The Online Photographer

Random Excellence: Judy Dater

Judy Dater, Graham Nash, 1978

Even if you don't know the name Judy Dater, you probably do know her most famous picture, "Imogen and Twinka at Yosemite" (there's an "art nude" at that link, just so you're warned), one of the most famous American photographs of the 1970s.

This picture of musician Graham Nash was in the section of Judy's website titled "Photo World." Aside from being one-third of the famous '70s folk-rock group Crosby, Stills & Nash (and one-fourth of CSN&Y), Graham Nash is a longtime photographer and photography enthusiast. He also has a firm place in the history of digital photography, in that his atelier, Nash Editions, was one of the pioneers of digital printmaking. You can read more about that in Richard Benson's The Printed Picture, or from the book Nash Editions: Photography and the Art of Digital Printing. Both were previously TOP recommendations.

Judy has a new book coming out soon which, understandably, is occupying her attentions right now. I'm looking forward to the book and I'll tell you about it when it gets here.

Mike
(Thanks to Judy)

Judy Dater comments: "The photo was taken at Graham's house which was just off of Haight Street and across the street from Buena Vista Park. I remember being excited when I discovered the skylight at his house and realized he could climb up on to it. I wanted to make it look as if he were floating.

"I rarely photograph famous people but I knew him slightly because he had some of my work in his private photography collection. That collection became an exhibition and catalogue titled 'The Graham Nash Collection' that premiered at the de Saisset Museum at the University of Santa Clara."

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Pete Turner, 1934-2017

By Rob Atkins

Pete Turner died in his sleep yesterday morning at his home in Wainscott, New York. Pete was many things to many people: mentor, teacher, icon, true innovator of color photography. He was all of these things to me, and more, but one role loomed far greater than the others. Pete was my friend. That will endure forever.

The most profound lesson I learned from Pete was this: Color can be used to convey an emotion. Take his image “Road Song” as an example. It’s still a successful image when reproduced in black and white, with its graphic composition and dramatic perspective. Though Pete began shooting while the sun was still up and the fence was lit with the last of the day’s sunlight, he waited until the “blue hour” to make his select image. It’s the blue cast that imbues the image with its moody and somewhat melancholy feel. It’s the use of color that creates the emotional impact.

Pete’s work set me on a life course, that of being a photographer. It’s given me the best life I could possibly imagine. How could a debt like that be repaid?

—Rob Atkins

©2017 by Rob Atkins, all rights reserved

Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

'September Is the New August'

Taken this afternoon before it clouded up

September will someday be like August is now, or so sayeth the climate-change scientists. According to the projections, the seasons will shift forward somewhat—at least in the near term, Springs will be later and stay cold longer, and Fall will start later and the onset of Winter will eventually be somewhat delayed from historical norms. And September will become more like August used to be.

Certainly seems that way here at TOP World HQ right now, I'll say that. If we hit 80°F again tomorrow it will be a straight week with highs in the 80s. Not only that, highs of 80°F or more are currently predicted for another entire week.

That's all about 10 degrees, or a little more, over the historical norms. The average high for today, for instance, is 70°F, and it's 83°F right now. I keep an eye out because 68°F (20°C) is a perfect day to me, and I get a little greedy about the few 68° days we're supposed to get.

Yes, it could just be a warm September. Specific weather events in specific places can't be attributed to climate change, which merely predicts trends. And we had a cool Summer. In fact we were cooler than normal this month until recently; here's a chart of Rochester, New York (nearest big city to me) temps for so far this month:

(Source)

The straight lines are the averages (high and low), the crooked lines are this month's actual temperatures.

In any case, I'm ready for Fall to get here! Bring back the 68° days, and the extra blanket at night.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Pet Names

The other day we heard of a three-legged kitten named Gitzo. Have you ever had a pet with a photo-related name?

Mike
(Thanks to Mathew)

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Paul Butzi: "I had a Golden Retriever named Kodak, who made an appearance in a great many photographs I made, because for quite a while I took a camera along on our walks each day and his explorations always made for fun camera time. Shortly before he died, we got another Golden and named him Leica. After Kodak died, the next Golden was, of course, named Eastman. Leica and Eastman are right now happily sleeping on my feet."

Daniel: "Our former cats. Black and white one was Dektol. Blonde was Hypo. Now we have Pentax. Dogs are BrettWard Weston and Kodak Brownie. Former one was Contax."

Ed Buziak: "Not exactly photographic, but I named the stray cat that adopted me recently as 'Wi-fi'...every time I rattle her dish she understands and comes immediately!"

Lynn: "I haven't, but a graphic designer/photographer friend's cat is named Pixel."

Mike Plews: "We had a Beagle named Deardorff. Only Deardorff we could afford at the time."

William Schneider: "Not a pet, but my brother was named Josef Schneider after the founder of the German lens company."

jklwood: "Edward Steichen had a three-legged dog named Tripod."

Jeff: "And of course Wegman's first Weimaraner, Man Ray."

Ernie Nitka: "My dog is a cross of a dachshund and a black lab—a real mutant. I named her Arbus in honor of Diane who took her fair share of photos of unusual subjects."

True? Has That Ever Been Why You Buy New?

A couple of days ago, a reader named Brian commented that "people rarely buy a new digital camera because the old one stopped working."

What say ye? Is that true? Have you ever had to buy a new camera because the old one stopped working?

It's happened to me twice—and in both cases I wasn't done with the camera I had to replace when I had to replace it.

The first was with my original Exakta 66, back in the '80s—the one I recently replaced in a fit of rosy-glow nostalgia. The camera started having trouble with overlapping frames. I was bearing up under that, but then I lost a shot I really wanted to poor film flatness, and I decided I had to have more trust in my camera than that. So I de-accessioned it.

Missed that camera for years. I later learned that both of the problems I had with it were known issues, and there are workarounds and also permanent fixes for both problems. But I didn't know that at the time.

The Konica-Minolta 7D introduced at the end of 2004—this is the non-U.S. version, which were called Dynax. I bought mine used in 2006, and this was the lens I used with it, the first time since boyhood I had used a zoom lens for any appreciable period of time. My son is still using the lens today, on a Sony A900.

The other was my first DSLR, the Konica-Minolta 7D of sainted memory. I loved that camera, and took lots of great shots with it. Although only six megapixels, the files were beautiful and the color was very accurate. And of course it was my first experience with IBIS (in-body image stabilization), which made a huge difference for my photography. (IBIS is also what I'm chasing currently, although cutting down my coffee consumption has made a difference with my "yips" problem.)

Two pictures taken with the K-M 7D

Alas, something went wonky with that camera—it got infested with electronic gremlins. Things like settings spontaneously changing. The biggest glitch was that often it would refuse to fire because it thought there was no lens attached even when there was.

Years later, I learned that you can reset digital cameras—like rebooting a computer. That might have been all my 7D needed. But at the time, K-M went out of the retail camera and lens business (it's still an OEM behind the scenes), and Sony had purchased K-M's camera division assets. And Sony was not repairing the 7D. For a time, it would replace K-M cameras sent in for repair with the then-current Sony equivalent, but that wasn't what I wanted—I just wanted my 7D fixed.

So in both cases, I did buy a new camera because the old one "stopped working," or stopped working correctly. But in both cases I might have jumped the gun and acted too soon.

I'm sure Brian's right, generally—what he says is true for me overall—but I wonder how many people have to get a new camera because the one they have simply stops working?

Mike
(Thanks to Brian)

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Andrew: "My current camera is a Sony A700, bought when (you guessed it) my K-M 7D died in 2009. I alternate between hoping the A700 will bite the dust so I can justify a replacement, and dreading the day I have to choose a new camera. This trait has definitely been passed on from my parents: my mother just replaced her car after 17 years because the chassis had a hole in and it was pronounced unroadworthy."

JG: "I bought a second used RX1 after my first used RX1 rolled off the bed the day after I bought it and its autofocus refused to work for the next 18 months, at which point it mysteriously repaired itself and began working again...does this count? I'm also on my third A7R body, because the sensor in the first one was damaged when I had Kolari replace the sensor's cover glass with their thin-filter version. Then I dropped its replacement and it too was damaged beyond economical repair...do either of these count? Oh, and way back when, I left a Sigma DP1 on the roof of my car and it fell off at 30 mph, smashing itself to smithereens when it hit the pavement. So, Yeah, this has happened to me...four times now! 8_^(  "

Pak-Ming Wan: "I bought a Leica M-E new. It has served me for the better part of nearly five years...(maybe six, I can't remember). I'm not going to replace it until it dies, although I must admit that I have had a shutter unit plus sensor replacement under warranty. It has done over 50,000 actuations, so I guess here's to the next five years...I don't see another focal length (I like 35mm) nor type of camera (SLR or compact) suiting me. And in the meantime, my phone takes amazing photos, so the need for a second backup camera fills a very small space in my life. My purchase considerations for a new camera whilst I have these two functioning devices always converges on these points."

Herman: "No, but I had a boss once who had to hire a new photo lab technician because the old one wasn't working."

Nikon Steps In It Again

Oh, Nikon, Nikon, Nikon. What are we going to do with you?

The latest flurry of bad bad pub is all about tone-deafness, and, I think, isolation from the outside world. It's a bad kind of viral news for a company. You commit some stupid blunder, a plain faux pas, a dunderheaded misstep, and put your foot smack in the cowpie. And for no good reason other than that you were just not paying attention.

This problem fits a pattern: the damaging way that Nikon mismanaged its announcement of "extraordinary losses" last February; the deep-sixing of the announced DL compacts; the growing perception that Nikon lets its customers be beta-testers by initially releasing version .9 products for sale.

What happened? In this case, the Guardian put it succinctly: "The Japanese camera giant chose 32 professional photographers across Asia and Africa to test-drive and promote its new camera, the D850. Of the 32 photographers chosen, Nikon managed to pick zero women."

Why is it a bad kind of viral news for a company? Unfortunately, it's not just a dunderheaded blunder, it's a particular sort of dunderheaded blunder that allows people to cluck and gossip about you and feel virtuous doing it. It allows them to be snarky and sanctimonious at the same time. That gives it greater currency. So the story is not only tossed out and chewed over by the forum magpies and the clickbait sites, not only reported by the photographic websites such as Fstoppers and PetaPixel, but goes outside the category and into the culture at large, picked up by mainstream news sites like the Guardian and the Old Grey Lady* herself.

We should acknowledge that the story isn't just about PR. Women photographers are understandably angry about the slight. No less a photographer than the star photojournalist and author Lynsey Addario protested. "Guess they forgot to invite me? I'm a [Nikon Ambassador]," she tweeted. An Instagram picture of her gear from 2016 shows no shortage of Nikon bodies. I'll just gently point out that Lynsey has ten times more courage than I do, and I'm a big rough tough man, not a tiny little delicate flower of a female. (Although I will say that the D850 is too big for me. ROFL.)

What did you do?

Uh-oh!

But really, Nikon. Bad dog.

I have no more thoughts on the matter, but a story did come to mind. Many years ago, in the early '90s, I was walking through Rochester on the way to a meeting, dressed, not typically for me, in a coat and tie. As I passed Kodak headquarters, the doors opened and a flood of businesspeople in suits hit the sidewalk; clearly, a big meeting had just ended. By happenstance I fell in step with two guys who were going the same way I was. We traded pleasantries and walked along together for a ways.

Well, they chatted for a while, essentially gossiping about the meeting: who seemed angry, who had what agenda, etc. After a block or so one of them looked over at me and said, "What department do you work for?"

"Oh, I'm not with Kodak," I answered. "I'm a journalist."

That shut them up—and not only. Amazingly, we walked on together for almost three more blocks, and neither of those guys said one single more word, to me or to each other. Total, complete silence. As I split off from them I said "have a good one" or something like that, and neither even acknowledged that.

The encounter was another in a series of signs that to my mind indicated that Kodak's culture at the time had become almost entirely internal. What mattered was what happened within Kodak; the outside world hardly counted. Except as something it was necessary to wall off.

Forgive me for the bald speculation, but I think what we're seeing is signs of the same thing happening with Nikon. It's just a feeling I get—it feels like a corporate culture that's getting too insular, too self-referential, too walled-off. Which is never a good thing.

But I'm just talking. I know nothing.

Mike
(Thanks to Scott J.)

*Meyer Berger, a New York Times columnist, so christened the Times on September 17th, 1951, in LIFE magazine, in an article titled "The Gray Lady Reaches 100." "THE Old Gray Lady will celebrate her 100th birthday this Sept. 18. The 'lady' is a newspaper—the New York Times—regarded by many in the world at large (and all within its own world) as the world's greatest. And newsmen generally hail it as 'old' and 'gray' by way of acknowledging its traditional special marks: starch conservatism and circumspection."

The nickname surfaced more recently in a famous tweet on a then-fledgling communication service called Twitter in 2007:

Although the writer, a NYT developer named Jacob Harris, intended the opening words to be "like the Queen trying to use slang," his "combination of fusty and fashionable" as he put it hit a little too close to the mark, and the Times has been ridiculed for "Word up! It is I, the Gray Lady" ever since. 

I should also point out that, apart from connoting brains, "gray matter" is journalese for lots of unrelieved text on a page. The New Yorker, for example, the last mainstream magazine in the English-speaking world that targets people who like to read, is very gray. That's the reason for its famous cartoons—to break up the gray matter.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Support Us
Give TOP a “Like” or Buy yourself something

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

Richard Hargrove: "Maybe Nikon is not yet done demonstrating the insularity of their corporate culture. We'll have to wait for a real translation to see what Nikon rep said, but it's not looking good."

Bryan Geyer: "Well, it looks to me like this blame is premature. All of the chosen men represent regions of the globe that do not include the Americas, Great Britain, Europe, or the Scandinavian countries. (The selected areas are also heavily male-dominant.) Heck, it doesn't even include Japan! Maybe the press just got ahead of Nikon's announcements. It's not 'fake news,' but it may (?) prove to be fake judgement."

Bruno Masset: "The Internet commentariat demonstrating again its collective idiocy and lack of common sense. That campaign was designed by Nikon MEA, which is a business entity operating and responsible for marketing in a well-defined area of the world—the Middle East, Africa, and Oceania. The Internet domain name (nikon-asia.com) of that campaign should have also provided a clue. The list of the areas from which the photographers were selected should have provided a clue: Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Middle East and Africa, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. It seems to have escaped the Internet commentariat's notice that, for example, not one photographer from Japan, Communist China, Russia, Europe, or North or South America has been included, though these areas are, presumably, also important markets for Nikon.

"In case you wonder, these markets are, of course, covered by entities distinct from Nikon MEA, like Nikon Europe, Nikon USA, Nikon China, Nikon Japan etc. One Evelyn Hockstein wrote in that Guardian article: 'The camera giant chose 32 professional photographers to promote their new D850—and they were all men. Perhaps I can help. [...] As vice-president of the Women Photojournalists of Washington, a non-profit created to promote the role of women in photojournalism [...] With over 400 members in the DC area.' No, Evelyn, you can't help. What you write strongly suggests that you're based in the US, probably in the Washington, DC area. As far as I know, Washington, DC or the US isn't part of Asia, or part of Nikon MEA's area of responsibility.

"Nikon MEA said that they also reached out to woman photographers, but that none could attend the event. Though the fact that no women photographers figure in that marketing campaign is of course regrettable, I'm willing to give Nikon MEA the benefit of the doubt. Re Lynsey Addario protested, well, Lynsey, you were not invited by Nikon MEA presumably because you're based in the U.S., not in Asia. Get over it."

Mike replies: Thanks Bruno, but I have to disagree with your assumptions here. The sexist campaign is acceptable because it's targeted at sexist countries? There are no female professional photographers in Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, or the rest of the division's territory?

The fine-print explanations aren't the point. Nikon is still guilty of not realizing how its campaign would be received in the world. Multinational companies regularly screen advertising and publicity campaigns to determine if and how they'll be accepted in parts of the world to which they are not targeted. It's still a SNAFU and Nikon still has to take the blame IMO. The proof is simple: it's that Nikon is reaping negative publicity all over the place. QED.

You don't need to agree of course.

Help

Help, I'm trapped in YouTube. It keeps showing me things I don't want to see yet can't help but watch. Jay Leno in a Model T rat rod. Old Letterman vs. Leno clips. Interviews with speaker designers. The difference between the SL-1200G and the SL-1200GR. And omigod, Russian dashcam videos—how is there anyone left alive on the roads of Russia?!?

It's evil. I'm helpless.

A few things:

• We got lots of great comments for the previous post, so check back later today to read some. (As soon as I escape from the clutches of YouTube I'll post more.)

• Looks like we're going to publishing a full Fuji GFX review. I'll keep you posted.

• The Gordon Lewis "Precipitation" Print Sale II starts soon! Be on the lookout. Three days only. We'll be offering one size, on 11x14" paper (image size not yet determined), for an affordable $149. This is the print we've gotten more requests for than any other over the years.

• I'm forgetting one thing I meant to include, but I'll stick it in later when it comes back to me. [UPDATE: Oh yeah, eye health. See the last link above.]

Have a nice weekend! Enjoy the Fall/Autumn.

Mike

UPDATE Saturday afternoon: That last link in the first paragraph was a mistake—I'm getting old—but it kinda works, so I'm leaving it the way it is. As a correction...there are a zillion Russian dashcam videos on YouTube, and they're all essentially the same, but here's one.

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Contribute
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Andrew: "I am strangely fascinated by the Wikipedia page titled List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate. Compared to the USA's 10.6 fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year, Russia's score of 18.9 looks a fair bit worse. I'm always surprised that the UK (where I'm from) is in the top five globally with a score of 2.9, which makes even the USA look pretty terrible to me!"

The Lifespan of a Digital Camera

I said yesterday that I tend to replace my main camera every three years.

You remember the old Hollywood joke about the stages of an actor's career?

1. Who is Johnny Doe?
2. Get me Johnny Doe!
3. Get me a young Johnny Doe.
4. Who is Johnny Doe?

(I've seen versions of the same joke applied to both models and photographers.)

You could construct something similar about the lifespan of a digital camera:

1. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is coming! It should be amazing*.
2. Here's what we know about the upcoming Anonycon ZXXXiii so far.
3. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is shipping. We hope to get our hands on a review sample soon.
4. The reviews are ecstatic, and the new Anonycon ZXXXiii is selling like hotcakes.
5. Two newer competitors have appeared that are taking the wind out of the Anonycon ZXXXiii's sales**.
6. User reviews of the Anonycon ZXXXiii are mixed, and there are several known problems***.
7. No one is talking much about the Anonycon ZXXXiii any more.
8. The Anonycon ZXXXiv is coming! Time to dump your old Anonycon ZXXXiii before its value tanks.
9. "I'm waiting for the Anonycon ZXXXiv to ship so I can pick up a used Anonycon ZXXXiii for next to nothing."
10. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is on closeout for 40% off.
11. Available used.

*I love "should bes."
**Get it? Wind? Sails? I crack myself up.
***Even if they aren't really problems.

Okay, that's not funny or clever like the Hollywood joke. But how long does that cycle take? I'd say 2–5 years, just looking at past cameras. There are exceptions, like the long gap between the Nikon D300 and D500 (August 2007, refreshed with an "S" in July 2009, to January 2016, according to DPReview.com—so 77 months from the D300s to the D500) and the short one between the Sony A6300 and A6500 (February 2016 to October 2016, eight months). But 2–5 years covers the majority of cases I'd say.

But that's just one view of lifespan. What about all those happy Anonycon ZXXXiii buyers who got one at step 4? How long will they keep and use their Anonycon ZXXXiii? Because after step 11, they're using a superseded camera, yesterday's news, not the latest thing, which takes the bloom off the rose.

I tend to keep my cameras for three years, but that's just an empirical observation, and it's somewhat wishful thinking—it's only true of cameras I actually "take to" and use a lot, which doesn't include all the ones I buy. I didn't mean to imply that that's the lifespan of a digital camera. I doubt I'm any kind of accurate bellwether, because I'm supposed to use a variety of cameras so I can write about them, and I'm notoriously fickle...

Sony A6500

...And I'm also cheap. I have no doubt I'd buy far more cameras than I do if I had enough money to do so comfortably. Right now it's not just that I want an A6500 or a GX8 or an A7II or an X-T2, it's really that I want all of them. I don't actually want to have to decide.  :-)

But that's not sensible for me. Well, it's not really sensible for anyone, unless it's the way they choose to have fun, but I don't have the spare cash or the income to indulge that kind of thing, let's put it that way.

Let's concede too that the lifespan—I mean the average time we keep our cameras—is likely changing. Slightly older cameras—say one or two cycles old—are much better compared to the newest cameras than was the case in 2009, say, or 2003. Progress in features these days happens more in slight improvements in specs and in ancillary abilities such as video or connectivity than with core competencies. And prices are going up (premium models) and down (budget models), both of which tend to put a damper on upgrade-itis, since it's expensive to buy a new premium model and there are cheap new models competing with your older, outdated equipment, depressing its trade-in value. For example, as a used camera, my outdated NEX-6 that I paid $999 for in 2012 has to compete with a new Sony A6000, which costs only $498, and the A6000 is a better camera. A used NEX-6 body sells for around $175–250 on eBay, and I recently tried to give mine away...unsuccessfully. That's not going to help me rationalize buying an A6500, much less give me much help paying for it.

...And the prices of several new cameras are keeping me from considering them, just speaking personally. The Olympus E-M1 Mark II makes a lot of sense for me, for example, but "2k, no way."

So is it fair to say that the span of time for which people keep their cameras is lengthening?

We tend to hear from constant switchers, upgraders, and gearhounds, such as myself and our friend Kirk Tuck, on the Internet. But that hardly reflects the average user. As a total seat-o'-the-pants WAG (wild-assed guess), I'd say that "normal" people these days are in the process of keeping their main cameras for three to seven years.

But you tell me. How long do you think you're likely to keep the camera you're currently using? Would it fall within that 3–7 year estimate? Do you think that estimate is fair?

But as for "replacing my main camera every three years or so"—that's not the product's fault. That is, as they say, just me.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Top it off.
Give us a “Like” or Buy yourself something

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

Dennis Mook: "Two to three years. Those doggone manufacturers keep coming up with new and very desirable features as well as image quality improvements. It's their fault!"

Speed: "I used to buy a new car every two or three years. Now I buy a new camera every two or three years and my car is 12 years old. I have my priorities."

gary bliss: "Oh gosh, equipment refresh intervals in the face of changing technology: a subject to which I have given some thought and, sadly, I do so professionally in another domain (defense products). I must start at the ends; what are benefits I get from the gear? In my case it is 8x10 photo essays (which any modern gear can yield) and the dozen odd 20x30s that are displayed on my windowless office walls. Subjects range from landscapes to dynamic in-motion targets. Finally, I am more of a lens man and do not like changing bodies; it takes me many months to 'learn' new gear.

"And I am an economist, so 'it depends on the prices.' I am not really fiscally constrained in this field. The short answer for me is 'every other body generation, or about five years.' I need to have an increase in sensor DR/ISO or AF/use case operations big enough to justify the trouble of changing bodies. Between selling my old body at give-away prices to colleagues and the price of the new body, that works out to $25 to $35 per month for body depreciation or less than my three roll/month film and processing bill 20 years ago.

"I don't like the learning required changing bodies; it is not my job any more and a bother. But I've loved the improved files I've gotten from every upgrade. I now use a D810 (love it) and D5500 (hate the viewfinder). I sense technology is slowing a bit, so will likely stay there for a while."

Stanleyk: "I upgraded when the X-Pro2 was released. Undoubtedly when an X-Pro3 becomes available I will probably upgrade. I kept my X-Pro1. I am too attached to it to ever sell it."

Rod Purcell: "I wonder if things are changing? Thom Hogan, as well as some others, suggest that we are now in the era of 'good enough' cameras. As you say premium new models are expensive and often just offer incremental change that in practical terms you don't notice. If you see cameras as tools (rather than a status good) then why upgrade?

"So is your current camera your last camera? Or is it that you just think it's your last camera? I'm on my third last camera. The first one was a Nikon D600, then a Fuji X-T1, and now it's a Nikon D750 (yes, I know this is not rational). I can't imagine I will need anything 'better' than a D750 so (for now) it's my last camera. But who knows...?"

Mike replies: I can't tell you how many times over the past thirty years I've had someone say to me, "This is it, this is the last camera I'll ever buy"...even though it wasn't.

If I had a dollar for every time it happened, I bet I'd have enough to buy a new camera!

Ken (partial comment): "If photographic gear acquisition is like riding a series of escalators up, I've reached my floor. No new gear for me until something breaks or stops working irreparably."

SteveW: "Cameras seem to me on the same path as personal computers. Back in the day it was pretty common to upgrade your PC every 2–3 years to keep up with the technology, faster processor, more RAM, and you usually had to update to keep up with software iterations too that demanded the faster processor and increased RAM. There is a similar 'curve' with cameras that has already peaked. I am able to use my computers much longer now with no issue, five years easy. I think it is the same now with cameras—the sensors are topped out, the images are all fantastic, now we're being hit with features (some pretty awesome no doubt) when the cameras iterate. If you don't need the features, there's really not much, if any difference in image quality. I think I can cruise a long while with my current camera (Nikon D750) with no complaint for many more years."

Peter Wright (partial comment): "I really prefer just to get something I love and then to keep it for a really long time (just ask my wife of 44 years: no updates possible—or allowed!)"

The Terrified Dad: "There is one great thing about being poor—your cameras last longer! My Rebel t5i has been with me for almost two years. The Rebel XS that it replaced lasted six before it died. I'm worried the current Rebel won't last as many years since I have recently gotten into time-lapses and I'm putting a lot of shots on it. I have been scouring Craigslist for an older Rebel on the cheap to help ease that burden, but so far no deals. I would love a 'really cool fancy camera,' but as a landscape photographer who shoots stopped down from a tripod, there's just no way to justify the cost."

Michael Perini: "I'm basically the opposite, while I do read about all the new cameras and technology, I basically hate learning a new camera (to the point where I can use it in the dark). I bought a Canon 1Ds Mark III in 2007 (it was a $7,995 FF 21MP camera when Nikon's top camera of the day was the 12MP crop-sensor D2s). It remained my main camera until this year, when I added a 5D Mark IV which is superior in every way, and cost less than half of the price of the previous camera. What I notice is that it makes a few things easier, but my pictures are not 'better.' If you grew up with film, today's digital cameras are all vastly more capable than 35mm film cameras. New technology enables things to be done easily that were difficult or impossible with film. So my 'system' is photographer-limited rather than camera-limited.

"Not having to learn a new camera is a major benefit to me and results in better pictures. Lenses are a different story , I have tons of those."

BJ: "You left a step out of your digital camera life cycle. This probably should be inserted between steps 4 and 5:

"4.5. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is on backorder at B&H, Adorama and Amazon. B&H reports that their first shipment sold out immediately, and they expect it will be at least six months before they receive their next shipment."

ADDENDUM by Kevin Purcell:

12. The Anonycon ZXXXiii is difficult to find used. Used price drops. Nobody sells them because they're not worth the effort to get rid of. Some years pass as Anonycon ZXXXiii sit in closets all over the world.

13. A camera user of a certain age posts on a forum: "Remember the Anonycon ZXXXiii? I really liked/wanted that camera." "Hey, I still shoot with mine. Works great for me."

14. Small online collective shooting odd street/landscape/documentary images with the weird old Anonycon ZXXXiii is picked up by art photography blog. "I got my one from my uncle. You don't see them around much anymore. It's not like a modern camera."

15. Art students pick the Anonycon ZXXXiii for photography projects because they're cheap, hip and have the retro "Anonycon glow" that everyone likes now.

16. Hipsters seen carrying the Anonycon ZXXXiii. Price starts to rise.

17. A fashion photographer shoots magazine spread with Anonycon ZXXXiii. "These old cameras have a unique look." Price climbs on the used market.

16. Celebrities seen carrying the retro The Anonycon ZXXXiii. Prices are becoming insane and its harder to get compatible lenses.

17. Anonycon ZXXXiii displayed in MOMA. "A classic of its time."

18. Canoikony announce the Canoikony XYZZY is coming: "A retro-styled camera inspired by the classic ZXXXiii but with the modern features you need for today's photography."

[Thanks to Kevin.]

Brian (partial comment): "People rarely buy a new digital camera because the old one stopped working."

Bernard: "My Canon 400D had his 10-year anniversary this year, and that's still my primary digital camera.... Granted, I mostly shoot film, so the Canon only comes out when the end product needs to be digital, and that's pretty much always in a situation where I can control everything and tripods are an option. Still, at 10MP and with good glass, that camera still functions perfectly well at ISO 400. 800 in a pinch, just like with film."

Autumn to Come (OT)

Last night and this morning we had a hard, cold rain, and today I saw the first signs of Fall color in the trees here in the Finger Lakes. A number of trees, not just one.

So it begins, the long Winter, with a nice Autumn to come first.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Preparing for Winter
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Steve Smith: "Is the use of autumn or fall regional? We only use autumn in the UK."

Mike replies: You know, I have no idea. I'd like to know the etymologies. I can say I've always been a bit put off by the term "Fall"—it reminds me too much of Camus, not to mention Jim Harrison or Poe. Or Gibbon! Just seems a little sententious. Portentous. "Autumn" is gentler, somehow.

Matt: "My favorite season! I associate autumn with nostalgia, fulfillment, warmth and wisdom. Kinda the opposite of spring, which to me is nervous, intense, youthful."

Richard Alan Fox (partial comment):

"Snow and ice and cold
Are not meant for the old."

Ken Tanaka: "Is that your Bob Dylan imitation?"

Mike replies: No, Lee Hazlewood.

(Actually the version I have was done by him late in life, in an old man's voice, but it's not on YouTube.)

Jack Stives: "After a few days of Irma's drizzle drenching central Kentucky, this morning we had a heavy fog as the water rose from the ground shrouding all in a ghostly gloom. In our area, Fall fogs are a harbinger of the cold to come."

Speaking of Andrew Jones.... (OT)

...Mike Plews pointed out these Andrew-Jones-designed Pioneer speakers at B&H Photo. The price seemed incredible (i.e., not believable), so I actually contacted B&H to see if it was accurate. It turns out the $129 is for a single speaker, which at least brings it into the range of the plausible. But at $258 for a pair—even with Chinese manufacture, even for a volume-produced box, even for a minimal crossover—it still seems hard to believe. You're buying eight drivers, and two crossovers with eight parts each, which is not as minimal as crossovers get. Never mind shipping cartons, markup, advertising, etc.—there's just not a lot of room in $258 for all that.

I don't know how these sound, but I'm going to venture to guess that they sound great for the price only because the price is so ridonkulous. When I was a kid zoning out to Pink Floyd you could hardly get a pair of floorstanders for that price. If you could at all. And that was a long time ago. In fact the only speakers I've ever bought that were less expensive than these were the very first ones, when I was 14—and they were very cheap, very small bookshelf speakers with four drivers between them. And to put you in context re inflation, in 1973 the top-of-the-line Canon F-1, with a 50mm ƒ/1.8 SC lens, was less than $600.

Not everyone wants cheap speakers, I know. But these are astonishingly cheap.

Here's more about Andrew Jones. No more about speakers, now!  :-)

Mike
(Thanks to MP)

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Like what you read?
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Perfect Camera is Just Around the Corner!

Imperfected: the Nikon N8008s of 26 years ago

Add one part Fountain of Youth, one part El Dorado, one part Shangri-La, one part Land of Milk and Honey, plus one sprinkling each of the inevitability of change and idle daydreams and a hardheaded and practical prognostication of the likely future, and here is one thing that will rise from that happy stew: the mythical ideal camera that's coming along next.

It's almost here. Just not quite.

I got my first lesson in this—I'm dating myself to you younger readers, I realize—when Nikon refreshed the N8008 (F-801) with the N8008s (F-801S). I had switched to Nikon in 1989 because I joined the Paul Kennedy Studio in Takoma Park, Maryland, and the other three photographers all used Nikon, and we all pooled equipment; I was perfectly happy with my Contax gear—my only problem being that I couldn't afford enough of it—but my stuff wasn't going to be useful to anyone else despite the near-exact similarities of the lensmounts. So, using a frighteningly large percentage of my raggedy net worth, I ordered the then-new Nikon F4. Delivery was going to take a month. While I waited for it, I rented an N8008.

Much to my surprise, and despite the decidedly rose-colored filtration through with I viewed my impressive and beautiful new F4 (the Porsche 928 of cameras), I discovered that it wasn't really to my taste. It slowly dawned on me that I actually preferred the N8008 I had rented for a month. So eventually I sold the F4 and used the proceeds to buy two F8008 bodies. This coincided with the peak of my activities as a professional, and over the next three years I put a lot of mileage on those two bodies.

Naturally, I bonded with them, because you'll learn to love any equipment you use a lot (that's the real secret of having great equipment, by the way—use it hard, long, and exclusively, enough that you really get to know it inside and out, and you'll bond with it. That's more difficult now that ever, since digital model change is such an endless churn; it's tougher to step off the upgrade treadmill now than it was in the film era. But it was never all that easy. For me at least).

Also naturally, there were several things about the N8008 I thought could be improved. So I was happy when I heard that Nikon would update the 1988 N8008 in 1991, about halfway through my Nikon years.

At this point I don't even remember what the improvements I wanted were. But I do remember that I considered them to be self-evident. So when Nikon added little more than spot-metering and focus-tracking, two things I didn't need at all, and ignored the improvements I thought were obvious, I felt like Kanye West at the 2009 MTV Music Video Awards. I wanted to jump on stage, grab the microphone out of the winner's hands, and protest. "No, no! The N8008 doesn't need spot-metering and focus tracking! It needs [X] and [Y] and [Z]!!!"

The disappointment I felt was so acute that I can conjure the feeling to this day.

Those were innocent, pre-Internet days, so the vasty camera-culture of the Interwebs that dominates us today didn't exist. Now, we take a number of things utterly for granted that weren't taken for granted then. For instance, that a refresh will happen at all. Or the fact that we think we can influence the reiteration if we argue and complain loudly enough and often enough in public about what we don't like. Nikon was an inscrutable monolith back then. (Er....)

We even have a name for it now that didn't exist then: vaporware.

Anyway, I'm fast approaching the replacement stage for my Fujifilm X-T1, bought in early 2015. It's two and a half years old, and I usually use my main cameras for three years.

So what am I doing?

Waiting for the perfect camera that's just around the corner, that's what. Like the greenest wet-behind-the-ears newbie.

I know, I know. You'd think I'd learn. The camera around the corner isn't perfect. And, never assume.

Actually, I have four candidates in mind (not counting the X-T2, which I might get to use on extended loan from a friend), and two of my four candidates are already real: I wanted a Sony A6300 with IBIS. Much to my astonishment, that one actually materialized. But it was priced very high, and I no longer have any lenses for it except for a Sigma DN 60mm. It would be very expensive to switch back to the ex-NEX line, and past a certain point, cash tends to stick stubbornly to my fingertips.

The other monkeywrench in my decision-making process (did I mention I've never been good at making decisions?) is that I've decided to use two cameras going forward, one being the one in the iPhone 7+. So I also think I should consider the Sony A7II, which has all the features I need and also contains a sensor that is further from the size of the smartphone's, at least hypothetically adding more separation between the two cameras I'd be using.

The two cameras I'm waiting for are the Panasonic "GX9," which would be a GX8 with the GX85 shutter in it, and the Fujifilm X-T2 with IBIS, known on rumor sites as the "X-T2s." So as you can see, since 1991 I have not only not wised up, I've actually devolved...because now I can't even decide what format to shoot. Sheesh!

I also might still be living in the recent past. It's possible that the recent downturn in the camera market might have put the brakes on future development at some of the camera companies. Thom has pointed out that Nikon's new product offerings are historically slim lately, and it's known that Panasonic is rethinking its commitment to the digital camera market. Which I think is a shame, because I'm a real fan. But it's at least possible there won't be a "GX9," but that Panasonic will live with the GX8 and just move on to a different future model when market conditions warrant.

Fuji, at least, seems to be vibrant, alive, healthy, and growing; but the "X-T2s" is the least certain upgrade. Although bandied about on the rumor sites and forums as if it's a done deal, Fujifilm itself has made no official announcement. But I think I should wait for it before making any decisions.

Though not official, the Fuji-with-IBIS is even being designated by the addition of the same letter as the N8008s of 1991! (A bad idea, by the way, because it's the same letter that denotes plural in English—an editorial headache back in those days was how to write "more than one N8008s." N8008ss? N8008s's? N8008ses? Fujifilm ought to pick a different letter for this reason.)

...So, twenty-six years on from 1991, here I am waiting for the "X-T2s" with high hopes. Just like I was waiting for the N8008s with high hopes way back in 1990.

Anyway, you'd think I'd have gotten the message by now. I guess it's just human nature to want to imagine the vista from on top of that next hill, the one you haven't quite crested yet.

And too pleasant to believe just a little in El Dorado, Shangri-La, and the Land of Milk and Honey.

Someday, no doubt, I will learn.  :-)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Easy decision
Give TOP a “Like” or Buy yourself something you like

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

Jamie Pillers: "WHAT? Not waiting for the new mirrorless Nikon that accepts F-mount lenses and has IBIS?? Come on, Mike...get your waiting priorities together!"

Dave Kosiur: "Don't you think it's amazing (and sad, in some ways) that we now think of the 'lifetime' of a digital camera to be 2–3 years? That certainly was not the case for film cameras. Remember 'planned obsolescence' for cars? Now we've got it for just about all electronic devices, whether we want (need) it or not."

John Krumm: "It helps if you buy something that is maybe at the end (and beginning!) of a product line, and who knows, maybe even close to the end of a brand, like the Pentax K1. I know I don't have to wait for a K1s, or at least I don't think so. The lens roadmap now looks increasingly vaporous, so I've made peace with a couple nice Limiteds. Occasionally I get sucked into buying an old manual lens, find out it's not as good as I had hoped, then add it to the pile, but that's about it for gear lust.

"Like an old guitar, the more I use it, the better it works."

Daniel: "While we are at it, have Fuji make the X-Pro2M—a fully monochromatic X-Pro2 body."

Gene Spesard: "Just FYI, according to the Oxford English Dictionary 'vaporware' was in use back in the early 1980s—for software but apparently not yet for cameras."

kirk tuck: "My pursuit of the perfect camera is relentless. I'm happy for a while and then I start to crave change. It's a strange affliction but it's cheaper than sports cars and mistresses....

"Today my brain tells me the Panasonic GH5 is the right camera for me. Who knows what my brain and the industry will conspire to enchant me with tomorrow?"

Best Small Speakers

This is today's "Open Mike" and it's off-topic. I didn't put either of those things in the post title this time because the title of this post is meant to be a search term. People enter things like "best small speakers" into a search engine, and if they can land here, so much the better.

I don't know if that works, but I know I don't try it enough. To paraphrase Jerry Garcia, "I'd sell out if only I knew how."

Of course I don't know if these are the "best" small speakers. I haven't even heard these.

But I do keep my ear to the ground to detect buzz, and the Elac Uni-fi UB5 is creating some. It seems to be about the kind of mini-monitor that most higher-end makers are accustomed to pricing anywhere from $1,200 to $3,000. Pricing cheap-to-make small speakers at Veblen-good levels to reassure buyers is very common in the high-end audio industry. Except...

...The Elac Uni-fi UB5 are only $499 for a pair, as long as you buy the standard cabinet and basic satin black.

These are not computer speakers, so no built-in amp and they're not shielded. And keep in mind that small speakers generally require more power, not less, so small speakers with small amps are not a match. The speaker/amp match is very much like the chassis/engine match in a car. Put a small 4-cylinder engine in a mini-SUV and it seems sluggish and lame. Put the very same engine in a tiny, light sports car like a Caterham and suddenly it seems like a snarling tiger. Same with speakers and amps—people are forever listening to one or the other with mismatched mates and opining wrongly about "how they sound." One of my favorite amps ever was a tiny 40-WPC Creek. But it sounded horrible with the first two speakers I paired it with. Only when I found some speakers with a very easy load did the amp come alive. The amp didn't image well and the bass was nothing to write hymns about, but the midrange and treble were as sweet as sex in a dream. These have 85 dB at 2.83 v/1m sensitivity and are rated a 4 ohms, so an amp rated at 70 WPC or more with decent current delivery would be appropriate. Power needs, and bass response, are related to the size of the room—these speakers would likely be best in a smaller room.

Short way of saying what I just said: don't listen to these speakers with a crappy amp and think you're hearing 'em. Try something at least as good as the NAD C 356BEE. (I love amps with defeatable tone controls, because I listen to old jazz records and some of them, er, need correction.)

While it looks like the classic "small two-way" (i.e., one tweeter, one midwoofer), the Elac Uni-fi UB5 is actually a three-way speaker. What looks like the top driver is actually two drivers arranged concentrically, a 1-inch soft dome tweeter mounted in the middle of a 4-inch aluminum midrange, added to a 5.5-inch midwoofer.

By the bye, these were not designed by an enthusiast/listener type of speaker designer. They were engineered by Andrew Jones of the UK, who has a lifetime of relevant experience—he's been designing speakers since he was 13, and has left well-made, great-sounding speakers in his wake at companies such as KEF and Infinity. He's an engineer who designs based on science, measurements, and established engineering principles rather than by trial and error and listening tests. That will be either a positive or a negative depending on your own values and/or prejudices.

You will also need speaker stands, like these. Very few "bookshelf" speakers sound good on bookshelves.

So why am I writing a post about speakers I've never heard? Because I'd love to hear them, but I can't, and the next best thing would be hearing from you if you give 'em a try.  :-)  If you buy them from Amazon you can always return them if they don't suit.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Speak!
Give TOP a “Like” or Buy yourself something loud

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

Roberto: "I like concentric speakers. I have a pair of old KEF Q1 here in my small room in France, used as proximity speakers on the side of my working table, and they have a wonderful imaging."

Bryan Geyer: "When considering small speaker systems, my experience indicates that realism, accuracy, and convenience are all better served by utilizing very compact two-way sealed box main speakers in combination with a pair (yes, two) of 10-inch sealed-box self-powered subwoofers. This course will prove more expensive than a simple pair of moderate-sized bass-reflex speakers, such as the Elac UB5, but lots more satisfying; also far easier to position in any modest listening room. Bass-reflex type speakers are often critical to place properly, and rear-ported models (e.g. Elac UB5) get especially fussy. Conversely, smaller two-way sealed-box main speakers can sit almost anywhere (on shelves, even on a mantle), and a pair of 10-inch sealed-box self-powered subs can then hide in the room corners. You can get better sound and enjoy more livable decor—and avoid using messy 'speaker stands.'

"Ideally, a setup such as I describe should then be driven through a separate electronic crossover control box, placed at the input to the main stereo power amplifier, to assure optimum complementary hi-pass and lo-pass separation of the audio signal feed. You don't want to route power-hungry low bass signals to your main mini-monitor speakers—or to the amplifier that feeds them. Marchand Electronics makes a suitable (Linkwitz-Riley aligned) 24 dB/octave control unit, XM66, that works very well."

Wolfgang Lonien: "These are good tips Michael, and Elac is indeed a very good and old and reputable German brand—see the German Wikipedia page about the company which isn't translated into English yet. Other good brands are Canton, Heco, Teufel, or Nubert. In general those German companies try to go for a linear sound (meaning: no 'sound' at all, which would be the ideal), so they are very good as monitor speakers as well.

"Don't know if those Elacs are the best—and here they cost more like €350 apiece. My brother and I have Nuberts—cheap and very very good. You can order directly from the maker (and send them back if they don't sound good in your home)."

Stephen Scharf: "I've read nothing but excellent reviews on the Elacs from many, many different reviewers, reviewers I trust and in sufficient number to take the 'noise' out of different reviews.

"I know well of Andrew Jones. He is a genius when it comes to designing loudpseakers of the same magnitude that Nelson Pass is when it comes to designing stereo electronics. I've followed his career closely, and after he left KEF (where he made significant contributions to their speaker portfolio), he went to TAD/Pioneer, and developed two absolutely amazing lines of speakers, the TAD Reference series, including the TAD CR-1 for the über-high end [$37,000/pair in 2012; the full-size version was $78,000/pair —Ed.], and the wonderfully-named Pioneer SP-BS22-LR (doesn't that just roll off the tongue?) consumer speakers that sell for a whopping $129/pair. Both are amazing for what they are, the TADs being one of the finest loudspeakers I've ever heard at any price, and the Pioneers for how incredibly good they sound for their price point. I have a pair of the Pioneers for my bedroom office system and they punch way, way, way above their price point, and I've very much enjoyed listening to them in my main Conrad-Johnson tube-based high-end living room system.

"While I agree with you that Andrew is a (brilliant) engineer who designs based on science, measurements, and established engineering principles, he also listens to his speakers deeply and thoughtfully, too. I've met Andrew at a number audio shows, and though he is an engineer by profession, he's a true music lover. I've seen him many times running a demo at an audio show standing queitly at the back of his room, smiling, his toe-tapping, and fully immersed in the experience listening to music.

"So...just get 'em, Mike."

Mike replies: Alas, not me. I have no fewer than four sets of speakers in my tiny farmhouse...two in the basement in storage and two upstairs and active. My main system is my computer setup only because I spend most of the day at the computer.

Manuel: "Small world! I had a Creek 4330 integrated amp. It sounded wonderful with a pair of B&W DM601 bookshelf speakers, but was completely out of its depth with my ProAc Tablette 50. Yet the day it sounded best was the day I sold it: the purchaser paired it with some super-sensitive Triangle loudspeakers. I can't say I regretted selling it: I regret not having heard the Creek with the Triangles before I got ambitious and bought the ProAcs."

Mike replies: Those Triangles were probably made to be used with low-powered (~35 WPC) tube amps, which would have made them ideal for the 4330.

Of Hurricanes

The Gulf of Mexico from Siesta Beach near Sarasota.
Photo by TOP reader Bob Rosinsky from the series "Horizon."

The world has looked on with concern and dismay at the widespread carnage caused by the recent hurricanes. While it's almost too much to get our heads around the scope of the damage and the extent of the disruption, what's certain is that we have friends in the affected areas...nowhere in the world are TOP readers thick on the ground, but, apart from central Africa, central Australia, and the poles, we come from all over the world. Surely, some of our fellow photographers have been among those who were frightened or uprooted by the emergencies, or those whose lives have been inconvenienced or disrupted or turned totally upside down, or those injured or, God forbid, worse.

And this goes not just for the U.S. but for those in Cuba and the other Caribbean islands as well.

I just wanted to extend our collective concern, caring, and condolences to anyone within the reach of this page who has been affected. Don't think just because life goes on normally in other places that our thoughts are not with you. They have been, and are.

The Editor

Photography Isn't Getting Any Easier

Photography isn't getting any easier mainly because the hard parts are still hard. Seeing and recognizing photographs (both while shooting and while editing) and understanding their meaning and their appeal have never been common skills, and still aren't.

Some things are much easier c. 2017—for instance, getting a sharp, clear, well-exposed, in-focus shot with accurate color in low light with a minimum of labor. But for everything that's easier there are other things that are harder—for example, cutting through the noise and getting attention for your work in a field that's global, overcrowded, atomized, and Balkanized. Much harder now.

Much easier to send a snapshot to a friend far away. Much harder to get someone to pay you a nice living for your pictures.

Maybe people take billions of smartphone shots now, and more power to 'em, but great smartphone photographs are as rare as great photographs ever were. Maybe more so, because you could argue that great photographs are beside the point for most happy snappers today—they're doing something fundamentally different. Like texting, but with pictures. Those kinds of pictures don't have to be "great" to be just fine.

It all kinda balances out, I'd say. How you judge the balance might depend on your viewpoint. But the fact remains: the core of this art was never easy. Finding great photographs is like panning for gold—lots of rock and dirt and water, every now and then a bright flake of gold half-hidden in the slurry. Same now as it ever was.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2017 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.

Nuggets, by Gar
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Geoff Wittig: "Spot-on, Mike. This reminds me of something Brooks Jensen wrote a couple of years ago, about how technology has basically solved the technical issues (exposure, focus, dynamic range) that were so difficult back in slide-film days, so the actual content of your photographs could become your goal. And that is indeed the hard part! I just attended Rochester's yearly Clothesline Art Festival, and there were probably a dozen photographers with booths. Almost all of them presented hypersaturated, perfectly exposed, HDR'd images of iconic locations or quaint Italian villages. Meh. One guy (James Hoggard) showed beautifully crafted, subtle, meticulously composed black and white images of forests that were on a totally different level. So dang it, I had to buy three of them. Wish I exposed and printed something that beautiful."

Mike replies: An actual print buyer, spotted in the wild! This should reassure people who feel that print buyers are like unicorns or mermaids.

David Dyer-Bennet: "The technology used to be more of a filter for who took photography up seriously. I'm relatively confident that people got driven away by the tech a lot more in the film era; the new digital era makes it so easy to take technically competent photos in most cases, so I think some people who would have given up twenty years ago stick around now. Which means we're actually competing with a larger pool, which includes some people who didn't have the tech chops (or, more likely, the attitude to learn them) in the old days. It doesn't seem unlikely to me that some portion of the people previously kept out by technical difficulties have more natural talent for some of the artistic side. So...possibly...in terms of competing with the mass of photographers, things may have gotten significantly harder. If so, that should mean that the best of the photos are getting significantly better. Or maybe the actual 'best' level is so rarified that we won't really see the difference up there, but perhaps the solid core of professional work (or maybe that, too, is the wrong group to judge) will be improved."

Funny Photo Rant

[Ed. note: Our friend JG, he of the Frankencamera, sent me this little rant the other day. Does what happens to him happen to you?]

Words and valuable photo by JG

You know what is really annoying about being a hobbyist photographer these days?

Having friends who sincerely believe that every halfway decent photo is saleable and that I must be a lazy ass because I'm not interested in even trying to sell my recent bobcat photo.

They don't have a clue about what's involved in actually selling a photo, how stock and micro-stock sales work, how much money any given photo is actually worth in today's market, or the minimum technical requirements for the file behind the photo (which my bobcat photo doesn't even remotely meet, because it was so heavily cropped.)

Yet four of them persist in encouraging me to get off my "lazy ass and start promoting it" because they're convinced I can make thousands of dollars for doing next to no work selling it.

And when I attempt to explain to them the reality of the situation—i.e., that a single, cute photo that is passable in quality only as an email attachment is commercially worthless—they simply scoff at me.

When did photography become so focused on making money from sales instead of spending it on gear...? LOL.

And why are so many otherwise smart people ignoring the effects of practically unlimited supply and very limited demand?

Apparently, "every photo is valuable" is the logical, perhaps even inevitable corollary to "everybody is a photographer"? [Rolls eyes.]

JG

[Ed. note no. 2: Do you remember l'affair de Harlan Ellison? Just for fun, I took $25 from the soft money account and sent it to JG. The note with the payment said "One-time First North American e-publishing rights to The Valuable Bobcat photo." I just thought it would be funny if he could tell his friends that he sold the photo. He doesn't have to tell them how much he got for it....]

JG adds: "Actually, my 'rant' wasn't a rant at all, but a very clever marketing plan I devised that targeted one particular potential buyer...and it worked! Of course, now I have to come up with a new plan so I can sell my next photo to somebody else. Surely, there must be an easier way than this to make thousands by selling my photos? Otherwise, it's going to require far more work and take a lot longer than I initially thought...sheesh."

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

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

MikeK: "It's even worse you're a very average hobbyist photographer. When people tell me I should sell my photos, my stock answer is 'To whom?' People seem to think that there is a massive marketplace for selling prints, and if I just had a website I'd be raking in the cash. It doesn't seem to occur to these people that none of them have ever bought a photograph in their life, and most of the people they know haven't either.

"Self-satisfaction is not enough it seems."

John Camp: "Along with mine, that's two bobcat photos in a month. You're becoming a cat photo site, which I somehow find pleasing. Anyway, my shot looks like a standard wildlife photo, though it was taken at the end of a neighbor's driveway with an iPhone. JG's is far better, and suggests to me that perhaps wildlife photographers aren't getting the most for their talent by shooting only in wild-looking scenes. Wildlife in the city sounds like a pretty interesting book...."

Mike replies: That's a fascinating idea for a book. Wildlife, only not idealized. The possibilities for photos would come tumbling along so fast they'd pile on top of each other. Of course I can think of historical and already-existing photos that would fit, like the photo on the cover of Fay Godwin's Bison at Chalk Farm.

jim: "I have a bobcat picture as well but I'd have to go through thousands of files to find it so I just had my wife take this one of me and my tomcat. He could probably beat a bobcat anyway!"

Mike replies: I hope I have not given people the idea that I am going to pay $25 for any picture with any sort of cat in it. LOL!

You guys look like friends, though.

Dan Gorman: "Re 'Does what happens to him happen to you?' Only about every other day or so. I have a dozen or so of my better shots on display in my home and in my office, so I get this same piece of friendly 'advice' fairly often. I know they mean well, but I've long since given up on trying to explain the commercial realities JG outlines so concisely. I just smile and say 'Thank you! I'm glad you like it.'"

Craig A. Lee: "Yes. It happens to me too. Sometimes it even works out to a sale. Last week I showed my composite image for the recent total eclipse progression to someone visiting my day job's office. A couple of questions led to a couple of links, and he bought a print then and there. It will at least cover part of the expense for the website. Shameless link."

mike plews: "I have a lovely shot taken from our back deck of the yard just after a bobcat ran through. I wonder what that might be worth?"

Mike replies: Priceless?

Jeffrey MacMillan: "I have a cat named Robert. Bob for short. I'll send a photo but I expect payment upfront."

Mike replies: Wait by your mailbox. Be very patient.

Ed Hawco: "Not necessarily (or as we say here in Montreal, 'Oui, mais non.' ['Yes, but no.' —Ed.])

"As someone who worked for several years in a stock photo agency that specialized in wildlife, I can say that yes, this photo of a bobcat is pretty unsalable. The drawers in all such agencies are packed with beautifully composed and perfectly exposed bobcat photos in all imaginable lighting conditions, compositions, etc. So it's worthless...until that day when an editor calls and says 'we need a photo of a bobcat peeking around a corner in a built environment, preferably with a window or two behind it. Oh, and we really need to see a plastic garbage bin.' You laugh, but I took calls like that, and it explained why so many of the photos in our collections were very lame—but they had some characteristic that someone somewhere might be looking for.

"That said, the odds of getting exactly that call are so slim that you're better off spending the time at a casino, or buying lottery tickets."

Roger Moore: "I've had some success getting people who want me to sell pictures to shut up by saying that I see photography as an enjoyable hobby, and that if I tried selling my photos, that would turn it into a business, which would sap all the fun out of it. They seem to be willing to buy that argument even if they won't accept the basic economics of the situation."