokel

"Apparently no English speakers in the room when they decided on that name."

Dave Levingston: "It’s just an awkward name. I always pronounce it 'lum-ox.' As in 'a clumsy stupid person.' I think it’s just too close to lummox. But, anyway, I just don’t like the name. Love the cameras, though. At least the GX8. Still waiting for a 30–40-MP camera in the GX form. The new one doesn’t add enough to interest me."

James Weekes:"I have numerous Lumixes (Lumices?) and have never had a problem. After all their equivalent of Lexus is Leica."

s.wolters: "I am using Micro 4/3 since the E-PL1 came out in 2010. For several reasons I am usually in the Olympus / OM System camp. To avoid the P-word I call some of my lenses Lumix."

HVJ: "Logomisia?"

Mike replies: Congrats on stumping the host. I had to go look that up.

Steve Higgins: " I have had several Panasonic cameras over the years and have a couple now. I always refer to them as Lumix, though I occasionally have to explain who the parent company is."

Richard Parkin: "I always preferred the LUMIX name and thought it quite good for a camera, having associations with light, and is short and memorable. Panasonic has always been associated with TV and audio stuff to me. One reason for Lumix not catching on maybe that people refer to them as 'Panny' which is short and catchy but horrible."

Quick, Easy Ways to Lose Weight (OT)

On the new site, which I hope to debut in November, I'm thinking that Wednesday will be "Off Topic Day," and I'll confine all the off-topic posts to that day. So people who want to can just skip Wednesdays.

Anyway, just as an aside: a reader recently commented that he was trying a whole food plant-based (WFPB) diet and wasn't losing weight. Here's a quick cure for that: stop eating after five o'clock.

If you're eating WFPB, by all means eat all you want before five. Eat as much as you can in fact. But after five, be strict—nothing but plain water till breakfast.

That ought to do it.

And if it doesn't? Try "modified alternate-day fasting" (MADF), which is a fancy name for eating nothing but breakfast every other day.

I don't know whether MADF would work if you're not eating WFPB. If you eat bacon and eggs for breakfast it might be tough; I wouldn't know. But this strategy has been no trouble for me when I've tried it. Unexpectedly, I actually quite like fasting days—I don't have to figure out what I'm going to eat, I don't have to shop or cook, or spend money eating out, and I get the dishes done and clean the kitchen if I haven't done so the day prior. And, surprisingly, I find not eating to be perfectly comfortable. I feel more alert and energetic on those days. Of course, YMMV. Try it for yourself; but give it seven cycles or so before you decide. Your body has to start getting used to it.

Plateaus
In any event, weight loss is definitely intermittent, or episodic. (I have the stats on myself.) First of all, if you weigh yourself morning and evening, you'll be amazed how much your weight fluctuates over the course of a day (hint: if you want only the good news, weigh yourself in the morning). Eating exactly the same way, I'll lose weight nicely for a while and then get on a hard plateau and stick at one weight for a frustratingly long time—a few weeks up to a couple of months. It's easy to get discouraged during these stretches. But stay the course. If you're eating well, weight loss will resume eventually.

Mike

P.S. A book I find highly valuable was republished in 2014. Eating on the Wild Side by Jo Robinson is an encyclopedia of vegetables and fruits—each entry gives you a little history of the cultivars, names the healthiest varieties, and tells you the best way to shop for, store, and prepare each food for maximum health benefit. Turns out there's no handy one-size-fits-all ideology. Some foods are better eaten raw, some cooked. Some foods keep well, some don't (case in point: broccoli is indeed a "superfood"—but only if you can eat it within six hours of harvesting! Otherwise it's just another good cruciferous veggie). Some are best eaten fresh, but sometimes canned or frozen is better. And so on. Author Jo Robinson did no original research, but spent ten years researching and collating the available science. An essential food reference, IMHO, no matter what kind of diet you eat.

P.P.S. Oh, and one other confounding factor occurs to me—alcohol. If you're trying WFPB but still drinking regularly it would interfere with weight loss. Try cutting back to two drinks on the weekend (Canada's Guidance on Alcohol and Health recommends this as a safe level of drinking) and nothing the rest of the week.

Alcohol is fattening, one of many odd things about it. It's the only addictive drug that's also a nutrient. It has seven calories per gram, more than sugar and only two calories fewer than pure fat. Late-stage alcoholics are often malnourished because they're getting the majority of their calories from alcohol. It's also both a stimulant and a depressant—a stimulant at first, and then, as the evening wears on and more drinks are consumed, a more and more severe depressant, affecting speech, vision, muscle control, impulse control, and eventually consciousness. Although this is strangely not well known, you can overdose on it, just like you can on heroin or fentanyl—that's called "alcohol poisoning," and almost 50 people die of it every week in the U.S., some of them college students engaged in drinking games. No one knows how many deaths it causes, because many deaths of drunk people are attributed to accidents, fires, drowning, falling, and risk-taking behaviors, but it's well known that alcohol kills many people who aren't alcoholics; in fact, it kills many people who weren't even drinking. Of all the major drugs, it has one of the lowest rates of addiction—only about 10 to 20% of people consistently exposed to it will become addicts (alcoholics), despite which, it's one of the worst addictions in the sense that it has some of the most awful long-term health effects, up to and including "wet brain"—thiamine deficiency, AKA Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome (WKS), a combination of Wernicke’s encephalopathy and Korsakoff’s psychosis. WKS is a common complication of long-term heavy drinking.

Another pitch here for Under the Influence by Ketcham and Milam. The only flaw in the book is that they're wrong about AA, for reasons I could be very clear about, but the cellular science is still current (I checked into it), and the section "The Myth and the Reality," in Chapter 1, is in my opinion worth the whole price of the book all by itself. It's been called "the best book ever written on alcoholism," and while I can't say that, I can certainly say it's the best I've ever read. I got mine in the "welcome packet" I was given when I arrived at rehab. Now it's one of a very few books I've read multiple times.

P.P.P.S. This, like most of my posts, was intended to be very short. Sigh.

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Albert Smith: "This is just one data point about one subject: me. I'm coming up on 66, weigh 175 lbs. and have a consistent 32-inch waist. I've been retired from the military for 24 years and could go on base and pass the current fitness test that all the active duty troops take.

"Intermittent fasting has been THE MOST effective thing for my weight management. It worked very fast and it has stayed effective for going on a decade. By chance on the last day of the year in 2014, I was watching the nightly news and the last segment of the episode was on intermittent fasting. There were multiple testimonials about how it was life changing for people and being that the next day was the first of January, I had my resolution.

"I refuse to deprive myself of staples like bread and dairy as advocated by some diets that promise weight loss. These work because you artificially exclude things that humans have eaten for centuries before the epidemic of obesity became the norm. These diets fail because...can you really live your life never eating a sandwich, pizza, or pasta? The long term results say not too many people can. And besides, you call that living?

"I get up at 6:00 a.m. and do my workout in a fasted state...digging a deeper hole in my blood sugar and fat stores. I eat breakfast at 8:00 a.m., lunch at 1:30 p.m. and a final snack (cottage cheese, apple, spoonful of peanut butter) at 5:00 p.m. I only drink water until bed. Then 13 hours later I start over the next day with my 6:00 a.m. workout. Wash, rinse, repeat.

"One neat trick to prevent cheating...I floss and brush after the 5 p.m. meal. I'd rather skip a snack that do that again."

Mike replies: As to your point about things that humans have eaten for centuries, I've finally realized I have to incorporate just a little sugar into my diet...because that's the thing that always takes me down. I eat no sugar for months or years and then give in and give up. I have to realize that I need to learn to eat just a little in order for it not to become a diet-killer at some point in the future.

Roger Bradbury: "I've tried a couple of diet regimes. The first one I got so far on then couldn't lose any more weight. I gave up and the weight came back on.

"On the second diet regime I got to the same point, having lost about 37 lbs./17 kg from a start weight of 260 lbs./118 kg. This time I eventually realised that while controlling what I eat got me so far, I also had to control how much I eat, so I reduced my portion size.

"I now weigh 195lbs./89 kg; having lost about 65 lbs./30 kg I am now 5 lbs./2.3 kg off my target weight. But the second diet has, over the last 15 months, taught me an eating regime that is sustainable in the long term.

"That's my point. Once I'm at my target weight I'll be free to follow a slightly more relaxed version of the weight loss diet, because now I know how.

"I haven't told you which diets I've been on because different diets work for different people. But find a diet that doesn't make you miserable, because you might be on it for more than a year and when you've got to the weight you want you'll still need to follow it, but in a more relaxed fashion.

"By the way, even that first stone off (14 lbs./6.4 kg) made such a difference; I soon realised I could get up off the settee far more easily. It was very encouraging."

Mike replies: I like your last point. I've lost 17 lbs. since I started MADF and my sleep apneas, which the CPAP machine monitors, have gone way down already. Seventeen pounds ago I was having 6, 8, up to 13 events per hour. This morning it was 1.2 per hour, and I felt like a million bucks. Been happily working all day.

Nigli: "I personally don't wish for quick or easy ways to lose weight. I'm happy to make it slow and difficult. It's taken the better part of a year and thousands of kilometers cycling as well as a rethink about what I eat to lose about 7 kg. That's just fine. That change has now been hardwired in. I find the benefits or rigorous exercise cannot be overstated."

All About the Medium: The New Mark II Version of the Fuji GFX100

The best camera Fuji has ever made? The lens
is the GF 32–64mm (25–51mm-e).

The other newly refreshed camera of note is at the other end of the sensor-size spectrum from the G9II: it's the new Mark II version of the larger-than-FF-sensor GFX100. It's Fuji's new flagship, meaning the camera that Fuji itself considers to be the best the company makes.

Curiously, it's another camera labeled as a refresh—usually a rather "meh" or "blah" event in my view—that is actually a new design. The new camera doesn't use remotely the same body shape as the large, "phone book" pro-style GFX100, with its built-in vertical grip: here's the Fuji GFX100II next to the Fuji GFX100. Nor does it mimic the body of the GFX100S, the former "lite" version of the original GFX100. Here's that comparison. Unlike the Panasonic, though, the GFX100II doesn't borrow another existing body style; it appears to be all-new. Couldn't they just have called it the GFX102? Or the GFX110?

And a handsome bugger it is, too. Very sorted-looking, very put together. This one will turn heads on the boulevard. The existing camera it most resembles, to my eye anyway, is the FF Leica SL series; here's a link to that comparison. Except the Leica has always looked like it's trying a bit too hard to be "styley," wearing its design-y pretensions on its sleeve, a fashionista who's stealing a glance at you out of the corner of her eye to make sure you're looking at her. The Fuji manages to be even more stylish while looking more cameralike, less Bauhaus, all business, like the woman who looks great in her clothes but doesn't care what you think*. Very nicely-designed, nice-looking camera.

Professional system camera
Again, this shouldn't be an after thought, but there are new lenses as well, aimed squarely at professionals: the GF 30mm ƒ5.6 Tilt-Shift (24mm-equivalent) and the GF 110mm ƒ/5.6 Tilt-Shift Macro (87mm-e). (I remember when Canon introduced the three tilt-shifts for the EOS system. A Canon official explained to me at the time that each lens might lose money as a standalone product, but that their presence in the lineup was expected to entice professionals to switch to Canon EOS, which would repay them richly with sales overall.)

One blogger thinks The GFX100II is meant to split the difference between the two earlier cameras, embodying the best of both. It splits the difference neatly in terms of price, at least: the GFX100 was ~$10k, the GFX100S was ~$5k, and the GFX100II comes in right down the middle at $7,500. It's a poor** person's alternative to the upcoming Leica S3 replacement. The nifty tilting viewfinder attachment, the built-in diopter correction on the side of the "prism" housing, a whopping 9.44-million-dot EVF, too many other features 'n' functions to list, and of course the 102-MP resolution, are going to make it a powerhouse image-maker. (That's the word, powerhouse, and mere mortals have no doubt.) Oh, and upgraded IS—the only way to express IBIS is in however many fewer stops of light it allows you to shoot hand-held. These numbers keep inflating, like the prices of consumer goods lately. I think the GFX 100II claims 80 stops...or is it 800? Something like that. You can handhold that shot you need of the black fisher-cat speeding silently through the dark woods on a moonless, pitch-black night. At a small aperture.

Let's get serious
However, this...

...Is how it's really meant to be used. (That's a frame-grab from this video. The videographer is Ahmet Bayer.) Most of the GFX 100II's gleaming new features are of course video-centric, still imagemaking being so despicably 20th-century (easy, Mike...). The B&H page talks breathlessly about 4k/60p video, "12-bit 4:2:2 Apple ProRes RAW or Blackmagic RAW," aspect ratios for multiple cinema formats, compatibility with Fujinon Premista and Cabrio cine lenses, and—be still, my beating heart—frame.io camera-to-cloud integration so I can finally "utilize the camera's built-in Wi-Fi or Ethernet LAN connection to connect to Frame.io and deliver hi-res raw or JPEG images, send h.264 video proxies, or upload 8K ProRes video securely for review." You're going to scorn me if you know what all those things mean, because I don't. 

Of course, you can ignore all that, and just use the $4k worth of features you need for stills.

I'm just playin'; don't think I'm bitter. To each what he or she needs. My own camera was actually made for video, and I have it set up just beautifully for exactly what I want it to do. So, no harm, no foul. I'm just not a video person, is all. I try to watch a half dozen or so movies every year, but that's not always easy because I don't tend to enjoy them. The last three I've watched fell short for me. Anyway, I'm just not interested in video features on a camera—I would far rather buy cameras that don't even offer video. But of course they all do now. Am I getting off the subject?

Anyway: Fuji's new medium-format flagship looks to be a tour-de-force, with everything it's done so far in the larger-than-FF format all rolled neatly into one camera.

Mike

*Calm down, metaphor-man.

**!!

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Jeff: "The Hasselblad X2D offers no video. It also has an elegant but not lavish design, superb ergonomics and a simple menu interface. If I weren’t already satisfied with the Leica SL2, which has easy-to-ignore video controls, that’s what I’d buy."

hugh crawford: "Don’t you think that Fuji is competing with the Hasselblad X2D 100C? That is certainly the pair that I would be cross-shopping, the Fuji with more features or clutter, depending on how you look at it, and the Hasselblad with a leaf shutter. I’d go with the Hasselblad myself being a leaf shutter and strobe guy."

[Ed note: The two comments above came in right next to each other. It always tickles me when that happens, whether the comments say the same thing or the opposite thing. Here are those two cameras next to each other.]

Ken Bennett: "Hey, Mike, good preview and I agree with you on the whole video thing. Shows my age, I guess. Anyway I have the original GFX100 at work, with some of Fuji's excellent lenses, and it's an interesting camera. It reminds me of the original Canon D30, from 2001—lovely files from an almost unusable camera body. Seriously, the user interface is so bad I regularly want to throw it against the wall. But the files, just wow. So I'm getting ready to retire, and thinking about what kind of gear I can use when I have to give back the Fuji MF. Like, what am I going to shoot? I have a complete Fuji X system, so I'm covered for just about any kind of work, but once you've worked with those 100-MP files, and have seen how much dynamic range they have, and how much detail, it's hard to let that go. On the other hand, a reasonably low cost GFX system with the Mark II and three zoom lenses is $15k. Hmm. Still not sure what I'm going to do, to be honest."

Roger: "I recently bought a GFX 50SII. With Fuji’s sale I got the body and the (amazing) kit lens for less than a Sony A7RV body. Seriously more camera than I need, but so what. The price of that camera begs the question: with sensors so much more affordable why aren’t we getting cameras with square sensors? There’d be no need to reorient the camera for vertical shots, there would a larger option with a 1:1 ratio, and current lenses would cover the entire sensor. Heck, a 24x24mm sensor might make Micro 4/3 more appealing."

Leica: A Different Definition of Luxury

Antony Shepherd commented here about the new Panasonic G9II:

"So, if it's as big as a full-frame camera, and costs around the same, then why not just get the full-frame camera? That just sounds odd to me. Wasn't one of the basic points of micro 4/3 cameras that the cameras could be smaller and lighter?"

The way I look at, it's a case of unrelated conceptual frameworks colliding, as it were.

It's a funny situation, kind of. On the one hand, you have "this is a smaller sensor, so everything can be smaller, more compact, and more portable." On the other hand, you have, "higher quality / more expensive stuff has to be bigger." Japanese camera companies are certainly not the originators of the bigger-is-better concept—if anything, I'd be inclined to lay that at the feet of Americans—but they seem absolutely devoted to the proposition when it comes to marketing cameras. "Better and more expensive" almost always means "bigger and more complicated." When something like that is consistent and persistent, it becomes a signifier—meaning, it telegraphs a message; in this case, "I'm better than others and I have more money than others do." Once "big and complex" becomes a signifier of status and luxury, then you're stuck with it. You can't redefine "better" in a different way. Every now and then someone will make a weak attempt to go against the grain, but not enough people catch on and the attempt fizzles.

For instance, when it comes to single family homes (which I think are among of the worst consumer products on the market, in need of a thorough rethink), signifiers include excessive size, architectural excrescences galore, deluxe materials festooned arbitrarily about, and sybaritic amenities such as hot tubs, saunas, wine cellars, and home theater rooms with huge billowy leather-shrouded loungers in rows. And of course middle-class people spend the most money on the kitchen, so the kitchen has to be in the living room where they can show it off. A different definition of "luxury" might be: a house that is "just big enough," energy efficient, designed for safety and low maintenance, intended to be long-lasting, beautifully crafted, and thought-through from the start to be age-in-place friendly. But that is not how we define luxury.

Thank heavens for Leica, which is different enough and independent enough that it can go its own way. It does follow a different definition of luxury. The original "Barnack camera" was conceived to be small and portable, and, with the M10, the digital M actually got smaller than its predecessor. And even Leica's outgoing high-quality flagship, the S3 (discontinued in July and not slated to be replaced until 2025), is pretty simple, even by comparison to a mid-level Japanese ILC.

But the G9II is actually not that "big" when you consider the much smaller lenses. (Most TOP regulars know this, I know.) That's where you save the weight and size. Look for instance at both identical-looking cameras, Micro 4/3 and FF, with equivalent 24–70mm lenses of exactly the same speed. Not subtle!

Mike
(Illustration courtesy B&H Photo)

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Brian Fisher: "Railfan photographer here. Yes! Smaller lenses and the knowledge that I'm using an aperture two stops brighter than I would have with a full frame body. If I don't need it to stop motion I get to drop my ISO."

Jason Melancon: "I use Micro 4/3 professionally (location portraiture). Micro 4/3 cameras were not even possible for me to use professionally until they became large enough to be comfortable in my hand for a shoot of many hours. And I don't have particularly large hands. The smaller Micro 4/3 cameras are fine for EDC [everyday carry —Ed.] or vacation/trip snaps but those are different use-cases. Even though the Panasonic S5II/G9II ergonomics feel good to me, certainly good enough, I would have been happier still if the G9II matched the slightly larger grip size of the G9. As Mike points out, the weight savings, which is meaningful, is in the glass, particularly zooms."

Håkan Andersson: "I totally buy the argument about the lenses being smaller. I shoot with a G9 today and enjoy the 'full' size of that body but really appreciate the relatively small lenses. Another striking comparison is if you mount the 70–200mm on a full-frame body and compare that with the 'equivalent' 35–100mm on a G9. I'm quite tempted to get the G9 II (mainly for the upgraded autofocus) but I'm afraid I will miss the top-plate LCD quite a bit. Why on earth did they get rid of that?!?"

David Comdico: "The benefit of a big body that houses a small sensor is for video. You can shoot all day and it will not overheat."

Last Day!

Don't forget, tonight at midnight is the deadline for entries to the "Baker's Dozen," a group-sourced portfolio of 13 pictures based on a theme or a technical constraint. This time the theme is "House." Here's a link to the page giving the details.

Entries came in late for this one, but so far I've gotten exactly 100. I just want to say again that these Baker's Dozens are a pleasure for me—it's great to see your work and hear a few words about it from you.

Here's a list of past portfolios (hope I'm not missing one), with examples of the three most recent ones:

By Alan Sailer

Blur

By Gary Nylander

Cameras

By Len Salem

Objects of Affection

Grandkids

In the Museum

Yellow

"It Must Be Color" Part I, Part II, Part III

Black-and-White

Pictures Taken with Leica Lenses

By the way, the next theme will be "Portrait."

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Last Thoughts About Free Portraits

I just emailed an update about the fate of the blog to my Patreon supporters.

I'll post about the new and exciting GFX 100II, Fuji's brand-new flagship digital camera, on Monday. It's done, but it's awkward to put up a post with all sorts of B&H links in it right as B&H closes for the weekend for Rosh Hashana.

More about the state of portraiture
So for today's post I guess I'd like to follow up on the whole discussion of free portraits. I've done some more thinking about it, and have concluded that the best advice for others might be to go one of two ways:

—>Do street portraits, an honorable genre in which you waylay strangers on die Strasse—you know, la rue—and ask if they can photograph them, turning the encounter into a mini-session but taking only a few shots. Famous practitioners include the bestselling Brandon Stanton, of Humans of New York fame; a personal favorite, the later-life discovery Robert Bergman; and newcomers like YouTuber/IG'er David Guerrero, who Kirk mentioned the other day, is right there in the mix too. (Don't forget that photography has a rich history of embracing rebels, outcasts, subversives, counterculturalists, primitivists, and demotic practitioners as well as the groomed, the trained, the tailored, the connected, the credentialed, and the children of the rich. YouTube and Instagram are perfectly good incubators for the former). Lots of other great photographers work in this genre too, including some of our very own readers.

Or, on the other hand:

—>Charge a lot of money for your portraits and deserve it. Well, if you charge a lot of money, you have to deserve it. To charge a lot means you have to be businesslike, and professional; you have to be dependable and reliable; you will have the right and proper attitude toward your clients; and you will have to provide a product that is excellent and that respects the clients' desires. Even if you set up their expectations yourself, which is de facto what famous portraitists have always done. Meaning, if customers hired Karsh, or Elsa Dorfman, or Platon, or Loretta Lux to do a portrait, that meant they wanted a portrait that looked like a Karsh or an Elsa Dorfman or a Platon or a Loretta Lux! One reader mentioned that part of the product can be to put on a bit of a dog-and-pony show, because clients like that, and there's nothing wrong with that, either. I knew a guy in DC who built a huge and almost fanciful studio designed around photographic themes so that art directors would feel comfortable bringing their clients to the studio for their shoot. Treating clients like they're special, and making the people who hire you look good to the people who hired them, never hurts.

All that advice I got from commenters about free portraits being worth what I was charging for them was probably right. Subjects are suspicious about the product, and probably should be. And I feel entitled to some autonomy and control, but I haven't really earned it because I'm not paying them for that. I haven't made sure the transaction works for both parties transparently.

Karsh posing for portraits, RIT, November 1987

In my defense, it used to be different! Back in the years B.C. (before cellphones), people needed headshots, comps, PR shots, Christmas cards (I did a Christmas card for a Senator once), or just presents for grandma on her birthday. And if you were willing to do it for free for the sake of your portfolio or your art, so much the better for them. They were grateful for it. Some still are, but it's no longer the way it once was, generally.

Anyway, that's my take today. I'm still going to hire a few people as artist's models and try that out. It'll be more data, if nothing else.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Baker's Dozen Deadline: Midnight Sunday

I'll email this to all my Patreon supporters, in case the problems continue and people can't access the site.

However: the deadline for the Baker's Dozen will be end of day on this coming Sunday. Midnight between Sunday and Monday, Eastern US Time. That's 5:00 a.m. Monday in London and 2:00 p.m. Monday in Sydney.

Here's the "call for work" post with all the details.

"House" hasn't been a popular subject, as these Baker's Dozens go, but many of the pictures I've received so far are excellent. Each time I see a new submission I think, "well, I can use that."  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Sorry About the Site Problems Yesterday (Blog Note)

According to TypePad, it was the victim of "bot attacks" yesterday (don't ask me what that means), resulting in TypePad websites, including this one, being sporadically unavailable throughout the day. Sorry for the inconvenience. I've received no fresh updates yet this morning, but everything seems to be working normally for the time being.

If you try to log on and can't, please try again later. That's not very satisfying advice, but it seems to be the best I can do at the moment. It's what I'm doing myself.

—Mike, Semi-Competent TOP Webmaster*

UPDATE from TypePad at 11:32 a.m. ET Thursday: "Teams have been closely monitoring the service and Support is available to you via usual channels. We'll continue to work on resolving the bot attacks affecting the service and apologize for the recent inconsistent uptime. We'll update here when we know more."

*Remember that term? Apparently the more modern term is "Website Manager." I think my actual title would be Administrator, or Admin, meaning I have privileges to make changes.

The Panasonic G9II: New High-End Stills Camera

There are two new updates to high-end cameras, at either end of the ILC sensor spectrum. Let's take a look at the Micro 4/3 update first, the Panasonic G9II ($1,900), introduced yesterday.

The new G9II. Look familiar?

While I'm happy that Panasonic has introduced a new Micro 4/3 camera, updating the flagship stills-side body, some of the choices the company made seem...interesting. First of all, it does away with the G9 body style and form factor, which a lot of users liked a lot and are obviously used to, and adapts the existing S5II full-frame (FF) body:

(By the way, I have Idan's permission to post images from CameraSize.com here. Here's a link to all three cameras. Note that you can change the view, to compare, say, the top plates.)

This re-use of the S5 design isn't necessarily just a so-what: you lose the top display. And some people really liked the G9's deluxe, oversized viewfinder, and it's not a given that it has survived into the new body style—we'll have to see it for ourselves before we know how they compare. The G9II is a bit lighter than the S5II, by 82 grams. It's the same weight as the older (2017) G9. Users who have honed their muscle memory to the G9 might be in for a period of adaptation if they want to move to the new v.II.

The new camera's sensor—probably the same one already found in the GH6 ($1,700), Panasonic's "video-centric" Micro 4/3 flagship—has 25.2 megapixels as opposed to the G9's 20.3. Despite the fact that the G9II is said to be oriented toward stills, our friend Carl points out that many of the G9II's feature improvements seem to be for video. The biggest change is phase-detect autofocus, which is probably for video too, but it makes for better focus tracking and face recognition with stills.

I'm not saying there's anything amiss with the G9II. But it does create one odd disconnect: it means Panasonic is now offering two nearly identical bodies with sensors of nearly identical resolution, the big difference being that one is Micro 4/3 and the other FF...and the FF model costs $100 less than the one with the smaller sensor. Hmm. You'd naturally be interested exclusively in the former if you already have a bunch of Micro 4/3 lenses, so Panasonic is taking care of its legacy customers. And that's good. But you can't say the new camera offers much in the way of innovation or fresh thinking for Micro 4/3. And it makes a pointed comparison for newcomers to the ecosystem who aren't invested in lenses yet. Seems pretty clear which direction Panasonic would rather have them go.

Personally I've always been of the opinion that Micro 4/3 is a sweet spot for sensor size, but the way things have worked out it has gotten all but lost between the sea of smaller sensors and the prestige of larger ones. Pity, but that's the way the cookie crumbled. No use cryin'.

This probably shouldn't be an afterthought, but two Micro 4/3 lenses were updated too: the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 and the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmar 100–400mm f/4–6.3 II ASPH.

The nice price
As often happens, there's a silver lining here for Micro 4/3 fans. The original G9, which is still a technical tour-de-force and is hardly dated at all, can be had right now for the old-fashioned, pre-pandemic, pre-inflationary period "good camera" price of $900, less than half what the II version goes for. If money matters. My friend who shoots with a G9 simply bought another one.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

A New, All-Off-Topic Blog?

The other day, Edward Taylor wrote:

"Mike—this will sound ridiculous to you, but I think you should switch to off-topic posts and sprinkle in a bit of photography. Now that phones exist, interest in dedicated camera photography is dying. You are a writer. People will read your writing. I like your off-topic posts. I already know just about everything about photography.

"Look at how successful blogs have been. They don't even have a 'topic.' They are all off-topic!"

What's your reaction Edward's idea?

I've been amusing myself these past few days with the thought of doing a new, true "all-topic" blog, and I've got more ideas than I know what to do with. I would have a lot of fun with it. Commenting on the news, ranging far afield with gear talk, unleashing my inner opinion columnist, finding quirky things to call attention to, unearthing local goings-on. Plus, I have reams of non-photo-related stories mouldering away in my graying gray matter that are aching to get out.

But I wear two hats. I'm the main content provider here, and that's a creative-side job. But I've also made a living at this for going on twenty years, so I'm the "company strategist" too. Mustn't forget that this is at root a business problem.

Would you who are reading this also come read a general-interest site if I wrote it?

More to the point, if you are a current Patreon supporter, would you be more likely to keep or cancel your pledge if I segued over to an all-new site with general content? I've got a reasonable approximation of Ctein's old "1,000 True Fans" idea—I currently have 688 people who contribute a little (some a lot) each month to help me keep TOP going. That's a lot of people, albeit not quite 1k. But the high was 804. to give you some real numbers, in May I had a net loss of 56¢ in pledges, and of three patrons; in June, a net loss of $31 in pledges and two patrons; in July, a net loss of $8.07 in pledges and three patrons; and in August, a net loss of $61.48 in pledges  and six patrons. You see where that is going. From a high of 804 patrons, there are currently 688 of you. That's enough to keep me in the saddle, but for how long is the question. The trendline has been going only one way.

And second, what's to bring new readers in? The world is beset by a hailstorm of demands for our attention (I find Apple News exhausting, yet at the same time generally unsatisfying), and I'm not sure how a general-interest blog goes about attracting attention. To follow the metaphor unconscionably far, it would be like tapping you on the shoulder in the middle of that hailstorm. How would anybody even tell?

Seems like a risk. But it might also be a risk to try to ride TOP into an inevitable sunset. Looking forward to hearing your take.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Open Mike: Whatever It Takes (OT)

["Open Mike" is the off-topic Editorial Page of TOP, in which we consider the things we cannot change as well as the things we can.]

-

I'm having one of my visual (or ocular) migraines this morning. They're so weird. Fortunately, mine are "acephalgic," which means they're not accompanied by headache. But for the time being I can't see the computer screen very well, and reading is tough.

Street corner
I just passed a milestone. Thirty-three years ago yesterday, I was at a crossroads. I was standing on a street corner in Georgetown, D.C.; I had finished what I needed to do for the day, and found myself with three or four hours to kill. My first thought was reflexive: go get drunk. Fortunately, another, more recent habit kicked in at the same time: I could go find a support group meeting. It was the day after I got out of the inpatient alcoholism treatment center at Suburban Hospital in Bethesda, meaning, my first full day on my own. At the treatment center, I had gone to four meetings a day. Although a much newer one, it had become a habit too, and it suggested itself with equal force.

On Google Street View I found the exact spot where I stood that day: the corner of Wisconsin Avenue and P Street in Georgetown. I had probably just come out of Second Story Books on P Street, where I would have spent an hour or so browsing through all the used photography books. I stood on the curb for a long time. The two options—get drunk, go to a meeting—seemed exactly balanced, and I didn't know which impulse to follow. Finally, I decided to see if I could figure out where and when a meeting was. I went back into the book shop and borrowed their phone book, which gave me an address. A card on a doorway barely a block away told me the next meeting was at 7 o'clock. That was only four hours, and I figured could make it that long. So I held off walking into one of the bars that lined Wisconsin Avenue. The new habit won. When 7 o'clock came around, I was in my seat. It was my first meeting "on the outside." And I'm happy to say I haven't had another drink from that day to this. I'm 66, so the 33 years since then is half my lifetime right now. 

Those early days of sobriety were truly ugly. Outside of meetings, I had very little support—and I didn't have much support inside the meetings, either, because I didn't listen very well and I didn't speak or interact with anybody. They were big, unruly groups, easy to get lost in, and I slipped in like a mouse and stayed in the back and didn't utter a word to anyone. The big problem the rest of the time was fighting intense cravings, and the equally difficult task of making the minutes go by. I was crawling out of my skin; it was agony just to exist. I was told to take it "one day at a time," but that seemed overly ambitious. A day was too long to think about. I had to take it an hour at a time. Sometimes ten minutes. I was also told to go to 90 meetings in 90 days, but that was too few at first: I remember days when I took a seat in the meeting room at 7:00 a.m., again at noon, and then again at 7:00 p.m. Honestly, one of the reasons I stayed sober in the early years was because I was scared to go through early sobriety again. My last drunken binge had lasted for three months, and I was (and still am) pretty mentally foggy about that time. Try as I might, I cannot remember how I got into rehab. But I remember the aftermath all too well.

Alcoholism is a progressive disease. It gets worse and worse. Recovery is the opposite: it gets better and better. Seven weeks in, it finally became clear to me that it was getting easier. Somewhere between five and seven years in—I can't pinpoint it any better than that—I realized I had lost all desire to drink. Today, my sobriety is my most precious accomplishment, the baseline of the rest of my life. I still work on it every single day. That might strike you as overkill, but you know what? Whatever it takes. I don't want to go back to where I was.

All clear!
And what to you know, that visual migraine has passed now. I wish I could take a picture of it for you; it's truly weird. You see the zany patterns with either eye, and with eyes open or shut. So much that can't be photographed....

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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 or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Michael: "Mike, Thanks for a great post today! I'm almost 7 years sober, and I agree that recovery keeps getting better. I could never imagine myself having the great life that I have now back then."

Gary: "Mike, thank you so much for sharing your story. It is so uplifting. I hope it can be inspirational to others who are struggling. Over the weekend, I lost my college roommate to the consequences of alcoholism. He struggled for years. He went to rehab a couple of times but couldn't stick with it. I feel certain he never reached a point where he could see that it was getting easier. I feel hollow today. There was nothing friends or family could do to change the course. It is encouraging to hear of your success. Thoughts and prayers for you and anyone else who has struggled with this problem."

Mike replies: Very sorry to hear of your loss. We who recover are a lucky few—most alcoholics die drinking or die of drinking. Continuing recovery can be lighthearted on the surface, but it's deadly serious deep down.

Calvin Amari: "Lack of sobriety and photography has historically been a bad combination. After potassium cyanide was introduced as a wet plate collodion fixer by the Gaudin brothers in 1853, there was a sharp uptick in darkroom deaths, generally cause by directly drinking the potion, mistaking it for some other liquid."

Stephen Jenner: "Very well done Mike. I wish that I could banish cigarettes from my life. For nearly fifty years, I thought that my addiction was pot, but once I had decided to stop, it was easy, just a few days without, and I have never bothered with it since. It seems that it was my group of friends, who were (and probably still are) potoholics. That was the hardest part; not seeing those familiar, friendly faces. No, my real addiction was the plain old boring cigarette, and it seems like it will never go away. It is my reason to get out of bed, it is my reason to eat (the post-prandial), and I have to have just one last ciggie before I go to bed at night. Not one of them ever makes me feel better, or even any different, and yet, I still have to have it."

Mike replies: Totally sympathize. I smoked for 14 years and quit at 28, when, after a full year of concerted struggling, I just woke up one morning and thought, "I'm never smoking a cigarette again." And I never have. Weird.

It's a serious addiction. It's been a long, long time since I've actually looked into this, but here's what I remember: Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to humankind, something like 100 times more addictive than heroin by weight; the only other known use for it is as rat poison; and, if you injected all of the nicotine in one single cigarette directly into your bloodstream all at once, it would kill you. After quitting, it takes 16 years for your risk to return to the levels of a person who never smoked. Smoking is implicated in a large number of deleterious health effects. There seems to be a marked actuarial shelf at age 40: your lifetime risk goes way up if you are still smoking after that age, making it very important to quit before 40 if you can. However, stopping at any age is considered to be an obvious way to improve your health: a whopping one in three smokers will suffer health and longevity effects from it.

On the other hand, although you wouldn't play Russian roulette with those odds, that means that two in three smokers escape its depredations. My grandmother smoked from age 14 to age 88, when she died of non-smoking-related causes. So hopefully you are one of those.

Mark P. Morris: "Much congratulations on your recovery! I have had a visual migraine once. It was as if I was looking through a kaleidoscope and at the periphery was normal-ish sight. One of the weirdest things in my entire life. I did not even know it was a migraine till many years later."