The Online Photographer

When Do You Need a Zoom? (Or, One and Done)

A reader noted that I often champion and defend the use of prime (single focal-length) lenses, so he asked me to do the same for zooms. When, he asked, is a zoom necessary, or best?

Well, I'm probably not the one to ask, and the thought of trying to write a post about all the situations in which zooms are useful makes me tired just thinking about it. That is a swamp into which I hesitate to wade. But I'll tell you one situation in which a zoom would be highly useful:

The one I'm in.

I live in a beautiful and picturesque region where there is nothing consistent about what one might consider a suitable subject for a picture. Sometimes I'd like to clip a little bit out of the distant landscape, or compress space for dramatic effect; sometimes I'd like to take in half the dome of the sky or capture a broad view of cows dotting a hillside. Sometimes the subjects are close, sometimes far. Sometimes the light is great, other times I want to shoot at the edge of darkness. Sometimes I'd like to shoot an interior and get the whole room, sometimes what I want to do is a portrait of just a person's face. There's just nothing consistent about the focal length I'm going to need...even at one single time standing in one single place, much less hour upon hour or day-in, day-out.

You might say I could take a variety of primes, but even then I'd fall short, I'm pretty sure. Unless I really wanted to make a pack animal out of myself and jeopardize my back. The only thing I've learned for certain here is that a lens that is longer than 70mm-e on the long end comes in very handy up here. I learned that when I was shooting with the Panasonic GX9 and 12–60mm (120mm-e) last year. A fair number of pictures needed more than 70mm equivalent just to work, never mind work well.

On the other hand the Fuji 100–400mm was too long. A beautiful lens, and one I'm glad I had an opportunity to use—I learned a lot from the experience—but whenever I was out and about with only that lens (something I often do with lenses I'm reviewing, to force myself to shoot with them), I often felt I was in need of something shorter.

If I were someone else and I were advising that guy with practicality and thoughtfulness uppermost in mind, I'd tell him to get an Olympus 12–100mm zoom and be done with it.

I love primes. But myself would tell myself to not be a dolt and get the zoom. One and done. It would cover about everything I need here. As it is, though, I don't shoot Micro 4/3. I already shoot nine other systems and formats—or is it 13?*—and I don't need one more.

But that's one situation for you, Reader Who Asked!

Mike

*Methinks myself exaggerates.

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Stephen S.: "Pre-COVID, I was shooting behind-the-scenes promotional photos for a TV series, while also performing other duties on that series. I had the 12–40mm ƒ/2.8 but often found myself needing something longer, but couldn't give up the wide angle. I couldn't carry a second lens and swap over to it, nor could I carry a second body with a second lens.

"I had originally dismissed the 12–100mm ƒ/4 as I expected it to have poor images quality like a typical cheap superzoom, but the more reviews I read, the more it seemed to be quite good. So I did an experiment: I shot for a day with the 12–40mm at ƒ/4 and smaller, to see if I could live with the smaller aperture. I shot a few times, when I could, with the 40–150mm at no more than 100mm, to see if the longer focal length would make enough of a difference.

"The conclusion was clear: I bought the 12–100mm and sold the 12–40mm, and was so glad I did. The added size and weight was a compromise, but the image quality wasn't, and the extended focal length made an incredible difference, giving me the ability to go from wide environmental shots to instantly sniping close-up headshots in cramped quarters where I couldn't move. It was the lens that literally made my job possible."

Jim Simmons: "A super-wide zoom (16–35mm equivalent) is very useful for interior architecture/real estate photography. Limitations to where you can position the camera and what you want to include can require very precise framing requirements that a zoom can be very helpful with. One of my most-used lenses when I did architecture was the Pentax 55–100mm zoom on the Pentax 67. This was a ~28–50mm equivalent."

Watch Watch (Brief Update) (OT)

For those few people who are following along, my solar Seiko quartz watch, the one I wrote about in June, passed the 90-day mark running one and one-half seconds slow. Considering Seiko only claims accuracy to within 20 seconds a month for this ordinary $150 watch, that's remarkable. It extrapolates to accuracy of six seconds per year, which puts it easily into the category of HAQ—high-accuracy quartz. Meanwhile, I have a watch which is purported to be a real HAQ watch—a Bulova Precisionist 262 kHz similar to this one—that was 23 seconds slow at 60 days!

A reader who is "in the know" told me that many garden-variety solar quartz Seikos and kinetic quartz Seikos can be accurate to three seconds a year, which is closer to perfection than Seiko claims for its deluxe Grand Seiko models—such as this one that has the company's innovative part mechanical, part quartz Spring Drive.

Enough of this now,

Mike

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Kye Wood: "I am that someone in the know and I heartily endorse that post. Super odd addition, I've had 30 G-Shocks from lowly to insanely expensive models. Bombproof all, but the lousiest accuracy I've ever gotten, every one."

Time Passing (OT)

My friend the farmer and beekeeper Dave, up the hill, is wont to say: you've got to look for the motive, then for the motive behind the motive, then for the motive behind the motive behind the motive.

Ticking seconds
Here's a reason I like wearing a watch again: it helps with anxiety.

Strange. I never expected that.

If I get anxious I watch the seconds tick steadily past for a few minutes and it soothes me. It seems to say, "this too shall pass." If I'm grateful for something, I'm reminded to savor and enjoy it. If I'm going through something difficult, it reminds me that eventually this, too, shall recede and fade away. If it doesn't resolve, eventually it dissolves.

I can almost get into a meditative state watching the seconds tick past. When I resume whatever I was doing, I feel more centered, resilient, and calm. The anxious feeling subsides. It's a deep breath, a time-out. A pause, like the proverbial "count to ten."

Time flows. And heals.

Soften!
I got a knock on the door the other day. It was Dave with a box of peaches. An organic heirloom cultivar called Iron Mountain, from the trees behind his house. He was driving around distributing them to all his friends. I'm waiting for them to soften, counting the seconds, minutes, hours and days.

Mike

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Peter: "We planted a peach tree in our Boulder backyard two years ago this fall. No blooms or peaches last year, but this year we harvested over 30 incredibly juicy and fruity tasting peaches. Left them on the tree until they were fully ripe and ready to be eaten. They were incredible. In late spring I culled 75% of the olive-sized peaches so the tree would have a fighting chance, and good thing I did. The 30 or so I left were really weighing it down at the end."

Mike replies: I'm no gourmet, but everyone should taste a perfect peach at least once in their lives. I had a perfect white peach last Summer than was out of this world. Can't buy them for love or money—you either have to grow them yourself or get lucky. (I feel like Kramer with the mangoes....)

Charlie Dunton's Picture: Seize the Day

Here's what Charlie Dunton of Yorktown, Virginia, had to say about his submission for the "Grandkids" Baker's Dozen portfolio:

"I took this photo of my granddaughter during a visit to a local Five Guys restaurant for lunch. I spent the entire time photographing her, ending up with over 200 images. This [picture shows] one of the few times she gave any indication I was even there.

"Once home, I imported all the photos into Lightroom and discovered I had a nice story board of our lunch together. I selected 35 images that best told the story and added captions to each from her perspective. The caption for this one is, 'Oh, hi, Dadada, you are getting this aren’t you?'

"The story in brief: dip your french fry in a small cup of ketchup and lick the ketchup off the fry; try the same with the end of a crayon from the restaurant followed by a big yuck face; Dad notices ketchup on your chin and brings out a towelette resulting in strong objections; notices she has dried ketchup on her fingers that’s hard to get off so sticks fingers in ketchup cup for a bit, then finds to her amazement that the ketchup now wipes off easily; decides it’s time to change her dress which immediately brings out the finger of doom from Dad followed by a terrible pout face; lays head on table dejected at how long grownups take; new idea, draw Mommy a picture with the crayon; then sing Mommy a song they just learned, 'The Itsy Bitsy Spider,' complete with hand gestures and facial expressions followed by a big high-five from Dad.

"I saved everything in a Lightroom collection and didn’t share it with anyone for over 13 years. Then I had them made into a hardcover book and gave it to her on her 16th birthday. I think she liked it almost as much as I because the first thing she did when she got home was call her best friend and share it with her.

"We still have lunch together on occasion, but I don’t bring my camera any more. She wouldn’t stand for it. But what if I pull out my iPhone and pretend to be playing with it like all the kids do? There’s an idea.

"Sorry for all the words, but how else could I share 35 images when only one was allowed?"

Having not seen the other 34, I'll venture to say that one seems to do nicely!

I have only a couple of comments: first, that photographing active children in motion is actually a pretty good exercise of shooting skills. I was once asked to photograph four small but highly energetic brothers playing in their enclosed but well-outfitted back yard, and since I wasn't being paid I decided to try to do it on the fly, without asking the kids to hold still or pose or otherwise help to make my job easier. It was surprisingly challenging—getting coherent pictures was like trying to swat flies. They were in continual motion and seemed to never pause for long. Pointing the camera seemed a signal to move away. I shot three rolls of 135, which was 105 exposures, and had to settle for a couple of dozen competent shots, five or six to please the parents, and one photograph I thought was really good. Lots of blurs and shots just after the visual peak of the action.

I do like the relaxed, candid quality of this shot; it's clear it's not formally posed and that Charlie wasn't going for formal perfection. I think that makes the picture stronger. Despite the natural, candid feel it's still formally beautiful. The cropping, which would be too tight for some pictures, works with rather than against the gesture of the body and cock of the head, which in turn works with the expression of the mouth; the light is lovely, and the colors are harmonious and complement the lighting in turn. But nothing's excessive or overdone. A nice shot of a happy child mid-flight.

Taking 200 shots of one subject is what I'd call "working a subject." It's quite possible to get a shot this good with one lucky shot with a smartphone, but it will happen only occasionally. If you want to do it on purpose you usually have to work for it, like Charlie Dunton did. As a big-name photographer once said to me, "nobody sees how many shots you throw away."

Children disappear quickly—I still find it hard to believe that Sally Mann's son Emmett, memorialized as a boy in a number of his mother's famous pictures, has lived his whole life and is dead and gone now. Seize the day, they say. While that might be literally impossible, every now and then you can seize a good picture, which, although also impermanent in the long run, will at least outlast the moment.

Mike

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Sharon: "What an adorable child! Well done."

Charlie Dunton: "Mike, Thanks for the kind words. I must confess, this photo of my granddaughter was originally going to be the 'Oh, hi Grandada...' shot, but I had another that worked as well for that purpose and I decided the one I submitted made a much better final photo in the series. The caption for it is actually, 'Well, that's all from adorable moi. We had a lot of fun at Five Guys. TTFN. That's Ta Ta For Now, in case you didn't know.' If you would like to see the other 34, the full series with captions is here. Click the upper left image and then use the 'next' button on the site, or the right arrow key on your keyboard. Thanks again, Charlie Dunton."

Are You "Demanding" Enough?

This post relates to the next one pretty well. (Coming up.)

In a recent email, our friend the book author John Camp wrote:

"A couple of weeks ago you had a guy who wrote that if a street photo isn’t something a friend would tap you on the shoulder about—'Hey, look at that'—then it probably wasn’t a worthwhile street photo. I thought about that for a few minutes, and decided that the shoulder-tap was a great criterion for a street photo.

"Then I went and ordered that Bystander street photography book (from your site; I’ll thank myself on your behalf), and it really is a refutation of the should-tap idea. A very large proportion of the street photos I liked best were not shoulder-tap photos—they were photos of something a skilled photographer saw and snapped in an instant. For example, the very first photo in the book is the famous Cartier-Bresson shot of a man jumping across a puddle. If you tapped somebody on the shoulder and he turned to look, all he would see would be a man in a dark suit walking along. The moment would be gone. There are all kinds of shots that were made because of transitory facial expressions or split-second shots of kids acting out and in several cases, or because of shadows and contrasts that you walk through all the time…and they’re really good. So I’m somewhat down off the shoulder-tap idea, although it may still may have relevance for a certain kind of shooter."

It's a fair point, and broadly I agree. But to me, Kenneth Wajda's "shoulder tap" idea (here's the original article again) isn't exactly that you should be able to tap a friend on the shoulder and say "look at that" before making an exposure; it's that what you photograph ought to be something that someone else might agree is worth a second look.

There's at least one complication: we all differ over what's worth looking at. As an example of that, a reader sent me a link to a camera review recently. I thought the illustration pictures were particularly dreadful, and I said so. He wrote back and said he'd had the opposite reaction, that "they seemed of much better quality than the usual rote images." Another friend sent a group email with a link to some photos he liked, and one of the recipients thought the color was out of whack "in a way that makes the pictures really unpleasant to look at." Clearly, one person's trash is another's treasure, and vice-versa.

So then where's the useful nexus of this idea?

For me it's that we need to be sufficiently demanding of ourselves, our subjects, and our photographs.

I got this idea from photographer and artist Shirley True many years ago. She taught at the Corcoran, where I studied photography, but I wasn't in any of her classes. We were working in the school group darkroom once, and I asked her opinion of the picture I was printing.

Well, she didn't like it. She thought it was too flat, for one thing (she was probably right; I was really into low contrast for quite a while). That was the response everyone expected while printing—amounting to, how's my judgement here? Have I got the exposure and contrast right? But she went further—she said she didn't think much of the picture, either. She thought it was missing something, that it looked more like a reject than a select, you might say. Almost offhand, she made a curious comment—she said I wasn't "demanding enough" of my subject.

I chewed on that for a while afterwards. At a gallery show opening a few weeks later I asked her what she had meant by her comment. It's difficult here to put Shirley's own words back into her mouth when I've long since forgotten what the original picture was—and because thirty-odd years have passed!—but the meaning I took from it was that we have to have the courage and perseverance to get the best out of what we're photographing or we haven't really done our subject justice. She'd probably intuited that I'd been too shy to really confront the woman in my photograph, because I'd been afraid of the reaction I might get if I more aggressively went after the picture I really wanted. 

She was doubtless right on. I was just too egotistic at the time to agree.

I've had that thought many times over the years since—I'll look at a portfolio or set of pictures and it's just clear that the photographer isn't demanding enough of his or her subject. They haven't made enough exposures to get the shot they were after, they didn't want to follow the subject or get into their space, they photographed them surreptitiously in some way—from the back, say, or when they weren't looking—or the camera was just too far away from the subject, the photographer not close enough. The result is not entirely a "no," but not completely a "yes" either.

Snapcrap
I think the same concept applies to pictures themselves. We're living in an era of anti-editing—anyone can post their own pictures anywhere. On the one hand, we congratulate ourselves on the freedom this allows, and decry the former world in which self-appointed gatekeepers kept our pictures from being seen. It's a fair point, but the opposite hasn't proved to be much better—now we live under a virtual Niagara of pointless snapcrap because many people don't even try to edit the good shot from all the ones they took around it. They just chuck everything up on the Web, presumably to let the hypothetical viewers sort it out themselves.

I think you could also call this "being demanding," but of our pictures. You'd think it wouldn't be so hard to just show the good ones; but of course it is. In an era of freedom and self-direction, more discipline and more principle and more restraint are needed, not less.

I get the feeling I've done a poor job of explaining my ideas here. This should probably be a five-day essay, not a one-day one. I hope you're able to fish from this gob of words the ones that got to the point. As a summary:

• Photographers should be demanding enough of their subjects, applying enough of whatever is needed—courage, boldness, energy, persistence, or whatever it is—to get the shot they really want. To go to whatever lengths necessary.

• As self-editors photographers should be demanding of their own work, recognizing the real successes and having the self-discipline to realize when they almost succeeded but didn't quite, or when a decent shot was just part of the process of getting a better one.

Anyway, that's the context in which I think the "tap on the shoulder" idea is useful. I can easily see that if Cartier-Bresson showed his puddle-jumper picture to ten friends, probably at least nine of the ten would understand why he thought it was a picture worth looking at. He has in effect tapped them on the shoulder and said "look at this"—and they knew why. Whereas with a great mass of the effluvium on the Internet these days, I can all too easily imagine showing a print to a friend or a passer-by only to elicit a response of, why are you showing me this? Why should I look at this?

I think that's the essence of the tap on the shoulder idea. It's a sort of minimum indicator of whether a photo works or is simply self-indulgent. Although, as I say, tastes vary, and sometimes a photographer does take pictures other people don't get.

I'll try to get the next post done today, since I think it at least partly relates to this one. [UPDATE: To be posted Saturday.]

Mike

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Rob de Loe: "Someone once asked me for my opinion on their work, which took the form of a Flickr site. There was a huge mass of images. Some of this and some of that. A sea of pictures. I think she uploaded her camera card each time it filled, with no curation at all. Definitely not demanding.... So I asked her to choose five pictures I could look at. Apparently that was an impossible request because no pictures were forthcoming."

Wiley Bogren: "I very much appreciated both the topic and the thoughts and experiences that went into it. Thought you did a perfect job (for me at least) conveying the intended gist, without extra vapor or grist. Well written on a great topic. Thank you!"

Mike replies: Thank you. I should really take more time.

Q: "At the risk of sounding persnickety, may I suggest a slight change in wording?

"I'd like to suggest that we should be demanding of ourselves or our processes, as you originally suggested, rather than of our subjects. In your summary, you do say this yourself: 'Photographers should... [apply] enough of whatever is needed—courage, boldness, energy, persistence, or whatever it is—to get the shot they really want.'

"As someone who's terrified of walking up to a person on the street and saying, 'Excuse me, may I take your picture?', my initial reaction was to think, 'I'm already asking them to do something for me; now I need to demand that they hang around until I'm satisfied that I've accomplished my goal?' Also, as primarily a landscape photographer, I can't exactly say to a wave, 'I love that curl—hold it right there!' or to the fast-setting sun, 'Wait—keep the light on the tops of those trees for just a few more minutes while I try different angles!'

"The salient difference, to me at least, is who's doing the work. Saying that we need to be demanding of our subjects suggests that it's the subjects that need to do the work; what your article says (I think) is that we as photographers need to do the work: anticipation and timing, perspective, framing, and so on. And I agree completely with that.

"I also agree that we need to be rigorous in editing. Here you've been very helpful, to me anyway: I've (more or less) adopted your process of selecting a few pictures from each outing and sitting with them for a few days to see which ones have staying power. Thank you for that."

iPhone: The Real-World Upshot

Well, this is pretty funny. It turns out I actually waited too long to get rid of my phone. Far from being sensible, I missed the boat.

I dropped into the local Verizon store yesterday and here's the upshot: They'll give me a trade-in on my old phone—the guy said six to eight hundred dollars. Great. Then I asked about the iPhone 11 and 12. They no longer have 11's, and the 12 Pro Max is exactly the same price as the 13 Pro Max. But, they don't give any trade-in allowance on the 12; only on the 13.

So that makes the 13 the no-brainer choice...which I'm sure is how Apple and/or Verizon wants it.

Then he looked up my trade-in, and...uh-oh. Guess what? The 7 Plus is too old now. Apple no longer sells them as refurbs, so the trade-in value takes a nosedive. I could have gotten $600 to $800 credit if I had traded it in on a 12 or an 11 when those were new, but I waited too long. Now it's only worth $200 in trade.

You know what they say: Oh well.

So the iPhone 13 Pro Max would cost me $910 in cash or on payments. That's actually less than Apple sells a loaded 11 Pro Max for as a refurb ($1,019).

So I missed my window. Kept the 7 Plus too long, such that now I pretty much have to pay full boat to get a new phone. It's no tragedy; I could buy one if I wanted to. But I'm leaning toward just getting a new battery for the old 7 Plus. It's kinda like a car after it's paid for: you get this golden sunset "no payments" period when the thing is paid off but still working smoothly. Besides, I'm waiting for the A6600 to go on sale again and I'd rather blow the $$ on that.

I'm sure another year or two with the old phone won't hurt me. And who knows what the 2H22 rumors will yield? I'll try to be ready for that, if and when it happens.

The moral of the story: If you want keep current with developments in phone cameras, don't hang on to your phone too long.

Mike

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Niela: "Sorry Mike. I have no idea what you are talking about. I just buy my iPhone directly from Apple and sell my old one to whoever wants to pay the most. Picking and changing my carrier whenever services or pricing is convenient just makes so much more sense."

Dan: "I shall upgrade my iPhone SE when it can no longer do what I use it for…reading The Online Photographer and Jalopnik. Should be quite a while."

Dave Pawson: "Excellent (sensible) decision. I look forward to the A6600 review!"

Poster Boy

Thanks for all the thoughts on phones. It's pertinent to photography, as these are now our point-and-shoots and our pocket cameras. To me they've never replaced larger cameras and are unlikely to do so—but then, I was using an Olympus XA in 1982 along with my Contax SLR, when digital was just a gleam in our friend Steve Sasson's eye.

By the way, did you know the XA was designed by none other than Yoshihisa Maitani (1933–2009), the father of the Olympus OM system?

As I was saying: we use phones as our point-and-shoots and pocket cameras. They are better now than ever before, closer to the ideal. The handy, pocketable, carry-everywhere, easy-to-operate camera has been one of the longtime themes in the history of cameras, traceable back many decades.

True reform stems from the root
As to Robin's claim that I am remorselessly ruining the planet by seeking to wantonly discard my five-year-old iPhone 7, no fair! I just live in society, I don't direct it. Solutions need to be systemic. I believe, for example, that the root of America's political problems is that we've allowed individual wealth to get out of hand, which in turns allows a  tiny minority of individuals to have undue influence over how society is run, and that all of those problems would be solved in a single stroke by limiting individual wealth to the equivalent of $38 million in today's money, per Thomas Piketty. That's what I mean by a systemic solution. And I believe most (no longer all, sadly) environmental and extinction problems would be solved—or would have been solved, shall we say—by capping world population to the sustainable carrying power of the planet, which to a good educated guess is about 1.5 to 2 billion people alive at any one time.

Unfortunately both these systemic goals appear rather difficult to achieve. By anyone, but especially by yer li'l ol' and exceedingly 'umble Ed.—as noted above, I have not yet been put in charge.

I'm just a guy who has a smartphone, like 85% of Americans over the age of 12. And am trying to figure out when to replace it. I've kept my old one for five years, or 60 months; Internet says users in Great Britain hold on to their smartphones for the longest time of any people in the developed world, and the thrifty Brits keep theirs an average of 27.7 months. Although that figure comes from before the pandemic. Plus, I think I should get extra credit for the fact that I never discard an old TV, on account of I don't own one.

In any event, I don't think I am the most suitable poster boy for the environmental problem where phones are concerned. I agree with Robin in spirit, though.

Readers homed in on one of the factors affecting my personal decision, which is that I have at least a modest obligation to be up on current camera technology in contemporary phones*. But there's one more, which is that I use the phone for a lot of the pictures I post on TOP. For instance the picture at the top of the recent post about Bill's book Eleventyone Portraits 1841–1950. With a maximum size of 800 pixels wide per the blogging software I use, even the phone is overkill, really. So it's a business necessity for me, a tool I use for working. That still doesn't mean I need a new phone camera, because actually I don't, but it's a consideration.

Behind the curtains
Re the state of the market, here is my guess as to what's going on. Apple has been working on a phone with a dramatically improved camera, sometimes referred to, as Kent pointed out, as the 2H22. It's probably intended to offer a leap in performance on the order of what Apple achieved with the recent M1 chip.

Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, quoted at MacRumors: "In terms of pixel size, the ‌iPhone 12‌, iPhone 13, and new 2H22 ‌iPhone‌ are about 1.7um, 2um, and 1.25um, respectively. We believe that the new 2H22 ‌iPhone‌ may support direct 48MP output and 12MP (four cells merge output mode) output simultaneously. With 12MP output, the CIS [CMOS image sensor —Ed.] pixel size of the new 2H22 ‌iPhone‌ increases to about 2.5um, which is significantly larger than the ‌iPhone 12‌ and ‌iPhone 13‌, and larger than existing Android phones, and close to the DSC [digital still camera —Ed.] level. We believe that the camera quality of the new 2H22 ‌iPhone‌ will elevate mobile phone camera photography to a new level."

So my guess is that originally that camera was slated to appear with iPhone 13, and that's why people were suggesting upgraders should wait for the iPhone 13; but the new technology, whatever it may be, is not ready for prime time yet, so Apple issued a rather tepid incremental update and called that iPhone 13 instead. But really, iPhone 13 is only "just noticeably" better than iPhone 12.

Those are guesses. Please don't give me credit for having an oracular crystal ball. As you know the psychic convention was cancelled due to unforeseen events.

Significantly degraded
In any event, it's reasonable for me to consider myself a candidate for an upgrade. As a number of readers pointed out, in the past Apple has generally assumed a 5-year lifespan for its phones, after which a.) the battery begins to fail (mine is at 77% of original capacity and fading fast. The phone itself tells me, "Your battery's health is significantly degraded"); b.) OS updates won't be applicable; and c.) security updates won't apply. Apple is already not accepting iPhone 7's to become factory refurbs, and is no longer offering refurbed 7's for sale on its website. OS 15 however will work on my iPhone 7 Plus, and apparently the security updates will continue to be supported for another year. Have I got all that right? So presumably I could wait for iPhone 14.

It's still not a straightforward decision for environmental best practices, however. If I replace the battery, the new replacement battery will need to be discarded relatively soon, with most of its useful life ahead of it. After all, I'm certainly not going to be able to keep using the old phone for another five years. Surely old batteries are a big part of the environmental impact of discarded phones?

Again as a number of readers pointed out, my phone is nearing the end of its planned lifecycle. Soon, all of those things I mentioned will render it obsolete. In the sense that it will continue to turn on and make pictures and calls, it will presumably remain viable for a while after that...

...But perhaps not viable for me, considering that I use it for my work and that I should stay abreast of developments, thus to avoid hastening my own obsolescence unduly. I'm becoming irrelevant fast enough as it is! Well, at least to cute young women.

I shall not want
One last point, though, on the question of "want vs. need" which several people brought up. I never actually want to replace my computer devices. I waited until the last minute to replace my antiquated iPad, and only did so because I had to; I've only owned three iPhones, in total, ever; and, in its box, I still have my mid-2011 27" iMac sitting here, which I used daily for seven years. (Want it? It's been refurbished and cleaned and has had a clean install of a new OS.) So I'm not a "churner" of computer devices. My rather chicken-hearted philosophy is, if all the magic computer-y stuff is working, don't rock the boat.

I have no talent for computers, never have had, and I consider the whole claptrap shebang to be precariously balanced at the edge of collapse on any given day...even if it isn't. If everything's functional to some reasonable approximation of the word, just tiptoe around and don't disturb anything. I never want to mess with it, much less replace it.

It's just that sooner or later you have to.

Mike

*I mean really...how would you feel if you knew a tech writer who still listened to vinyl records, drove a car with a manual transmission, wore a wristwatch, didn't own a TV, and amused himself by playing a physical game popular in the 19th century rather than video games like everyone born in this century?

Er, wait, never mind.

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Aaron: "'Whose fault is it?' with respect to systemic issues can be understood as a collective action problem in ethics. If one person cuts across the grass, no harm done. But, if all of us cut across the grass we wear a path. Whose fault is it? All of us? But, no one individual of us caused the path. If none of us individually are at fault, how can all of us be at fault? So, none of us are at fault? But, clearly if we hadn't cut there would be no path. So...?

"It's not only abstract or theoretical. On the one hand one individual blogger won't contribute to climate change or excessive trash. On the other hand, if he's one of lots and lots and lots of people 'walking across the grass' does he bear some responsibility? This is a mostly consequentialist way of thinking about this—wrong is conceived in terms of bad outcomes. But, there could be nonconsequentialist ways of thinking of it. Perhaps we simply have a duty not to waste irrespective of whether the outcomes are trivial. Or, perhaps we should cultivate virtues like thriftiness and moderation? All in all, I think holding on to a phone for five years is pretty good—and pretty good is better than bad. So, go for it."

Peter: "I think, after this explanation, we all can approve your request for acquiring a new iPhone."

iPhone 13?

Asking the experts: So do I need an iPhone 13?

My iPhone 7 Plus, released five years ago this very month, is getting out of date, but it still works perfectly. I have no complaints with it other than that the battery is getting a little weak. I have to remember to charge it every day, and I do run short of power every now and then because I get caught out. I take a lot of pictures with it, though. I'm guessing the newer ones are better at that.

What would you do if you were me?*

Mike

*You can say you'd switch to Android but not me. Apple loyalist since 1984, for better and worse, through thick and thin.

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Jean: "I would imagine that you would be very pleased with the new iPhone. I use the regular iPhone 7 and the 12 Pro. The old one is the perfect size and weight in my pocket. The new one is a superior photographic tool. It doesn’t replace my Fujifilm X-Pro2 and X-T2, but the low light is performance is unreal with a fast lens, image stabilizer and up to 30 seconds exposure time. Apple’s special ProRAW is also a favorite for me. You can have 30 MB files with multiple images combined (tone mapping), data available for adjusting your white balance to your preference, and lower noise than JPEGs. You can lock the exposure of your sky to protect the highlights and bring up the shadows before you trip the shutter. If you still want to edit, the data is in the files. Great for landscapes. Shoot your house in the middle of the night and get the stars as well. The super-wide-angle lens is the so-useful and often used 13mm-e. On the iPhone 13 Pro, a new faster super-wide-angle lens and improved autofocus makes it even more useful. The portrait mode lets you adjust the depth of field after the fact.

"Every feature I have described here is available in the standard camera app. The convenience is great and video is quite stable and useful. Battery capacity is improved and great."

Clyde: "I went from an 8 to a 12 Pro last year and the image quality improvement was stunning! So yeah, it's worth upgrading."

Richard T: "My suggestions:

"1.) If you want or need to minimize costs in the short run, Apple can replace the battery for you (which I think costs $49 in the US). You can do this in an official Apple store or authorized service centre, or can mail out your phone if you can live without it for a few days. The iPhone 7 generation is still supported by the upcoming newest iOS (version 15 launching soon). It is unclear though if the 7 generation will still be supported by September '22, though likely that iOS version would still get security updates, so if you go for a battery replacement you'd have at least one year, probably two, and potentially more years of use out of this. By the way, in the settings menu you can find the current battery health.

"2.) You are very right that an upgrade would also get you a better camera—though perhaps slightly less so than you may think. The 7+ was the very first model with two cameras (~26mm/52mm equivalent), and if you get the iPhone 13 (non-pro version) you will still only have two cameras (except 13mm/26mm, so lacking the 52mm). Based on your love of 35–40mm equivalent lenses, that would be a significant omission. So in your case I'd go for an iPhone that also includes that 52mm lens (which Apple calls 'tele'). But note that in the iPhone 13 Pro generation they went to 3X, which equates to 78mm equivalent, i.e. a little tighter than I think you'd prefer (Apple uses 26mm as 1x, which it calls wide, and 0.5x for the 13mm, which it calls ultra-wide). The iPhone 12 Pro Max has a 2.5x tele lens, so it's 64mm equivalent. This 2.5x is only for the 'Max' version, i.e. the bigger one which is roughly the size of your Plus model. The iPhone 12 Pro (non-max) has the same 2X (52mm equivalent) lens.

"3). Possibly a nice compromise for you might be the iPhone 11 Pro Max, which has the 0.5/1x/2x lenses and gets you a similar sized phone as the 7+. You might be able to get a refurbished directly from Apple—and you can use https://refurb-tracker.com/ to keep track of stock. There's also eBay of course, though battery quality varies—I'd ask sellers to check battery health if you take the eBay route. When I upgrade I usually go for the t–1 model [i.e., last generation —Ed.] since there is about a 50% depreciation after the first year (not unlike a new car!)."

David Place: "I once had an iPhone 6 and kept it through the XR (10) but shouldn't brag...since then I've fallen for the camera upgrade every year. I pass on my current model to my other half and trade in the two-year-old iPhone. So the 11 is traded in / the 12 is passed on / the blue 1TB 13 Pro Max will be here Friday (I also tend to get the new color each year). The iPhone is now my main camera (that's my only excuse). Suggestion? Move on to the 13."

Kirk: "I would rush to pre-order the iPhone 13 Pro. You can go to the Apple website and see everything they've improved on. It's now an amazing camera in addition to being a phone...and a computer...and a health resource...and an entertainment center.... I'll be buying one for the video capability alone but I'll end up using it for everything I photograph that couldn't be better photographed with a full frame, higher resolution camera (and attendant lenses...).

"The perfect moment for a tech straggler to leapfrog into the cutting edge."

Soeren Engelbrecht (partial comment): "The new phones are a bit like buying into a new camera system without the ability to choose your own set of lenses.  :-)  ."

Aakin Patel (partial comment): "I think it's worth upgrading. [...] The iPhones usually get security/software updates for five years. Yours is hitting that limit, and in today's world where phones are big targets for cybersecurity attacks, it's pretty worthwhile to stay on top of that. Having a new phone that gets the updates is pretty important, and worth upgrading if you can swing it."

Øyvind: "I would go with the 13 Pro. The camera system is just more complete, and is given the biggest camera bump ever this year. The wide/ultrawide combination of the standard model just never appealed to me as someone who uses normal to short tele quite a bit. If you're coming from an iPhone 7 the new models should be a massive leap (as Apple likes to say for every model increment). That goes for battery life, operational smoothness and convenience, display quality and sheer computing power. And the cameras are just way better.

"Still I respect you holding on to your phone for its useful life."

Robin: "No-one needs an iPhone. Some people might want one. Big difference. It's clear to see that Apple is the most hyper-capitalist, resource-extracting company in the world. Even on my doorstep here in Ireland, I see the damage...as they avoid paying any tax while keeping desperate employees in dead-end jobs. I would never support this company. No matter what pretty things they dangle. The world is on fire. We are in the Sixth Great Extinction. Time to take a more moral stance. Even in an array of bad choices, some are better than others."

Fred Haynes: "I’m the last person to give advice, since I don’t own a cellphone! I am a dinosaur! But considering the ‘business’ you're in, I think it would be a good idea to have the best, assuming this latest model is the best. Regarding your thoughts about the iPad, I’m one hundred percent with you on that! I could not be without mine, I’d go nuts!"

els: "Absolutely buy the iPhone13 Pro. If you already take a lot of pictures with your iPhone 7, you will be so happy with the iPhone 13. Let's face it, it is the only camera we all use every day. So why not have the best one available?"

Bumping Along (Progress of the Project)

A report:

The book I'm trying to write is going well enough. It's full of digressions and stories—I can't seem to help heaping on the stories!

I'm going to dish a bit of dirt, too, because now's the time—it's past mattering in many cases, and if I don't tell some of my stories it's likely I'll carry them unintentionally to the grave, at which point they'll be done for. And what's the good of a juicy story but to tell it?

The working title is The Education of a Blogger, and it would be insolence to offer apologies to Henry Adams. It's loosely (very loosely) the story of TOP. It'll contain lots about photography and a fair bit not.

The biggest problem is working out how to juggle TOP and the book. I have a definite appetite for writing—if I don't get to do enough of it, the appetite builds up until I'm hungering to do it. But on the other hand I also have only a finite amount of energy for it. I think of my capacity for it as "writing energy," and it's a mysterious thing. If I write too much too many days in a row, I can empty the tank to the point that even answering emails becomes torture. The writing gets bad, too; with the reservoir depleted, the words don't flow out. Five hours seems about the ideal workday for me as far as writing is concerned, and a couple of thousand words the upper limit. One thousand or fifteen hundred is more comfortable. Looking back, I notice that most of what I consider to be "full length" posts are right around that range. For example, "Sands of Time," the post about my trip to see my brother Scott, has 1,605 words of text.

All writers are different this way. Hemingway worked six hours a day but produced on average only 600 words, or so I recall reading; Stephen King says in his book On Writing that any self-respecting writer ought to be able to produce 2,000 words per 24 hour period—and he kept right on doing so even after he supposedly "retired"; Larry McMurtry wrote five new pages every day and revised the previous ten, meaning, if you work it out, that he went over everything three times before moving on. I don't know what a "page" was for Larry so I don't know what his word count was, but the typical double-spaced typed page, back in the days of those quaint mechanisms known as typewriters, was maybe 250 words. He told me back when I knew him that he worked 364 days per year, every day except Christmas, and that he missed it on Christmas. All that adds up.

Anyway, when I work on the book, I keep meaning to write for only an hour or two and then get to TOP, but what I find is that I can't stop. By the time I come up for air, my writing energy has dissipated and I don't have any mojo left to give to TOP. But on the other hand, if I write a full-length post for TOP, like "Sports Has a Bad Scriptwriter" or "Honesty...Isn't It Refreshing?", I have nothing left that for the book. The upshot is that I seem to be doing a less-than-adequate job on both.

I'm sure I'll be able to work out something. I just have to work it out.

I should note that in general I don't have a lot of energy. I know guys like Thom Hogan or John Camp AKA Sandford or Kirk Tuck have far more energy than I do, and I'm sure they work much harder than I do as an ordinary thing, and they must look askance at slackers like me when we whimper our woes. However, all of us humans have to work with what we're given. You know what they say, or used to say: if wishes were horses, beggars would ride, and if a frog could fly he wouldn't bump his ass so much. It's no good wanting to be what we're not—if you're a frog you're a frog. Five hours and 1,500 words in a day is all I'm good for, and it does no good to pretend I'm Anthony Trollope or Kathleen Mary Lindsay. Trollope, of whom you might've heard, strictly wrote 250 words every 15 minutes for three hours every day whether he felt like it or not, beginning at 5:30 every morning; and Kathleen Mary Lindsay, who you've probably never heard of unless you enjoy The Guinness Book of World Records, wrote 904 books under 11 pseudonyms. At my peak as a reader I read 60 books a year, meaning it would take me 15 years just to read all of Ms. Lindsay's books. I had never heard of her before now, so I don't know if I would want to. But then, our score so far is 904 to not yet one, so I shouldn't go casting shade.

Well now I'm coming up on 850 words, so I had better conserve my energy.

Mike

Product o' the Week:

The brand new 2021 Apple 10.2-inch iPad (Wi-Fi, 64GB) in Space Gray. My iPad is my least necessary but most-loved Apple device. I could get by with my phone and a desktop computer, but I use this constantly and I like it best. Check out that price.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP—anything you buy while you're there benefits TOP. B&H Photo is closed for the rest of September for Succos.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Thom Hogan: "1.) Figure out when you write best. 2.) Write during that time, block all other activity. 3.) Outside that time, jot ideas (notes, idea statement, etc.), but don't get deep into them. 4.) Prioritize jot ideas into writing time.

"That's basically how I do it. I'm usually writing by 8 a.m. and until at least 11 a.m. Outside of those hours I'm less efficient and it becomes 'work' (as opposed to natural).

"Having 'other things' to occupy your non-writing time is actually more useful than people think. I don't mean chores, like cooking, cleaning, etc. I mean something that engages you in a different way. For you, that's probably pool. I've learned the brain is really good at subconscious processing, as long as it's distracted with something else interesting.

"But, as prolific as I am, I have four unfinished books I need to find time to tend to. They're just not getting prioritized at the moment, so they stay simmering in the background. One is virtually done, but requires a full-on word-by-word edit, along with getting all illustrations in place. I'd tend to agree with King's statement, though, again, I'd say that those 2,000 words are going to come in one attentive session, not scattered through a 24-hour period. I tend to average more like 5,000 words/day, but I have days where I just can't get started."

Mrs. Proudie: "Thank you for mentioning Trollope, my favorite Victorian novelist! I've read just about everything he wrote, and I love his characters so much that I'm changing my screen name from Bandbox to Mrs. Proudie. Trollopians will know who I'm talking about. If Mrs. Proudie were here today as a contemporary photographer, she'd be taking you to task for worrying about the latest iPhone and your word-count instead of being out in the field using your perfectly serviceable Wista 4x5."

Mike replies: Trollope is the guilty pleasure of many famous writers, intellectuals, and discerning readers. Even if people don't read him, it's worthwhile to read about him.

Fred: "It all depends on your point of view. From where I am looking you seem to be very prolific.

"Since you mentioned them peripherally, I do love manual typewriters. I believe that in some (let me emphasize some) circumstances typewriters or writing by hand can be a better choice than a computer and word processing software. Having said that I think that word processing software and especially good spell checkers are way way more significant than the invention of sliced bread.

"Whew! That is the most I have written in the last three days."

Christopher Feola: "I made my money as a photojournalist for a couple of decades, and I always felt something similar: I have a certain amount of words per day, and when I'm out for the day I'm done. I could pound out articles for the paper daily, or I could work on a book...but not both."

Bill's Wonderful Portraits

I'm reluctant to talk about a book until I've finished it, and I haven't finished reading this one.

It's not long, but it's dense. And rewards thought.

However, this is definitely my "Book of the Year" for 2020–21. It's never going to be a mainstream book, because there are only 250 copies in existence. Although there could possibly be a reprint someday.

By way of a disclaimer I'll remind you that I used to be a portrait photographer and have always liked portraits. And I mean always—I got in trouble at age six for clipping portraits of the Presidents out of my parents' back issues of National Geographic to make a "collection."

The premise is very simple: a doctor collected old portraits to hang in his office. As a labor of love, he has self-published a book in which he presents 111 of them. On the page facing each, he tells you everything he could find out about each portrait. Some of what he found out is remarkable. The essays are sometimes no more than a description of the photograph, because nothing is known about it. But Bill is an excellent writer, and his words draw you not just into the photograph, but into the life of the person depicted. Many of the subjects are anonymous (some are not). Same for the photographers. But all are informed by the same collector's eye and each one is lovely and fascinating (to various proportions) in its way.

"With a whimsical look at lives known, cultural and historical circumstances, and the ever-changing aesthetics of portraiture, the lives and characters of the sitters and photographers are imagined, and the question of the revelation of their characters explored."

The book is Eleventyone Portraits 1841 to 1950, by William Cowan, who I'm pleased to say appears to be a TOP reader.

A labor of love...but what labor! Everything about the book is beautiful. It's been professionally edited and professionally designed, so it fooled me at first into thinking it was the product of an established publishing house. It's not; but it doesn't have any of the awkward telltales typical of many self-published books.

Now I've finally decided it's not actually a book to "read." It's a book for delectation. I'm going to continue to engage with it as I have over this past year: taking it to hand, leafing through a handful of portraits at a time, reading or re-reading an essay or two, and putting it aside again. The copy Bill sent me last year is so much the worse for wear (I've dropped it, and crushed a corner, and marred the cover) that I had to ask him for a second one! But now I want to send the second one to a museum curator I know while it's still pristine, so I'm going to need a third.

Bill and I will be working together on an interview to publish here. And I guess sooner or later I might have the temerity to attempt a review. I thought you might like a heads up, in case you want to have your own copy in hand. Check the website; if it looks like you might enjoy it, I think you will.

Mike

[UPDATE: As of mid-day Monday, Bill had sold about 70 books, approximately a third of all he had. —MJ]

Book o' the Week:

Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987. "Carrying a Polaroid camera from the late 1950s until his death in 1987, [Andy Warhol] amassed a huge collection of instant pictures of friends, lovers, patrons, the famous, the obscure, the scenic, the fashionable, and himself...this book features hundreds of these instant photos." Any book with Grace Jones on the cover has to be cool.

The above is a link to Amazon from TOP. Here's Andy Warhol: Polaroids 1958–1987 at The Book Depository. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

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

Maris Rusis: "I have Bill Cowan's book and it is glorious in style and scholarship. And yes, it is both dense and moving. A few pages at a time is all I can traverse. All those beautiful and interesting people are now gone. I find this poignancy and sense of loss passes into sadness very quickly. Bill quoted me on page 21 and sent me his book by way of compliment. Much thanks to Bill Cowan."