The Online Photographer

Something Else

There aren't (m)any: Well, I feel a little better this morning...after doing some digging last night, it appears that there are no "histories of the digital transition," at least that I could find. So that makes me feel a little better about not having read one.

By "digital transition" I mean what I've defined before as the main period of the transition to digital imaging, from 1994 to 2011, with antecedents going back to the earliest glimmers of digital in the 1970s, and the extension of it (still dynamic, certainly) from 2011 to today. At best what we seem to have gotten so far are specialized chunks of that history, and updates in the form of afterthought-type chapters tacked on to earlier histories. But no author has really attempted the synthesis yet. Granted, it's a vast subject, and generally so ill-understood that even museums with trained curators haven't much more than the faintest idea how to cope with the cultural changes yet. (Some do try. For one thing, however, museums, like art dealers, deal in objects.)

Something Else: Speaking of recent dyspeptic meanderings and the state of photo history, here, in Spanish, is a brief article, which I'm told is controversial, in which none other than Sebastiao Salgado himself (surely among the top two or three dozen most eminent photographers alive) predicts the demise of photography in 20 to 30 years. I was only able to read the auto-translate version, so I can't go a lot farther into the subject. In auto-translate form (never dependable) the second paragraph supposedly reads, "...despite using a digital camera for a long time, the Brazilian photographer does not seem very convinced that the changes of recent years have been for the better. 'I do not believe that photography lives more than 20 or 30 years. We will move on to something else,' he assured during the delivery of the 'Personality Award' in Rio de Janeiro."

I know what he means. We at first (dully, perhaps?) believed that digital would just a further technological step forward, helping us do with greater freedom the things that were already established practice when it came along. By now, it's become quite clear that the changes are going to be much deeper than that. Truly, photography is in the process of becoming "something else" than it was in its first 155 years.

Dense irony: Reader robert e wrote: "Oh the irony! As we debate how easy photography has become, the most publicized photo of the day is one of the most difficult ever attempted."

Clarence H. White, about 1920

First photo teacher: I've mentioned Clarence Hudson White, founder of the first photo school in the USA, several times in recent weeks, and it turns out there's an excellent recent book out about him—it's called Clarence H. White and His World: The Art and Craft of Photography, 1895-1925. It came out only a year and a half ago, in 2017. Its author, Anne McCauley, is David Hunter McAlpin Professor of the History of Photography and Modern Art at Princeton University. The photo of White above is by White's student Doris Ulmann, who was a most interesting photographer in her own right. She had a high-flying career as a society portraitist, but also went into Appalachia in a time when it was generally inaccessible to outsiders (cf. Catherine Marshall's congenial 1967 book Christy) to make portraits of what were then called "hillbillies"—in the same soft-focus, platinum-print style she used for the swells.

A companion book for Clarence White would be the 1996 Pictorialism into Modernism: The Clarence H. White School of Photography by the award-winning curator, museum manager, lecturer, writer, historian of photography and coordinator of publications Marianne Fulton, who has numerous outstanding books to her credit. The two little one-paragraph editorial reviews at the Amazon page, from Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal, give a nice little thumbnail synopsis.

That's all I got for today...

Mike
(Thanks to Inaki Arbelaiz)

P.S. ...Well, maybe a little something else:

Somethin' Else by Cannonball Adderly, 1958

Something Else!!!! by Ornette Coleman, 1958

Something Else by the Kinks, 1967

Something Else by Tech N9ne, 2013

Something Else by the Cranberries, 2017

Original contents copyright 2019 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.

(Not) everything must fade away

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

Mike Connealy: "Biographies of photographers can be a useful way to explore the history of photography. I have read a couple recently about photographers working in the '20s and '30s, which is the period of most interest to me. Larisa Dryansky's bio of Ilse Bing is particularly good in the way it places the photographer's work in the context of the time. Brassai's autobiographical Letters to My Parents is enormously entertaining."

John Custodio: "Check out this history of the digital transition—From Darkroom to Daylight by Harvey Wang."

psu: "Re Salgado's interview, as a Spanish speaker it seems to me that his main point is in the third paragraph, where he says that 'photography is coming to an end because what we see in the cell phone is not photography. A photograph has to materialize, you have to print it, you have to be able to touch it.' Sure. I guess. At some level I think this is nonsense though. But even if you believe it...it's not like you can't print phone pictures. It's just that the majority of people don't, just like the majority of people in the past did not make prints past the little 4x6 automatic color prints from the mini-lab. So what's different?"

Joseph Reid: "My Spanish is by no means perfect (or even especially good) but I agree with Luis Aribe's comment. The third paragraph spells out Salgado's point, which, I think, Mike has made on TOP, that a photograph is an object. A digital image is something else. I don't agree that photography will be dead in 20 or 30 years (barring the perfection and ubiquity of holographic imagery). When I first read about digital photography, circa 1991, I thought photography would be dead in 20 or 30 years. I figured that, because digital would make manipulation so easy, the culture would lose faith in the veracity of the image and the image would become obsolete as as a representation of reality. Now, clearly I was wrong and I no longer see that happening. I think there will still be a need far into the future to record events and objects faithfully for many different purposes. As an art form, photography may evolve as painting began to evolve while photography was young—to increasing levels of abstraction. That didn't kill representational painting but it probably made it a much smaller field.

"Which way photojournalism goes (and I classify Salgado as a photojournalist) is another matter. The personalization of all forms of journalism is trendy, and the democratization of journalism—crowdsourcing, 'citizen journalists' who happen to be in the wrong place at the right time with a smartphone—is having an effect on how news is presented (or may be a consequence of it, chicken vs. egg, I don't know). Examples are gonzo print journalism and the U.S. TV news industry's insistence on inserting presenters into the narrative. This affectation has spread to photojournalism and art (see D'Agata's work) and is what just about all individuals' social media accounts are about. So, I don't see photography dying in a few decades, but Salgado may certainly be correct about the aspect of photography that we call the print. Not that this makes me happy."

Followups and Updates: The Eloquence of Coincidence (OT)

• Yesterday's post made me realize that I am not giving my current food experiment a decent chance. I am cheating too much, so I don't get to find out if the WFPB plan actually makes you feel better. Thanks to John Gillooly for asking the question. I really need to redouble my commitment so that I get good data on it, with my statistically insignificant but personally very significant experimental sample of one.

One commenter said he eats nothing but meat and has never felt better. I should point out that it's really all about outcomes. "Keto" (ketosis) diets, under myriad guises, do make you lose weight. But the statistical outcomes are much worse—you greatly increase your chances of getting cancer or heart disease over the long run. As my brother says, life is like a roll of toilet paper—the closer you get to the end, the faster it runs out. The whole point of food-as-medicine, if you ask me, is not just living longer (though that too) but being healthier, more fit, and with fewer medical problems as you age.

Heart disease has been the leading killer of Americans since the great influenza epidemic of 1919 subsided. It's the leading killer of cardiologists, for Pete's sake. Kim Williams thinks that's because they keep up on cardiology papers but not nutrition papers. I have a friend who is slim and fit at age 94—he golfed less than his age last year, when he shot an 89. I'd rather be more like him than be morbidly obese and taking forty different medications and feeling awful all the time as my life runs down to, you know, the little cardboard tube.

• I tried to skewer the carmakers the other day for gouging their customers with overpriced options on cars expensive enough that they ought to  come from the factory loaded. So it was quite a coincidence that the newspaper this morning relayed the news that the two Boeing "Max" jets that went down in clear weather in recent months both lacked two safety features that Boeing provides on the model only as options.

A fun little story about coincidence. I do "believe" coincidences happen, of course—a great little essay that touches on it is Chapter 2 of Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. The chapter is called "Entro, Evo, Info" (entropy, evolution, information). Recommended, although nobody but me would buy a book for one chapter.

Even so, coincidence can certainly be eloquent sometimes. The other night at a meeting of my 12-step program, the topic was prayer. A recurrent suggestion of our program is to get down on your knees and pray every morning, regardless of whether you believe in prayer or not. A member said that his girlfriend had challenged him a few days earlier about not saying his prayers. He defended himself by arguing with her that he didn't need to, but then, he said, "ever since then, the topic of prayer has been coming up again and again, and each time it does I somehow find myself on my knees." Then he said, "I suppose it's just coincidence."

At that, another member quipped, "no such thing as coincidence," and just as he spoke, the first person accidentally knocked his empty coffee mug to the floor, and the handle broke. I chair the meeting, and the broken mug was right in front of me, so I hopped to my feet and picked it up the mug and the piece of broken handle for the guy. As I headed to the kitchen (we meet in a Parish Hall) to throw it away, I noticed that not all of the handle was there. As I headed back to the meeting room, I ran into the guy who had broken the mug, who was heading for the wastebasket himself. He held up the second piece of the broken mug handle, saying, "see what I mean? I mention getting on my knees in prayer, and one second later I'm on my knees again, looking for this under the couch."

• Here's how to bake a potato properly. After I learned this I realized I had never really tasted a baked potato before.

You need GEAR, of course:

You'll need a great big honkin' two-tined fork (I use this barbecuing fork) and an accurate digital meat thermometer. Scrub a Russet potato with a vegetable brush under running water and remove any eyes if you care to. Blot dry with paper towel, then poke the bejeebers out of it with the fork—I jab it 16 times for 32 separate holes! Don't be shy—it makes all the difference, and I'm amused to admit that yes, I've run the test (once a reviewer...). Coat lightly with olive oil. Set it right on the oven rack uncovered. Don't wrap it in foil—that's how you get a steamed potato, not a baked one. Set the oven on convection if it has it. Bake for as long as you need to to get the internal temperature of the potato to no less than 210°F (99°C). This might take longer and require a higher temperature than usual cookbook recommendations. You just have to take it out of the oven and take its temperature until you get the time and oven temperature down pat.

Separate the potato from the skin right out of the oven
and the skin will stay crispy and delicious

Once done, with a table fork, immediately make a row of holes in the top of the potato lengthwise and push the ends together, and empty out the skin. By separating the skin right out of the oven you keep it nice and crispy/chewy; if you let the potato cool in its skin, the skin will steam and become soggy and much less pleasant to eat. Then let everything cool to close to room temperature. This converts some of the starch to indigestible starch (very good for the lower reaches of your gut) and reduces the potato's glycemic index* (sometimes called the "insulin hit" or "glycemic load") considerably. You can either eat it cool as I prefer, or reheat it in the microwave—once the starch converts to indigestible starch via cooling it doesn't convert back if reheated, which is why cold potatoes in things like summer salads are better for you than hot boiled potatoes. Eat with nothing on it save maybe a little table salt. No butter, no sour cream, no nothing.

A baked potato prepared this way will be moist, delicious, and flavorful all by itself, without a trace of the dryness, graininess or hardness that baked potatoes are notorious for. Eat the folded skin like a steak, cutting it into chunks with a steak knife. It's the best part.

Mike

*The Glycemic Index (GI) is a relative ranking of carbohydrate in foods according to how they affect blood glucose levels. Carbohydrates with a low GI value (55 or less) are more slowly digested, absorbed and metabolised and cause a lower and slower rise in blood glucose and, therefore insulin levels." (Source: University of Sydney)

Original contents copyright 2019 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.

Want to help?

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

Dave Van de Mark: "I am looking forward to trying a potato baked just as you have instructed and eating it 'plain' too. As a boy, I literally made a 'soup' of 1/2 butter and 1/2 potato inside the skin and wolfed it all down—yeoww, I still want to do that but wish to live another week.  :-) You made no mention of baking temp—is 350 to 375 a good range?"

Mike replies: The key is to get the center of the potato to 210°F. For me it's 425 degrees for 1:10, but ovens differ....

Follow-Up: Ronnie's 1,000th

This is a lot of fun even if you're the furthest thing from a fan. Doesn't everyone enjoy seeing moments of exceptional triumph in any sport or game? Ronnie managed to reach the magic 1,000 mark in the winning frame of Players tournament. For those of you who don't watch snooker, ordinarily the audience is not allowed to call out when the players are at the table. Far from the case at the end of this break, as you'll see!

Fun.

Fittingly, I'm off for my regular weekly date playing pool with my friends at the Moose Lodge. Back later with some non-gear-related photo posts, including what I did on my weekend off.

If you're wondering, what the players are talking about at the end of the break as the crowd cheers is that Ronnie accidentally sunk the cue ball on the last shot, which happened to cost him the high score of the tournament, for which there is a bonus prize. If he hadn't done that he would have had a 141. As it happens, his opponent, Neil Roberston of Australia, had the high break with 140. So the cue ball going in at the end took £5,000 out of Ronnie's pocket and put it into Neil's.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2019 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.

Want to help?

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Follow-Up (Kirk Tuck)

I had a nice long talk with Kirk yesterday, and he sounds great and is doing fine. He's just got too much on his plate—his photography business is going great guns, necessitating huge amounts of travel; family obligations likewise; and there's just not enough time in the nooks and crannies left over to write. One myth I'll dispell—he is definitely not slowing down. The guy does more work in a week than I have the energy to do in the average month. He's 63 and keeps pace with guys half his age on arduous remote location shoots, for example.

And talk about a straight shooter. Just says it like it is, no worries either way, just serves it right up. Admirable.

He also promised me a 10,000-word camera review for TOP, when he can find the time (he was joking—he said that's what he starts with in order to end up with one that's 5,000 words), so we'll see if anything like that materializes. Knowing Kirk, though, I wouldn't be surprised at all to find it in my inbox....

Mike
(Thanks to KT)

Original contents copyright 2019 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.

Here’s the situation

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

Bruce Bordner: "He does have a point about what to write: photography is in a very awkward stage right now. The standard blog fodder has been equipment reviews and technical advice to the newbies. As you've said, the responses now are 'it's all good enough' and 'the AI in my phone does all that technical stuff.' You (like Kirk) have an advantage in being more focused on how to take the right picture and treat it properly. Show people how to have a 'good eye' and find the images around them that are worth sharing. Nobody involved will get rich, but maybe happy. I would like to know more about the photo tricks used by my Pixel 3 phone, and how to customize them to my 'look.' That's all we have to be individual. In a few years you may be writing instructions for training the AI in your new camera. I like automation if it works my way. And some people will still be looking for info on platinum printing...."

John W: "Love that man. Says what he means and means what he says...without being mean."

Heart Health and Lens Health

Thanks for all the kind responses, both in public and private, to my post yesterday. No, I'm not going to start posting detailed reviews of exercise machines (the only non-photographic thing I'm really in danger of doing that with is pool tables—I have strong opinions and tastes around that subject. But if I ever do that, and I very likely never will, it won't be here on TOP).

There are many things that keep me from walking in the Winter—cold is just one. Ice and the danger of falling is a biggie; guilt over not taking the dog (when I do, he makes it into a much less comfortable start-stop affair, but I feel really bad leaving him at home); darkness; and, well, bleakness and its effects on my soul. It can get grim around here in the Winter months. Not for nothing is it a Summer resort area.

There isn't a self-respecting mall within an hour of here, so mall walking is out.

I want a treadmill because I like to walk, and I know I like treadmills much more than I like using stair-steppers, elliptical machines, and spinning bikes. I know I'd use a treadmill much more if it were here and easy to jump on to. But I really don't have room for one. Also, I know from experience that I would enjoy using a well-built one but I wouldn't enjoy using a cheap, flimsy one. And of course the better built treadmills are, the bigger, heavier, and more expensive they are. Sigh.

In the Summer my favorite exercise is climbing Welker Hill. It's right here, and it's a workout—520 feet of elevation in about a mile and half. And it's truly gorgeous up there—I've had some transcendent walks on glorious Summer evenings. And now the doc says it's okay for me to do it. It might not be an everyday exercise, though, because the trip back down is very hard on the knees. Preserving the knees and hips is very important for continuing exercise in older age—in fact I'd say "pushing yourself" is for young people; "preserving yourself" should be the mantra for us older folk.

So I'm off to check out the local health clubs this afternoon—there are two in town. I have a bad track record (er, sorry!) with health clubs—for me they've basically been a "fat tax" in the past—an otherwise completely useless fee you pay for guilt about being overweight. But the doc says to work up to half an hour five times a week, and maybe I can actually get into a habit. I've got a good reason...heart health.

[UPDATE: We have two health clubs in town and yesterday I joined the first one I looked at. Bad shopping, but it's only $25 a month, which I understand is about par for the course but seems cheap to me, and it has a whole wall of very large, very sturdy commercial treadmill machines.

Chances of success? Maybe 30%—constancy is my worst thing. I only paid for one month. I'll post an update in a few months.

In the meantime, good luck with your own exercise program. I heartily recommend the New York Times Seven Minute Exercise, if you're fit enough for it, even though I can no longer do it myself because of my shoulders. Bear in mind that you can also customize the sequence as long as you get to the right muscle groups. The 7-Min. Workout actually made a big difference for me. You'll get results. —MJ]

Lens-related
Lest we get too remorselessly off-topic here, check out Kurt Munger's famous "Dirty Lens Article" if you don't know it already. Kurt's experiments mirror my own, which I carried out with an old Vivitar zoom in the early 1990s—destroying the lens in the process. Fungus is the one exception, because it advances, and it can be contagious to your other lenses. Do beware fungus. But otherwise, the takeaway is that you just don't need to worry about minor imperfections in or on your lenses. Bits of dust, blemishes or small scratches, coating on the outer elements flaking off—you just can't see it in pictures unless it gets really bad.

Remember: when evaluating lenses, look at the pictures, not at the lens. If the pictures look fine to you, then the lens is fine. Don't sweat small flaws you can see in or on the glass—as Kurt proves, and as I've proven to my own satisfaction, they really just don't matter. Only if something wayward or untoward shows up in your pictures have you got a problem.

Mike
(Thanks to Phil)

Original contents copyright 2019 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.

Here’s the situation

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

Robert Billings: "I am 68 and have been taking a daily walk with my dogs for the last 15 years. It is mostly flat terrain and is about one mile, or thirty minutes. My present companions are border collies that I inherited from my father. When my schedule allows, I coincide my walk with the sunrise. This morning it was 20 degrees and we walked into a strong north wind. I can't say I enjoyed it, but Sugar and Spike did. It took a while for them to learn to be city dogs (they were formerly farm dogs) but they figured it out. I let them sniff to their heart's content, mostly. They allow me to take the occasional picture of the same river, the Arkansas in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It is a part of my life and I get great joy from it."

Joe's Version

Commenting on the two "Still Pond" images (above) in the "Editing Headaches" post, Joe Holmes wrote:

"That's a tough edit. I like each image for a different, simple reason. I like the round clump of trees in the upper left in the first image, and it's a shame to cut it off. But I like the foreground framing grass in the second image.

Composite image by Joe Holmes from files by Mike J.

"So here's what I would do, and, in fact, did with your two examples: In Photoshop, I brought both images together as layers in one file, manually lining them up and then using a mask to combine the two (which is easy in this case because the pond water disguises the line where they join). It took me less than three minutes. This results in an image that's not going to fit any stock frame or mat because the aspect ratio is now odd, but who cares? It combines the best of both originals.

"Now let me say that I'm not addressing your concern about editing, taking multiple shots, etc. That's a different issue, and my Photoshop solution would not work for most issues, like your wrestlers. But still."

Joe's version is better (in that it's likely to be more pleasing to more people) than either of my two alternatives. I confess I chose these shots because I thought they'd make good fodder for discussion, which they did, but I also confess I didn't anticipate this refinement—which also means I didn't see the possibility Joe saw. This neatly illustrates one of the ways in which the process of editing has changed conceptually. These days we can effortlessly construct digital images according to our desires (limited, as Joe mentions, by the opportunities afforded by the specifics of the images—and, I would add, by the skills of the post-processor person—this, for instance, is beyond my Photoshop skills), without leaving any telltales behind. It complicates the process, because editing is no longer a binary choice, a choice between "all yes" (warts and all) or "all no," between "print it!" and "rejected." Now we can say, in effect, "yes, if this is added or changed."

Where photography started for me conceptually was with the primacy of the lens image—what you saw on the groundglass of the view camera, for example. The integrity of the image cast by the lens was paramount. The print was just trying to "fix the shadow," i.e., provide a record or report of the lens image. Attempts to combine or blend different exposures were illegitimate on their face, although it was done throughout history here and there—the Baltimore pictorialist A. Aubrey Bodine used the same sky negative in different prints, for example. But in Joe's example above it's just a fix, a post-hoc creation of a more thoughtful composition than I managed to see at the scene in real time.  

Mike
(Thanks to Joe)

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:

Curt Gerston: "This topic creates some interesting conflicts in my brain. I think if I made an image from a composite like yours above, I'd have a hard time framing it on my wall...I would always look at it as inauthentic somehow. It would bother me. It wouldn't last long on that wall. I don't think I could give it as a gift, put it in a book etc. And yet, I think if it was a single image, but there was a can of Coke floating in the middle of that pond, I'd have no problem cloning it out. I can't explain why I draw that line, it's just a feeling I have about what's okay and what isn't for my own work.

"I have nothing against what Joe did, by the way...looks great, and if he or you are happy with it on your wall, all the better. It's really interesting to see where people land on image manipulation. As I point out to my students, photography isn't truth, but I think we all try to express some kind of truth in our art. What feels true to us is personal."

Doug Thacker: "Re 'Where photography started for me conceptually was with the primacy of the lens image—what you saw on the groundglass of the view camera, for example. The integrity of the image cast by the lens was paramount.'

"The key words here are 'lens image' and 'integrity.' Photography, up until recently, at least, is about the capture of something from life, that something being the lens image. Having captured it, we may dodge here and burn there, but it remains an image cast at a given moment onto your recording substrate by the world at large. It was you, the photographer, who isolated this moment from the endless flow of time by fixing it as an image, you who chose the framing, deciding what to leave out and what to include, and you, lastly, who selected this particular image to show versus all those you don't show. Implicit in this image was its integrity: the viewer relied on the fact that you saw this moment and isolated it as a picture. This is what it meant to be a photographer, and what it meant to be the viewer of a photograph. The integrity of the image was, as you say, paramount, and pity the poor charlatan who was found to have violated it. (Case in point: Steve McCurry.)

"But now comes digital imaging, which is something altogether different. Here, the captured image is merely raw material, elements of which are combined with other raw material to create an image that the 'photographer' sees only in his mind's eye; the image capture is merely a preparatory step, with all the action taking place in so-called post production.

"This can only mean that photography as most of us understand it is dead, to put it bluntly, and those who still practice it in the former way are merely indulging an anachronism—one for which we must take them at their word, for what that's worth.

"'Photo-based illustration' might best describe where the technology has led us. That's not better or worse, necessarily, than what we call photography, but it's definitely not the same thing, and more akin to painting. Painting with light, in this case."

Mike replies: Okay, but then how do you and Curt feel about this?

It's a stitched pano made from five vertical shots of the view from my family's former lake house. Is what Joe did really any different, or do stitched panoramas also make you uneasy? By the way I'm just asking, not challenging.

Rob de Loe: "I too started with the 'primacy of the lens image.' I'm becoming less conservative about this as time goes by, but cautiously. For a recent project I finally broke down and used focus stacking because tilt and depth of field alone were not giving me the results I needed. I like the results, a lot, but it bothers me deep down that the final picture is not traceable back to a single exposure. It's not rational. But I feel like I've passed through a portal and can't go back. Is this what it feels like to become a 'made man' in the Mafia?  ;-)  That which I have done cannot be undone.

"Anyway, I predict that in a few years—once we've moved fully into the realm of computational photography—this whole conversation we like to have about 'how much manipulation is OK?' will seem ridiculously quaint!"

Joe Holmes: "Re '...a more thoughtful composition than I managed to see at the scene in real time.' Or than was possible with your lens and where you could stand. It may have been physically impossible to frame the image as in the composite. So there's another wrinkle in this discussion: creating a new image that was impossible to shoot in a single frame. That kind of compositing was being done long before digital photography, but now it can done so easily and quickly that we can perform these tricks routinely."

Mike replies: No, I can't claim I couldn't have gotten what you've created. I just liked the second of my two shots better when I was at the scene. It wasn't a matter of not being able to get something close to your composite in one shot, it was that that wasn't what I arrived at when I worked the scene. I checked, and I shot 11 pictures at the scene, all quite different, and I figured I'd gotten what I wanted with the second shot I presented here.

Here are two more of the rejects from the 11:

As you know there are an infinite number of pictures even within a very limited subject or scene. It's not like there's ever just one picture there and our job is just to find it.

Henning Wulff: "I'm definitely in two minds about this stuff.

"For many years I worked as an architectural/construction/commercial photographer. The final image and what it represented were all that mattered and had to suit the requirements of the client. I did all sorts of manipulations, editing and rephotographing as required (and as was possible with film and masking). When Photoshop came out, I did whole projects with version 0.72 or so, as I recall from numerous crashes. For nearly 10 years I was the best in my area and specialty, and made lots of money. Photoshop was just the digital perfection of what I had been doing for decades.

"For my personal photography, it's been more the opposite, with 'honesty' and 'integrity' throughout. It's in quotations because there really is very little true integrity and honesty in all of this, as so many artistic decisions override the integrity and honesty. However, I try to be true to the found image. Maybe that's why I shot most of my commercial stuff with SLR's and view cameras and most of my personal stuff with rangefinders. The 'seeing' is essentially different between the two camps.

"As for the panos; again, if I was shooting for work, stitched photos with massaging would have been ideal if available. As it was I shot Horizon 150's, possibly stitched and Roundshot 120's, because that was what was available, and then worked hard to 'fix' things after the negative was produced. Now for any intense personal purpose I still shoot those, even though the iPhone or even any digital stitched can get you panos with a lot less hassle, and you can always 'fix' things. The Horizon and Roundshot images I don't fix, and don't think about fixing while producing them.

"In the end, if you're doing it for money you have to produce the images your client likes. If you're doing it for yourself, that's the person you have to satisfy. There are no other rules.

"By the by, the 'aspect' intolerance thing is one area I'm gobsmacked about. The square format was invented so that cameras you couldn't turn on their side were usable. I've shot 17x6 vertical to square to 6 cm high and about 40cm horizontal on my Roundshot, and they're all reasonable formats. Different images need different formats. Shoot what makes sense. They're all good."

Rod S.: "Historically, a photograph has always meant a single exposure.

"That definition embodies a critical aspect of photography: That the photographer was right there at that spot and succeeded in overcoming the technical hurdles of making the exposure successfully, and did both in that moment.

"It's these momentary aspects of photography that makes photography special. And challenging. The photographer has had to capture the image in that moment. The photograph is painted with light, not painted with software. Consequently, it's 'accurate'—and widely acknowledged as such—in terms of the appearance of objects within the frame.

"It's these momentary aspects of photography that separates photography from, say, painting, or digital illustration, because those other art forms involve a lengthy process of creation or manipulation, and we intuitively understand that the appearances of objects in the image has changed.

"So Joe's composite pond image and Mike's stitched pano are not 'photographs.' Each image is a 'composite image.'

"Why is this unambiguous terminology resisted so much by some digital practitioners?

"Digital practitioners who continue using the word 'photograph' to describe their composite or manipulated images are trading on the public's regard for photographs (sadly, now damaged) as single images made in the moment, which reliably show how things looked at that moment."

Open Mike: Teavivre (Tea Update) (OT)

["Open Mike" is the often off-topic Editorial page of TOP. It appears with iron discipline on Wednesdays. So is today Wednesday?! It is!

That's the story and I'm stickin' to it. —Yr. Hmbl. Ed.]

-

Bao Jia Cun Organic tea garden in Zhe Jiang Province of China
where some of Teavivre's teas are sourced.

...And the adventure continues. So far I've tried about 25 different kinds of green tea.

I don't like green tea very well yet, but it's healthier than coffee. The caffeine dose in the coffee I like messes with my heart (I've had a-fib). I had to prove that to myself: stayed off coffee for a week or three, then had my usual mug. Sure enough, I could feel the effect. Not good.

So that's it for coffee for me. (I don't like the idea of decaf.) I was a daily coffee drinker for most of 45 years—even roasted my own beans for a few years, which was delightful, a real pleasure.

But life is change, and ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

First step with green tea was to get away from teabags. Processing and handling dried tea leaves results in a certain amount of dust, flakes and bits, and those are used in teabags where what you can't see doesn't hurt you. Tea dust over-extracts easily, resulting in bitterness and astringency (that sourish taste with a "dry" mouthfeel—the goal with tea brewing is to extract for as long as you can before tasting any astringency. This requires some experimentation; good suppliers give you a starting point, but don't let it end there. Experiment for yourself). I did find a few teabag teas I like. One was in a sampler from Stash Teas that, alas, I've never been able to find again, and another was Tazo Organic Pan-Fired Green.

But loose leaf tea is the way I'm going to go.

Second step was to work out a brewing method. I got that lovely Willow & Everett electric kettle with temperature presets which is a fantastic luxury—it works perfectly and is surprisingly accurate. It was a good purchase; I love it. So nice to be able to heat water to just the temperature I want. (The 205°F setting is perfect for pour-over coffee, too.) And it turned out that the little glass teakettle I bought has a large oversized strainer that happens to fit perfectly in the top of my old Shaker Village mug I've had since I was nine years old. The glass top of the teapot covers it nicely. So the pot itself was prematurely retired and I brew tea right in the mug—it makes about 15 ounces, which is two of the traditional American "large" cups of tea. (Our cups of tea are about 8 ounces; Asians tend to drink cups of 3.5–4 ounces.)

Brewing tea. (Here's that timer. It's weighted so it doesn't slip around.)

I've tried a number of sources such as Harney and Sons, Tea Source which Ctein likes, Teavivre, Têtê Tea (from the Himalayas in Nepal, which I think is cool), Clearview Tea Co. which is owned and run by the wife and daughter of a Canadian TOP reader, and several others.

I've settled on Teavivre as my chosen source, for four main reasons:

1. They offer free samples of your choice with your first order. Very nice. You can buy samples too, with enough tea for two American cups or four Asian cups. Good for exploring.
2. You can choose for your tea to be delivered in a tin. If you buy the smallest (3.5 oz.) amount of tea, the tin only costs a few extra bucks and will hold 6–12 ounces of tea. They're high-quality tins with double-seal tops. You only need a few for the favorite teas you'll keep in stock, but it's nice to be able to get these cheaply.
3. They offer a wide variety of teas, good if you want to experiment to find the ones you like best. (Têtê Tea by contrast offers only three, white, green, and black.)
4. They're based in Fujian province in China, which is where the people who own my favorite local sushi restaurant come from. Through that connection I know several people from Fujian province, and I've gotten interested in it and have learned some things about it. So I like that connection. Of course that's just me.

Many of the teas come direct from China when you order them (all the samples and tea in tins come from China, for example), so it takes 8–10 days. Teavivre does have a new American warehouse now, in Arizona, so certain teas in zip bags bags come from there and take less time to arrive.

I've found a few I like, but I won't mention which one I've settled on as my daily drink. It's got a flavor I love and is low in caffeine. My choice isn't a big secret or anything, but everyone should choose according to their own taste and everyone's taste will be different. I'm certainly no tea expert. (I don't even have a very acute sense of taste.)

Finally, I should mention in passing that I like the language on Teavivre's website. It reads like expressive English written (or translated?) by a Chinese person, which seems honest to me. I hope they don't change that. It's perfect just the way it is.  :-)

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:

TC: "The community college where I teach photography recently had a field trip for teachers, taking us out to a tea plantation in the mountains of Pinglin, Taiwan. There we not only listened to presentations on the tea-making process, we were able to pick and process some tea ourselves.

"It was very interesting, and gave me a renewed appreciation for tea even though I drink it every day."

Antonis R.: "Easy to see the underlying connection to TOP. Teavivre founder Angel Chen writes: 'My husband, Chris, also my partner, sometimes would laugh at me, Since all earnings are spent on more trips to further discover great tea. In return I would say: 'Why don't you talk about upgrading your camera?'"

David Evans: "That is a beautiful kettle, but I would be lost without a water level indicator. Also I'm amused at the claim that with a 1000-watt element 'your water boils in a fraction of the time compared to a normal kettle.' In the UK a normal kettle is 2000 to 3000 watts."

Mike replies: Yes, but I would assume that you in the UK know best when it comes to tea kettles!

Mani Sitaraman: "The Internet really is a fount of knowledge. Here's a detailed explanation that is a good follow-up read to David Evans' comment about electric kettles in Britain as compared to those in America, titled 'Why Kettles Boil Slowly in the US.'"

Mike replies: And here's an explanation of "fount of knowledge" vs. "font of knowledge."

Followups and Updates

A few notes this silent gray morning:

• TOP's big Fall Print Sale will start on Cyber Monday, the Monday after Black Friday. That's November 26th this year. Please do plan on stopping by to view the images—they're outstanding and I think you'll like them. This sale is very important (very) for the health and viability of this little website, and I hope you'll consider supporting it. Spread the word!

• If you've sent me an email and not received a response, I apologize. I'm hopelessly behind on email. I could spend eight hours a day answering email, no exaggeration. I do read them all, unless I miss one by mistake.

• There are going to be a lot of new comments posted soon (I'm 120 behind in the moderating this morning [UPDATE 6:22 p.m.: all caught up]). Check back at least to the Photoshop post to see some good new ones. Complicating this is that the moderation interface is still partly broken after TypePad's big maintenance more than a week ago, and still giving me trouble. It's slowing down my workflow, not critically, but significantly.

• I think some of you commenters resolved the "no card slot in new Mac Minis" issue for me. It's probably just that too few buyers used the feature, so it became a liability, not enticing to shoppers, thus no longer worth providing. But a longtime guiding principle of this blog, and of the magazine I edited before it, is that I/we want photographers to have what they need to do their work. Whatever that is. That's who, and what, I advocate for. Most photographers do still use SD cards, so the lack of a card slot on computers is inelegant and an inconvenience. And about Apple "hating" us: companies aren't actually people, U.S. law notwithstanding, and don't have feelings. In the post it was an (indulgent?) example of what Ruskin called "the pathetic fallacy," but it amused Yr. Hmbl. Scribe and that's always half the battle.

• I should have mentioned that I made a conscious decision not to use Apple Aperture (past the trial period) because of having been "twice burned" as they say. I'd been around long enough to watch Apple serially neglect and abandon software. Yes, I do understand why they stopped supporting ClarisWorks/AppleWorks. Yes, I'm still sullen about it. I wasn't going to put in the time mastering Aperture only to have it be neglected and abandoned. Turned out I was right, which is too bad. Companies, though not people, do have patterns, like people do.

• Of course Panasonic could make the little 20mm focus properly, O Ye of Little Faith, and no, it would not make the lens too big or heavy. Bigger and heavier than it is now, yes, but who needs it to be as small as it is now? The wee bairn feels like it's made of paper and weighs three ounces! Eighty-seven grams to be precise. They could go nuts and make it weigh 50% more and it would still be small and light and handy.

• The mindless Internet is currently on a "Micro 4/3 is dead" kick. Ignore that. Micro 4/3 is not dead. Let's wait and see how FFM (full frame mirrorless) actually fares before assuming the whole world is going that way, shall we? History is littered with Next Greatest Things that never took off and never caught on even though they were going to. 

• I'm still trying to switch to green tea from coffee, erasing the habit of 45 years, and a TOP reader, photographer Glenn Brown from Ontario, Canada, kindly sent me some samples from his wife's and daughter's tea company. Their tea is well labeled and the beautifully designed packaging includes a clear back on the bags so you can see what they tea looks like. Very nice. Check out Clearview Tea Company of Creemore, "a small hamlet north of Toronto." The Organic Lucky Dragon Hyson is mild and tasty. Thanks to Glenn, Rebecca, and Maggie.

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:

Tom Bell: "I was going to offer to send over some real tea from old Blighty to some importers at the docks in Boston...lovely Darjeeling or Broken Orange Pekoe. Then I just thought maybe not a good idea...too taxing.  😎  " 

HR: "There are now eight full-frame mounts: four mirrorless (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic/Leica) and four DSLR (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax). Did I leave anyone out? There is one Micro 4/3 mount. I suspect all eight of the FF mounts will not be around for many years."

That Was Nice

Well, that was nice. The previous piece got quite a bit of attention from around the Web (just like the old days, before advertising took over and made people reluctant to link to other sites), and traffic reached a four-month high point. I had to go back to June to find a day with more visitors than yesterday.

And I want to thank everyone for their reactions—I'll be sure in consider peoples' responses and additional information in the final chapter. (The post was about half the chapter. The other half is on aspect ratios, ideal formats, and proportion.)

But back to regular life! And thanks, everyone, for reading.

Mike

P.S. They're repaving the road down to the lake opposite my office, so my ability to sit here and work is going to be curtailed...I can't take the noise. I'll probably have to leave the house and go find refuge somewhere. Noise pollution is not the worst thing about modern life, but for me it's right up there. I live in a rural area and still the noise pollution is pretty bad.

P.P.S. Just wondering if more people have a "favorite rectangle" or "favorite aspect ratio"—? My impression is that most photographers adapt pretty easily to whatever they're shooting.

I started off shooting square (a Kodak Instamatic) and have done most of my shooting in my life with 2:3, but I think my favorite was 645. The actual image area of 645 is 56x41.5mm (it varies slightly on different cameras), or 1.35, which is very close to 4:3 (1.333...). But for some reason I don't think of Micro 4/3 as being similar to 645. Maybe I should start thinking of it as mini-645!

Examples of 645 by Patrick Cox.

Never found a 645 camera I really liked, though. It wasn't for lack of trying. The cameras were either too big and klunky (Bronica ETRSi) or the lenses were too slow (Fuji GS645s).

Ironically, during the only time in my life that I was shooting intensively with a 4x5, I masked the camera (physically, with a thin strip of steel) to give the same proportion as 5x7, which was my favorite rectangle at the time. This was probably because I had fallen in love with a brand new Deardorff 5x7 on display at the old Ferrante-Dege in Cambridge, Massachusetts. It also gave me a nice clear strip on 4x5 negatives to write on and made handling the negatives easier.

Mostly, though, I shot 35mm and printed to the black film edge like H.C.-B. I'm a firm believer in composing to the viewfinder view—the idea that you can "crop later" just leads to confusion, inconsistency, and sloppy seeing. Your mileage may vary. Although, as I've noted before, the only time I shot intensively with a 6x6 camera (an Exakta 66 Mod. 2), I cropped almost everything to a 645 vertical. On that camera, I found some thin adhesive ruled lines at a graphics arts supplier and used them to mark the viewfinder.

Proportion has always been a big deal to me; I like getting things in just the right balance. I used to think this was artistically important, but maybe it was just fastidious.

Hmm, I really should start thinking of Micro 4/3 as "mini 645." It might make me like it more.  :-)

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:

beuler: "I always thought you did not care about aspect ratios since you never mentioned it as a factor when considering Micro 4/3. I am obsessive about aspect ratios, to the point that when cropping, I insist on maintaining the original aspect ratio. In my mind, cropping from to a different aspect ratio is a very radical step to be done on very rare occasions. To me the great advantage of 4:3 over 3:2 is that it looks appealing in portrait as well as landscape mode. I hate 3:2 in portrait mode—or would that be 2:3?"

Rob Campbell: "I loved shooting 6x6 on Haseselblad 500 cameras. I suppose that an early infatuation with LP covers had something to do with it; amazing art on those things. Trouble was, 10x12" papers took a chunk off the sides, but square on that paper format looked good, too. But this has me drifting dangerously off towards dreams of long-lost WSG D papers with magical glaze...."

Bill Mitchell: "My philosophy is that I'm not Cartier-Bresson, and that darned few photographs can't be improved by a little judicious cropping."

Josh Hawkins: "I've found I can adjust to most rectangles pretty well, but I tend to prefer 2:3, but that's what I learned on and have used for most of my life/career. The only format that's really stymied me is squares. Squares drive me up a wall. I just can't make them work. They're too static, stable, there is no natural dynamic for me to work off of. Every few years I try to work with them for a bit, and it always falls apart. I'll try again soon I'm sure."

Patrick Medd: "I've shot (and shoot) most ratios from APS-C to 4x5/8x10 but I think my favourite is the square, that is the one I find myself cropping the least. Hipstamatic and the 6x6 apps on the iPhone demonstrated to me that the square chimed with my way of seeing and I liked it so much I went out and bought a Hasselblad 501cm so I could shoot 6x6 film. I've never been fanatical about printing to the black lines, I've always felt that if a crop improves the picture then I'll crop. Having said that I greatly admire the work of photographers like HCB and James Ravilious who did follow that practice. I certainly have a sloppy way of seeing and perhaps my relaxed attitude to cropping is the cause. Maybe I should do a OCOLOY with the Hasselblad and print to the edge; I'll go away and think about it.  :-) "

The Answer to the Nikon Question

How do you correctly pronounce Nikon? Turns out that Eamon, who used to work for Nikon, knew the answer.

Quoth he:

Aaaargggghhhhh!! This "debate" drives me insane. There is no debate. It's settled. Zero room for disagreement. Nikon Corporation (that's Nikon Japan) officially and consciously blesses all regional pronunciations of their company name.

This is policy, agreed upon decades ago—likely in the 1950s—in some meeting room somewhere in Tokyo. Nee'kon is correct. Neye-kon is correct. Nick-on is correct. Many others are correct.

This was explained to me when I was a Nikon employee by the Executive Vice President of Nikon Inc. himself, in the flesh. I can still picture the conversation, 25 years later. And to anticipate the usual objections: Nikon Corp. is the ONLY, the SOLE, the UNITARY authority on this question. "Nikon" is not a natural word in the Japanese language. The company that is now Nikon (then Nippon Kogaku, K.K.) made it up. It's a brand name—like Kodak or Xerox. A neologism, and maybe even a portmanteau (that's debated). It was likely first conceived in the Latin alphabet, not in Kanji. Nikon Corp. gave birth to this name, and they own it. They get to make the rules about it. And their rule is clear: all regional pronunciations are equally correct. If you doubt this, just listen to their own regional advertising, produced by the company's various subsidiaries around the world. You'll hear several different, completely official, pronunciations. Oy. I feel better now.

Addendum: Of course, it goes without saying that however they pronounce it in Scotland is wrong.

It was news to me, so I learned something today as well. So now we all know, and it's official: all regional pronunciations of "Nikon" are correct! I like it.

And now we need a few Scottish readers to post videos of themselves saying "Nikon."

Mike
(Thanks to E.H.)

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:

Dave Stewart: "Ma Naekon D700 disnae day video, ye ken...."

Ian: "Now all we have to do is figure out how to pronounce 'Eamon'...."

This Is How It Goes On a Blog

So this is how it goes on a blog. You do one off-topic post about some stray wacky topic like washing machines, which has utterly nothing to do with photography, and you expect to leave it at that, but you can't just leave it at that—because then people bring up interesting and different perspectives, and all of you learn more about it, and it turns out that, well, there's more to talk about. So then you do a second post about washing machines...and suddenly you're talking about appliances instead of photography. And new people who come to the site in the middle of the discussion think everyone here has lost their minds. Doesn't really matter if the subject is parrots or pool, it always seems to work the same way.

Well, we haven't entirely lost our minds. This will be the last post about appliances, and I am going to do my damnedest to relate it back to photography at the end.

Anyway, yesterday, Jim wrote:

Let's not forget that survivorship bias is a thing. Every appliance I have upgraded (fridge, washer/dryer, dishwasher, microwave, etc.) has always been because the old ones failed (even after extensive heroic repairs in some cases), and the new ones are significantly better in all ways.

Jim's got a point. My first house in Waukesha, which I bought in 2000, came with an ancient 1970s refrigerator that Xander and I used for a number of more years—maybe 12? I can't recall exactly. The thing sucked down electricity, it was loud, and it didn't do a very good job of preserving food, although I didn't realize that till it died. It had no interior light, because the bulb it needed had passed into history. Amusingly, when it finally came time to replace it, I was severely constrained in the models I could choose, because America had gotten fat between the 1970s and the 2010s: the space allotted for the fridge in my kitchen was too small for most then-current models of refrigerator. I had to buy one specifically made to be extra small to fit older kitchens.

The same thing had happened in the kitchen of my little walk-up studio apartment in Washington D.C., but a generation earlier. The kitchen had been built to house those little 1940s "iceboxes" that are about as tall as a person, so the landlord had plunked a then-current '80s fridge, which was too large to fit the space provided, into the dinette area, awkwardly.

Anyway, to replace our '70s fridge in Waukesha I bought a Samsung with two doors that was less fat, and less deep, than ordinary 2012 refrigerators. Even so, it was bigger than the old one and just barely fit.

But as Jim said, the new one was significantly better. And I mean significantly. I can't recall the technology, but old refrigerators evidently used air from the freezer to keep the refrigerator section cold, and the air was dry, which dried out the food and caused it to go bad sooner. By 2012 that problem had been identified and solved. I was accustomed to lettuce, even when wrapped, going bad within a week. To my amazement, the new fridge could keep the same kind of lettuce wrapped the same way fresh for up to three weeks. Food retained flavor better and didn't acquire that "frozen" taste that we used to accept as normal. And no more noise. And I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure the new one was much more energy efficient. The new fridge really did work much better than the old one. (It even had a working interior light—woo-hoo, luxury.)

Of course I don't agree with Jim that "the new ones are significantly better in all ways" (emphasis mine), because they don't last as long, and that's one way in which they're not better. Which was the point of yesterday's post.

The late great Phil D.
Some of you will remember Phil Davis, the photo-scientist who for years wrote erudite experimental articles about B&W film technique in Darkroom Techniques magazine, and who authored the book Beyond the Zone System (BTZS) and invented all of the BTZS techniques and equipment. Phil was a dear friend and a mentor for a number of years, until his final illness. He had been a pilot in WWII, and after the war bought a house and almost a hundred acres of land outside of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Somewhere around the turn of the millennium, his water heater failed and he decided to replace it. He said that the installers who put the new one in tried to sell him on an extended warranty that would cover him for ten years. As he told the story, he said, "Why would I need that? The water heater you're carrying out of here lasted for 55 years." He said the installer's eyes grew round and the man replied, "Oh, Sir! This new one is not going to last for 55 years. You'll be doing well if it lasts for 12. And 15 is all you can hope for. They really don't make them like your old one any more."

Planned obsolescence (a phrase generally agreed to have been coined by Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors but popularized by industrial designer Brooks Stevens, whose car museum in Milwaukee I used to visit as a kid and who I think my family knew), is probably the key area, the fulcrum point, if you will, where things that make good sense in terms of capitalist economics makes bad sense in terms of environmental consequences. It might be good business but it's ultimately a tragic concept.

A couple of decades ago, in one of my periodic "that's-it-I'm-never-doing-any-more-camera-reviews" spells, I resolved to pick one manual/metal/mechanical (MMM) SLR and use it for the rest of my life, keeping it maintained and in good fettle no matter the cost. I happily did the research, and settled on a Nikkormat FT3 as my "last SLR."

The problem was exactly as Jim says...the meter was just not as good as the then-current state-of-the-art (SotA), and neither was the viewfinder, which was smallish and on the dim side compared to the best current ones back then. It didn't really matter how well I maintained it. It just wasn't as good a camera as the best newer ones. (I still have the FT3, but it's a decoration on my front hall table.)

As an aside, I've often wondered what an "ideal" manual/metal/mechanical film SLR would look like. What usually happens economically is that the process of making things ever cheaper to produce while keeping them just barely good enough to sell results in products that are incredibly unpleasing. The old Nikon FM10 (made by Cosina and sold under various other names including Vivitar), a mostly plastic camera that worked fine but was distressingly low in quality, might have been the "terminal SLR" from a product efficiency standpoint. But what would a basic SLR look like if the opposite principle were applied—that is, if it were made as good as it could be based on everything we'd learned through the lifecycle of the product type? I've happily spec'd such an imaginary camera many times in my mind. (I call it the "Spotmatic III," to give you a taste.)

Of course, it's a good thing such a camera will never be made. Even if I got to design it myself, I'd hardly ever use it, if I'm honest.

But if a new SotA MMM SLR ever did come to exist, it would be better than any camera from back in the day, no doubt. The technology is just better now. We know more. And I'd be happy if modern digital interchangeable-lens cameras would all last for 15 or 20 years, but let's face it, they don't need to last longer than that. Because technology moves on, and gets better, and sooner or later you'd want to be part of that. Sooner or later you'd start pining to have the latest thing.

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:

Sal Santamaura: "After reading this post and the comments, I felt regret for procrastinating a couple of years ago when we almost bought a Speed Queen set. Our 1993 Whirlpool pair is still going, although my wife doesn't like the mismatched washer timer knob I had to install recently to replace an original plastic one (no longer available) that cracked. Your dilemma sent me off to the YouTube world of washer videos. After spending several hours there, it seems what you're looking for, Mike, is a Maytag 575GW. Were I in your position right now, that's the one I'd buy."

Mike replies: Ever diligent, last night I plumped for Consumer Reports for a year and stayed up way too late sorting through their data. Naturally they like the very brand that's been giving me headaches—don't tell them I told you, but their take on front-loaders can be summed up as "LG is best."

However, they tend to evaluate washing machine performance as opposed to build quality, reliability, or longevity, and the upshot of their testing seems to be that front-loaders have lots of advantages, mainly:

• They agitate the clothes much better
• They use less water
• They're gentler on the clothes, and
• They spin the clothes much drier at the end of the cycle, meaning that drying times are shortened. Since dryers use lots of energy, less time in the dryer = energy savings.

This seems to be the rap against Speed Queens and commercial Maytags and other stout old-fashioned types. They last longer and break less but they don't clean as well and they're harder on clothes.

The Best and Most Beautiful 8x10 Sensor

Here, according to a quick small-sample survey of my friends, is TOP's candidate for what is actually the best, most beautiful, and/or most practical 8x10 sensor:

click here

And here is the true digital equivalent of a film 8x10 or ULF* camera:

click here

And there you have it.

Spinning yarns
But before we leave the subject, may I just say that that 9x11" B&W digital view camera might rank as the "hardest sell" among all the cameras I've ever known of in life or in history. And that's quite a few cameras.

I know absolutely nothing—really—but allow me to indulge in a (humorous) speculative guess: a.) the sensor was fabbed for some other purpose entirely and already existed; b.) some rich dude got the idea of using it for a digital view camera; c.) he found somebody who could do the work and was quoted a price of $35k, had to think about it for a while, and said, "oh, what the hell, go ahead"; d.) it took far longer and was much more complicated than anticipated, and, by the time the dust settled, the cost had soared to $58k; but e.) whoever was doing the actual fabrication said they'd make extra units for only an additional $16k each; so f.) the guy ordered four, and g.) is hoping to sell one of them, so his costs are covered and he's left with a camera and one or two spares for himself, or h.) if he really gets lucky, he'll sell three of them and make a handsome profit—and still have his own camera besides.

I know nothing. Just talkin' off the tippy-top of my pointy little head.

But there's gotta be some story, wouldn't you think?

Mike
(Thanks to Oren Grad, Carl Weese, and Ben Marks)

*ULF stands for ultra-large format, and means any view camera with a film size larger than 8x10 inches.

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:

Ed Kirkpatrick: "Re 'And here is the true digital equivalent of a film 8x10 or ULF* camera:' Fun and true, but I do this every day by hand with nearly 100% success. I have become very good at knowing the natural horizontal and by using the guidelines in the viewfinder I allow a one-third and two-thirds overlap. The trick is knowing what focal length to select for a particular scene. Only experience or $479 for the gizmo will tell you that."

Ross Attix: "I usually really enjoy following your writing, but I have to disagree here with the 'true digital equivalent' part. That thing is just a landscape rig. Having spent many years working with 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras, your characterization misses the mark. The landscape rig doesn’t have any of the capabilities to work with focus and or perspective, and aren’t in the same league capability wise. There are many younger photographers who have never experienced what a true view camera can do. Let’s not muddy it up for them, OK? Thanks for usually great writing."

Mike replies: My position is actually that anyone who wants to use a view camera should use...a view camera. With Good Old HP5+.  :-)

Ken James: "Quite amazing, I could have written this myself, based on the subject not writing ability. I have been a user of rechargeables for quite a while too, and have worked up to better chargers. and...my absolute favorite flashlight is the Thrunite series. I have half a dozen of them, one in every camera bag, one on my desk, one by the bed. I like the Archers because they can be set to start up in low power mode, which for most cases is sufficient. Best flashlights I have ever encountered, and I am a flashlight junky (obviously)."

Don Craig: "Actually, in recent memory the Lytro Cinema Light Field Camera was probably a harder sell. Announced in April 2016 as a 'pivot' from their consumer Illum model, the mammoth million-dollar baby (but rental only) was pitched at movie and virtual reality production. By April 2018 it, and the company it rode in on, had vanished beneath the waves of commerce to a watery grave somewhere east of the Mariana Islands. Sic Transit Gloria Focus-In-Post."

Mike replies: The paradigm for these lost technologies for me (as a member of my generation) is the Walsh driver. [Note: At the link, see paragraph 2.] In photography it's the Foveon sensor. Both are technologies that should have ruled the world but got shunted off into little proprietary backwaters and became essentially irrelevant.

Someone with a better work ethic and more of an aptitude for organization than me ought to write a book about these ought-to-have-been technologies and products....

The Wills Sainte Claire Company also comes to mind. Childe Harold Wills (love that name) was Henry Ford's Chief Engineer, who quit Ford because Ford unreasonably capped his salary at $1 million a year (about $13 million today). He left (with $1.5 million in severance pay) to design his own car and start his own company. He designed a dazzling car that was five to 10 years ahead of its time—the Gray Goose, which, among other innovations such as the use of molybdenum steel, featured the first SOHC V-8 engine in production in America—but on the eve of its launch his investors, to reassure themselves that their money was safe, hired an outside consulting firm to review the business plan. The startling conclusion of those geniuses? Get this—that there were four million cars on the roads of America already and the market was saturated(!!!). (Today there are about 250 million.) The investors pulled the plug, Wills Sainte Clair struggled and failed, and history took a different turn than it might have.

Those kinds of stories fascinate me. There have been lots of them.

Now For an Open Letter to Panasonic

Remember my "Brief Plea to Apple" from a few weeks ago?

I was asking for a timed "do not disturb" function on the iPhone, for turning my phone off before meetings. So I don't have to remember to turn it back on, which I seem to have a hard time with.

John Rothlisberger, who passed this along, said, "Your wish is Apple’s command. Behold!"

"Now you can set Do Not Disturb just for a meeting or while you're at a location, and it will automatically turn off as soon as your event ends or you leave that place." (Announced at the Apple Developer Conference.)

Perfect! And if anyone believes I could possibly have had anything at all to do with that...why, go right ahead.  ;-)

(Although one of our readers who works at Apple did say he would submit the idea to the relevant team. Naw.)

Anyway, I'm happy.

Next Panasonic, then the World
And since I seem to be on a roll with suggestions, an open letter to Panasonic: please don't shut the door on the idea of a "GX8 Mark II" some day. Please please? It's a great basic design for photographers. v.1 just had a few implementation problems, is all. Those could be sorted out. I know you can do it. Refinement is good!

(I'm a big fan of Panasonic.)

To prove that I don't hate video reviews categorically, despite ragging on them the other day, here's a link to David Thorpe's video review of the GX8. He liked the GX8 a lot. I won't give away his conclusion. David T. (I don't know him) does a great job with his videos.

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:

Peter Wright: "Generally upgrades to iOS get me as about enthusiastic as a damp weekend, but this (set-and-forget Do Not Disturb) will get use from me. I regularly set my iPhone to mute when heading out to mass on Sunday morning and then wonder, usually around Tuesday evening, why everyone is ignoring me."

John: "David Thorpe is my favorite YouTube camera reviewer. He always sounds well-reasoned and yet enthusiastic. Minimal gratuitous loud background music."

Sunday Support Group: Panasonic Photographer

Hey, today's my birthday!

According to custom I should be four years from retirement, but, as I like to joke, "My retirement plan is to keep working." (That might not be so funny one day, but you know what they say: oh well.)

So how did your project go this past week?

I had a rocky week. I found myself procrastinating too often. But I didn't get discouraged. I kept after it. I'm finding that if I don't make progress on my 275 x 2 words every day, I make that much progress on average. I'll have an unproductive day or two, then bash out 2k words.

The resolution is still to "touch it every day."

Psychological resistance is a bear. If you resolve to spend just a few minutes on your project every say (set a goal of ridiculously few minutes—three, or five, or seven), it gets you over the obstacle of that initial resistance to getting started. How hard is it to do something for three minutes? So just do it.

TOP reader Ken White wanted me to see his presentation of a short documentary project he created. It's a video-based still-photo essay of Paul Cauthen and his band, and Ken's comments about a performance in Luckenbach, Texas. It's called "Sometimes Magic Happens" and I thought it was great. Only takes two minutes to watch.

My upstairs "workstation," where I work on my books.
It's a luxury to work on projects that are a stretch for me.

As long as I sit down at the upstairs computer every day and open a book file and putter for a few minutes, I forgive myself if I have an unproductive day. My resolution is to keep after it and not get discouraged.

I made a wise move in setting up a second workstation upstairs. I spent the money and took the time to set it up properly and I like it up there...it's a pleasant place to work. (I still don't have offsite backup, despite all the good suggestions, for which thanks. I'll work on that.)

Update from 'Weigh In'
By the way, I made a decision about the camera indecision—I decided to become a Panasonic photographer again for a while. Without deciding which Panasonic. I'm going to get either a G9 or GX9 or GX8, or maybe two of the three, or maybe all three. Maybe I'll put the 12–35mm zoom on a G9 and the 20mm ƒ/1.7 on a GX9. Of course, I can't afford to do all that at once...but then, you've got to have goals.

Forget your shortcomings—they don't matter
I enjoyed being sixty last year. The way I look at it, I was "extremely young for an old guy." Still true! Good thing I'm so young; I have goals this year.

Hope you made progress on your own goals last week. Take a few minutes to review. If you didn't make progress, forgive yourself and forget about it. A new week starts now. So get going!

Mike

P.S. Top illustration: Fuji X-T2 with 14mm ƒ/2.8.

iPhone 7+ version of the same shot, processed similarly:

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:

Trevor Johnson: "Retirement? Artists never retire."

Mike replies: That's a compliment!

JohnMFlores adds: "The only writer that I know of that retired is Philip Roth. He was prolific though, so it's understandable.

And I'm writing more and more precisely because I don't plan on retiring in the traditional middle-class sense; I don't like sans-a-belt slacks and find golf boring. Keep at that novel and Happy Birthday!"

kirk tuck: "Hi Mike, Happy Birthday!!! I have the same retirement plan. As I always tell my financial planner: 'If I take late retirement and early death I'll just about make the spread.' I'm jealous though. I'm 62 and I'm still hauling around lights, cameras, lenses, multi-carts, light stands, and more two or three times a week on day long shooting assignments. Video has added to the burden. I dream of a time when I can sit in a beautiful room in the rural wilderness and do my job with just my brain and my fingers.... At that point I'd probably stop using ellipses....

"Birthdays are great days for walking with cameras."

Rick Denney: "My 60th is this year, but procrastination knows no age. As I get older, though, I'm more likely to forget what I was procrastinating about, but that's another problem. In the music world, the most difficult thing is to simply take the instrument out of the case. A close friend teaches his students that way: Take the instrument out of the case. Sit down with it in your hands. Then decide if you are going to practice. That removes the pressure of accomplishment from the simple act of removing the instrument from the case. Of course, once I'm sitting with the tuba in my lap, I'm there for usually at least two hours. It becomes a greater burden to put it back in its case than to continue playing it. My problem with writing projects is that the thing is already out of the case, and when I sit down to it, I find more tempting modes of procrastination, this website not least among them. But, as with music, once I start, I find it difficult to stop."

RubyT: "Happy Birthday! I was going to congratulate you on being a prime, but then I have a weird preference for primes. :)"

Kent Phelan: "Happy Birthday Mike! I had a good week. Yesterday I finished Week 51 of my OC/OL/52 project. That would be: one camera, one lens, 52 weeks. I decided when I embarked on this gig to use my Fuji X-T2 with the 23mm ƒ/2 lens. I see in the 35mm FOV. Always have. I cannot remember all of the 35mm lenses I have owned. The little Fujicron was a natural for this. I have cheated a bit, however, in that during the project I bought an X100F with, as you know, the same 23mm lens. I have interchanged them since. One 'keeper' photograph per week has been daunting at times. Along about week 20 I thought 'Oh gawd man, what have you gotten yourself into!' Then came the changing seasons and winter here in the Pacific Northwest, which brings a steady stream of Zone V: rain-rain-gray-rain. Day after day; good thing the X-T2 is WR. Today begins Week 52. Feeling good."

Updates

Book: I'm making good progress on my book. I've missed a couple of days, but I typically write much more than 237 words (or whatever it was) when I do "touch it." I've been carving out the middle of every day to put in a few hours on it. I'm now up to chapter four and 9,500 words of draft (and another 15,000 words of notes, "skeletons" of later chapters I guess you could call them). It's just first draft so I'm not too worried yet about the excessive word count. There's a lot to the story and I already see I might have trouble fitting it all into one book of normal length (an ordinary hardback is in the range of 80–120,000 words).

I'm starting to feel that it's not all that hard to write a book. You just have to know where you're going and keep after it. Brave words, maybe, considering it's still early going.

'It Must Be Color': I'm getting a lot of great submissions. Such a pleasure. I wonder if I've adequately conveyed how very nice it is for me to see your work. I probably haven't gotten more than 40 submissions or so thus far, but it's just a joy to open the email every morning and be able to see more pictures. Big thanks. I like cameras, but I've always liked pictures more.

Print sale: I've been talking to Matt Weber, street photographer extraordinaire, about a Winter print sale, and it looks like it might happen. We're still trying to work out a way to offer signed, artist-printed gelatin-silver prints. This might be a week or three away as yet, but watch this space. This sale will be different and distinctive, I think. Here's Matt's website, and here's his book (or buy it directly from him at his website).

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:

Mike Peters: "Matt Weber! YES!!! I'm so happy to see that you're working with him to make a print sale. Matt is truly the embodiment of what a NYC street photographer is. His body of work is surely the deepest I've ever seen, and he's very prolific. He's been making amazing images for a very long time. TOP readers are in for a treat!"

[Mike Peters is no slouch as a photographer, either.

P.S. It probably seems like this post has gotten few comments, but the number of submissions for "It Must Be Color" just about doubled overnight. —Ed.]

Black-and-White Update

Submissions for the "Baker's Dozen Black-and-White" are now closed, as of last night at midnight. Counting them was not a trivial task, but I believe I got 223 submissions and well over 350 individual photographs—let's call it "between 350 and 400" and that will probably be correct, although it's possible that if I actually counted the individual photographs the total might be more than 400 or even more than 450. Most people sent three.

From which I now need to select 13.

And virtually none of the 350–400 are incompetent. A few might be somewhat nondescript, but that's the worst I can say. (And even some of those might come alive in context.)

Plus, many people sent along nice letters to me or long explanations of the circumstances of their shot (like Richard Kelley's that I published on Wednesday). I've read all of those, and I beg your forgiveness for not replying to everyone. It would be a week's work or so to write individual replies.

I've completed the first two rounds of editing, and have flagged the entries that I feel merit further evaluation. There are maybe 50 of those. The next step will be to go through all of those again, spend more time with each of them this time, and select the "shoo-ins" you might say—the ones I wouldn't want the feature to be without. That might do it right there, I don't know; we'll see.

With so many to choose from, I'm just going to pick pictures I myself like looking at. I don't know what else to do—the idea that the ones I pick might be "better" and the ones I don't "worse" is silly. We all have our own taste, and I'm sure if any of my friends were doing the editing here we'd all come up with different groups of 13. (Thirteen is a baker's dozen, as you probably know by now.)

And before you suggest it, no, it would be way too much administrative work to actually send everything to someone else and let them edit their own groupings. There's nothing at stake here; no prizes for you, no income for me. We're just having fun.

Mild critiques
Before I get back to work on this (I don't know when I'll finish; sometime between later today and Monday, I imagine), a few observations. First, please allow me to gently suggest that heightening the contrast and "clarity" (it's called "Structure" in Nik Silver Efex Pro 2) in a cloudy sky doth not by itself a B&W photograph make. Second, the same is true for a picture containing areas of white set off from areas of black or areas of black set off by areas of white—the picture still has to work on the level of content—emotion, meaning, connotation, information, feeling-tone—just like any other photograph.

In making "criticisms" I usually like to illustrate what I'm talking about using positive counterexamples, because it's never nice to hold anyone's specific work up as an example of what not to do (what did they do to deserve that?), and there are always exceptions to every rule. So here's a "black on white" photo that I think works very nicely:

Photo by Chris Fuller

It's called "Mueseo Soumaya (Mexico City)" and it was sent in by Chris Fuller of Helena, Montana. "Museo Soumaya was built by Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world, in honor of his wife. It contains the largest collection of Rodin sculptures outside of Paris, including the very famous one in this picture. I liked how the pensive posture of the security guard balanced the statue." Me, too. Taken with a Fuji X100.

I'd also like to introduce the notion that submitting three photographs to a "contest" is a bit of a trap. (Not one I set intentionally, I assure you.) It probably felt to people like they would increase their chances if they included three, but actually I think the opposite is the case. Three pictures in a submission is almost like a mini-portfolio; one strong picture is weakened by being in the company of two weak ones, and three pictures that have nothing in common with each other suggest that the photographer has no coherent vision or style, no concerns that distinguish him or her from the crowd. Even if that isn't really the case.

I'd like to show you two examples of the opposite—sets of three in which each picture makes the others stronger.

The first set is by Dan Rubin of New York City, who uses a Canon S95 point-and-shoot and describes himself as "non-professional":

Photographs by Dan Rubin

It goes without saying that you can't represent your range as a photographer and the range of your accomplishments in three pictures. Many photographers can't do that even in a single book, even with forty to sixty pictures or more. But I think by confining himself to a coherent theme, Dan makes a better case for each picture; each picture reinforces the others and each makes the other two stronger.

Another positive example:

Photographs by David Adam Edelstein

Here, in another effective set, David Adam Edelstein of Seattle, Washington, doesn't make use of a common theme, but rather a common aesthetic approach or "mood" you might call it. (Although all three have in common that they were shot with his Leica M Monochrom in Florence, Italy.) All three are dark, enigmatic, and work through a sense of mystery and indirection—in different ways, but together they speak of an underlying visual intelligence in common.

(David did say of the middle picture, "No, I can't explain the panda," which made us both smile.)

In general, though, I was surprised by how many submissions of three seemed diluted...the strongest picture undermined by the other two, or the effect and impression of the mini-grouping weakened by a lack of coherence between the three.

Another type of exception to that might be this pairing of a high-key shot and a low-key shot together, sent in by Peter Dewar, a retiree who lives near Cape Town, South Africa, and photographs for his local camera club:

Photographs by Peter Dewar

These two photographs (extensively manipulated, as he explains!) work nicely together by means of contrasts...they're opposites, in several ways. I suppose it was just accidental that they appear together in this order in his email, but I liked looking at them together, going back and forth.

One and done
Finally, although chosen by a minority of senders, the best approach when you're allowed to send three photos might be just to make a stand: one and done. Pick a strong picture and live or die by it. It's the no-nonsense approach, the don't-hedge-your-bets, take-it-or-leave-it approach. 

Photo by Michael Knowles

This submission by Mike Knowles of Edinburgh, Scotland, taken with an Olympus E-520 and 11–22mm lens at the Maritime Museum in Amsterdam, is a good example of that. It's the only picture Mike sent.

...Although, as we'll see in the final portfolio in the case of readers Lois Elling and Hans Muus, sending more than one picture sometimes does pay off!

A big thanks to everyone who participated. I can't show everyone's photographs because 400 doesn't fit into 13, but I enjoyed seeing everyone's pictures, and I read everyone's comments.

More anon. In the meantime, hope you have a very nice weekend! As for me, I'll be working.  :-)

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.

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:

Oskar Ojala: "I enjoy these posts since the topic brings out interesting stories like the one that was featured a few days ago to thoughts and discussion around photography. B&W is particularly interesting since it's your preferred medium and I anticipated the readership of this blog would be quite comfortable with it (me I mostly do B&W for portraits).

"It's interesting to note what the trend is with contrast and clarity (boosting the local contrast). My advice is to look at photographs from various photographers taken at various times and see what makes then work; a lot of classic BW is not all that high in contrast; looking at such images helps to reset my compass after too much time on the Internet."

Tippler: "Can we do a selection of another baker’s dozen, only this time the selection made on the basis of voting by all TOP subscribers. This would yield a selection based on the group perspective and would be interesting to compare to your selection. Setting up automated voting might prove to be too cumbersome an exercise, though. Happy new year to all you snowbound upstaters. We are merely freezing in NYC."

Mike replies: Actually, crowd-sourcing is not the best method of editing. The reason is that editing is in part a creative process; for example, I pay a lot of attention to the mix of work and to the pacing of a group of photos when I edit a set. As a hypothetical example, let's say that the crowd likes landscapes better than street shots, and, for that reason, four very similar landscape photos all score higher in the voting than the best of the street shots, leaving no room for any street shots at all. That would be a worse set of pictures than one which chose the best landscape but also included a street shot, for those who like that genre. Do you see what I mean?

For example, I'm having to choose right now between two flower closeups. I don't think there's enough room in a set of thirteen pictures for two flower closeups; so I really have to choose one or the other. They're both excellent. Which one I choose will not have to do with which one I merely like the best. It will have more to do with the one that suits the overall mix better and provides the right degree of dissonance or distinction with the picture placed before it and the picture placed after it.

UPDATE: How to Get the Book of the Year

UPDATE to the Update: I just learned that you can buy the book directly from the publisher, with reasonable shipping costs. I don't know what the shipping costs might be to other countries, but when I went through the checkout procedure they were going to charge me $8.50 to Upstate New York. So try this method first. More news as I get it. —Mike the Ed.

-

This one's going to be hard to get, I'm afraid. The publisher is small and Only Human is its first and only photography book.

Hennessey + Ingalls Art and Architecture Bookstore in L.A. have gotten hold of a few copies (Judy did a signing there) and have posted it on Amazon. Only a few, though. [Note: gone as of 1 p.m. Friday. —Ed.] They might be able to get more.

There are only 1,000 copies total in the press run, and most of those will be reserved to sell at the de Young Museum during the exhibition the book is based on. In fact the publisher wasn't even going to release it until then. It's the exhibition catalog.

I got a very nice note from Judy after she read the review. She seemed genuinely touched by what I wrote. If you read the post before the review, you know I had some reservations about my ability to convey the emotional nature of my response to the book and to the work. I think I did okay, though. Judy was a photographer I admired when I was in art school in the '80s, and it's been a rich and relevant experience for me to come full circle with her life's work.

I'm sorry the book is not more readily available, but then, some books are, some books aren't—photography books are inherently difficult to produce and distribute, and there's little consonance between what's good and what's easy to get. Some dreadful books are all over the place and some great ones are difficult to obtain...as any longtime book buyer or collector knows all too well. I didn't know much about the book's distribution before I wrote about it. If you're balking at the shipping costs from the Museum store, I don't blame you at all (and Judy says she'll do what she can to look into that), but it's worth mentioning that after the book is out of print, which is likely to happen fairly soon, the price plus the shipping might well seem like a bargain. Consider our Book of the Year from last year, Multitude, Solitude: The Photographs of Dave Heath—it's out of print now and the prices of used copies on Amazon as I write this run from $130 (double the price when it was new) to $296.

The "Only Human" show is at the de Young Museum in San Francisco from April 7th to September 16th, 2018. When it begins I'll try to remind you.

Mike
(Thanks to Greg Edwards and several other readers)

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.

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:

Winwalloe: "It's interesting that Jörg Colberg's book Understanding Photobooks that you wrote about a few days ago specifically discusses shipping costs as an important part of a publishing project."

Dave Kerr: "Judy Dater was one of my instructors at the San Francisco Art Institute in the spring '74 semester, around the time she made the photo of Imogen and Twinka. As a long time admirer of Ms. Dater's work, I look forward to adding her new book, Only Human, to my library."

Joe: "It's a Christmas miracle! I ordered the book from the de Young as soon as you described it here, and it arrived this morning! Just in time to be wrapped and slipped under the tree for my wife (a portrait photographer)." 

New Bird

I wanted to give you an update, in passing, on my robins and my GX8 experiment.

Now that they're a little older, it has become obvious that there are three fledglings, in the nest under the eaves of the covered patio. I've seen charming, yes "iconic" scenes of Mama Robin dangling food into the youngsters' upturned beaks. But I haven't wanted to bother the family by trying to take a picture. Apparently the new birds know to hunker down in the nest when there are sounds or presences that seem threatening, and—naturally—Mama doesn't like it when I'm skulking about.

Bird after bird
I've been working on my bird photography even so...

...What do you think? All right, a little plain and cartoonish.

The whole frame is another matter:

Bird

The wider, horizontal version is even better, although that one needs more real estate for its pixels than I can give it here on Ye Blog. The bird would get too small. A 16-inch-wide print, maybe. It will be interesting to see if iPhone files hold up in prints of that size, or near it. I'm not a virtuoso eke-the-last-drop-of-IQ-out-of-the-file kind of printer like Stephen Scharf or John Lehet or Ctein, but I'll see what I can do.

Not bad for a phone, at any rate, although I feel obliged to mention in passing that a new champion has emerged in the ongoing smartphone-camera wars: DxO has lately given top marks (they're fickle) to the alluringly named HTC U11, which it says bests the Google Pixel and my iPhone 7, previous champs. I don't know—do we care?

Sorry. What I meant to say is, "I'm pleased they're making progress."

This magic land
This area—and, I confess, the iPhone—is changing my photography. I can feel it happening. One thing I've learned for sure is that the iPhone is quite adequate as a note-taker—illustrations for the blog, cute pics of the doggie to email to dog-loving friends, or a quick snap of what's playing on XM Radio so I don't have to annoy myself yet again by failing to remember the name of a song. But despite recent successes with it like "Keuka in the Rain," which I love, I don't want to be stuck trying to take pictures like that and "Bird" with it. I'm sorting out the used GX8, but I think it's a bad sample and I'm not trusting it yet. I'm not sure it's the right camera for this area, which seems to call for more horsepower (which would also counterbalance the iPhone 7 better). I'm not trying to justify, just trying to think things out. My needs are different here, and are shifting. I still need IBIS. I think I'll test the A7II next and see what's up with that.

Gordon's Part II soon, but I haven't eaten yet! And here it is 1 p.m. already.

Back soon.

[UPDATE: I'm sorry—I got distracted today, and now I'm too tired to do anything. I will post Gordon's Part II in the morning, at which time this Update will disappear. —Mike the Ed.]

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.

Rain on us
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!

This Vs. That and That Vs. This

I've had a bit of a difficult time moderating the comments to the Ektachrome post. Seems some feathers are getting ruffled, going both ways. On that score, just a reminder: I ask that comments respond to the post, not to other commenters, unless you're being helpful. Our Comments Section is like the "Letters to the Editor" section in a newspaper. It's not a forum.

My own [personal, individual, you don't have to agree with it] opinion, echoing a comment Carl Weese made long ago:

Black-and-white was already perfect in the film era. Digital was the coming of age of color.

...And, at least for home and enthusiast use, digital color surpasses anything the film era had to offer, with the possible exception of projected Kodachrome.

But look, we're all different, eh? There's no point in getting upset one way or the other about it. Everybody has their own preferences and opinions. Some people love film, some people love digital, some people love both. Some people have strong opinions about many different aspects of technique within analog or digital. One person's opinions about materials and ways of working don't have to affect another's.

Can strong opinions be consistent with tolerance? I think so, as long as the strong opinions don't cross the line into "true believer" territory—which is more of a psychological affliction, if you ask me—and as long as we're not talking about core beliefs like politics or religion.

Or PCs vs. Macs—if I may quote Kurtz in Heart of Darkness, "Windows! The horror! The horror!"

That might not be quite the exact quote.

Personally, for example, I never gave a fig about Ektachrome, but that doesn't mean I don't respect someone who worked with it for years, loved it, has warm memories of it, and is delighted it's coming back. I'm happy for them. Why wouldn't I be? All good if you ask me. I would never look at great work and say, "it's no good because it was shot on Ektachrome." That would never happen.

Other people might not give a fig about Plus-X and Tri-X, which I shot thousands of rolls of prior to A.D. 2000 and loved dearly. That's all right with me—they don't have to like what I liked. Well, as long as they're willing to remain open-minded about the work itself, I guess. There's that need for tolerance again.

We all tend to like what we need (or needed) for our work, I think, and whatever "nourishes our enthusiasm" in Ansel's words*. What that is can be different for different individuals. All that's needed is to remember—oh yeah—to be tolerant.

Mike

* I love that phrase—a mild, careful verbal formulation that nevertheless acknowledges the depths of photo-geekery, to which Ansel was not immune.

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.

Settle this dispute
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself something nice

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

Al DaValle: "Thank God we all like different things!!! Think how boring the world would be if our desires, preferences and choices were the same!!!"

Tyler Monson: "'To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence' (Paul Strand, 1917)."

Speed: "I wonder...did anyone ever complain to Paul Simon that he hadn't written a song called 'Ektachrome'?"

Mike replies: It's little known, but that was the original title of the song. "Ektachroh-oh-ome / You give me those aaaac-curate colors." However, he couldn't find anything to rhyme with the line "All the world's a sunny day...as long as you use a Wratten 81A warming filter...."

hugh crawford: "I hadn't even heard that Ektachrome had gone away, but looking through all my 30-year-old Ektachromes and Kodachromes I really am not too interested in using Ektachrome ever again. In fact I wish I hadn't used it then. It was the abundance of labs that would clip test, push- and pull-process and do one-hour processing and have a guy on a bicycle hand-deliver it to you that made E-6 worthwhile. Kodachrome I would be interested in. Verichrome Pan would tempt me back into the darkroom."

Mike replies: You and me both, but only if they re-introduced Medalist along with it!

Solving Problems

A few brief followups:

• Re "Things Go Wrong," the washing machine repair cost $397.48, more than half the price of a new one; the water heater, replaced under warranty, cost $468.83. My butt hurts like somebody gave me a swift kick in the wallet. Hence....
• B&H sends me a holiday gift card every year to thank me for being an affiliate (thanks B&H!), so I solved my problem of needing IBIS because of my "yips" by putting this year's gift card toward a used Fuji XF 18–55mm OIS lens. Not IBIS, but rather in-lens IS, but I can't afford a new camera right now. (My X-T1 is not even three years old yet and works fine.) 
• Re "The 2017 Novel," I finished Heart of Darkness in 2016 with a little over two hours to spare! However I did not enjoy it. Have decided I do not actually like Conrad, much as I would like to. Went to the attic of the barn and, until my hands got stiff with cold, rummaged through boxes. Found one of my two editions of Moby-Dick; ordered two more...despite the fact that I'm reading an online version (cf. Mrs. Wittig, "all you book collectors are insane").
• To solve the computer problem, I'm using my 13" 2014 MacBook Air as my main computer. I may have already mentioned this. Seems to be working okay, except that not infrequently it makes a giant industrious whooshing noise like it's hot and its fan is blowing, despite the fact that there is no detectable inlets or outlets for air to pass and, if it actually has a fan, I have no idea where they put it. This bears more discussion, but I'm not going to post my thoughts about Apple right now because the new Print Offer starts in the morning and I don't want the Comments to be inundated with talk about computers.

Did I mention the Print Offer starts in the morning? It does. This one is going to be special; I adore this print. I've already found a frame shop in Canandaigua and I've been Scotch-taping John's proof up to the wall here and there in the house to help me decide where to hang it.

More in the morning. Noon actually, to be precise.

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.

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:

Jim in Denver: "Earlier this year my mother had to replace her GE clothes dryer, which she bought new in 1967. To say that 'they don't make 'em like they used to' seems accurate in this case."

Rob L.: "The 18–55mm ƒ/2.8–4 is a great lens, that I don't use often simply because the 16mm is so amazing. It's not as great as the Nikon 17–55mm ƒ/2.8, but close, and in fairness about 45 lbs. lighter.  :-)  "

Manuel: "Curiously, I felt a strange lack of attachment when I tried to read Heart of Darkness. It just didn't grip me. When a book doesn't rivet me by page 28, I usually give it up, but I made an extra effort with this one. It didn't work. It's weird that, while being quite straightforward and short, the narrative is boring. I read behemoths like Magic Mountain, with its thorough character and environment depictions—I could actually see Hans Castorp in my head!—and I never felt tired as I did with Heart of Darkness. At least now I know it it's not a translation issue, nor a lack of comprehension."

Mike replies: It might be one of those programmatic novels that's supposed to be one big extended metaphor, so maybe it's gripping to those who know all about the subtext. A novel like that is Andre Dubus III's House of Sand and Fog—supposedly the story of the Middle East conflicts recast as an epic real-estate squabble. I mean the characters are contending over a house. That novel, which I read all the way to the end, infuriated me—the whole programmatic premise seems utterly disreputable to me. I felt betrayed that the author wasn't true to the humanity of his characters, but had made them into straw dogs in his programmatic agenda. This I suppose is a matter of taste. Or ethics, or something.

Kev Ford: "The MacBook Air vents out of the gap between the main body and the screen. There is a fan that pushes air out that is a little like a water-wheel. It's normal for the fan to come on occasionally; the fan will lower the temperature quite far below where it needs to be before turning off and allowing the heat to build up again."