The Online Photographer

'Tish' and 'Lee'

There are not one but two biopics of eminent and worthy female photographers either out now or upcoming, rare luck for those few able to see both.

Photo by Tish Murtha

"Patricia Anne 'Tish' Murtha (14 March 1956–13 March 2013) was a British social documentary photographer best known for documenting marginalised communities, social realism, and working class life in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the North East of England." (Wikipedia). "She had so much talent, and...she just couldn't make a living from photography. She just couldn't do it." (from the trailer). "My childhood was not what you would call 'conventional' but it was filled with fun, laughter, music, photography and creativity. I used to wish I had a 'normal' mam who wore nice dresses and shopped at Marks and Spencer, instead of having short spiky hair and baseball boots—but the idea of that horrifies me now! For as long as I can remember my mam always had her camera around her neck, it went everywhere with her, like it was a part of her. She loved to develop her stuff, it was an art-form." —Ella Murtha, Tish's daughter and the keeper of the flame (from the website).

The movie, a documentary, is out now but apparently not available to be seen except in limited theatrical release in the UK. Here's hoping it migrates to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime Video, Vimeo, YouTube Movies, or something soon. Or DVD. Unless it's screened at the George Eastman Museum, it will never be anywhere near me. Despite which, I'm determined to see it if I can. Tish was the real deal.

Sadly, Elswick Kids (2018) is out of print.

Lee Miller. (Left, fashion photograph by George
Hoyningen-Huene, Vogue, June 15, 1931;
right, U.S. Army photograph, 1943.)

Lee Miller, much better known, "was a fashion model in New York City in the 1920s before going to Paris, where she became a fashion and fine art photographer. During the Second World War, she was a war correspondent for Vogue, covering events such as the London Blitz, the liberation of Paris, and the concentration camps at Buchenwald and Dachau" (Wikipedia). Lee is a big-budget mainstream film starring Kate Winslet, no less, scheduled for release on December 6th. Despite her fame, Lee Miller's stature as a photographer is often downplayed, as often happens to female photographers. She deserves this tribute and I hope she enjoys a "moment" from it that will permanently elevate her reputation.

I also fervently hope the movie turns out to be good! And somewhere within a stone's throw of accurate.

There is a beautiful brand new monograph from veteran photobook publishers Thames & Hudson that's been prepared and released in conjunction with the film. (Funny how the situation with the books mirrors the scale of production of the two movies and the relative renown of the two photographers.) I haven't seen it, but still, I'll go out on a limb and recommend it; she's a great story and a great photographer.

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:

Andrew Lamb: "A friend of mine is one of the writers on Lee and they went to a lot of trouble to keep it accurate. Fingers crossed it comes across like that. Incidentally, the budget wasn't huge by Hollywood standards."

Sean: "I showed Tish's Pictures to my sister the other day, and we both agreed that the kids in the photographs were our stand-ins, as we spent much of our childhood bouncing on cars and jumping from brick walls onto dumped mattresses, something working-class kids did up and down the country. Shirley Baker photographed kids in inner-city Manchester, where my sister and I grew up, with the same tenderness and compassion as Tish. Looking at their work, you know it isn't poverty porn or exploitation. It’s understanding."

Zyni: "I have seen 'Tish' twice. She was as you say the real deal. And here is a thing: she used one camera and (I think) one lens. Not one sort of camera, one camera. Anyone who thinks they need more should look at what she did and think more."

John: "The UK’s weekly Amateur Photography magazine recently published an article about David Hurn's Newport Documentary course. Tish Murtha was one of the earliest students. Apparently her selection interview went as follows:

David Hurn: Why do you want to join the course?
Tish Murtha: I want to learn how to take photographs of policemen kicking kids.
David Hurn: You’re in."

John Camp: "Lee Miller took a haunting photograph of an SS guard floating underwater in a canal around one of the death camps; and she took some war photos that almost nobody else did—of GIs wounded and being treated near the front lines in really bad conditions. She took photos of military and resistance women fighters that nobody else did. She also had a picture of herself taken (nude) in a bathtub in Hitler's apartment in Munich, a photo of Hitler himself propped in one corner. All this from Lee Miller's War, Thames & Hudson, Inc. My copy is from 2005. It's still available on Amazon along with a couple other books about Miller and the war. (Go for the full-sized one, not the compact.) Before the war, she'd been a not-very prominent fashion photographer and a lover of Man Ray. There's another, bigger book called The Art of Lee Miller from Yale University Press that covers the earlier period and also the war, but I like the war book better. The Yale, in paper, is also at Amazon, but for $117; I have the hardcover edition but I don't think those are readily available anymore. I didn't know it, but there are a number of books about her and her photography, but most of them look a little thin both physically and conceptually.

"I write novels for a living but have tinkered with the idea of writing screenplays, though I never have done—but one I thought about was a biographical screenplay about Lee Miller. You don't have to mess with the material—it's very strong all on its own. She was apparently raped and given gonorrhea when she was just a child, and fought it for years. She knew everybody in post WWI Paris. Beautiful woman, great stories."

hugh crawford: "Crazy how that Lee Miller movie came about. But I’m excited to see it; she’s one of my heroes. Now for a Margaret Bourke-White biopic. Who else could convince Walter P. Chrysler to let her live in the top of the Chrysler building with two pet alligators?"

Trevor Johnson: "I bought the hardcover version of Elswick Kids from the Side Gallery in Newcastle, in 2019. Very sadly, the Side Gallery, devoted to chronicling photography, particularly around the North-East of England, is tempoarrily closed due to cuts in public funding.

"I was at Newcastle University from 1974 to 1979 and worked there for a year afterwards. There was a great deal of social inequality then, even though it still had its heavy industries, which the Thatcher government, et al., removed soon afterwards. I was at an annual board meeting held at Guy's Hospital this time last week. Guy's is right next to that monumentally hideous expression of greed, the Shard. How things never seem to change.

"Tish Murtha used an Olympus OM1 with a 50mm ƒ/1.8 lens, but had to take out a loan to buy it. We still need people like Tish to document the open and hidden inequalities that exist, more now than ever before."

Old Enough to Vote

Your mission today, should you decide to accept it, is to buy yourself a present.

Big or small, for you or for a loved one, from B&H Photo or from Amazon, through our links.

The reason:

Today is TOP's birthday!

We are 18 now, if you can believe it.

I started The Online Photographer (TOP) on Blogger/Blogspot, then just recently purchased by Google, on November 28th, 2005—a whopping 18 years ago today. Prior to that, I had worked my way up in the photo magazine world, starting as a wannabe freelancer (my first attempt was published) all the way up to the position of chief editor.

At the time, as I've related before, all I could do was laugh at the idea that I might keep a daily blog going for one whole entire year. The idea seemed pretty far out. Constancy was not my best thing. Within the first few months, traffic soared past 10k visitors a day; photography was white hot and everyone wanted to learn about it. It amazed me when I first sold a few ads; my first check from Amazon, as an affiliate, was for $2.78, and I remember thinking, well, that's not going to amount to anything.

And here we still are. Rather strangely, it has turned out to be the work of my lifetime. And the second-best job I've ever had. It has suited my talents.

I moved to TypePad in 2007. In 2009 I quit my last outside writing and editing gigs and started relying on TOP for my income. Within a few years I was working something like 70 hours a week, if not 80; it would depend on how you count. My best-ever month on Amazon exceeded $13k, and I had four, count 'em, four months back in the good old days when the blog's monthly earnings topped $30k (print sales were what did the trick, all four times).

The great thing about working from home is that you're always at home! The bad thing about working from home is that you're always at work. I remember waking up in the middle of the night, unable to sleep, and thinking, well, might as well get some work done. So I'd be sitting at the computer at four o'clock in the morning. My commute was the fifteen feet between my bed and the computer in the next room.

The digital camera market hit its peak in 2012 and TOP had its best year in 2013—no coincidence.  I moved to a new house in Wisconsin in 2014, and within days of the move had reconnected with a woman I had known years before. We had a long-distance relationship for a year, and then I moved to the Finger Lakes where she lived. I really enjoyed that year. We're no longer together, and I don't like to talk about it.

TOP did well for the rest of the 'teens. Then in 2020 I had a disaster with Amazon. I can't write about that either, but it was not my fault—or Amazon's either, really. It was a direct result of COVID-19. It dealt a brutal body-blow to good old TOP as a going concern. All of that good stuff has been a while back now, but at least what was once was.

But here we still are. So if you were to buy yourself something from B&H Photo today, using that link right there, or buy, say, a pair of slippers or a Christmas gift card or this thing, the Toto Washlet C5, which, believe it or not, is incredibly popular right now, despite being a rather gross and indelicate shopping suggestion—or this calendar or these sporty glasses, or anything else, if I'm honest, as long as you put it in your cart and buy it on the same visit—we'd get a little piece of it, and you would be buying TOP a birthday present along with your present to yourself! (All those are all links to Amazon, and I get credit for anything you buy while you're there if you start from here.)

Selfie at 18. The glasses are
corrected for 16 inches!

If you don't want to buy anything you could still help. You could suggest to other readers something that B&H or Amazon sells that you have recently bought that you are particularly satisfied with. I'll nominate those slippers, which I wear most of the day every day and even wear outside because they have durable rubber souls. They have, you might say, comfortably exceeded my expectations. Well made and worth what they cost. Mine were a gift from the long-gone girl, although her best gift was that happy year. (Sorry, I'm getting silly.)

Old enough to vote. I shake my head when I think of it. Seems like just yesterday it was a wee little blog, toddling around the house bumping into things. But such is life.

May you prosper right up to the end of your days,

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:

Jack Mac: "OK. As my birthday gift to TOP I bought something inexpensive on B&H because you once told me that the number of individual orders helps for some reason I can’t remember."

Mike replies: Thanks! It was because there are tiers. The more you sell, the higher a percentage you get.

Open Mike: Vortices, Bedsheets, and the Speed of Light

["Open Mike" is the super-self-indulgent Opinion Page of TOP, wherein Yr. Hmbl. Ed. doesn't do a lick of work but rather writes about anything that goes a-flittin' across his brain-pan. You are warned.]

Sunday!

Sunday is Wash Day here at TOP Rural World Headquarters.

Yesterday, Saturday, was Housework Day. That's the day every week when I feel guilty for not doing enough housework. Sunday is the day when I put the bedsheets into the washing machine (I only have one set, on account of I cannot sleep on two at once), and bring the rest of the laundry down and set it down next to the washing machine. Then, every Sunday at approximately ten to eleven post meridiem—bedtime is 10:30 p.m., theoretically—I discover the wet sheets in the washing machine, am forced to stay up looking at YouTube Shorts until they dry, and am then forced to make the bed in the mental state of wanting simply to be in the bed.

While the rest of the laundry sits placidly in the basket next to the washing machine where I put it that morning. This happens, um, every week.

But right now it's Sunday morning, and I have just gotten the sheets in, first thing, and I am swelled up with energy, determination, and that feeling of virtuousness one gets when one is dispatching the chores which one ought to dispatch if one were virtuous and determined!

So all is well.

For now.

Vortex
Here are a couple of fun facts about the Universe, for your delectation and delight.

First, imagine that the Sun is a golf ball. In real life it is bigger, and does not have a dimpled surface, but a surprising amount of the things we know we know through modeling. So imagine the Sun were the size of a golf ball. If it were, then the Earth would be about the size of a largish grain of sand. Jupiter, the largest planet, would be a BB. The grain-of-sand Earth would be 15 feet (4.5 meters) away from the golf ball. So, with that scale model firmly in your mind, guess how close the next-nearest golf ball—representing the nearest star to the Sun—would be from the first golf ball?

To be answered below.

Meanwhile, I simply must pass along this lovely graphic animation, called "Solar System 2.0," by djsadhu.com, which was shared with me by my friend Gus (short for Gustav) Van Winkle, a retired weather man and local news anchor from another State. Gus is also an astronomy enthusiast.

Isn't that astonishing? I don't know how accurate it is. Or rather how accurate Neil DeGrasse Tyson would think it is. He's my go-to public intellectual for all sorts of tasty factoids, many of which revolve, no pun intended, around planets, astrophysics, and the Universe. Check out his Shorts, but don't blame me if you get mildly addicted.

A fur piece
Now about the other golf ball. I live about here:

If the Sun were a golf ball and my golf ball were where I live, then the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, would be just a little the other side of St. Louis, Missouri, 750 miles (1,207 km) away.

Zowie. The Universe is...big.

Actually, though, if all were to scale, Proxima Centauri would be about the size of a green pea. You might have heard that Alpha Centauri is the nearest star, but Alpha Centauri is actually a star system, consisting of three stars, of which Proxima Centauri is the dimmest but also the closest. We "look back in time" as we look at stars, so we're looking back 4.25 years in time when we look at Alpha Centauri in the night sky. Of course, we don't just look back in time when we look at faraway stars: the light from the sun takes about eight and a third minutes to get here, so we only ever see it about eight and a third minutes in the past.

It's eight and a third light-minutes away. Light, the fastest thing we know of, actually travels kinda slowly. Fortunately, we do not have to account for this when taking pictures!

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:

Aaron: "My solution to forgetting the sheets type of problem is to set a timer on my phone. I always have the phone with me, so I always have the timer with me. This has saved me on countless occasions—remembering to pick up the kids from school, getting the pie out of the oven, leaving work early for the doctor, remembering the evening meeting, etc."

Mike replies: That's good advice. You can also just tell the phone to set an alarm. And I'm doing well today, so far, at 4 p.m.: all the laundry's done and back upstairs.  :-)

Malcolm Myers: "I once showed my Beaver Scout colony the scale of the solar system by reducing it down to 10 m from the Sun to Neptune (sorry Pluto). The distances are: Mercury: 0.12 m Venus: 0.23 m Earth: 0.32 m Mars: 0.49 Jupiter: 1.68 m Saturn: 3.09 m Uranus: 6.22 m Neptune: 10.00 m Pluto: 12.85 m At this scale the sun is like a sugar bead you get on top of a cup cake. The nearest star is 54 miles away. I was amazed at the scale of it."

Dave B: "DO NOT ever think of quitting Open Mike! 😉 "

Peter Jeffrey Croft: "My solution to the sheets problem is that my weekly cleaning lady changes the bed and washes them for me. Even hangs them on the line and gets them in and folds them. Angel."

Mike replies: Lucky man.

EdK: "Shot this pic of our 'dimpled' 'golf ball' yesterday using a solar filter (don't try this without a solar filter, especially when using a DSLR, to avoid serious permanent eye/camera damage)....  As you can see, there are a lot of sunspots stretching across the heliosphere—or else my camera's sensor needs a serious cleaning. We are approaching the period known as Solar Max during our shared life with a nearby cantankerous star. The opportunities to see/image aurora is also maximizing. Say a quiet prayer of thanks for the star that keeps life on Earth possible, and enjoy the light!"

Zyni: "The djsadhu.com animation is widely thought to be misleading, and behind it live some very junk ideas. Here are a couple of references to people talking about this. Forbes; Universe Today."

Happy Thanksgiving!

One of my character flaws, historically at least, is self-pity, which is both a bad habit and a bad impulse. In effect, it's egotism inverted; the reason I pity myself is because I have some baseline assumption that everything ought to go well for me and that I deserve some sort of redress if it doesn't. Spiritually healthy people have gotten over that childish expectation. They can handle all manner of setbacks, deprivation, and misfortune with either equanimity or an appropriate response.

I've found you can stop self-pity in its tracks if you learn to recognize it. Myself, I was given a mini-mantra against it. It came from my late friend Loyle, a pool buddy who died at the age of 93 a year ago. Loyle was the man who never complained. (I tried to go a week without complaining, and found out it wasn't as easy as he made it look.) If someone around him complained, Loyle would put up with it for a while and then say, "oh, too bad!" I say that to myself a lot now. It helps me laugh at myself and stop feeling sorry for myself.

Gratitude works, too. Gratitude is incompatible with self-pity. So when I'm feeling sorry for myself, I try to start thinking about all the things I'm grateful for. These can include something as impermanent as a good mood, as natural as fresh air to breathe, or as trivial as a kindness offered to a stranger. If I really manage to genuinely feel grateful, self-pity disappears. Making a "gratitude list" is something I usually do in my head. However, I think I'll make a real one tonight, pencil to paper.

Oh, and that painting up above? Definitely a sign of the times we're in—first of all, I had to pay $3.99 for it on Etsy, and second—well, don't look too closely at the hand of the man on the lower left or of the woman on the lower right. And what exactly is that "dish" in the foreground? Ersatz, all ersatz.

Thank goodness our feelings are still real! I'll be grateful for that. Happy Thanksgiving to you—wherever you are, whomever you're with, and whether you're American, and celebrating our holiday, or not.

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:

Vijay: "Gratitude lists are good ideas. Someone once gave me a trick to keep the daily list fresh, which was to keep it to 3 things experienced in the last 24 hours. Happy Thanksgiving!"

Mike replies: An excellent idea. A side benefit of a gratitude list is that it puts you on the lookout to identify more things in your life you might be grateful for.

gary bliss: "A sure cure for self pity is to spend 30 or 40 minutes in the waiting room of an oncologist. I spent my career in the national security and it has been my honor and privilege to work with men and women that are combat disabled or (earlier in my career) spent years of their young adulthood as honored guests of the Hanoi Hilton. There is never a peep from them; every last one of them i have known have always been focused on what can they contribute going forward. I love them all and even our vain-glorious and ill-advised politicians can do nothing to stain them in my heart."

Mike replies: Whenever Loyle said "oh, too bad," I always imagined it was what he heard as a child from his father whenever he whined or felt sorry for himself. Ignoring tantrums and not responding to gambits for pity is good parenting advice, remembering that we always need to distinguish it from the child's real needs for emotional support and sympathy. Loyle's father, Fred, served in the military for every day of both WWI and WWII—not just every day of US involvement, but the entire span of both wars anywhere—and Loyle himself managed to sign up just before WWII ended. He was a Navy man, and an electronics specialist. When the Korean war began, the military sought him out for his expertise, and he served then too.

Here's Loyle, as a giant and a midget. (Both pictures shot with the .5X lens on the iPhone.) I told the story about Loyle and the lawnmower somewhere, but I'll be darned if I can find it.

Rand Adams: "There’s a great cure for self-pity. Thirty years in the fire service. Whingeing on, in the fire station, is immediately followed by dimes flying at you from every corner of the room. Signifying, of course, 'Call someone who gives a damn.' This tends to put one’s pity-party in perspective."

Robert Fogt: "Oh, come on! The woman in the lower right merely has her hand stuffed up the, um, backside of her latest sock puppet. And that's what is making everyone smile. Photographers have employed this old trick forever!"

Art and Artists Question

Which artists would you think might be useful for photographers to know and study?

That was a question I came up with a few days ago, thinking of topics to write about. Trouble is, my list kind of stalled at...four. I was a little shocked that a cascade of names didn't drown my brain. The first three that I thought of immediately were Edward Hopper, Raphael, and Vermeer.

Then I thought of Caravaggio—Mr. Chiaroscuro—and that seems obvious, although I never liked him all that much. His paintings seem violent to me. When I was young I had this persistent sense that I could glean the artist's personality from their art, and when I didn't like what I sensed of the personality, I tended not to like or trust the work.

If ever a cover should not have a red banner across the
corner, it's this one.

After those three I started to run into one peculiar problem. My high school classmate Caroline's daughter, whose name I don't know, was a prolific drawer as a child. When her mother suggested she copy something, when the daughter was nine, she refused, saying, "never go from flat." I love that.

That is, when you're drawing, look at the three-dimensional real world and don't copy something that's already been reduced down into two dimensions by someone else or by some other means. This is a sensitive point with me, because I have a sense when I look at art of all kinds whether "there's a photograph behind it," meaning, the artists is painting or drawing from a photograph. With some art it's obvious, and with some it's almost like a faint shadow and I'm not sure of it. But I tend to like art better when it doesn't have that shadow of a photograph behind it.

It's a bit odd that Hopper is photographic in his vision, yet there isn't that shadow there. And sure enough, Hopper didn't "go from flat." He looked at the real thing and made sketches (many of them) and took written notes. So he might have been a painter who was influenced by photography, but he wasn't one who used photographs to paint from.

Even Vermeer, who died 164 years before the invention of the Daguerreotype was announced, might have been using the lens image as an aid for his painting, according to the (must-see) movie Tim's Vermeer.

Edgar Degas, Race Horses, 1883–85

The problem I ran into was that many latter-day and recent representational artists do have that shadow behind their work. Winslow Homer does; Eakins does, to my eye, although I don't hold it against him—I used to say that Eakins was actually a multimedia artist whose final works happened to be rendered as paintings. (Kind of half a joke, like a lot of my opinions about art.) It's easier to forgive artists who worked closer to the inception of photography; when Degas used photographic cropping in paintings, it was radical and new. A friend tells me that Norman Rockwell: Behind the Camera is actually a very interesting book for us photographers, regardless of whether you like Rockwell. I love Jordan Casteel, but would someone look at her work purely to inform their photography? It seems odd to suggest that photographers should study artists to improve their photography when the artist might have used photographs to paint from in the first place.

Maybe what I really should do, rather than to compile such a list as I'm proposing, would be to read Secret Knowledge by David Hockney, which I'm rather shocked to find out is from 2006. (I still think of it as "recent.") It's about that very subject: artists who mediate their vision through or with the lens image vs. those who paint from direct observations of three dimensions, from imagination, or abstractly.

The book has always been a little too expensive for me, and I'm flat out of room for more books, sadly. (Half my reference books that I need for this job are already inaccessible in boxes in the attic of the barn. I'm shocked to discover just now (from Amazon's records) that I actually own Norman Rockwell: Behind the Camera. It's in a box somewhere and I can't get to it, and out of sight, out of mind. You know what they say: oh well.)

I do tend to forgive artists who were also photographers, which includes Eakins. I have The Photographs of Thomas Eakins somewhere. And it includes the marvelous artist/photographer Saul Leiter whose photography work I cannot get enough of. And David Hockney himself.

Maybe one of my resolutions for 2024 should be to get Secret Knowledge from the library!

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: "I'm going to sort of sidestep the question and suggest studying the artists that move you (whether positively or negatively); just do it deliberately, i.e., with the goal of learning something applicable to photographs.

"Why? First, I think photographers can learn something from most any flat art, including abstracts. Second, there's a lot of art and your time is limited, so you might as well focus on the stuff that resonates personally, that you want to spend more time with anyway. And third, you might learn something about yourself, too."

David Dyer-Bennet: "My mental model is that the thing I could particularly learn about from non-photographic visual artists is composition. (I can of course also learn about that from photographers.) Not to say there aren't other things to learn; there clearly are, particularly if you start including retouching and restoration in 'photography' (because then lots of painting techniques or at least the understanding behind them become relevant).

"('Cropping' is another area where there should be plenty to learn; it's tightly related to composition, too.)

"And, for composition, whether I approve of their techniques or even of their results doesn't really matter, does it? If an image is widely thought to be first-rate, the composition must be at least 'okay,' and is very probably considerably better than that, right? So my looking to figure out how that works has reasonable chances of being enlightening? There's a certain feeling of superiority to be had from thinking you've learned from art you don't like, anyway  :-)  .

"I've been collecting examples and trying to make time to study them, off and on, for over a decade now I guess. Possibly I might even have learned some things."

Roger Bradbury: "Perhaps you should get rid of that funny looking table in the middle of the 'pool' shed, and fill the space with book shelves....  ;-)  "

Mike replies: Part of the original plan: low bookshelves around the edges that cues would clear the top of. Alas, it's not big enough. The room on the floor is needed for footing. The pool shed is big enough, but barely.

A library is actually a perfect room for a pool table. Shelves on all the walls, pool table in the middle. But the room has to be big enough. Take a look at the basement this house in the town I'm thinking of moving to. Very few small houses have any space that is truly big enough for a full size pool table. You need about 19x15 feet clear of any impediments. It's rare to find. I would deal with the less than ideal kitchen, which is probably what's keeping that house from selling.

Oops, am I talking about pool again? I'm not supposed to do that!

Bob Keefer: "I'm going to sidestep the question slightly and suggest a different way for photographers to learn from the classical art world. When people ask me what's the best class to take on photography, I recommend they sign up for a good drawing class. Learning to draw what's in front of you from a decent instructor develops your ability to see the world carefully and accurately, to see what is actually there as opposed to what you expect to see. You also learn about composition and tonal structure of images. Drawing doesn't require talent—only regular practice—and it can deeply change your view of the world and of art."

Len Salem: "Mischievous me suggests that any book by or about any artist you like is worth studying if your intention as a photographer is to express yourself and how you feel about things. Because what, as photographers, many of us need to think about is our intention in making images. Getting to grips with the thought processes of an artist might be valuable help for understanding this. Learning the technique(s) necessary to express that intention is a separate study, and possibly one about which it is easier to become informed or recommend resources."

Hank: "I ran into a Bonnard exhibition during one of my travels a few years back—I think it was at the Tate—and I was struck at how 'photographic' his paintings were. A little research later showed he was a keen amateur photographer."

Mike replies: One of my favorite books is a book of Bonnard's photography. They are not "good," nor do they look at all like my own photographs, but for some reason they just grab me right at base level. Kind of like Howe Gelb's music. Thanks for mentioning him!

Jim R: "When working in color I tend to think of Maxfield Parrish when taking landscape photos after sunset, and William Turner and Hudson School of Art painters when there's water in a scene."

John: "Picasso was supposedly challenged about his distorted representation of an individual—likely his latest mistress. Picasso then asked his interlocutor whether he was married, and if so, did he perhaps have a photograph of her? Out came a wallet and a small snap handed over. 'She’s very beautiful. Such a shame she’s so small, flat, and grey.'

"To Adam Isler’s list of painters, I would add Durer, especially his Great Piece of Turf (Das große Rasenstück); and, George de La Tour, 'The Cheat with the Ace of Diamonds,' in the Louvre collections."

Tom Burke: "It would have to be 'realistic' painters, I think. So, for example, still life and genre paintings from the Dutch Golden Age, would inform photographers of similar subjects. And portrait paintings, surely—again, Dutch masters, as well as artists such as Lawrence and Gainsborough. And then there's Joseph Wright 'of Derby.' If you want chiaroscuro without the violence, e.g. 'A Philosopher Lecturing on the Orrery'. It would be challenging to tackle a subject with that much dynamic range with a digital camera and try control it...."

It's Black Friday Week

Wow, I am really sorry. No new post yesterday...and in the middle of Black Friday week! I am not the World's worst businessman, but I am at that end of the scale. If you are starting your shopping already, please think of TOP if you are buying a camera at B&H Photo or a book at Amazon, would you? (Both of those look interesting, and one of them is popular.) (And both of them are links, hint, hint.) Pretty please? It would help me out. I get a little spiff in return when I refer you to them, and you don't pay anything extra. Many thanks.

Speaking of cameras, after writing about my kit the other day (and hearing from Ned B., who is the very soul of a true enthusiast, and a friendly fellow), I did think of something to want. (I have lots of practice at that when it comes to cameras, so I fall back into it easily.) A Pentax Monochrome for portraits. Which made me wonder: has anyone (besides Ned, who definitely has) bought or used the Pentax Monochrome yet? And if so, what do you think? Useful? Pleasant? Pointless? Valuable to you, or too specialized?

Of course, reader Acetous Q. Driveby can opine about how B&W is sh*t and he's always hated it and anyone should just convert color files and etc. etc. etc.—because that happens every time the subject comes up. Or, Acetous, you could ease up and just not. Up to you. (Look up "acetous." It means "vinegary." I'm kind of proud of myself for knowing that word.) There sure are a lot of parentheses in this post. (As is my wont. Well, one of my wonts. I just looked up "wont"—"one's customary behavior in a particular situation." Looking up words is my wont too. I do it probably every single day, and probably have done since my grandmother gave me a dictionary before I started high school. I was proud of that dictionary. If you can believe this, I used to read the dictionary, as well as the encyclopedia. Really! But I digress. As is my....)

Obviously, I have a B&W-only camera, so I've put my money where my mouth is. ("Halloween 2023," when I checked just now, just passed 14,000 views! That will be next Fall's print, assuming old TOP survives that long.)

You can thank me for the existence of the Pentax Monochrome, by the way. I conjured it into existence by buying an expensive converted camera just before it came out. I think it worked out for me, though—my camera is far from ideal, but I love it.

Sorry for the lack of post-age yesterday. I did do the Comments, at least. And now, breakfast.

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:

Matthew: "The Pentax Monochrome is the best camera I've ever used, but in a quiet way. Under ideal conditions detail and tones are a bit better, and noise is a bit better. But under adverse conditions it really shines; high-ISO photos—I happily use 50,000 through 200,000—are grainy but usable, without breaking up the way colour files can.

"As a thing, the camera itself is excellent. It has an essence and purpose that makes my Ricoh GRIII feel fussy and haphazard. There's a spiritual difference between looking at the world through the lens versus looking at the camera's recreated light, just as there's a difference between recording colour for monochrome post-processing and black-and-white photography. The Monochrome certainly isn't right for most people, but it's as close to perfect-for-me as I've ever found."

John Camp: "I bought a bunch of Pentax gear for my wife when she evinced an interest in photography, which turned out to be passing. So it sat around, doing nothing, until the Monochrome came out. Since I had six lenses, I figured what the heck. When I opened TOP this morning, the camera was sitting next to my elbow, because yesterday I was out shooting...crows. Nothing like some serious black, if you're shooting B&W. Especially against an overcast (white) sky.

"It's really a good camera, I think. Feels good in the hand. Maybe has too many buttons. Twenty-eight on the exterior of the camera, including two adjustment dials and a joystick (as opposed to setting dials.) Fixed B&W LCD, and very nice traditional DSLR viewfinder. I mostly ignore the buttons and dials; after setting it up, I left them alone, although I do have to make further adjustments when shooting in the evening.

I have all Pentax glass: a 60–250mm, a 50–135mm, a 16–50mm, and three of the very small 'Limited' lenses, the 70mm, 43mm and 21mm. The zooms are quite good if not excellent. The Limited are jacket-pocket size, and they are very good.

"The images also seem quite good, although I'm not a pixel-peeper and don't do 'tests.' Anyway, the images are satisfying, for B&W. I would never buy a Leica, as I don't like rangefinder cameras, but looking at the examples that Kirk Tuck has been showing lately, I'd say that the Leicas are better, probably both because of the sensor and the glass (and Kirk's talent) but if you like B&W prints, I doubt you could see much difference in anything less than a 22-inch print (except for the talent part).

In other words, the Monochrome seems to me to be a good solid camera. My biggest problem is that I'm no longer sure how much I like B&W, even after shooting it for the first 20 years of my photography life. I screw around with it more than I get serious. And I really do shoot it like a film camera—I don't chimp, mostly just shoot.

"Do like the crows shots, though. They make me laugh."

Andy Kochanowski: "I have said several times, even probably here, that the Pentax K3III is a marvelous camera. Unless you require preternatural focusing speed, or if you cover the NFL or similar, it will give you pliable, rich files all day long. I shot maybe 600 images one day of an event and didn't even get the battery meter to go down one bar. The viewfinder is almost like a fine SLR with the added focus confirmation or grid lines if you like. It is small and dense and feels like you could drive a nail with it if needed. All this to say I'm sure the Pentax Monochrome is a very fine B&W camera. I don't have need for one, since I shoot color and am happy to continue to do that. A kit of the K3III and a Ricoh GRIIIx is pretty perfect."

Robert Roaldi: "I'm told that the Monochrome is a big success and selling like hot cakes, so we might have more B&W cameras soon. Someone must be working on an app to colourize B&W photos."

Clayton: "You may notice that Robert Frank drove across America while Todd Webb walked. Both lived 95 years. Just thought you needed to add that to the lifestyle statistics."

Kye Wood: "This is the gold standard review and reason explaining why this camera is truly important. And explains how it came to be. I still think the FA 31mm Limited is the best lens I've ever held, by the way."

rr: "I think I get the idea of a monochrome sensor, and the impact of its characteristics. I also think the technical differences are overrated. What makes a camera like this produce better black-and-white photos is the commitment and the decisiveness of the person who bought the thing in the first place. Nobody who just wants to try B&W once in a while does. I'd guess these cameras are used by people who are really into B&W, who know which filter to use to bring out the tonalities, who were willing to learn the characteristics of the sensor a long time ago, and who are now just taking photos. Decisiveness on all levels, from the mundane technical, to subject matter choice, over to where the resulting images sit on an emotional and cultural spectrum, that's what's important."

Quote o' the Day

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not."

(Unattributed. Passed along by Cal.)

I enjoyed that. Never heard it before.

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:

Daniel Speyer: "As an engineer: in industry, as a sole proprietor/consultant, and then an academic, I disagree. Theory and practice are the same."

Mike replies: Would you be so good as to enlarge upon that for us?

[UPDATE: Daniel kindly replied at greater length in the full Comments section, which is accessible by clicking on the word "Comments" in the post footer or by clicking on the post title and scrolling down. Thanks, Daniel! —Ed.]

Benjamin Marks: "LOL. I'll go the other way. 'Theory' exists in a Platonic realm of thought. Practice is how things are actually done, from 'Praxis' (Greek). Thus, although amusing, it is false to state, 'In theory, theory and practice are the same,' for if they were, you wouldn't need the separate concepts. /didact off."

Russell: "On a related, but slightly different note. I’ve dabbled in theoretical and experimental science for more years than I care to consider. Theorists tend to believe the data provided by experimentalists, while doubting their theories, because they are well aware of all the assumptions, caveats, etc. involved in formulating theories. Experimentalists tend to believe the theories, because they know all the potential errors, equipment peculiarities, operator deficiencies, etc. involved in data collection. And so it goes."

Mike replies: That's insightful, and actually funnier than the quote itself. It seems to relate to something I heard at Reed College, which is that we are most impressed by the intelligence of people who are good at whatever we ourselves are worst at.

Open Mike: What Should We Want as We Age?

Another good bargain to pass along. But another one I can't vouch for personally.

What do we want as we age? I suspect we're all interested in our fate, but different people deal with it in different ways. Some avoid the subject, as if ignoring it will make it go away—but, unfortunately, The Thing About Life is that One Day You'll Be Dead. Others obsess about it to the point of becoming ghoulish. Probably best not to go to extremes.

What I think I'd like would be a three-year decline.

Evidently that's what's normal for human beings. My Great-Aunt Dicky (Frances Hamilton Schirmer), born in 1907, lived to be 101—she died two months shy of her 102nd birthday. Despite her great age, she had what could be called a normal decline: as I remember the sequence, she drove till she was 95, exercised till she was 97, and lived independently in her own home till she was 99. She was an unusually intelligent, self-disciplined, forward-looking individual, with very little self-pity, who had orderly habits, high standards, and an incisive mind. I recall that in her 90s she took a subscription to People magazine and read it cover to cover every week so she would be up on what younger people were talking about; she wanted to be part of conversations. She cultivated many younger friends in her old age, and took her first ride on the back of a Harley-Davidson when she was well into her 90s.

Having been moved to a care facility during her last two years, I'm told she had bad days sometimes. But she was also still having good days. The last time I saw her was a good day. It was the summer before her death, and on that day at least, she was her old self, albeit quieter, less confident, and a little slower on the uptake.

So, then—I remember having a perfectly normal, nice conversation with her while she was doing gardening around her own house (barefoot!), at age 98 or so, and then she died in the graduated care residence three years later, give or take, at age 101 and 10 months.

That's a good reason to try to stay healthy in older age: to have a normal decline. The unhealthier someone is, the longer their decline. The more health problems they tend to have and the less they're able to enjoy their waning years. Which is too bad, because general well-being and happiness describes an inverted bell shape, being moderately high in youth, lower through the "trough" of middle age, and climbing again in older age...at least, until we enter our final decline physically and mentally. The average "decline to death" for an American, which should be three years, is now 11 years. And for many people it's longer than that. It's not just that we die younger*; it's that we're greatly extending the period of the ramp-down toward death, and we suffer along the way. Some unfortunate souls are beginning their decline in their 50s or even their 40s now. 

We're making ourselves miserable. Present company, I hope, excepted. Either way, it's a tragic trend.

So what's the solution? Pretty simple, actually...at least to say, although maybe not to do: walk for an hour a day** or partake of some sensible equivalent, and get 80% of your calories from plants, keeping meat, oil, and sugar to a minimum*** (and cutting out alcohol and all dairy, including eggs, altogether. There isn't even a single good reason humans need to eat dairy foods).

Anyway, if you are still reading this after that (smiley emoji), you might want to know that a large number of health and wellness influencers have collaborated on a 50-book e-book bundle that's available for the next eight days for one low price. It's called "The Plant-Based Bundle" and it includes 130 e-books (I'm just guessing that some of them might be better described as "pamphlets") for $50. They include books on both diet and exercise.

I can't drop the bucks at the moment—money's tight—so I haven't seen it, but I know a smattering of these authors, and (believe me) have plenty of similar books already.

Wanted you to know about it. Be good to yourself in your old age.

Mike

*Although we do. However, COVID-19, the single largest mortality event in U.S. history, exceeding even the Civil War, muddles recent statistics.

**90 minutes a day is optimal, 20 minutes three times a week is a functional minimum that still improves your outcomes.

***The food industry in America has settled on sugar as the ideal industrial food, and it's everywhere. Very difficult to avoid even if you're trying hard. Recent studies have made it clear that the myth about small amounts of alcohol being good for you is just that—a myth. And apparently if you eat high-quality meat (which is still poor-quality food), you can eat up to a maximum of three four-ounce servings a week before it begins to adversely affect your health outcomes—although if you say that to average vegans, they will look at you like you had just grown a tail.  :-)

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:

Dave Levingston: "There's another way to go that is my preference. Having already died once (fatal heart attack in the ER. They got me back with paddles and CPR.) I would prefer to go the way I've already experienced. No warning. Sudden illness with no lead-up. Out and gone. Just make it quick. Skip all the decline. Seems like the best way to me."

robert e: "Thanks, again, Mike. I just happened recently on an entertaining, informative tutorial on how to quickly prepare a week's worth of plant-based meals and still have a wide variety of dishes, courtesy the Bosh Boys. Since its Robert Llewllyn's YouTube channel, the focus is as much on the WFPB diet's benefits for climate and environment as on its health benefits (though I hope it's obvious to everyone by now how closely those things are related). It's free, of course.

"Speaking of free, I note, for anyone who wants to preview what's in the book bundle, or just dip a toe, or just doesn't have the scratch at the moment, that the authors' Instagrams, YouTube channels or websites are given on the bundle page. There are also lots of such books on Hoopla (I suspect some of the same books)."

Catherine Hill: "As you well know Mike, the amazing Dicky was my grandmother and I always love to hold her up as the ideal for aging well. I’m certain she had a few aches and pains in her last couple of decades, but we never heard a complaint or comment about aging from her. I remember once she told me—'the secret to being perceived as youthful and energetic as you age is to not grunt or ooomph or groan when you stand up and sit down'!!"

Mike replies: Catherine! Nice of you to come leave a comment here.

One of my favorite Dicky stories is this one. Through my whole childhood, as Catherine well knows, at Burt Lake, where our families had cottages, Dicky rowed her beautiful artisanal rowboat (Catherine's uncle still has it, I believe) up and down the shore almost every day, taking her exercise.

One cold, blustery summer day at the lake, a big storm system from Canada had been blanketing us all day. It had been blowing and raining at a slant all day and there were big waves with whitecaps out on the lake. The Ripple, Catherine's father's wooden speedboat, and Tirzah, my grandfather's sloop, were bucking at their anchors. Over in the big cottage we had built a fire and were keeping it going, playing board games and occupying ourselves indoors where it was safe and warm and cozy.

We always used to partially open the front door so the fire could get air, and as I was going to the firewood closet to get more wood I looked out through the partially opened door at the the dark day and the whitecaps on the waves and thought, "well, this is one day, at least, when Dicky won't be out rowing. I wouldn't even want to run to the dock and back in this!"

As if on cue, what should appear on the Schirmer side of the view through the door but the prow of Dicky's rowboat, cutting up and down into the big waves. I watched as she appeared and moved through the view. She had on her yellow Mackintosh and rain hat and was making slow progress against the wind and waves, being tossed up and down and side to side but rowing steadily, with great determination. I stood there and watched, admiringly, till her boat had traversed the opening in the doorway and disappeared on its way down the shore.

That was Dicky!

Jim Kofron: "That story of Dicky rowing is perfect. Thanks for making my Monday, Mike and Catherine!"

George: "I want to die like Queen Elizabeth II...reasonably normal and functional, then a couple of days in bed, and then just go to sleep! Perfect."

Arch Noble: "So, don't keep us wondering: was Dickie a vegan? Or did she follow your diet advice?"

Mike replies: A fair question, and one I could warm to...but only at the risk of becoming more of bore than I usually am. The simple answer is that I don't know what Dicky ate. I do know two things: that she was an upper-class American from birth to death, and had cooks for long stretches in her life, and I have limited evidence (that I'm nevertheless pretty sure of) that she had considerable self-discipline. To relate just one small but telling observation: at my grandmother's funeral reception, after dinner, Dicky sat down in the living room near me with a brownie on a small plate. From the dining room, rising above the sound of conversation, we heard my mother's voice exclaim, "these brownies are out of this world! Nobody could eat just one!" With a slight but detectable expression of disapproval, Dicky looked down at her brownie and said to herself, very quietly, "I should have taken half."

In any event, anecdotes are not what you need when evaluating diet. For example, if, say, one out of three heavy smokers suffer some sort of related health problem, that would mean that the other two out of every three people will smoke and get away with it. But still, you can't look at one smoker who lived a long life and died of old age and say, "there's proof positive that smoking doesn't hurt you." To evaluate diet, you look at statistical outcomes, as near as they can be determined. It's not trivial to try to coax out the data on what food does to us, but in some cases the links to effects are clearer and better known than others. Researchers often study populations, which led to the discovery of so-called "blue zones" where people live, on average, significantly longer. This is from bluezones.com:

It turns out that it’s whole plant foods, not fish, that make up 90 percent of the traditional Okinawan diet: Less than 1 percent of the diet was fish; less than 1 percent was meat; and less than 1 percent was dairy and eggs. Most of the diet was based on vegetables and beans, with the most calories coming from purple and orange sweet potatoes. It’s not only a highly anti-inflammatory diet but also a highly antioxidant one.

Okinawans who eat this way don’t only live the longest, they are also extremely healthy into old age, with:

• • • • 6-12 times fewer heart disease deaths than the United States
      • 2-3 times fewer colon cancer deaths than the United States
      • 7 times fewer prostate cancer deaths than the United States
      • 5.5 times lower risk of dying from breast cancer than the United States

Unfortunately, fast food and Western styles of eating have made it to the island, and younger generations are no longer reaping the health benefits of eating the traditional Okinawan way.

I apparently have more in common with the younger Okinawans. In any event, individual cases aren't much help. Individuals might eat well and die young, or smoke and drink to the age of 100. But what we want is to give ourselves as much of a fighting chance as we can, based on the best available evidence.

Ned Bunnell: "Re '**90 minutes a day is optimal, 20 minutes three times a week is a functional minimum that still improves your outcomes.' I’m guessing you don’t practice what you preach.  :-)"

Mike replies: To quote Ed McMahon, "You are correct Sir!"   :-)  In fact I would be a very poor model for anyone to follow in any of these matters. Which is precisely why I struggle to understand them and keep on struggling to improve my habits. Were I skinny and active, I doubt I'd give any of this a second thought. (However, argumentum ad hominum is not relevant either way. Here's the, er, skinny—the source.)

In Case You Need One More DAM Program

I'm not a software expert*, so don't ask me questions and expect answers, but I wanted to pass along the news that Bridge 2024, Adobe's DAM (digital asset management) application, is reportedly available as a free download—the full, standalone version, without subscription fees ever. Here's the link; the download tab is at the top of the page. But investigate on your own...I haven't verified it because I use the subscription version of Photoshop and got the upgrade that way.

Just passing this along.

—Mike

*Understatement.

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:

Update (Saturday Night)

..."Halloween 2023" got picked for Flickr's Explore today, and currently has 12,421 views and 299 favorites!

Fun.

Mike

'Halloween 2023'

Halloween 2023

Here's the picture I wrote about a few days ago in "Half the Battle is Being There." I titled it "Halloween" just to keep it a little friendly, even though it was taken on Monday, a couple of weeks past Halloween.

You can see the larger version here.

Mike

[UPDATE Friday evening: I think perhaps I should mention that this has no "fudging" of the lens image at all. All I did was crop the image somewhat and adjust the tones slightly—no Photoshop. The stones appear just as they do on the hillside from that standpoint. This image needed almost nothing in the way of processing.]

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:

Mark: "This is my favorite of your Sigma pics. Very nice."

Mike replies: Thanks Mark.

Will Duquette: "I love this, and especially that the tree right in the middle, amidst the trees with bare branches, is an evergreen. There is death, but life goes on."

Cecelia: "That is a beautiful, evocative, truly lovely image."

robert e: "That's another beaut, Mike. Congrats! Expanding on Stephen Jenner's comment [in the Comments section —Ed.], I've noticed a cinematic character in your recent work overall (some of the more obvious examples are the boys on bikes, which would not be out of place in a Spielberg movie, and the road/cornfield/house shot, as I commented then). Gets me wondering whether this character was always there but recently more evident, perhaps by your new practice; or if this is a new thing, inspired by the environment and/or the rig (which I note was aimed at cinema shooters); or maybe you've just been watching a lot of movies? Thinking back, I think it's something that's always been there in your work, but now is more obvious to me because you're shooting consistently in B&W, and maybe because your growing fluency with your new process is enabling both better expression and better recognition of opportunities to say what you want to say. What do you think?"

Mike replies: I'm flattered by the analysis, for which thanks. I do think I'm more comfortable when I start seeing and thinking in B&W. And I've recognized that I sense some emotional response with these pictures that hasn't always been part of my work. Something complicated having to do with aging and getting closer to death; the dreadful calamity of climate change and the fate of Earth; and the Mennonite idea that they—well, we—are only travelers through this world, and not here to stay. I titled this "Halloween" to trivialize it deliberately, in deference to the feelings of those who have lost, or are in fear of losing, loved ones.

How Many Cameras In Your Kit?

Let's call it the kit. The cameras you use regularly. Your go-tos.

When I was young, my goal was always to have one camera that I carried with me at all times and did everything with. Why? I don't know; it's just what I wanted. I suppose I was influenced by something, but I forget what.

I turned out to have one camera about like Elizabeth Taylor had one husband: one at a time, but many in succession. When I eventually started reviewing them, I found the perfect rationalization for that (my first review, way back in '89, was of the then-new Mamiya 6 medium-format rangefinder, a labor of love instigated by the President of Mamiya in Japan, who was a Leicaphile). But back when it was just me, in 1980, starting out, I had a choice. And I almost made the right choice for the "one camera forever" notion—I came very close to buying a Leica M. The M4-2 and M4-P were current at the time. But they cost a third again what a Nikon cost! (I wish I had a 1980 issue of  Popular Photography or Modern Photography to verify that.) They didn't feel natural to me at the camera counter, and I didn't understand how they became natural, so I wavered, backed off, and chose a Contax instead. My rationalization was that I would never have been able to afford a second lens for the Leica. And Contax lenses were German too, right? Carl Zeiss.

Actually I was just being cheap, chickening out on the more expensive option.

And we all know how that worked out. Leica is still making mechanical M cameras. Contax cameras, on the other hand, were made by Yashica, which was sold to the ceramics conglomerate Kyocera in 1983, and Kyocera stopped making Contaxes in 2005*. If I'd chosen Leica instead in 1980, would I still be shooting Leica? Probably not, but there's no way to know.

My current kit
I currently have three cameras. Actually there are about 20 cameras in the house, but only three are in rotation. A Sigma, an Apple, and a Fuji. My kit. Who'd'a thunk?

My main camera is the monochrome-converted Sigma fp, a.k.a. the "fp-M." I conceive of this as a hand-holdable view camera loaded with B&W film. The results look like 4x5" Ilford HP5+ to me (not quite, but almost)—so when I'm shooting with it I look at the world the way I would if I were shooting 4x5. The main difference is that it's much easier to handhold, and it's far easier to process the "film"! And you don't need a dark cloth.

Complementary to that is my iPhone 13 Pro, which I use for note-taking, communicating, memos, and occasionally for serious pictures. It's not a current product, having been superseded by the 14 and 15.

Coming in third is my Fuji X-T1, which I've had since 2014.  The X-T1 is not a current product any more. It has been superseded by the -2, -3, -4, and -5. But I'm very comfortable with the -1, having used it for years.

Kits and axes
This is a fairly strange little collection of tools, I think. Quirky, odd, and just far enough out of date to be uncool. But the strangest part about it is that I'm very happy with it. Which is unusual, my historical default having been "nagging dissatisfaction that engenders obsessive shopping." That's me being hard on myself, but it's also true enough. Being happy with what I have is sort of a new thing.

By the way, there's no reason anyone has to have a kit. (Or an "axe," that one all-purpose camera, after the word old rockers used to use for their favorite guitars.) You might not even think in those terms. If there's one thing I've learned over many years working for hobbyists and enthusiasts, it's that there is a very wide variety of ways people can enjoy photography, and none of it is wrong so long as it's not plain immoral. If you have forty cameras from which to pick and choose, or love to buy and sell continuously, no harm, no foul. As I always say, your photography belongs to you. Never play to the gallery. Do what you want.

I bought my Fuji to save face. I had borrowed it from B&H Photo to review and then forgot to send it back like five times, which was very poor form. I risked making B&H cross with me, which would not have been good. In the end it was simpler to buy it than to try to explain my embarrassing negligence. All was forgiven once I paid for it and the books got balanced. It's a very comfy old shoe at this point, and it's not too good...that is, it seems to hit the Goldilocks points for me in a number of areas. I like 8 fps better than, say, 120 fps, for instance. I use it mainly for portraits, most recently for the portrait of my friend Kerry that I wrote about. The iPhone is good for portraits too—but only if the pictures will be seen on a device or online.

The iPhone is great fun as a notepad. I've been purposely striving to take it more seriously as a camera (that's a mental thing—I have a tendency to ghettoize my "serious" photography and keep it separate from "unserious" happy-snapping). The ratio of {note-taking, communicating, and memos} to {serious pictures} is 97% to 3%, if that, but it's important to me to try to do good work with it, so that 3% is important to me at the moment.

And as for the custom mono camera, I've written about it before. It's not a camera I would recommend, generally. A specialized device. But I love it, and love using it, and am very satisfied with the results. It's the best camera I've ever had, actually.

How many cameras in your kit?

Mike

*Technically, Contax is not extinct: the rights to the name are currently owned by Zeiss. The brand is considered dormant.

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:

Jack Mac: "My kit is the iPhone 15 Pro Max, a Leica SL2 for 90mm and 110–400mm, and a Leica M11 with an assortment of lenses purchased during the pandemic. I have expanded my subjects beyond landscape and architecture to include more people, street photography and portraits.

"For street photography I will only use the iPhone. I just was in NYC and shot street, clubs, museums, interiors. I had the M11 in my luggage and I never removed it. Oh, there is no pride of ownership using an iPhone. But I set my mind to get the shot, forget the equipment. And for street photography I can take candid shots better than a Leica. The iPhone is faster, lighter, has easier 'lens changes,' and allows depth of field adjustments in post.

"But best of all, it’s invisible to the subject. Since everyone is either taking photos, looking at their iPhone, or listening to their iPhone, the serious iPhone photographer is totally ignored. Of course this was NYC where everyone is ignored. The downside is that the ergonomics suck, but with practice I have greatly improved my handling of the camera."

Christer Almqvist: "I have only one camera (Sony A7R5). (And yes, also an iPhone.) But...I am embarrassed when I look at my lineup of lenses. Looking at the whole bunch, the total number is way too high. My problem is that when I look at each single lens, I can find a very good reason for keeping it. My 16mm did such a good job taking photos of my house that I could sell the house without using the services of an estate agent. But I have no more houses to sell...etc., etc. for all my lenses. Please advise."

Mike replies: Ancient standard Mike advice: "Never ever sell a good lens."

Of course, Mike also likes to see things from different directions ("play devil's advocate") ergo...guess whose house is littered with lenses he no longer needs or cares about?

HVJ: "Pixel 8 and Leica Q2 for quotidian stuff, K1 for astro, Sigma dp2 and sd Quattros for when I feel something important's going to happen. Covered!"

Andrew Lamb: "Minolta Autocord, Super Ikonta 6x6, Voigtlander Bessamatic, phone."

Paul: "Still looking. I have tried many cameras over the years. My preference would be a simple Nikon FM or a Leica film M. However, I just cannot let go of the hesitation to press the shutter freely due to film cost and processing. No interest in a darkroom. Digital and its complexity of menus and options as well as computer time annoys me. The iPhone or any camera phone is impossible. It would be tossed in the local pond before using as a camera. I should just go fishing."

Mike replies: Yes, beautiful simplicity is one thing you emphatically cannot get in a digital camera, except maybe with certain Leicas. I personally find it rather odd that as we have gotten technology to do more and more for us, cameras have had to get more and more complicated. It seems like it should be the other way around, doesn't it? The more the camera does automatically, the less you should have to do. But no. We pay a high price for having so much technology supposedly "at our service."

By the way, after sitting in on that free iPhone 15 training session at the Apple Store a few weeks ago, I would just like to crow a little bit and point out that my old prediction has come true. Years ago I predicted that they would eventually find a way to complexify the simple nature of early phone cameras. That has definitely come to pass. iPhones are getting as complicated as any other camera now.

Zsolt Szepessy: "I have a large camera collection but the selection for the 'kit' changes every 3–4 months. Currently I use the Contax IIa with the Sonnar 50mm ƒ1.5mm for portraits and snapshots of my family and friends, the Voigtländer Bessamatic Deluxe with the Septon 50mm ƒ/2 for street landscapes and I always carry the mighty Zeiss Contarex with the Planar 50mm ƒ/2 with me just in case I face the picture of my life. Because that should be taken with the King."

Mike replies: Contarexes are awesome cameras.

Herman Krieger: "None in my kit, but several in my kaboodle."

Blog Milestone: Thank You

TOP just passed 260,000 comments since 2007. Almost all of them above average, and that's no joke. Seriously, the number of bad comments we get here are within the rounding error. A great big...

THANK YOU

...to all you commenters, regular and occasional. You are the best. Keep 'em coming!

—Mike the Mod.

Half the Battle is Being There

I went out photographing yesterday, and a nice thing happened. But before I get to that...

...On November 1st I was driving into town on a brilliant sunny day. The sky was very active: lots of clouds of various types rearranging themselves with the appearance of urgency. But lots of blue sky too, and the kind of brilliant, intense sunshine we get on cold days. As I crested the top of the big long hill leading down to the little Mennonite-owned grocery story, I saw a wall of opaque gray shrouding the land up to the north of me, from west to east, enveloping the town of Penn Yan where I was headed.

For one thing, it was a beautiful sight. I've deliberately given up trying to photograph particularly volatile weather here; you just can't capture fast-changing conditions and the magic of different things happening all at once in different directions. But boy, do I ever enjoy it. When I saw that wall of gray streaming across from the West, I thought, "it's got to be raining in town."

But no. It was snowing in town. A furious snow squall of the sort we get around here once in a while. Dense clouds of giant flakes so whipped up by the roiling wind that they don't seem to be falling downward at all. Visibility shuts down and it gets tough to see. One football field away, all you could make out of cars or the road were floating pairs of tiny headlights, two little dots of light amid nothing but gray. The squall was intense enough that the locals talked about it afterwards, in casual encounters around town—in the line at the bank, at the Post Office, or at the little mainstream grocery store. "Did you see how hard it snowed?" I went into the plumbing supply place, in one of those pole-barn warehouse-type structures with no windows, and encountered a friend, and we talked a while. When I emerged from the store the snow squalls were gone, having moved on to the East.

The temperature was above freezing, but the grass was covered with that light, lumpy snow that looks a lot like like cake frosting, so white it was almost glittering in the sunlight, which had returned as quickly as it departed. Next stop was the gas station, to check the tires. When working on your tires, you keep your head down, bending over, screwing and unscrewing the little stem caps* and holding the hose to the tire valve till your back starts to...um, tire. You don't tend to look up or pay attention to much else.

And after the time I took to do that, I looked up, and all the snow was gone, as if it had never been there.

First snow of the season.

A picture for the taking
So here's what happened yesterday. On Sunday I found myself coming home from Geneva, driving up the hill shown in this post, carefully passing one Mennonite buggy after another (they go visiting on Sundays). It was just after sundown on a crisp day. At the top of the hill there's a small graveyard of the sort that dot older areas of the country, most of the graves a century old and more. Glancing over, I flashed past a dramatic picture—a line of headstones silhouetted on the horizon line, against the dying brightness of the clear Western sky. I thought, there's one. Right there.

I didn't have the camera on board. But I noted the time, 5:30, and thought, I'll need a clear day.

Usually you can't do this. Too much can change; sights, even from exactly the same vantage point, wink into perfection and disappear, whether quickly or slowly. The physical world is a river that looks like it's staying the same but actually is never the same. Jay Maisel, one of the most successful professional photographers in America, certainly in his era and probably "of all time," says, "Never say you’re going back—shoot it now!" (All photographers should be issued a couple of Jay Maisel books when they buy a decent camera or get into photography.)

But yesterday it was a carbon-copy day, same weather and light as the day before. My thought was, naw, that never works. But it nagged at me, so at about 4:45 I set out.

I didn't have high hopes. First there's Jay's "shoot it now!" ringing in my ears. And I didn't know if the shot was actually there from the road; what if the best view was from off the road? I don't like to trespass. Or what it it was only there from the road? Almost as bad. What if the elements weren't actually visible at once from one standpoint? That happens with me sometimes—what I think is one view is actually an amalgam of the succession of visuals from the fast-moving car, melded into one in my mind's eye. (Using AI—authentic intelligence.) Being a little self-protectively pessimistic, I gave myself a 15% chance of success.

But half the battle is being there. I drove past, turned around, pulled over as far as I could without pitching into the ditch, put the flashers on, and there it was. Just as I had seen it the day before. A picture for the taking. I set up the tripod, climbed to the other side of the roadside ditch, looked at the scene with the camera to see just where I should be standing and where the right view was, clamped it to the tripod, and then took a dozen shots with minor framing and exposure variations.

Got it! FWIW.

It'll be a while before I download that card, but when I do, I'll be sure to upload that shot to Flickr so you can see it. I'll call your attention to it when I do.

This experience isn't a contradiction of Jay Maisel's rule, by the way. His words are still words to live by. But it's nice to know that even though you shouldn't say you're going back, sometimes you can.

Mike

*You're going to laugh, but due to my "reviewer nature" I have a favorite kind of stem cap.

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:

Rob Griffin: " Sounds like a really good example of being prepared to be lucky! You were indeed lucky that the image you saw repeated itself 24 hours later, but you were prepared and made yourself available to be lucky. Can't wait to see the photo!"

Hugh Lovell: "I've been trying to build the habit of getting up very early Saturday mornings, skipping my walk, and driving to a place I've not been to before or been very often. Few people, little traffic and interesting light (SF Bay area dweller). Mixed success; best results so far were photos of the SF Bay bridge with pre-sunrise behind it (taken from Rincon Park, SF), which was beautifully enhanced by several flights of California brown pelicans flowing through. Will continue to work this practice."

Gizmo Hucksters

...The term "gizmo huckster" comes compliments of "Cocobolo Cowboy," a participant on pool forums who is not otherwise known to me. Credit where credit is due.

A Gizmo Huckster is somebody who sells a product that really isn't better than the average or the standard, by imbuing it with some sort of specialness, or magical thinking, and heaping upon it fancy verbiage, or all three of those, coupled with stylish appearances and—most importantly—brazenly high price. The purpose of that effort is to create FUD in the mind of poor Mr. or Ms. Consumer.... Oops! Should I be using something better? Is my product good enough? Am I being held back by my suddenly "inferior" gizmo with which I was previously well satisfied in every way?

"Veblen goods" are goods that sell better when they're higher priced rather than lower—the opposite of high value. Once you're in the land of Veblen goods, status and prestige become very powerful agents of FUD ("fear, uncertainty, and doubt"). FUD is what plants the seed of anxiety in your mind that your good is not good enough, or says something about you that is better left unsaid. Consider, for example, recent news articles that tell us how the world's billionaires have recently been shamed for only having 100- and 150- foot yachts, such that they are all exchanging these sore-thumb signifiers of poverty for 200- and 300-foot yachts of the type that any self-respecting rich fellow really ought to have*. (Take a look at the yacht Steven Spielberg sold so he could buy a bigger one. Because you really need something more commodious than that meager thing.) The way those poor misguided fronting pretenders go around acting like 100-foot yachts are sufficient is just too much! And they think they are something! We laugh at them, and blow snot in their general direction**.

This post is not about pool, because I never write about pool, as regular readers know. But in pool—this is just an example—there is a thing called a cue tip. It's the little disc of shaped leather that gets glued to the business end of a cue. You then apply chalk this tip so it will grab some traction on the ball, because where you strike the cue ball with the tip (high, low, left, right) is how you impart spin and thereby control the subsequent action of the cue ball. For eons, the most you could spend on a cue tip was a few bucks. Then a company called Kamui came along and started selling cue tips for many multiples of what cue tips had always cost. This created mighty FUD! Since Kamuis cost $25 rather than $3, didn't they have to be better!? Doubtless somebody made much money. But then, there was so much extra money that Kamui began helping to sponsor tournaments, so where's the harm really. (I am wending my way to my point; strive to stay patient.) Not to be outdone, makers of chalk (chalk!) took the hint and strove to create FUD about the cheap chalk that had been working perfectly for generations for misguided souls who didn't know any better, such as Ronnie O'Sullivan and Efren Reyes, the greatest masters of snooker and pool respectively. This situation, too, was ripe for Gizmo Huckstering! And so sure enough. You can now spend $29 (twenty-nine dollars) on one piece of billiards chalk, and I wish I were kidding. At least it is aptly named after its creators.

I have not come to my point with any dispatch here because you already know what it is. Photography has been beset by Gizmo Huckstering probably right from 1839 until at least now. How many attempts have been made to finally, once and for all, create the perfect camera?*** I counted how many, and the number is 28,137****. And it still hasn't been done, because, obviously, I could spec a better camera than has ever been made. Off the top of my head.

Special steel and cellulose-based film-hanging Acme Grip Clip, made of material chosen to securely grip wet 35mm film. Pack of twelve (enough for three large developing tanks of film!) less than $2 each!!! Only $23.99 

It was in darkroom products that Gizmo Huckstering reached its apex. Every man-Jack***** who ever worked in a darkroom bloomed with ideas for gizmos; you didn't have enough else to think about as you performed the drudgery. I didn't pay enough attention at the time, and so, sadly, cannot give you chapter and verse now, but there were whole catalogs, some on newsprint, even, chock-full of gizmos, gadgets, widgets and contraptions meant to improve every aspect of the photographic enterprise no matter how negligible or trifling. And of course, another aspect of gadgets and widgets intended for photography is that they were always priced higher because they were specially for photography! And how could anyone get by with something humdrum and lesser, when something specially designated as special could be had for only a few dollars more? Perfectly ordinary things were transformed into things of more value when they were designated as being for photography, even if they were the same dang thing people used for something else.

Protect yourself
My favorite example of this was when I once saw advertised some special filmstrip-hanging clips, used for hanging 5-foot strips of developed 35mm film to dry, which appeared from the illustration to be identical in every way to something called wooden clothespins. Which in that simple time were available very cheaply at any grocery store.****** And might still be. I must admit, though, that a wooden clothespin is absolutely the ideal thing to use to hang films to dry. You can even thread the line through the center of the little spring. It's perfect, really.

Here's the way to proof yourself against the practice of Gizmo Huckstering: learn to recognize feelings of FUD in yourself. When you feel it, you might be being conned. Especially, when something common and adequate is being promoted as needing replacement by something much more expensive, allow your anti-BS antennae to begin humming. More globally, you might consider whether you have an overarching preference for Veblen goods or high value. I know where I stand, but your mileage may vary*******, as they say. Heck, if I were a billionaire, I would probably be just the type to continue to be satisfied with a mere 100-foot yacht, even in the face of the withering scorn and blistering condescension of my peers. I hope I'm not boasting. It's just the kind of guy I am.

Mike

*This sentence unmasks me as a dolorous peasant, because those in the know know that the lengths of yachts are properly given in meters. (I may be dolorous but at least I am not malodorous.)

**Very old movie reference, proving I am old.

***That's what the engineers and marketers—no, sorry, make that marketers and engineers, because marketing comes first—at Pentax are attempting to do right now with their upcoming new 35mm film camera, which I am, in equal parts, a.) eagerly awaiting and b.) certain they will get wrong.

****I'm lying, I didn't count. But it must be some number that is very high.

*****Meaning "everyone without exception." A delightful antiquarian phrase derived from the now-extinct custom of addressing someone whose name one didn't know as "Jack," a common nickname for John. Earliest citation 1809, used by Dickens in Barnaby Rudge in 1841.

******The Mennonites around here still hang their clothes out to dry on clotheslines, in warm weather, and loaded lines are sometimes very picturesque, in a bucolic, nostalgic, country-Americana sort of way. I have never had the temerity to photograph them. That would be intrusive, to photograph someone's garments, including what used to be called unmentionables, wouldn't it? Creepy, even. And I place a high priority on not being creepy. Even asking for consent would be weird as heck, I think. So it's one of those things that can't be photographed, then. At least not by the scrupulous and the virtuous. 

*******English for this overused phrase might be "your experience might be different." I think I'm going to stop using "your mileage may vary." I'm getting tired of it.********

********This post has more footnotes than any other post ever posted on TOP. Added value for you! At no extra cost.

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:

Chuck Albertson: "Nice clothespin. But is it archival?"

Mike replies: Yes!! Because you cut off the end of the filmstrip where it was touching. No contamination on the strips of negatives. :-)

Harry B Houchins: "Beginning my photo journey in the NYC fashion industry in 1966, I can relate to everything you say here. My experience is that everything has a creeping increase. You gotta have it! It's so cool, necessary, new! At 79 I haven't bought any new gear for five years. What have I missed?"

Mike replies: I think it's actually more satisfying to wait a longer time before updating. That way the changes are more pronounced. Like waiting till your car is really dirty before washing it.

Dave Levingston: "Made me think back a decade or so to my days as a motorcyclist. Everything for a motorcycle costs more because it's for a motorcycle. I used hiking rain suits because they cost about a quarter of motorcycle rain suits. And simple rubber rainboots worked just fine. I would tell my wife, 'Sure motorcycle tires cost much more than car tires, but on the other hand, they don't last nearly as long.'"

Nigel Voak: "Reading though this, I thought the piece would arrive at a point where the forthcoming Sony Alpha 9 Mark III would be named. At least my thoughts turned to this upcoming marvel whilst reading this post. Who on Earth needs a shutter speed of 1/80,000th of a second or 120 frames per second? How did I ever successfully do dance photography and even some sports stuff with a Nikon F801, with manual focus lenses? I am making digital copies right now of my old archive, and the shots were in focus, and I caught peak moment."

Mike replies: Even at my Fuji X-T1's highest speed of 8.31 frames per second, I found I still could get a moment before or after what I wanted! I learned to try my best to capture the exact moment even when in Continuous High mode. I had a higher success rate that way, plus some extra frames.

JH: "Brings back memories of the Porter's Camera Catalog. They had a thick newsprint catalog full of photo gadgets. I think I was buying stuff from them throughout the '70s and '80s—maybe '90s—when I still did my own darkroom work. Alas, they closed in 2019."

Roger Bartlett: "Over the weekend I watched a YouTube video by Adam Savage about Apple USB C cords and why they cost $130 as opposed to the same cord from Amazon costing $12. I expected to hear a similar conclusion to yours but was pleasantly surprised to hear that the $130 might actually be justifiable. It is worth watching this just to see some amazing technologies at work."

Jeff replies to Roger: "But it’s not 'the same cord.' The Apple version is Thunderbolt; the Amazon one, standard USB-C. Not exactly Apples to apples."

John C: "Re 'marketers and engineers': Sorry to pick nits Mike, but you spelled that wrong. It's 'marketeers'—you know, like 'mouseketeers.' However, I will vouch for your ordering, having been a software engineer myself."

Dave: "There isn't much that unites the whole of Europe when it comes to behaviour which doesn't then also line up with the behaviours of those in North America. But one thing I've noticed over the years is that a willingness/fear to hang washing outside seems to be one of those things. From what I know of the US (a lot of my family live there), hanging laundry to dry outside is regularly frowned upon and even, in some areas with particularly militaristic residents' associations, actually banned. Some radical types (like my sister) apparently insist on doing it and taking a stand, but they'll get regularly berated for it.

"I live in one of the soggiest, least sunny countries in the world (Scotland) and it's still completely normal to do so, here. If you want to come photograph it, feel free! Strolling through Edinburgh you'll see loads, and some of it even stretches across publicly accessible courtyards and greens."

The Best Camera, According to CR

The "Top Picks of the Year" issue of Consumer Reports (CR), November/December 2023, arrived in the mailbox a little while back. I don't subscribe to any paper magazines except The New Yorker, but you get CR as a paper magazine if you pay for access to the website. This issue features full rankings on cooking appliances—oven, ranges, and cooktops—as well as "The Best Cameras from Our Tests."

Cooking appliances did not fare so well. CR looks askance at cooking appliances. Microwaves especially—the pages for microwaves were full of light green (merely good) and yellow (middling or neutral) bars. With few dark green bars (the best rating) to be found. According to CR, the best microwave you can buy, a standout in a sea of mediocrity, is the Panasonic NN-SE7-85S.

So I was almost...well, proud when I came to the Mirrorless Cameras page. Solid dark green bars almost all the way to the bottom, and an unbroken string of those black checkmarks-in-circles that mean "CR Recommended." That's not the only page; there are seven more mirrorless cameras on the page before this one (all CR Recommended) and 13 more on the following page. All of the latter are the lighter green for "good," but even the lowest-rated camera they listed—the Olympus OM-D M10 Mark IV and 14–42mm—did not fall so low as to earn a yellow bar, the meh rating. However, 11 of 13 at the bottom of the list did fail to win the coveted Recommended checkmark.

I know, I know—we don't need no stinkin' CR to choose our cameras. We are way past that. I was just kinda proud, as I say—according to CR, our whole category be boppin'. We strong. They don't like microwaves. They do like cameras.

Top recommendations overall? The Fuji X-T4 (whut? Right, 4) with the 16–80mm OIS lens is No. 1, and the Fuji X-T4 is in second place as well! Paired with the 18–55mm OIS. That seems a little out there, but hey, their house, their rules. The Nikon Z6 with 24–70mm S rounds out the top three (they recommend the plain Z6, but I linked to the Z6II. You can search out a non-II if for some reason you really have to have CR's third-best camera recommendation).

I'm almost right there with them—my top recommendation, for people who do not have a camera at all and want one—which includes virtually not one single person reading this—is a Fuji X-T5 body (Amazon agrees with me; it's their Top Pick too) with the 35mm ƒ/2 Fujicron as a first lens. I'd actually prefer the ƒ/1.4, but that's not a mainstream recommendation any more. I prefer the X-T5 because it has the World's Most Perfect Viewing Screen (IM Hmbl. O) and the 40-MP sensor for great big prints. The X-T4 has the flip-out screen (an anomaly in the X-T[x] line) and the (slightly) older 26-MP sensor which is merely wholly adequate for 99.9% of everything your might ever want or need to do with it. I ought to do an X-T5 vs. Z6II shootout sometime. Who else cares?

But the Fuji X-T4 is the Honda Accord of cameras. Or rather, the Hyundai Santa Fe Hybrid of cameras (that's CR's top pick in vehicles over $30k).

That's random
Oh, and, the weirdest thing the entire issue calls out? Features, even, picture and all? The Kohler Moxie BT showerhead, which they rate highly for its performance as, ahh, well, a showerhead. What makes it weird? It's got a speaker in it. Because naturally. And you thought the folks at CR were all practical and fuddy-duddy and buzzkill! They sing in the shower too.

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:

Kirk W.: "That takes me back to about 1983, when, inspired by my uncle Stu with his Minolta SRT-101 and my eighth grade science teacher’s patience with us as we learned how to thread film on to developer tank reels (shout out to Mr. Jacobsen!), I was in search of my first 'real' camera. I dropped my hard-earned berry picking and haying income on the top-rated Consumer Reports camera, the Pentax ME Super. I remember poring over that list for hours, even pre-internet, being dazzled and paralyzed by the range of choices. There were Nikons and Canons and Minoltas and Olympuses of course, but I can still remember some more obscure brands as well, such as Topcon, Konica, and Ricoh. Looking back now, that was not the ideal way to buy into a camera system, but it did work out. The camera still works like new (at least the last time I ran some film through it) after decades of use and abuse. And it will still be ready to go long after my current magic digital cams are obsolete."

robert e: "Actually, I think we camera geeks do need a 'stinkin' CR'...to help us recommend gear suitable for non-geeks (or for when we want a more casual, forgiving or incognito camera)."

Niels: "My parents always selected larger household acquisitions based on the CR equivalent in my country. They chose the best rated item within their budget—and often that meant buying at a lower price than they originally expected. I think it served them well—I never heard them complain about purchases done this way, although they were generally quick at complaining about a lot of other things.

"When I left home, my mother gave me a subscription to the magazine, but I could never use it the way they did. My compulsive behaviour of researching the life out of anything that I plan to purchase prohibits me from just picking from a list, although it could have saved me much energy it seems: for my first full frame mirrorless camera, I ended up buying a Nikon Z6 with the 24–70mm S—and I am very happy with it! I would never have thought my preferred product would be at the top of such a list. Maybe my requirements aren't as special as I think?

"I should possibly revise my behaviour, although I'm afraid it would violate my nature."

David Dyer-Bennet: "My first SLR was chosen largely as a result of the Consumer Reports rating. In 1969 (bought late in December).

"It was a Miranda Sensorex, and it was not a very good choice for me. I largely liked the quirks, like a removable pentaprism, a bottom-weighted meter (the sensor actually on the mirror), and a front-mounted shutter release (it was considerably easier to hold really steady for vertical shots that way) [Burt Keppler of Pop Photo also liked the front-mounted shutter releases. —MJ]. But it didn't have the range of lenses, especially fast telephotos, that Nikon did. I think Pentax or Nikon would have been better choices for me at that time. (With access to hindsight, definitely Nikon.)

"Of course, as I figured out later, they are rating cameras for, gosh, 'Consumers,' as it says on the cover, and even then I was not anything like a normal consumer of cameras.

"They are the only consumer testing outfit I've encountered who have any understanding of statistics and quality control and such (they get multiple samples through normal distribution channels and test those). But the things they choose to measure and the priority they assign to various things is very much consumer-oriented."

PayPal Frustration ("Open Mike" Update)

Question: What would you use if you were going to stop using PayPal?

I got schooled by readers (especially Brian H, but thanks to all) about that errant cash transfer. My dearly-held conspiracy theory might be all or mostly wrong; could be that the ACH (Automated Clearing House) system is just antiquated and slow. Even with the ACH explanation, however, you'd think the longest a transfer could take would be three days—two to get the job done and an extra day thrown in as a buffer. So I still suspect skullduggery of some sort. But then, people tend to let go of conspiracy theories grudgingly, and maybe I'm no exception. (Conspiracy theories appeal to ego: it pleases us to be convinced that we know what's really going on even if nobody else does.)

The transaction in question doesn't involve a check. Or another party. It's a purely electronic transfer from me to me. What I'm trying to do is to put money from my bank account into my PayPal account, which I use as petty cash for online purchases. If I buy something for an amount that exceeds my balance, PayPal will extract the money from my bank by itself. But that happens on a per-transaction basis, and creates accounting headaches, so I don't like to let it happen.

It's now Day 6, fifth "business day." (As if the rails moving money around all shut down on weekends—the computers running the system all go home and put their feet up.) It's Friday, and the transfer I initiated last Saturday still hasn't come through. The bank says it released the funds last Monday. PayPal Customer Service says it has to go through ACH and there's nothing to do but wait.

Meanwhile, the exact thing I wanted to buy appeared on eBay and then got sold out from under me, which was bitterly frustrating. And this morning my PayPal account went below zero anyway because of a small automated contribution I make to Wikipedia every month.

This experience has been so irritating it makes me want to leave PayPal. PayPal is a "known known," and comfortable, and I'm in the grip of considerable inertia: I've been using it almost since the very beginning, forever ago. The early 2000s. But what has it done for me lately? The fees are astronomical. Someone gave me $6 today, but I only get to keep $5.21. PayPal snagged the rest. What value are they giving me in return when they won't even let me cover my own account in a timely fashion?

Can somebody who's deeply "in the know" about this kind of thing recommend a viable and better alternative to PayPal for online purchases and payments? I would look into 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:

Bill Tyler: "Dunno if it affected you, but ACH had problems recently, and that delayed a lot of transactions. If that's the situation for you, it's not your bank and it's not PayPal."

UPDATE to the update, Fri. evening: The transfer did finally come through today. And Bill, your comment highlights something I should have thought of, which is that maybe my experience here is not typical.

Les von Pongracz: "Use an Amazon no-fee credit card and pay off the balance every month. You get cash back plus additional percentages back on Amazon purchases. Also gives you appreciable discounts at Whole Foods, if you have one nearby. This is just my opinion, but I don't feel that PayPal gives as much peace of mind when dealing with disputes."

Roger: "We bank through a credit union: No fees for having accounts with them. Being fee-free, we set up a dedicated account just for PayPal. We just top that up from time to time and let PayPal reach in a grab cash as needed. Any fraud that might occur will only hit the small amount we keep in there. We do have to wait several days when we move cash from PayPal to the checking account, but that's a pretty rare event.

"Having that second account came in handy when T-Mobile decided we won't get our discounts if we didn't switch from credit card payment to direct withdrawal. No problem; we just linked the T-Mobile account to the PayPal checking account, and their grubby mitts are nowhere near the 'real money.' Credit Unions are the bomb—join one if you aren't a member already. Almost no fees and you're treated like a human."

What Is 'Global Shutter'? Part II (Sony A9III)

The new Sony A9III

So it's not like we've never had global shutters before. Most CCD (charge-coupled device) sensors worked that way, and most early digital cameras had CCD sensors. Today CCDs are still widely used, but mostly for practical uses like microscopes and other medical equipment, telescopes for astronomy, scanners, bar code readers, and so forth. CMOS (complementary metal oxide semiconductor) sensors offered many advantages for cameras—they have higher dynamic range (remember the DR limitations in early digital cameras?), they're much more energy efficient and generate less heat, and they offer size and manufacturing advantages because the readout logic could be integrated on the same chip. And they have far less blooming than CCDs. "Blooming" is when one photosite (pixel) becomes saturated and begins to spill over into the photosites around it. Canon was an early pioneer of CMOS sensors in cameras, beginning development in the 1990s. The first major pictorial camera to have a CMOS sensor was the landmark three-megapixel Canon D30 (not 30D!) of 2000.

At Photo Techniques magazine, I started a series of print sales to provide examples of techniques for readers called The Collector Print Program, and we offered several Canon D30 prints made by a guy I had just met named Michael Reichmann. CMOS sensors have undergone continuous development and improvement since then, and almost all pictorial digital cameras now use them. I'm not aware of any exceptions, although one or a few may exist. 

And there have been CMOS-sensor cameras with global shutter before: B&H Photo lists the Sony PMW-F55; Blackmagic Design Production Camera 4K, URSA 4K, and URSA Mini 4K; and the AJA CION. All of these are or were expensive video cameras: the Sony PMW-F55 CineAlta for instance has been described as a "super camcorder," and the first announced price was $34,900.

Enter the Sony A9III
The new Sony A9III (which isn't out yet, mind you, and might not be for a while) might not interest you personally for your immediate needs. But it's probably going to prove to be a landmark camera. Depending of course on future implementation. The 24x36 ("full-frame") CMOS global-shutter sensor demands a massive amount of processing power: Sony says eight times as much as the A9II, which was no slouch in that department. The highest shutter speed is a fantastical 1/80,000th of a second, and the sync speeds are said to go up to that (I still haven't worked out what's going on with the sync speed). The maximum frame rate is up to 120 per second, with new controls to set and access that. Rolling-shutter artifacts and banding will be completely eliminated.

As has the physical mechanical shutter: in the A9III, there isn't one.

On the disadvantage side, base ISO is 250, which might result in a measurable diminishing of best-case DR. But note that word "measurable." I think it would be unwise to make too much of that, at least until practical testing starts to get real-world effects sorted out. Until we know better, I would doubt it will be detectable in ordinary shooting.

The camera is a true tour-de-force, and a technical showpiece. As a product, it's a niche camera meant for very serious sports, action, and wildlife shooters, and for a subset of professional and semi-pro videographers. As such it will pass by in the parade of products as all digital products do. However, as a demonstration of future possibilities and of Sony's technical prowess, it's astonishing. Therein lies its real meaning: to remind us what Sony can do, and to bring Sony full-frame mirrorless back into the conversation—if not front and center, at least shoulder-to-shoulder with the rest of the players.

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:

Peter Jeffrey Croft: "Re 'The camera is a true tour-de-force, and a technical showpiece.' What an incredible camera, and as you say, a technical marvel. I'm reading Akio Morita's [co-founder of Sony —Ed.] book Made in Japan at the moment (a bit late, yes) and it's no wonder Japan is way out in front in so many ways. Sony treats its employees so well, as a family, with a great deal of respect, encouraging them in so many ways to be their best. My work was in the electronics field (TV broadcast) and I used to say it felt as if our management read the books about managerial best practice, then took an oath to deny and forget everything they read and do the opposite. I felt discouraged and disheartened at the lack of respect (when our chief engineer retired, he wasn't replaced), and the lack of care about employees who felt un-valued (I was the union rep so I heard their tales of woe). Again and again, I had to wave goodbye to great guys who left because they felt un-valued and underpaid. We had secretaries who were paid more than techs! The company cared almost nothing for academic qualifications—not their business, they said. Training is not our business. It's no wonder Japan raced ahead and is so advanced. This camera is just one example; there are many, many more."

Jayanand Govindaraj: "My guess is that, for now, in practical terms, the 120 fps speed is meaningless and a marketing gimmick, as the camera uses slower CFE(A) and SD UHS II cards, so no amount of buffer can compensate for the slowness of the cards. I doubt you would get more than two seconds shooting at that speed before the buffer overflows—unless, of course, the RAW that is mentioned is a highly 'compressed' version, bordering on JPEG. In that case, the photographer will get an animal/bird/sportsman/whatever twitching, at best, and have 240 frames of that twitch to check out. If you are forced to cut the fps to get decent shooting time, I would guess there are many other cameras that will be better for the purpose, and at a lower cost.

"This is a technological tour-de-force which could well be the future, but I doubt whether it is the present."

Open Mike: Who's Looking After MY Interest?

["Open Mike" is the often off-topic Editorial page of TOP, in which Yr. Hmbl. Ed. vents his ire and solves world problems about which he actually knows nothing.]

-

May I just mention something that makes me angry? When banks and other financial rapscallions* hold on to my money day after day because "transfers can take up to five business days."

I think we all know what's going on here. It never takes them five days to remove money from my bank account when it's money they get to keep. They do that transaction in a few seconds. I noticed at my grocery store the other day that it happens faster than ever, in fact. They're holding my money for five days when it suits them because five days of interest on my $500 (or whatever) doesn't mean anything to me, but multiply it by millions of customers and billions of transactions and it means a whole lot to them.

[UPDATE Friday morning: the transaction in question is a purely electronic transfer from me to me; I'm trying to put money from my bank account into my PayPal account, which I use as petty cash for online purchases. It's now Day 6, fifth "business day" (as if everything shuts down on weekends—the computers running the system all go home, put their feet up, and throw a shrimp on the barbie.) The bank cleared the funds four days ago. PayPal Customer Service says it has to go through ACH and there's nothing to be done but wait.]

Meanwhile, I'm inconvenienced.

But not for long enough to really make a stink about it.

It's theft, actually; but only temporarily. Like a bully who steals your lunch money but then gives it back to you after a bit of taunting, after you get good and upset but before you have a meltdown and go rat to the teacher.

This is just the kind of thing you'd hypothetically need a well-functioning government for. A fair and evenhanded government would step in and say, ah ah ah, no fair. That's not your money. It's his. Give it to him when he asks for it. No fair keeping it for yourself for days and days.

And this would be a good situation for a systematic fix. When you have a problem, find the source of the problem, then fix that. So in this case, the financial institutions are claiming that they need to hold the funds for up to five business days because they need to yatta yatta yatta—you know, whatever their self-justifying bullshit might be. So the regulators would simply allow financial institutions to hold customers' money for as long as they need to—but would require said institutions to pay the owner of the money interest if they have to hold the money for longer than some reasonable period of time, say, 24 hours. The institutions would then very naturally either a.) stop finagling, or b.) figure out a way to transfer the funds faster so as not to have to calculate, account for, and pay fractions of cents in interest on billions of transactions.

And, problem solved. Completely. Forever.

/rant, and yes, I feel better now,

Mike

*Sorry, I meant to type "institutions."

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:

Gary Merken: "Drives me nuts. In some places (not all), you make a purchase on a debit card. It hits your bank instantly. You go out to the parking lot, realize 'Oh man, I already have one at home; I don't need this one,' and go back in to return it. You hand over the same debit card again. 'It'll be refunded to your account in three or four business days.' What? You took my money in less than a second. Why three or four business days to get it back? 'I don't know; I just work here.'"

James: "It actually does take three days. It's because ACH [Automated Clearing House —Ed.] (a quasi-governmental institution) uses antiquated IT. As in, it was built in the '70s and they are still using that antiquated hardware. There are some newer payment rails like Fednow, that are only now being introduced.

"And when it's their money to keep, you want the money gone immediately. I went through a great deal of my twenties and thirties having to keep a separate ledger of my actual payments in my head because they wouldn't take the money they were charging me fast enough. Otherwise, I'd overdraw, and they'd get even more of my money."

Brian H: "If these are ACH transactions, this is typically caused by the overnight batched nature of the way the system works. When you deposit a check or otherwise cause money to be transferred out of someone else's account and into yours, your bank puts an entry onto a file that gets sent to the Fed's central clearinghouse once a day. Overnight, that entry is forwarded to the second bank, letting them know what happened. They have a chance to reverse the transaction for a multitude of reasons, but the most common are insufficient funds or that the account being debited no longer exists. Technically I think they have something like seven years to reverse the transaction, but usually this happens within a day or two.

"This 'day or two' combined with the lag introduced by the overnight batching is where the five days comes from. If your bank has reason to believe that the reversal is unlikely, they can release the funds to you sooner, but there is some risk involved with that (for both you and the bank).

"There are other payment 'rails' (as those in the business like to call them) that don't have this problem, but they have their own downsides. Wire transfers are instant and irreversible but expensive. Same-day ACH still operates in batches, but there are more of them per day, so the whole cycle time is shorter. FedNow and RTP are two newer competing real-time payment rails that are also gaining adoption, but until more banks support them, they may or may not be an option for a given transaction.

"FWIW, I actually don't think the banks make interest on the funds while they're 'in transit,' but I may be wrong about that.

"Source—I work for a FinTech company that sells a product for initiating and managing money transfers using these different rails."

Robert Roaldi: "Who has more power these days, voters or industry lobby groups? I've said this before, but these days we all more or less behave as if culture (i.e., our society) is a support system for commerce, whereas it should be the other way round.

"Just an example. Several cities here in Ontario have greenbelts associated with them. These are areas of land on which development was prohibited to allow for green space, wet lands, nature reserves, etc. But there is almost constant pressure by land developers to obtain exemptions so they can build some commercial structure or other. Society has previously decided via legislation to not use that land for that purpose, so you'd think that would be the end of it. But there is always 'pressure' from developers. What does that mean, 'pressure'? The only reason they can exert pressure is because they own legislators who try to do their bidding. This should not ever even come up. But when an industry group wants something done, they know how to proceed. And when they don't want something done, like streamline payment clearance, well they know how to stall that. Most people more or less obey; we know who's boss, implicitly."

Luci: "'It takes up to five business days for money to be transferred' is...not quite true. But it is helpful to notice that there are at least three if not four entities involved, each with their own terms and conditions (and own agenda): your bank, the clearing mechanism (it may very well be NACHA), PayPal's bank and finally PayPal. The ACH leg of the journey is most likely done during the same day, but only if your bank sends the payment between certain hours during the day. Send the money later and then your bank takes the money from your account, keeps the money overnight in one of their accounts and the next day sends the money via ACH to PayPal's bank. Then PayPal will take their time to actually fund the money from one of their accounts to your account.

"I tend to believe that ACH is the most innocent party here (despite what other people have commented) and PayPal is the villain. The banks themselves may be somewhere in between. Yes, they can debit your account and keep the funds for themselves overnight, which, summed up over their entire customer base, may amount to quite some big numbers, but what they can do over that time with the money is for them to decide. At times, it can be more advantageous for them to park the money with the Federal Reserve for some overnight interest. I know for sure that was happening in my country with at least one bank, because the central bank had at the time quite a high interest rate (for monetary policy reasons) and that particular bank decided to abuse their customers that way. When enough people moved their accounts to other banks, they eventually dropped the 'strategy.'

"Anyway, the US is catching up, adopting what other parts of the world call instant payments (via banks, not card companies). I think you may want to have a look at banks offering FedNow service.

"(Sorry for the long comment, but the topic itself is fascinating and there are many things to say here, even for the best-case when everythings goes as planned. Of course, the whole mechanism is designed to withstand the myriad of things that can go wrong, and that by its nature involves allowing for verification processes that in the end can add up. Behind all these steps there are mountains of legal contracts that also have to be observed.)"

Yr. Hmbl. Mod.'s Comment Problem

The comments are currently completely up to date.

Yesterday I alighted on what might be a better method for Yr. Hmbl. Moderator to keep up with comments: instead of writing a post first and then updating all the comments of a new morning, over my white tea, as has been my quotidian habit lo these very nearly 19 years (TOP turns 19 on the 28th of this month), I'm going to try switching the order around, and doing the comments first and then doing my writing.

That might help. I'll try it and see.

I will note, however, that the problem is not entirely mine. It is 97% me; I grant that. I am not dodging blame. (I am Hmbl., remember.) However, another aspect of it is that people are not commenting in as timely a fashion as they used to. More and more, readers are tending to visit not every day but every few days (if not every week or more) scrolling down to see if they find anything interesting. Formerly, when I had multiple tens of thousands of visitors every day (pause to sigh for Good Old Days), I would get a plethora of comments on a new post right away, from which I could extract the Featured Comments; and then I would just let go the good ones that came in late, because that saved me from having to add Featured Comments to days-old posts and getting all mixed up. Now, however, almost nothing comes in immediately, and I am left with the task of adding new Featured Comments to days-old posts, dealing with scattered comments on scattered posts. Which is greatly more confusing to Now-Brain (formerly Young-Brain) and flummoxes if not flusters the workflow. It was much easier to marshal comments when they were all together, and to work on only one published post at a time.

For example, I got a nice comment just yesterday morning from a reader named John about traveling with a Leica in China, left under the "Deathless Leica M Film Cameras Rebound" post—a post which today is a week old. It's an excellent comment, so I added it to the Featured Comments of that old post, even though relatively few regular readers will see it there, because you have already left that post in your rear-view mirror.

I'm not saying you shouldn't comment on old posts. You should do whatever is normal, convenient, and natural for you, and we shall continue to prize your droppings as you manifestly prize our'n. I shall, anyway. But that's part of the whole picture, and I just thought I'd mention it. Even though it looks like I am looking for an excuse.

—Mike the Mod.