The Online Photographer

Photo Books Question

Paul Braverman asks: "Why do highly desired photography books remain out of print? There is an obvious demand for Winogrand's Women Are Beautiful and Heath's Dialogue With Solitude. The price for a copy can reach four figures. Why not reissue them? Seems like the estate of those photographers would make some money, collectors would still be able to brag that they have a first edition, and I would be able to buy a new copy at a reasonable price. Everybody wins. What am I missing?"

Mike replies: Many photo books are reprinted, of course, and I'll talk about that in a second. But the underlying problem is the nature of the demand. It's slow and steady. This doesn't fit the business model these days. As I understand it, the tax code was changed in the Reagan years the way inventory was accounted was changed by a 1979 Supreme Court Ruling [see JG's Featured Comment below —Ed.] such that publishers have to pay higher taxes on unsold inventory, which pushed the sales model to an all-at-once "bestseller" mode. An author friend of mine was told that if her book hadn't established good sales within seven months, the publisher would stop promoting it and it would be toast. Contrast this with the classic model, which was that publishers printed a big batch of copies and sold them out of stock for years. One legend in the book industry was that back in the '70s Oxford University Press had brand-new books on the shelves that were more than a hundred and fifty years old, and they could go whole years without selling a single copy. Yet they would stay "in print."

The new model fits books with a bestseller sales curve, but it's unsuited for any book that has low sales but consistent, continuing demand—which happens to describe most photography monographs (a monograph is a book of pictures by a single photographer). I don't generally admit ex-library books to my collection, but I have one book by Henri Cartier-Bresson that is ex-lib because I loved the irony of the "DISCARDED" stamp in the front—it says "No Longer Relevant." The irony is that while that may be true of the information in the pictures—no longer current—but of course it's not true of the photographic artistry of the pictures.

A picture book that sells 25,000 copies right away and then sees demand quickly tail off to nothing fits the way publishers need to do business now, but a book that sells 3,000 copies its first year, 2,000 the second, 1,000 annually for the next five years, and then 500 copies a year for the following twenty years just doesn't work for publishers any more...even though the eventual total sales numbers might be the same.

I might point out that this also better fits certain types of work. A romance novel that's read for entertainment and is part of an ongoing series of books fits a bestseller sales curve quite nicely. The kind of work that suffers is the "magnum opus" kind of thing whereby an expert might work for twenty years to summarize all of her knowledge in a certain field. That type of book should ideally stay in print for many years, to be readily available for the scholar or serious student who needs it. Unfortunately, many photography monographs are closer to the latter type than the former—a photographer might toil for twenty years on a body of work and then want to publish it in one grand coffee-table tome...which should sell to that photographer's fans at a slow but steady rate for many years. That kind of working model no longer fits the prevailing publishing model, unfortunately.

Reprints happen
As I mentioned, many photography books do receive reprints, because of the phenomenon you mention, Paul—the consistent, continuing demand after the book is NLA (no longer available) new puts upward pressure on the price. That often goes on until the pent-up demand justifies another reprint. An example is Walker Evans' American Photographs. First published in 1938, it received a 25th anniversary reprinting in 1962, followed by a paperback version in 1975, another reprinting for the 50th anniversary in 1988, and finally the 75th anniversary reprint (the best reprint as it tries to exactly replicate the original book, only with better paper) in 2012. This version is still available, probably because it is such a staple of Museum in-house bookshops. (Which are excellent places to go look at photobooks, incidentally.)

Reprints vary widely in quality, and you have to be careful. Some reprints are better than the originals, and some are much worse. Although I love books, I'm more interested in the photographs than the books, so I look at content first. I prefer the Pantheon reprint of Brassai's Paris After Dark (or Paris by Night), because the first edition is very expensive, very fragile and often damaged in the first edition because of its spiral binding, and the reproduction in the Pantheon reprint is so outstanding. As an example of the opposite, Eliot Porter's In Wildness is the Preservation of the World is a remarkable book in its first edition—the color printing method used was involved, difficult, beautiful, and no longer even legal because the chemicals need for the process were so toxic. But the 2012 reprint by Ammo is so atrocious that it completely misrepresents Eliot Porter in my opinion and, I would argue, actively damages his reputation. (It's still available but I refuse to link to it.)

Probably the most famous photobook that went a very long time without a reprint was Cartier-Bresson's 1952 The Decisive Moment, which finally received its first-ever reprint by Steidl in 2015 (the reprint is apparently just going out of print now). Although Steidl didn't stint, the reproduction choices have been controversial, and not everyone loves the reprint. It's well worth owning, of course. My problem with it is that although it's H.C.-B.'s most famous book, it's not the best book of his pictures—that honor would go to Henri Cartier-Bresson: Photographer, first published by New York Graphic Society in 1979 and later reprinted by Bulfinch. That one was available for years and is still plentiful on the used market—check eBay Books or Abebooks.com. (I like Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art, too, although you have to take the dense text with a grain of salt.)

One book you mentioned, Dave Heath's Dialogue With Solitude, is a special case, because the entirety of the original book is reprinted within the pages of the epic retrospective Multitude, Solitude which is a must-have in my opinion. That book is getting expensive but of course everyone reading this blog already bought it on my strenuous recommendations three years ago at the low original price.  :-)

The other book you mentioned, Garry Winogrand's Women Are Beautiful, sold extremely poorly at first issue and was remaindered for years, available for next to nothing. It's a bit pricey now but I suspect the demand for it, although ongoing, is extremely low, probably too low for a reprint to be feasible.

More recent books are reprinted too. Alec Soth's Niagara was just reprinted last month by Mack. If you're a fan of large-format color and want it but don't have it, be sure to snag it while you can.

Conclusion
The upshot is: many photography books are only printed once; many photo books are plentiful, maybe even too plentiful, while they're in print, but then get scarcer and scarcer once the book is discontinued and the supply dries up in the face of ongoing low-level demand; and, many famous old books follow a feast-to-famine-to-feast cycle as they receive periodic reprints and then those reprints, in turn, go out of print. To be a real photo book collector is a fascinating game, but anyone with a personal photobook library, however small or large, can play the game at any level. But no matter what level you play it at, it's always a game.

Mike
(Thanks to Paul)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada

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

Darrell Gray: "Disfarmer: The Heber Springs Portraits was a book I always wanted but could not afford—a good used copy was in the hundreds. Then a year or so ago it was offered 'new' at around a hundred bucks. I bought it, and comparing it to a library copy first addition I could not tell the difference. Same ISBN, same publisher, same dust cover, same everything. Did somebody find a box of them sitting in a corner somewhere? By the way, it was $22.50 in 1976."

Kenneth Tanaka: "There can be other factors in play besides those Mike mentioned. For example, many large-run photo books these days are produced in association with shows. Getting the rights clearances and production scheduled to reprint a second edition of such catalogs is rarely as easy as you might think. Works in a catalog are usually owned by various parties who must agree to a second edition. And top printers, such as Steidl, are generally booked years in advance. With respect to money, the only parties to make money from photo books are generally the printers. It’s usually a money-losing or, at best, a break-even marketing or commemorative initiative for everyone else. It’s frankly remarkable when we see a major photo book reprinted independently of another exhibition."

JG: "At the risk of being pedantic, it was not an 'inventory tax' per se that caused publishers to start carrying fewer books in inventory, but a change in the way they accounted for the inventory on their tax returns, which in turn affected their reported profits or losses for the tax year. For an interesting analysis of this—well, it was for me, anyway!—I recommend reading 'How Thor Power Hammered Publishing.'"

Mike replies: Thanks JG. I amended the post in accordance with the information at your link.

The Biggest (Smallest?) Reason to Go Micro 4/3

Left lens: 360g, $1,100. Right lens: 1,480g, $2,100.
Visit Camerasize

This is the argument for Micro 4/3 in one illustration if you ask me.

Both lenses have the same angle of view, within the approximations of the aspect ratio.

Plus, as if that weren't enough, the smaller lens will give you more apparent depth-of-field for the same aperture at the same angle of view! That's a huge advantage, since sufficient D-o-F is so often a headache with longer focal lengths.

The smaller lens weighs 357 grams, the larger one 1480 grams, more than four times as much.

The Panasonic 35–100mm ƒ/2.8 II costs $1,097.99.

The Canon 70–200mm ƒ/2.8L III costs $2,099.

No hate for the BBU (big bazooka users). They've got their reasons, and I'm sure they're good. Whatever leavens your loaf. Whatever shizzles your pizzazzle. Whatever shifts your stick.

But I know which I'd prefer to schlepp.

Mike

P.S. I really want this lens but I can't justify it. Warning, you could hear about this again.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Rob de Loe: "All sound arguments, except the one on the left isn't white...."

robert e: "To put it another way: for around the cost of the bigger lens, one could buy the smaller lens plus a very nice body to keep it on, which package would still weigh less and take up less volume than the full frame lens alone."

James Weekes: Yes, you really, really want it. It is the 12–35mm's big brother. Same image quality, same feel. With these two I shouldn't need another lens, in reality. Curse you GAS."

Nigel Marrington: "Youll be going all misty-eyed when you see one of those old white Canon bazookas, before you turn your toes up. Put one next to your turntable and valve amp, washing machine, toaster and all that other heavy, obsolete inferior junk you never should have got rid of."

David Runyard: "What on earth does 'schlepp' mean? Hold—carry—buy—own?"

Mike replies: I sppelled it with one too many P's—sorry. To carry, lug or drag in a tedious or awkward manner. Origin of schlep
1920–25: Yiddish shlepn to pull, drag, (intransitive) trudge < Middle High German dialect sleppen < Middle Low German, Middle Dutch slēpen (Dictionary.com).

Incidentally, for those of you who enjoy wordplay, you'll want to catch up with linguist and dialogue coach Erik Singer on WIRED. Here he is critiquing the foreign accents of famous actors doing accents in movies (including several actors trying Australian accents). He's very respectful and gentle to actors who do an accent badly (like Michael Caine's "interesting choice") so you sometimes sort of have to read between the lines to know when he thinks an actor is awful.

Wes Cosand: "I was using the Nikon D800 and 70–200ƒ/2.8 for theatrical photography and found that as I aged I simply could no longer hold the lens for a two-hour performance. I purchased exactly the Micro 4/3 outfit in your illustration. It made my continued photography possible."

Jeron: "Ah, good old depth of field. I imagine the Internets went mad over that thought that more D-o-F could possibly be a good thing, and the comment inbox is flooded with very upset messages. The old fashioned idea that a relevant part of the subject should be in focus is vigorously rejected these days."

Dave Karp: "Based on some recent experience, I am questioning whether the benefits of a larger sensor in low light conditions is somewhat overwhelmed by the weight of the larger camera and lens, which makes it harder to hold steady, even with IS. The smaller overall Micro 4/3 package is so easy to handle that I am getting the feeling that the real advantage may go to Micro 4/3. At least for Micro 4/3 vs. APS-C."

The Light's the Thing

Two pictures to illustrate a point:

Before sundown

After sundown

Same camera, same lens, same scene, same framing (or close). The Celestial Assistant suggested a setup change and kindly moved the main light a little—just 15 or 20 degrees, not a huge change. But not subtle either—in the second picture there's a planetary gobo impinging and all the light is ambient.

I've always loved watching how different light changes things. Whether I take a picture of it or not.

It begs a more subtle conceptual problem: is a photograph a picture of the thing in the picture, or the light on the thing? Mostly, I think good pictures are usually of light, whether "what the picture is of" is important or not. Learning how to pay attention to light instead of sorting everything in your field of view into its solid structure is a crucial step in photography if you ask me. In one sense, this didn't need to be a pickup truck...the pickup truck just serves to clarify what the light looked like. Light creates the composition, the mood, the structure of the picture, the color of the picture, on and on.

You can have a perfectly serviceable photograph without good light, of course. Many photographs just show things—places, objects, people, animals. Most of the important aspects of a good photograph, however, a successful photograph, are created by what the light's doing. It's at least half the battle.

You could look at it the other way around as well, of course. That the meaning of the picture is usually in the things it shows, and the light is just a means of revealing it. In the work of Bernd and Hilla Becher, for instance, they insisted on flat, overcast light for every picture, specifically to remove the light from being part of the subject and concentrate visual attention more completely on the structures they were photographing.

It fascinates me how pictures come and go. I took a picture of a farmland scene once that I put up on the blog a couple of years ago. (I didn't do a very good job of capturing it. Wrong equipment.) Since then I've passed that place perhaps as many as forty times and I've never again seen it look like anything. I look at it every time I go by. The light was just right that one time, that's all. There's never been a photograph there since then.

One of the ways to improve your photography is to give yourself an idea. Identical views in very different light would be an idea the right photographer could build a project on, I think, if they had the visual chops and sensitivity.

Back soon
As I do every Monday morning, I'm off to the Moose now to play pool with the guys—Loyle, Jerry, Lyle, Norm, and Tom. Back later to hear what you have to say. I might sneak over early to get a little practice in, too...Jerry's been coming outta nowhere lately and tearing up the joint, and I can't hit the broad side of a barn with buckshot.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Walter Glover: "This post of yours brings two axioms to mind for me, Mike: 1.) My commercial days of making photographs of things are well and truly behind me and, in my personal work the pursuit is to make photographs about things. All the qualities of varying light form a huge component in the vocabulary and grammar of conveying the spirit or essence of a motif. 2.) To achieve such ends the notion that light reveals and shadow gives form is forever emblazoned in my photo consciousness."

Mark Sampson: "Subject and lighting are inextricably linked. In the best photographs they combine to make a 'good' photograph a 'great' one. Chicken or egg?"

Kenneth Tanaka (partial comment): "Light, and its strategic conceptual usage is the tool that hobbyists tend to overlook or misuse most in their photography. Light sculpts form. Light sculpts mood. Light manages the focus of attention. Light, not the camera, is the photographer’s tool."

Mike replies: Couldn't have said it better myself (and, in fact, I didn't).

Ernest Zarate: "John Szarkowski wrote a terrific book, The Photographer’s Eye. In it, he detailed the specific choices photographers make, consciously or accidentally, each time they press the shutter button: the frame, vantage point, time, the thing itself (i.e., raw material), and the detail. Great primer and one of my foundation books. Yet, brilliant though Szarkowski was, I’ve always felt the book missed a big one: light. It’s true most photographers can’t choose their light. It is as you say the Celestial Assistant in control. Give that, though, the photographer has the choice whether to use the light being offered. Your point about the farm lit in glory that one time, and never again (the fickle Photo Gods at their devilish best) illustrates the point exactly."

Mike replies: Excellent insight into the great Szarkowski title and one I've never heard or thought of before. But I think you're right.

Jan Kwarnmark: "Henri Cartier-Bresson: 'I go for form, much more than light. Form First. Light is like a perfume to me.'"

Arg: "Lighten up, Mike!"

Sunday Support Group: An Update about the 'TOP Visitor Center'

["Sunday Support Group" is about long-term projects, mine and yours. —Ed.]

Apparently I can't get this out of my mind. I'm not saying I've tried too hard.

Some readers might remember my initially pie-in-the-sky plan to put in a sort of "shop window" for TOP here in the Finger Lakes, in the form of a small outbuilding that would function as a sort of "visitor center" (as well as a place to set up my pool table). 

Initially I thought this was a sort of a daydream, the type of thing I'd never be able to afford.

Especially when I was engaging in pie-in-the-sky planning as well—envisioning a custom-built oversize building with a deluxe second-story office.

That is indeed out of reach, but, just for fun, recently I've once again started costing out a much more modest version of the same thing (I've done this before). I've spec'd a single-story 18x24x8' gable-end shed built on a concrete slab. It would have electric (easily accessible from my garage, which has plenty of extra capacity in the junction box) but no plumbing. I need to keep windows to a minimum to conserve interior wall space, but might need to include one window for resale appeal should I ever sell the house (I envision a future owner could use the extra building as a grandchild bunkhouse in the Summer vacation months, or convert it to an oversized garage and storage shed.)

One wall would be used for bookcases for my photo book collection (which has never been displayed/accessible in its entirety) and display cases for photo-related curios (I have some odd things, and would have fun collecting others), while the other three walls would be used for photographs. As I've mentioned before, the photos would be hung "gallery style," above and below each other and jigsaw-puzzled together, to maximize the number of photos I could display. Small size prints, not large, would be preferred! I've got some interesting things, from one of Ctein's matrices (along with the magazine cover made of the photo) to a gorgeous 1910 platinum print, to a vintage dye transfer of God and Man (Godowsky and Mannes, inventors of Kodachrome), to an original news photo of a crime scene in which a hit man was found dead in the trunk of a '40s Hudson. Of course we would display many of our print sale prints, and choose new things as well. 

Imagine the eclecticism and eccentricity of this blog, but expressed in objects, books, and original photos, and you'll have the idea. Not a museum, just a room full of cool stuff that's fun to look at, for when people come by. Of course, part of the appeal would be the fact that I'd be the docent, and could tell stories about the stuff.

I've gotten a quote for $13k for the building, including the exterior cladding and the door and windows, and $3k for the slab. The cost of baseboard heating is another thousand (radiant heat in the slab would theoretically cost about $2,500, but I haven't been able to find a contractor who can install it this far out in the country—I'm outside the service range of Rochester installers). Things I haven't gotten quotes for yet are the electrical wiring, fixtures, interior drywall, and carpet. But it looks like the whole thing could be built nicely for $22–25k maybe?

A simple gable-end shed by Woodtex, the builder in Himrod NY I got the quote
from. Picture something like this, only bigger, and with an ordinary entry door.

That's not cheap, but it's a far cry from the $70k two-story outbuilding I was originally fantasizing about. It's within the range of a few fundraising print sales, a Kickstarter, or simply me saving up for it (although me saving up should go into, well, savings). Anyway, it doesn't seem outside of the realm of possibility any more. Also, it turns out I can resell the 11x20-foot shed that's already there. (It's not of high enough build quality to convert.)

The big fun, of course, would be picking the pictures and objects for display. And I've also said this before, but a nice touch would be middle-gray cloth on the pool table, for when we spread out portfolios to look at.  :-)

It was out of sight before; maybe it's actually on the horizon now.

Maybe in two or three years.

Enjoy your Sunday! I'll just be sitting here daydreaming.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Are Modern Lenses At Their Best Wide Open?

Hank wrote: "I wonder now about the idea that lenses are best stopped down two stops from wide open. That certainly is true of lenses from the film era, but I can’t help but feel that today’s (better) lens designs are made for wide open use. It’s possible this was done to appease the bokeh-fanatics, but on some systems, such as Micro 4/3, it would seem to be a requirement, no?"

Mike replies: A lens is said to be "diffraction limited" at the widest stop at which diffraction has the largest negative effect on image quality, the point at which stopping down further only increases diffraction* rather than further minimizing aberrations. That aperture is also known as the optimum aperture. A "diffraction limited lens" is diffraction limited at its widest stop. These are rare.

As an illustration, take a look at Imaging-Resource's lens test of the Nikon 24mm ƒ/1.4G. At the link, go to "Lab Test Results" in the upper right hand side of the page. Then click on "Nikon D3x." That means you're looking at their test results for the lens on a full-frame camera. Now, run the aperture slider up and down the range. The lower and flatter the colored part of the 3-D performance map, the less blur. As you go up and down the aperture range, you can see the performance gets better as it is stopped down, until ƒ/4—that's where aberrations are minimized. After that, the graph of performance begins to rise again—that's diffraction kicking in. So according to this test this lens's optimum aperture is ƒ/4, three stops down from wide open.

You'll also note that the results for ƒ/4, ƒ/5.6, and ƒ/8 are quite close to each other, which is why photographers talk about "the middle apertures" as offering best optical performance.

Note also that the middle part of the field is still pretty good with this lens even wide open. Looking at only the middle of the field is what leads some photographers to think that some of their lenses are just as good wide open as stopped down.

You're right, however, Hank, that modern lenses—especially slightly longer ones, especially ones for smaller formats—do suffer from fewer aberrations at wider apertures, and can be very good wide open. Let's turn to the Imaging-Resource test for the recent Fuji XF 50mm ƒ/2. As you run up and down the aperture range for that lens, you can see that its performance is admirably consistent from edge to edge  and through the aperture range (the graph stays pretty flat and doesn't move up and down very much throughout the range). However, even with that lens, you can clearly see that performance improves as you stop down...even if only a little. That lens, too, is diffraction limited at ƒ/5.6—three stops down, same as the Nikkor above.

You'll find that most lenses are technically at their best 2–3 stops down. Even if their performance is very consistent and the differences are slight. You can see the same thing if you have a complete family of MTF tests, for every aperture.

However, there's a bigger difference for photographers, in that some lenses are so consistent that for practical purposes the technical "sweet spot" doesn't really matter. The difference in the Fuji lens's performance at different apertures is minimal enough that you'd be likely to have trouble seeing it with general shooting, especially handheld.

You can easily use such test information when shooting. For example, with the Nikkor 24mm ƒ/1.4G on FF, I'd shoot at ƒ/1.4 and ƒ/2 only if I knew that center sharpness was all I needed. If I needed the whole frame to be critically sharp, I'd know to stop down to the middle apertures. With the Fuji 50mm ƒ/2, on the other hand, I doubt I'd avoid any of the apertures for reasons of optical performance—they're essentially all "middle apertures" in the sense that all apertures would be decently sharp for ordinary pictorial subjects. Except for perhaps those few pictures in which resolution might be critical. In practice, with that lens, you can't see the tiny measured differences between ƒ/4 and ƒ/5.6, for instance, and I wouldn't hesitate to shoot with it at ƒ/16 based on I-R's test info. (But of course the final test is our own results according to our own eyes.)

As to whether you need to stop down for best sharpness, it's seldom a bad idea, but then again with some lenses it's not particularly necessary. The best advice is simply to learn your lenses—check the tests, look at your own pictures, figure out what you might need to do and when, and then apply that knowledge as best you can! (Sometimes in the heat of the moment these things aren't that easy to remember. Having fewer lenses and keeping them longer helps your familiarity with them.)

As an aside, a quick visit to Imaging-Resource's test graph for the Panasonic 12–35mm ƒ/2.8II will show you why I like it.

Mike

*"Diffraction" in lenses refers to the way that rays of light spread out as they pass physical obstacles—in the case of a lens, the edges of the aperture blades. As the aperture gets smaller, the relative percentage of these diffused light rays relative to the area of the total light passing through the glass of the lens goes up. It's also why a pinhole image is always soft—the diffused rays comprise such a large percentage of the light rays coming through the hole. Very small apertures will always show the effects of diffraction. Large apertures actually have more diffraction, but the diffused light is such a small percentage of the overall light coming through the lens that it's not significant.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Hank: "Thanks Mike!"

Mike replies: Yer welcome.

David A Edelstein: "It's been a while since I've looked at any of those sharpness tests—mostly I shoot with what I shoot with and I don't care about what tests say. However, looking at the tests for the Zeiss 50mm ƒ/1.4 shows exactly why I love that lens: it's very, very weird wide open, gets 'normally unsharp' stopped down to ƒ/2, and then pretty damn sharp at ƒ/2.8 and smaller. Each of those give me specific visual styles I can use for different ideas."

Mike replies: A man after my own heart. Exactly so, and just what I'm talking about—if you know your lenses you can make use of everything they offer, not just their optimal sharpness. It can both help you avoid mistakes and also use their weaknesses to pictorial advantage. A great many art photographers liked less-than-optimal lenses for specific visual properties.

SteveW: "The Nikkor 58mm ƒ/1.4G does not score well with the test chart scores online, and is a controversial lens in that regard: not sharp enough to justify the expense is the primary argument. However, the 58mm is pretty much the reason I stick with Nikon and not try a smaller sensor system.

"The 58mm has interesting characteristics. From ƒ/1.4–4 it is one kind of lens, especially in the ƒ/1.4–ƒ/2.8 range. From ƒ/5.6 and smaller it behaves more like a normal 50mm. To be sure, the 58mm has a wild blur chart on the Imaging-Resource test page: it's my most challenging and fun lens to use, and it won't win any sharpness awards to be sure. That said, I'd probably have switched to Fuji or Micro 4/3 if not for this lens.

"I imagine a lot of folks who read Mike's blog will have similar stories of lenses they are fond of for reasons other than sharpness. In this sense I like Mike's idea of the 'nested' two lens kit. A standard zoom that is nice and sharp and 'normal,' and then a favored prime within the range that does unique things, even if only a really wide aperture or a micro or tilt-shift or whatever strikes one's fancy."

A Very Special Issue of 'LensWork'

LensWork 138 arrived in the mail the other day. The cover says it all: the 25th anniversary issue, with 88 images from the publication's first 25 years.

I enjoy collections, and this one's special. So many reminders of great portfolios past. Don Kirby is here, and Huntington Witherill, Cosmin Bumbut (I own an original of Cosmin's, framed and hanging in my house), Clyde Butcher, Fay Godwin, Shelby Lee Adams, Bradford Washburn, John Sexton, Phil Borges, Wayne Levin, Merg Ross, Lois Greenfield, Ryuijie, Michael Kenna, Jay Dusard, Cheryl Medow, Bill Jay, and so many more. (And so many more than that couldn't be included.)

"Our little corner of photography uses the medium as a means of artmaking," Maureen and Brooks write in the introduction, "—of personal exploration and personal expression." Always with respect toward craft, too, one might add. You can purchase the print edition or the extended digital version here.

Twenty-five years of independent publishing! It's an amazing, amazing achievement. Admiring and sincere congratulations to Maureen Gallagher and Brooks Jensen, and all the artists they've featured and supported over their first quarter of a century.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Eric Brody: "Congratulations to Brooks and Maureen. Lenswork is a wonderful publication. It's unique in its focus (pun intended) on photography, not on cameras or lenses (despite the title) as well as its ad free content. I listen to Brooks' podcasts regularly and marvel at his ability to keep going and keep being creative in his approach.

"I knew him when he lived in Portland and were part of a group of photographers who shared work regularly. My first 'workshop' was with him, Stu Levy, Stewart Harvey, Barry Peril (now sadly deceased) and others at the Oregon Coast in the early '80s. It was the start of my own journey in photography."

Which Full Frame Mirrorless (FFM)? (Short Takes)

Three short takes:

1. Three Sensor Sizes, Same Weight: Despite my fondness for the 20-MP Micro 4/3 sensor, I still think 16 MP is enough for me.

Do you do that? I've always constructed "targets" where various aspects of cameras are concerned, based on what I know of my preferences from experience.

I don't know if that's smart or valuable, and I could understand if it doesn't enter into other peoples' thinking. I guess it's just sort of a mental habit with me. (I'm an "idealizer.")

For instance, I really feel I don't need a sensor bigger than APS-C. I've investigated. I've seen the differences. I can readily see how those differences might be a big concern, even an overriding concern, for others. (See below.) For me, not so much.

Again, I'm just talking about my own subjective choices, not choices that are somehow objectively good for everyone. (It's easy to be misunderstood when status issues are lurking.)

A decent ISO 3200...that's plenty. On and on like that.

Of course, some things you feel more strongly about. I got imprinted on IBIS by the original Konica-Minolta 7D, even though I've never had a camera since then with IBIS that was quite as good. And I'm annoyed—actively irritated, on an ongoing basis—by heavy cameras. Don't like 'em. So I probably pay more attention to weight than most people.

Fuji X-T3 with 23mm ƒ/2, Sony A7III with 35mm ƒ/1.4, Fuji X-H1 with 23mm ƒ/1.4, Canon EOS R with 35mm ƒ/1.8, and Nikon Z6 with 35mm ƒ/1.8. Ain't CameraSize fun?

A long time ago, in days of yore when smartphones were science fiction and we used grownups as politicians, I settled on 18 ounces (510 grams) as a sensible target weight for a camera body. These days, with so many small and even tiny cameras out there, it remains a reasonable target in my opinion. Of course, if I wanted to use a bigger camera for some other reason I would. But sure enough, my GX8 comes in at 487g/17.18 oz. and my X-T1 at 440g/15.52 oz. (The MHG-XT grip I use adds 3.2 ounces for a total of 18.82 oz.)

The Sony A7III felt too dense for me. (Could be I'm oversensitive, but I had neck pain for years as the result of running around with cameras hanging off me.)

How are these for stats, though (all with batteries—numbers from DPReview):

Nikon Z6: 675g/23.81 oz.
Fuji X-H1: 673g/23.74 oz.

And just for fun:

Panasonic G9: 658g/23.21 oz.

That's not a lot of difference between three different major formats, is it? Wow. Of course the lenses would tend to have greater size differences, as the illustration shows.

2. Micro 4/3 Just as Good as FF? Not Quite: A number of people have been passing along a video to me recently. I linked to it the other day. In the video, Marc Newton compares big prints from a FF and Micro 4/3 cameras and his expert printer can't tell the difference. While it seems like a good test as far as it goes, I'd just gently remind people about my old point about the middle vs. the extreme(s) of the various optimization curves. For example, lenses usually perform better at middle apertures, doing less well at the extremes...and so forth.

Years ago, I wrote a column in an English photo magazine comparing the output from an 8-MP digicam and an 8-MP DSLR. As long as you were in the middle of the optimization bell curve for most parameters, there was really not much difference between the two. But as soon as you "stressed" the equipment with adverse conditions, the differences began to be highlighted. To really tell the whole story between big prints from his two cameras, I think Marc would need to do things like shoot in very low light requiring high ISOs, shoot high-contrast subjects requiring high DR, and shoot pictures where subtle color differences were important. I'm pretty sure that adverse conditions would tease out the differences in the sensor sizes. But then, I haven't done the tests either.

It's nice to know, though, that for shots made in good light and good conditions, medium-large Micro 4/3 prints are as good as FF prints.

3. Roger Weighs In On the FFM Wars (and Mike's Pick): A lot of people are fans of various people like, well, me—people who write about or create videos about photography or cameras. Meanwhile, while knowing that I have my own fans, I myself am a fan of some of the same people. Like Thom. And Ctein, who is now a science fiction author. One of the ones I like best is Roger Cicala at Lensrentals. Roger's my favorite lens geek. I love it that his business allows him to gather statistical data, and that he can not only test lenses but strip them down.

The other day, Roger weighed in on the new FFM cameras, in "Roger's Rants."

Meanwhile, people have been asking me which way I'd go, if I were going to with with full-frame mirrorless. And as I was reading Roger's column, my brain clicked in.

Obviously, Sony is the only practical choice for now. Much more mature system with a far broader lens choice. And the Canon, oddly enough, seems the most alluring—I like the control configurations and would love to try that camera out. I'd described the EOS R as "Apple-y" in some of its design aspects. It seems...elegant.

 

Zee Zed Six

But thinking of the long haul, I'd go with Nikon if I were in that category. I'd do as Roger says and wait till the second generation, and I'd be relying on Nikon's promise to make "Other lenses" [sic] in the future that were lighter and smaller but still good enuff. Lastly, I'd choose the Z6 level because of what I was talking about at the top of this post. Why? Nikon is the only one with a large throat diameter and IBIS and a flip-up screen like I prefer. And I like what Roger said about what the first lenses point to about the differences in the companies' approaches to the lens lines.

P.S. You can't always get what you want—didn't that used to be a song? Of course, the camera I really want is the "GX8 Mark II," with tech advancements from the G9, like the bugs worked out of the IBIS and Panasonic's newer shock-free shutter. Or the X-T4 with the X-H1's IBIS, which our resident Fuji-whisperer Stephen says is impossible [UPDATE: but see his comment in the Comments Section. —Ed.]. My crystal ball says neither will ever happen, though, because, well, they're what I want, that's why. That's the way that works. You know what they say: Oh well.

Mike
(Thanks to Jeff Schimberg)

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Rodolfo Canet: "Human tastes are always disconcerting and impossible to be explained by reason. I don't like weight, but I like density, as if it was a subconcious indicator of quality. My Sony A7's density is a big plus for me, and when I tried a Fujifilm X-T2 some weeks ago I felt it unsubstantial."

Mike replies: Right, but the point is that we each know our preferences. That's the important part, not what the preferences are.

Huw Morgan: "Thanks for your point on stressing cameras at the margins. As a music performance photographer, I'm frequently shooting in dimly lit situations, relying on high ISO settings to allow me to get enough depth of field and to choose a fast enough shutter speed to avoid motion blur. Full frame cameras (Sony in my case) just seem to have the low light performance needed for this type of work.I tried APS-C, but the noise levels were just too high. However, at the rate sensor technology is advancing, I'm sure that it's only a matter of a few years before smaller sensors are good enough. Sony is reputed to be just about to launch a mini A9, so maybe we are getting close. I'll gladly ditch the weight and expense of full frame as soon as I can."

David Brown: "You can’t always want what you get."

Robert Harshman: "Much ado about tools. Choose the ones that work for you. They are all good in the right hands and brain."

Steve: "I’m afraid this much variety and new tech will simple freeze me in place for a while."

Rob: "Three guiding principles: a.) buy only what I really, really need; b.) use it to the best of my ability; c.) have no truck with envy, because, after a point, photographic results very seldom come down to equipment."

s.wolters (partial comment): "What always surprises me that there are few reviewers that pay attention to colors. For me they are much more significant than for example resolution. Of course you can set a camera the way you prefer and you can endlessly change things in post processing. But the differences between the standard settings can be enormous."

Mike replies: Agreed. The wonderful color accuracy was one of the great things about the old Konica-Minolta 7D. But few seemed to care. Or notice....

Terence Morrissey: "Why not have several cameras? One compact Micro 4/3 or APS-C and one full frame high-MP camera. Different tools for different jobs."

Mike replies: The key is in your use of the word "jobs." Most pros do have multiple systems, and they can use what suits because they know what the job is going in. It can be a great strategy for amateurs too, but there are a few possible downsides. One is that it's expensive to invest in more than one system. Because I switch systems to write about different things, for instance, I've never had a full complement of lenses in any one system. Even now. Second, it might hinder your ability to get "the feel of the wheel" with cameras that have different control configurations—the ability to let muscle memory take over so you can forget about operating the camera when you're out shooting. Third, it increases the chances that you'll have the wrong camera with you at any given time (because if you just go out to shoot you what you find, don't necessarily know what the job is. There are other disadvantages, but those are three.

Of course it all depends on the individual. Maybe some people have the ability to recall the ins and outs of three different menu systems, for example. I can hardly remember one!

The Fate of the Rose of Sharon

You recall the Rose of Sharon bush outside my kitchen window, from the post "Rose of Sharon Before and After" two days ago...last pictured on July 30th. Here's what it looks like now:

Eeek!

Poor plant! Wha' happen?

These nice ladies (and their compatriot, not pictured) gave the whole place a haircut yesterday—weeded all the gardens, moved plants around hither and yon, and (pardon the expression) spruced up the entire yard. The woman who's standing is Michelle, gardener extraordinaire. You can't hire her in the Springtime; she's too much in demand. They did more work in five hours than I could do in a week.

This Rose of Sharon was a big healthy beauty, but I have several Rose of Sharons (or would that be Roses of Sharon?!) on the property, and the magnificent tree right in back of it is the only magnolia tree hereabouts. The big R.o.S. bush right in front of it was blocking its sunlight, and it didn't bloom very strongly last Spring. So this R.o.S. had to get a severe pruning in order to let the magnolia have more sunlight in the coming year. Don't worry about it, though. R.o.S.'s bounce right back, usually stronger and fuller as a result of pruning. 

But notice...you can see it in the top picture too...

Still one bloom, just like in the first picture the other day, from July 18th.

These are Fuji pictures, by the way—from the X-T1. The 35mm ƒ/2 Fujicron (sweet, sweet lens) in the middle picture, the 14mm ƒ/2.8 (my favorite-ever ultrawide) in the other two.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Yoram Nevo: "It would be 'Roses of Sharon.' Sharon is a region of Israel. Originating from an Akkadian word meaning 'forest' since historically this region was densely forested. The expression Rose of Sharon, in Hebrew havatzelet ha'sharon, is from the Bible Song of Songs book, chapter 2. Greetings from Israel, from your regular—Yoram."

Mike replies: Toda Yoram!

That Addictive Little Sensor

Detail. It just has a "painterly" look somehow.

A while back (April 2017) I wrote of my budding infatuation for the Sony IMX 269. The huh?

That's the 20.4 MP Micro 4/3 sensor so far found in only in five six cameras: the discontinued Panasonic GX8 (in which it debuted), as well as the Panasonic G9 and GX9, and the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and Pen-F.

(Let me know if I'm overlooked any.) [UPDATE: Forgot the GH5! —Ed.]

Entire frame. Note that the blogging platform we use softens images somewhat.

I don't know what it is about this sensor, but it's addictive. Does it somehow mimic film (if it can be said to, it would have to be some sort of "super" film), and I subliminally recognize and respond to that? I don't think so, but I don't know. I do like the "grain" of the way it renders at higher ISOs.

Apropos of the "Best Comment Ever" post, I once heard something that has stuck in my mind: that the craft we put in to our pictures mostly serves to make craft invisible to people who look at our pictures—and that the geeky gear enthusiasms we gush about and fight over, on the other hand, are something photographers indulge in for their own pleasure. (Such things "nourish our enthusiasm," was the way Ansel Adams rather gingerly put it.)

If you like full frame, for example, I wouldn't argue with that for a millisecond. I get it. I've owned FF cameras and I recently caught up with the state of the art compliments of B&H Photo, which sent me a Sony A7III (currently back-ordered) to try out. Lovely camera, beautiful files. Honestly, if that's what "sends" you, I have zero objections. Not veiled, not backhanded. No argument from me whatsoever.

GX8s with Pana/Leica 45mm Macro (left)
and 12–35mm ƒ/2.8 zoom (right)

But I love the way the 20-MP Micro 4/3 sensor renders. My current GX8 might be the only digital camera that's ever given me that "indulging myself in geekery" feeling...that sense that I'm photographing things to enjoy how pretty the camera is going to make them look. It has a look of edge sharpness, a distinctive crispness.

Scrumptious. Lovely. I really like the "look."

D'ye ken?
Do you shoot with one of the five six cameras? If you do, let me know if you know what I'm going on about. I'd be interested to know if I'm not crazy. (Actually I'd also be interested to know if I am crazy.)

Mike

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama

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

Paul Richardson: "I have the Pen-F, and no, you’re not crazy. Or we both are, as I know exactly what you mean. I’ve gone back to certain images I’ve taken with the Pen-F, and I’m baffled by the look of them—in a good way. Painterly is an apt word to describe it, but it’s something more, which I can’t quite put my finger on. And that’s with the 'cheap' 14–42mm lens."

Tom Hassler: "Well Mike, I can't speak to the state of your sanity, but I will second your opinion of this sensor. It does have a lovely, long-scale look that really benefits the format. I'm currently shooting an Olympus E-M1 Mark II and it rarely disappoints. Sony is on a tear lately with state-of-the-art sensors in several formats...."

Cecelia: "Based on my experiences with multiple Micro 4/3 cameras and my current OM-D E-M1, I completely agree with you. It is much better than the 16-MP and 12-MP Micro 4/3 sensors I have used. Lower noise at low ISO and more pleasing noise at higher ISO. The dynamic range and colors are generous. I also like the Nikon 24-MP full frame sensors—they are even nicer, but come with the good and bad of full frame."

Omer: "Yep, I see that in the pics from my GX9, though I thought it was a Panasonic thing."

Matt: "I shoot with two of those cameras. The E-M1 Mark II, which I bought the day it came out, and the GX8, which I just bought used last month. While I'm a sucker for larger formats (which I have indulged to the extreme with an old 8x10 view camera), there is definitely something to be said for the 20MP Micro 4/3 sensor. I find that I'm really enjoying using it at ISOs that really are 'too high for it' (6400 and even 12800). For the right subject the desaturated colours and visible noise/grain of 6400/12800 add something to the image. This is in stark contrast to every other digital camera I've had where strong noise was something I could never come to terms with in my images."

John Camp: "I have two GX8's, and if it weren't for GAS, I could happily shoot with them forever. In lots of ways, they're perfect cameras—they're small but not too small, as are the lenses; the sensors are large enough to capture all the quality I need; they have IBIS; and I do like the files. I shoot with a D800E as well, and it's hard to explain the difference in 'look,' but it's there. I think of the GX8 files as looking 'dusty,' but that sounds bad, and it's not bad. It's more that the pixels seem to contain more than one color, though that can't be true. Another thing. I know that you (Mike) are a wide shooter, but the Olympus 75mm ƒ/1.8 is something else. I've not seen the new Z lenses, obviously, but I really think I've never had a lens as good as the 75mm. And I've had a bunch of Summiluxes."

Dennis Mook: "As a Fujifilm X-T2 and Olympus E-M1 Mark II user and really loving the Fujifilm colors, I created a series of presets in Lightroom mimicking the Fujifilm film simulations so I could apply them to the Olympus raw files. As good as they look in the X-T2 images, they seem to look better applied to the Olympus files. They seem to have a different, even more film-like quality."

Rose of Sharon Before and After

The Rose of Sharon bush outside my kitchen window on July
18th. Hard to see at this size, but note single flower.

I don't think I hallucinated this—is there a large photo-centric or photo-heavy social media site that has banned "before and after" pictures? I think it's Instagram. Maybe Facebook? I think to prevent before-and-after weight-loss come-ons. But that might be wrong. Sorry...I can't remember. (Told you my brain is shrinking.)

Same bush 12 days later, July 30th

Anyway, I like before-and-after pictures. One of my favorites was taken in the '90s with a then-antique Spotmatic—two B&W pictures of a pan of cookies before and after baking. Simple pictures. But...tasty.  :-)

As with many photographic ideas, once you start thinking about it and looking for them, more and more possibilities pop up.

As far as weight-loss before-and-afters are concerned, all I can say is that I am all prepared with the "befores"!

And while we are on the subject of things that grow, may I just say how sorry I am that blueberry season is over* and that green bean season soon will be. We've had a wet Summer and it's been a banner year for green beans. I think I've eaten fresh-picked green beans close to every day for the past month and a half. But broccoli season just got going and will be going strong until the first hard frost, so that's consolation! I'm trying to get the Mennonite farmer up the road to let me go out into his broccoli field (two acres) and cut my own. I suspect he thinks I've got a bit of a screw loose, but broccoli oxidizes fast. It's better for you if it's eaten right after it's picked**.

Enjoy your Sunday. I'm off to work on my book about photography, which is going splendidly if I do say so myself. I'm writing it all off the top of my head and just telling stories. Which, it turns out, I have a lot of. And it even includes quite a bit of sensible practical advice, even. Lots of fun to write. I'll enjoy it even if no one else does. Because when you get right down to it, photography should be fun, right?

Mike

*But don't cry for me. A farmer near me fresh-freezes them and sells them out of his freezer all Winter.

**Source: Eating on the Wild Side by Jo Robinson, a must-have for anyone who eats fruits and veggies. Recommended to me by a TOP reader, and thanks again for that. It's in the form of an encyclopedia, with entries for every major edible fruit and vegetable, telling you about their history, the various cultivars, how to shop for them and how to cook them for maximal health benefit. Big surprise—there's no rule that covers everything, like "always eat raw" or "always eat fresh" or "always eat organic" or any of the other popular ideologies. Everything's different and you have to take each one individually and case by case.

P.S. Someday soon I will do a post about the organic heirloom apple orchard near me. Tomorrow I plan to get some fresh-squeezed 100% pure Concord grape juice from the vineyard across the main road. Life is good in the Finger Lakes.

Original contents copyright 2018 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.

B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK

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

Gordon Lewis: "Please do write a post about the organic heirloom apple orchard. I remember when you and I visited that orchard for the first time and hearing all about the owner's background (not what one might expect) while trying to decide among all of the exotic varieties he had. I can't remember which one we decided on, but I know for sure it was amazingly crisp, delicious, and bargain priced."