The Online Photographer

How to Become a Successful Fine Art* Photographer

Guest post by Gordon Lewis

SA**

Do you want to see your photographs shown and celebrated in art galleries, modern art museums, monographs, collections, and all them other high-class places? Well my friend, that won’t be easy. The fine art photography scene is a hard nut to crack, and worth the effort only if you are really into nuts. (That was just a metaphor. Don’t read too much into it.) But if recognition in the art photography world is truly your goal, here are a few tips from an outsider’s point-of-view on how to do it.

Have an exotic-sounding name.

You’ll never get anywhere with a name like Bob Brown, Karen Carlson, or Mike Johnston. Bijan Ravishanker is more like it. Better yet, strive for being recognized solely by either your first or last name, not both. If everyone knows you by a single name, even if it’s Rufus, you have truly arrived.

Be provocative.

If you aren’t shocking, annoying, prurient, blasphemous, or at the very least, irritating, then it’s clear you’re not putting real effort into your work. If you are so reckless as to allow your photographs to popular among the masses, how do you expect anyone in the art world to take you seriously? (And frankly, why would you need their support anyway?)

Embrace conceptual, not representational, art.

Anyone can take a photograph of a street scene, a landscape, or a cat. It takes a real artist to create a photograph of a cheap motel room that features an unmade bed, cracked mirror, sheets stained with urine, and a half-eaten watermelon resting on the pillow. (You will search the web in vain for such a photograph, by the way. I made it up. See how clever and conceptual I am?)

Print extra-large.

Your images have to be measured in feet, not inches; meters, not centimeters. Unless it takes at least two people to carry one of your framed prints and mount it on a wall, it’s obvious you never had any intention of seeing it displayed in a museum or a multi-million dollar mansion. The odds are that you may only sell three or four of these prints in your entire lifetime, but if the price makes it appear that the comma is at least two digits too far to the right, you’ll still do fine.

Print extra-small.

If you have the foresight to begin your career as a fine art photographer in poverty, then the extra-large strategy will present obvious challenges and contradictions. So, print extra-small instead. That way you can comfortably and confidently pitch a narrative about how your small prints are so much more intimate, remove the distance between your work and the viewer, reflect a “less is more” sensibility, etc. Your prints can still be exorbitantly priced though. You are still a serious artist, after all.

Go to art school.
This won’t necessarily make you a better fine art photographer. What it will do is expose you to the movers and shakers in the art world, teach you the rules of the game, and provide much-needed bona fides. Let’s face it: No matter how good a photographer you are, having been a member of the Colorado School of Mines photography club does not have quite the same cachet as being a graduate of the Art Institute of Chicago.

Be deceased.
It is so much easier for art critics to build a mythos around you and your work if you’re not around to contradict it. It’s also a lot easier for dealers to hype the value of your existing body of work if you are not around to produce more.

Can I guarantee you that embracing these tips will rocket you to fame and fortune? Of course not. It’s no accident I omitted other important factors such as talent and determination. But let’s face it, if fame and fortune were really what you wanted you’d be better off pursuing a career in reality TV or becoming a lottery winner. Your odds of success, in my humble opinion, would be about the same.

 Gordon

*I don’t mean to imply that "fine art" is somehow better than "regular art"—though many people mean exactly that. I am only using the term as a way to distinguish fine art from applied arts, such as pottery, or decorative arts, such as tapestries.

**Satire Alert

Old friend Gordon Lewis, originally a colleague of Mike's from Camera & Darkroom magazine and later the writer of the blog Shutterfinger, is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook. He lives in Philadelphia. In a former life, he wrote television sitcoms in Hollywood.

©2018 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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:

Grant: "I'm confused. I thought this was supposed to be satire."

James Hildreth: "Shutterfinger, please come back to life."

Mike adds: Shhh! He might hear you.

John Camp: "If anyone would be interested in a serious and comprehensive treatment of Gordon's satire, I would recommend Art: A New History by Paul Johnson. First published about fifteen years ago, it's still available on Amazon. Johnson reviews the whole history of art going back to the paleolithic (it's a lavishly illustrated, large-format book more than 700 pages long) but when he gets to the 20th Century, he details what he calls 'fashion art' in which novelty and public relations skills become more important that the art object itself. The book is controversial, especially with the people he excoriates: gallery owners, museum curators more interested in ideologies than in art, and artists more interested in money than in art itself. Among them: Picasso, who he portrays as the godfather of fashion art."

Geoff Wittig: "There's a sharp dichotomy in the painting world. On one side we have contemporary art, which tends to be just like Gordon Lewis describes: self-consciously hip and snarky, pretty much adhering to what prominent (i.e. catering to wealthy collectors) art dealers deem is 'real art.' The witty concept is the point; craft is basically irrelevant. On the other side is 'representational art,' what most folks would recognize as paintings that depict something real: landscapes, portraits and so on, with an emphasis on technical skill as well as vision.

"Representational art is generally dismissed by the wealthy hipsters as 'kitsch.' But folks who can see that the emperor has no clothes tend to like it."

vince garofalo: "I have been very successful with my series of potential photographs for many years. I'm getting a camera soon...."

Mike replies: My art-school mentor, Steve Szabo, once threatened to have a show consisting of photographs hung to face the wall. All viewers would see would be the backs of the frames. Steve would be seated in a chair in the middle of the gallery and he would describe in words what each photograph looked like, to anyone who asked.

Big Success (and Delivery Information): Precipitation II Sale

As you told us, "Precipitation" was a print a lot of people wanted. We're extremely pleased with the success of the sale. A huge thank you to everyone who purchased a print as well as to those who helped spread the word.

Orders will begin shipping by the middle of next week, on a first-in, first-out basis. Delivery time from then will depend on distance from Philadelphia and what day you placed your order. We anticipate that all U.S. orders will be delivered by October 30th, some sooner than that, with international orders taking up to 14 days longer. Again, many will not take that long.

REMEMBER, we will replace prints that go missing or are damaged in shipping. You are covered, so not to worry. We have run many sales and we're aware that sometimes "things happen," and we know about how often they do. So Gordon Lewis will be having a number of "emergency extra" prints made to cover such "foreseen unforseeables." If a print goes missing in the mail or is damaged on arrival, we will replace it.

You can contact Gordon Lewis or you can contact me if there are any problems.

As we always do, we will announce here on TOP when the prints begin shipping, as well as when they have all been shipped.

Thanks again to you! I hope you love your print and enjoy it for many years.

Mike

UPDATE from Gordon: I would like to express sincere thanks and gratitude to all who ordered a print of Precipitation. I know all too well that there are countless things in this world of ours competing for your time and money. The fact that you would be so interested in this particular one is not something I take for granted and for which I am truly humbled. I will begin shipping the print as soon as they are ready and guarantee that if you liked it as a JPEG, you will love it as a print.

P.S. I would love to have one more print sale before Christmas but I have nothing in the pipeline. I'll keep thinking on it.

P.P.S. B&H Photo is closed for Succos right now, but yesterday when I mentioned the Sony A6500 I should have thanked B&H for the loaner. Re the Curse of the Loaner Cameras, it's rainy with leaden dull gray skies again here today...gulp!

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:

Brian Reitenauer: "I was traveling all week and got home Friday night. I ordered the print and for fun, checked the time stamp on the PayPal email...9:59:57!!! Now that's close! Big fan of your writing and thanks for the print sales."

Can You Help?

[UPDATE: Sale ended 10/6/17 at 10 p.m. Thanks to everyone who participated, and anyone who helped! —Ed.]

Today is the last day of Gordon's print sale, and I was wondering if you might volunteer to help spread the word—mention it on a forum you visit, another website, Facebook, your Twitter feed, or anywhere else you go to "virtually congregate" with other people who might like to know. No need to go to great lengths, just one mention somewhere would be enough. If enough people do it it should really help.

Here's a short URL:

https://tinyurl.com/ycsv689h 

And feel free to grab the JPEG image from the post if you want to.

'Twould be a mighty favor, and greatly appreciated.

Sweet success
I'm happy to report that "Precipitation" is making it rain (ha!). With maybe six hours to go it's already one of our most popular sales of recent years. It has greatly outstripped the number sold the first time around, back in 2009.

Orders close at 10 p.m. Eastern Time tonight! Last hours. I'll leave it open a few minutes after that for stragglers, but, honest, we don't take orders after the close. Once the doors shut, they're locked. Remember there's no extra charge for International shipping.

Thanks!

Mike

P.S. Oh, and look what's sitting on my charging platform halfway down the basement stairs, sipping power that it may come alive—that thing that looks sorta like camera albeit sorta not.

Of course, the tradition is that as soon as a loaner camera gets here, the weather gets cruddy and remorselessly stays that way for the duration of the loan period. And sure enough, today was also the first gray day we've had in two weeks—the weather had been just otherworldly, really lovely. But I've got the camera for 30 days, and it can't stay gray for 30 days.

So we'll be having some fun next week.

It can't stay gray for 30 days, can it? I have to confess, I'm a little worried.

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Gordon Lewis's Second 'Precipitation' Print Offer (Three Days Only)

Gordon Lewis, Precipitation, 2009. It looks best as a real print.

[UPDATE: Sale ended 10/6/17 at 10 p.m. Thanks to everyone who participated! —Ed.]

By popular demand—if you don't remember, here's the story—today we're reprising a print offer from 2009: "Precipitation" by Gordon Lewis. Gordon is the author of the 2015 book Street Photography from Rocky Nook and has been a colleague of mine since the days of Darkroom Photography magazine.

If you're not familiar with our print sales, we do things a little differently. First, we collect paid orders for a strictly limited time—in this case, three days, from now through Friday evening. The photographer/printmaker can then make the prints to order and do everything in one large batch, knowing the prints are already sold. What that means is that we can sell fine art prints for prices way below what galleries would have to charge, but the photographer still makes money because what we lack in profit per piece we make up in volume. It's a nice marketing model because everyone wins.

However, you have to order now. Once the sale is over, it's over. Really, and no foolin'.

The details: These 2017 prints are made under the direction of Gordon Lewis by Mike and Janine Zaikowski of Profiles in Chestnut Hill, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, using an archival inkset. The image area is 8.75 x 12 inches (30.48 x 22.225 cm) on an 11x14-inch sheet. The paper is Innova Exhibition Cotton Gloss, an OBA- and lignin-free archival paper with a "natural" (slightly warm) color. The print itself is slightly warmer than last time around, reflecting Gordon's evolving idea of what the light in the picture should look like. But they're quite close. Profiles made the prints the first time, too.

All the prints will be signed, on the front, at the lower right-hand side, outside of the image area.

Price: The price is $149* plus $16 for packaging and shipping to anywhere in the world. It's guaranteed: if for any reason you don't like it once you see it, you can return it for a 100% refund not including shipping. Only one shipping charge applies per order no matter how many prints you buy. Any prints damaged in shipping will be replaced.

Payment: There are two ways to pay:

1.) Through PayPal, or

2.) If you prefer not to use PayPal and would rather mail a cashier’s check or money order (which must be in U.S. dollars), please contact Gordon directly to make arrangements.

Mailing: If you need the print sent to an address different from your official PayPal-linked address, please note it in the Special Instructions / Comment field of the PayPal order page.

•

This sale also helps support TOP, but the photographer always gets 80% of the proceeds. We support photographers!

As I said when we tested the waters, of all the prints we've ever offered, this one gets the most comments like these:

Eliot: "This is the print that I've always kicked myself for not getting. I would jump at the chance to get it."

GKFroehlich: "I've missed a handful of TOP print offers due to being totally off the grid for the duration of the print offers. The one print I have most regretted being unable to buy was this one! Yes, count me in!"

Erik: "Missed it the first time and have regretted not buying it every time I have seen it again."

I've heard comments similar to these about this particular print many, many times over the past eight years. Don't miss it this time—Gordon has informed me that this is it. He won't be offering it again.

Mike

*You can thank Del Bomberger and Francis White for this. We planned to price it at $200, but Del wrote, "This is my 'retirement budget' speaking. I'd definitely buy it at $100, possibly at $150, and not likely at $200," and Francis said, "I would certainly be interested, providing that the total cost including international postage would not exceed $200 (much). I might even if it did, but would have to think harder about it...."

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Print Sale is Wednesday to Friday of This Week

Tell Tchaikovsky the news.*

Mike

*I originally wrote "N/t" but that seemed boring.

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

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

I Know It's Here Somewhere....

written by Gordon Lewis

I shot this photo of my niece Maya at a family get-together eight years ago. Had I tagged it "Maya," I would have found it instantly. Instead I tagged it "Mom's birthday." It took almost an hour to find browsing folder-by-folder.

As photographers go, I’d say I’m pretty well organized. Practically all of my digital and digitized photos dating back to 2000 are in master folders, one folder per year. Every yearly folder has a sub-folder for every month, such as 01_2017, 02_2017, 03_2017 and so on. Every monthly folder has a folder labeled with the month, day, year, and a memorable main event. So, for example, a folder might be labeled 04072016_New Orleans if that’s the day I uploaded the photos and most of the photos inside are from a trip to New Orleans. I also apply tags to my photos. All I have to do is search for the tag in Adobe Lightroom, my cataloging and raw processing software of choice, and every photo with that tag will show up as a collection.

And yet, from time to time, I still can’t find a specific photo I’m looking for. I have a crystal-clear picture in my mind of what it looks like; I just can’t remember exactly where I filed it or how I tagged it. Can anyone relate?

No doubt a large part of the problem is that I have over 29,000 photos in my Lightroom catalog. That doesn’t even count my pre-digital catalog of negs, prints, and slides. Now maybe you have 29,000 top-quality photos on your hard drive, but I don’t; I’m just not that good. Clearly I need to edit this number down to a more manageable size, but that’s a story for another day.

I went for the obvious tag with this one: Jesus. At present, this tag is unique in my catalog, so I found it instantly. Had I simply tagged it "street," it would have been one of over 500.

It also wouldn’t hurt to have a more foolproof way of tagging my photos. Unfortunately, I’m much too clever a fool for that to work. If I have trouble finding a photo it’s almost aways because I either didn’t tag the photo at all, I accidentally gave it the wrong tag, or the tag I used is less obvious to me now than it seemed then.

The solution I’ve come up with is this: I immediately export a JPEG version of my “keepers” to a separate folder labeled as such. Even if there are eventually 500 photos in this folder it’s still a lot easier to browse through than one that contains 60 times as many photos. This may not be the best way, but it works for me until a better approach comes along. I’m open to suggestions, or even simple commiseration.

---

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

---

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

Featured Comments from:

toto: "I'm curious as to why you don't use more than one tag."

Gordon replies: As obvious as that might sound after the fact, when one is faced with the prospect of assigning multiple tags to more than 50 different images and having limited time to do it, it often doesn't get done. What I've learned from the accompanying comments (thanks to all for your contributions, by the way) is that the more ways you have to find the images that are special to you and the easier it is to apply them, the better. If you are archiving photos for family members, it's also a good idea to make it as easy as possible for them to find things as well. Tags, flags, collections, and stars may be great for the person who assigns them, but a simple folder labeled "Family Photos 2008" that's filled with JPEGs rather than RAW files is about as simple as it gets.

Is There a Creative Link Between Sight and Sound?

written by Gordon Lewis

Although I wouldn't go so far as to call it "My Precious," I do love my Fender Lite Ash Telecaster with Seymour Duncan Broadcaster pickups. I shot it with one of my other beloveds, an Olympus OMD E-M10 Mark II. Natural light through mini-blinds added the visual flavor.

Ansel Adams was a classically trained concert pianist. So was Paul Caponigro. Wynn Bullock sang opera. Ralph Gibson is a skilled electric guitarist who composes soundtracks for some of his exhibitions.

Shift perspective one-hundred eighty degrees and you’ll discover that musicians like Andy Summers (guitarist with The Police), Bryan Adams (singer-songwriter), and Graham Nash (singer and guitarist with Crosby, Stills, and Nash), are gifted photographers as well. At one time Nash even owned a printmaking studio (Nash Editions) and was instrumental – pardon the pun – in advancing the art of Iris photo inkjet printing.

These are just a few examples. There are many more; so many that I can’t help but wonder whether it’s more common than most photographers realize. If you have a passion for one type of creative expression, why wouldn’t you have an equal passion for another? If photography helps you open your eyes, wouldn’t music help you open your ears?

In case you’re wondering, I’ve played a variety of instruments over my lifetime. Guitar, however, is the one I’ve been most faithful to. My reasons for playing guitar are as much practical as creative. Musical instruments are much simpler and obsolescence-proof devices than cameras. My 24 year-old Martin 000-18 acoustic guitar is physically identical to a new model, yet because of how the wood has seasoned over time, it sounds better now than the day I bought it. I can’t say that about any of my cameras of equal age. I have changed pickups, electronics, strings, tuners, nuts, and bridges on my Fender Telecasters and Stratocasters with ease. All I feel capable of changing on my cameras is the lens and maybe the focusing screen. Another thing I love about playing a musical instrument is that it’s just as fun playing in group as it is playing solo. A gang of photographers shooting the same subject is just a gang of individuals.

Clearly, there are lots of differences, but one of the most important things these two disciplines have in common is that whether it’s a musical instrument or a camera, either one is only a tool for expression. Even the most humble camera or instrument can produce amazing results in the hands of a master. Even the very best cameras and instruments produce disappointing results in the hands of someone who lacks skill or has nothing to say.

So, what about you? How many of you reading this own as many guitars, pianos, flutes, or banjos as you do cameras? And would you characterize the relationship between them as symbiotic or antagonistic? An inquiring mind wants to know.

Testing the Waters (Street Photograph)

Gordon Lewis, Precipitation, 2009

I have Gordon Lewis's "Precipitation" hanging in my downstairs powder room and it gets more comments and compliments than any other picture in my house. It's a lovely and luminous print, better on paper than onscreen.

One friend, a poet, admitted at the end of his stay with me that he had repeatedly gone into the powder room just to contemplate the picture, over and over again.

The print was taken for a camera review of the Pentax K-7 DSLR that Gordon wrote for TOP in 2009. So many readers liked it that we staged an essentially impromptu print sale. It did well, selling 77 prints.

Since then, however, the acclaim has continued...at least in my powder room! I swear I've heard at least ten people say some version of this: "I remember that. I should have bought one when I had the chance."

Scott Kirkpatrick, the TOP reader who flew in from Boston on Wednesday, was only the latest to say it, as I was giving him a quick tour of the house.

So I finally asked Gordon if he'd like to reprise the sale and offer a Second Edition of the print. He said he wouldn't mind, but that he wanted me to test the waters before we went through all the work involved. Which I am hereby doing.

The picture has had quite a career. It was later featured in the book Why Photographs Work by George Barr.

Gordon, of course, is the author of Street Photography from Rocky Nook. Which is apropos, because my portrait of him in action in New York City, above, is one of my favorite street photographs of my own! (Or does that count?)

Here's one in which you can actually tell what he looks like. Those are Larry Fink photos behind Gordon (thanks to JM for pointing that out).

So what do you say? Would you like us to offer "Precipitation" again? The price would be between one and two hundred dollars. You might also mention if you would be willing to help publicize the sale on other sites and forums you visit.

Thanks!

Mike
(Thanks to Gordon)

UPDATE from Gordon: Thanks to all who answered that they would want a second chance to buy Precipitation. The reason I asked Mike to test the waters in the first place was that neither of us saw any point in putting time and energy into something you have little interest in, and might even find off-putting. Enough people have said, 'Yes, I'd buy a print or two,' that Mike and I have agreed to go set up a sale for some time before the end of the year. We'll keep you posted.

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.

Raining tastiness down into your day
Give Mike a “Like” or Buy yourself an umbrella

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Panasonic GX85 Review, Part II

(Part I is here)

Words and pictures by Gordon Lewis

One of the benefits to shooting with a Micro 4/3 camera is being able to get this much depth-of-field without having to use ridiculously small apertures.

The key to making a camera such as the Panasonic Lumix GX85 as enjoyable as possible for street photography is for the shooting experience to be smooth and intuitive. You want the camera to melt away. You want to be able to pay more attention to what’s going on around you and less on the camera. This will depend partly on camera ergonomics, but just as much if not more so on how you set it up. The way I set up a camera may not be the way you would want to set up yours, but knowing my settings will at least give you a reference point for how well the GX85 performs with them. With that in mind, here’s a basic list:

• File format: RAW
• Exposure Mode: Aperture preferred. This allows direct control over depth-of-field.
• Front dial controls aperture. This is the manufacturer’s default.
• Rear dial controls exposure compensation, with no need to press in on the dial first.
• Pressing the Fn1 button changes dial functions so that the rear dial adjusts ISO and the front adjusts white balance. Once you have assigned this function, you will be able to make the same switch by pressing in on the rear dial.
• Cursor buttons control AF point position (up, down, left, right, etc.)
• The shutter triggers only the shutter release, while the AF lock button triggers AF start. This is so that pressing the shutter button won’t alter any manual focus settings.
• Turning the focusing ring triggers manual focus assist, just in case AF fails to do the job. I opted for focus peaking, but 100% magnification in the center of the frame is also an option.
• Silent shutter. The manual shutter, although dead quiet, sounded "laggy" to me, as if the mechanical movements took longer than the actual shutter speed. I therefore opted for the silent (electronic) shutter. Its only practical limitation for street photography is that it’s incompatible with electronic flash for flash fill.

These are by no means the only available settings, but they provided what I consider a near ideal balance between full automation versus swift and sure manual control. Focus and exposure in daylight were blazing fast and, if not always 100% accurate, close enough not to ruin a shot. I experienced some AF hunting in very low light, particularly with slow lenses, but a quick shift of the focus ring was all it took to move the plane of focus point where I wanted it.

Joy, Financial District, San Francisco

Viewfinder issues
The eye-level viewfinder shows where Panasonic cut corners a bit to reduce cost. Although it’s large, high-res, and bright, eye relief is short. You’ll need to have your eye close and well-centered to see the entire frame. That can be difficult if you’re wearing glasses. Another issue—one common to most mirrorless cameras—is that direct sunlight that enters the viewfinder or reflects from the rear LCD can cause either one to wash out. A slight shift of position is usually all it takes to correct the problem. Some reviewers have also complained about a color rainbow smearing effect during rapid camera movements. I didn’t notice this, but you might, so be sure to look for it.

What I did notice was that the colors and contrast in the eye-level viewfinder didn’t quite match those on the rear LCD, and that both made scenes look brighter than in real-life. This means that if you try to "expose by eye" rather than by meter, there’s a good chance you will underexpose. Fortunately, you use the setup menus to reduce the brightness of either one or both viewfinders.

Another thing to keep in mind is that, as with all Micro 4/3 cameras, the GX85’s native aspect ratio is 4:3. However, the eye level viewfinder has a 16:9 ratio. This results in black space on both vertical sides of the frame. You can change the aspect ratio to 3:2 – the standard for APS-C and full-frame formats—to eliminate the bars, but this can also make it harder to see the entire image. Any 3:2 image will import into Lightroom pre-cropped, with the full image area still available if you want it.

I wouldn’t obsess over the viewfinder too much, though. Street photographers typically frame and shoot within seconds. Although there may be better viewfinders to be found, the GX85's is definitely respectable.

A look at lenses
As I mentioned in Part I, I was shooting with three Micro 4/3 lenses: the Olympus 17mm ƒ/1.8, Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7, and Panasonic 42.5mm ƒ/1.7 OIS. The 17mm was the smallest and lightest of the three, followed by the 42.5mm and then the 25mm. Each weighed less than five ounces, yet was fast enough for flash-free low light shooting without having to rely on absurdly slow shutter speeds or high ISOs.

Another advantage of their small size was that if I didn’t feel like carrying a camera bag, I could carry one lens in each pocket of a light jacket and the third on the camera; or I could carry the GX85 with 17mm alone in a single pocket; or simpler still, sling the GX85 plus any lens over my shoulder.

This was shot with the 17mm ƒ/1.8 m.Zuiko and cropped to square format. Although it may not look it, I was close enough to tap the fellow in the green plaid shirt on the shoulder.

The Panasonic 42.5mm ƒ/1.7 was perfect for available light interior shots where its optical image stabilization, combined with the GX85's IBIS, helped eliminate camera shake while the fast aperture helped blur distracting backgrounds.

Waiting for the Fox Chase, SEPTA Station, Philadelphia. Shot with the Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7.

The 17mm was ideal for shooting on narrow streets or in tight spaces. On the other hand, because of its wider than normal angle of view, tight framing may require you to be only a few feet away from your subject. For that reason, I tend to favor the 25mm. It lets me get tight shots without feeling as if I’m obnoxiously sticking the camera in someone’s face. The 42.5mm was best for shooting scenes on the other side of a street without actually having to cross. It had the added benefit of OIS, which, combined with the GX85’s IBIS, added up to five stops of stabilization.

File import and final notes
Lightroom will attach a generic Adobe profile to any raw files you import from the GX-85. There are no profiles that match Panasonic’s JPEG "photo styles" such as Standard, Vivid, Portrait, etc. This means that if you shoot raw+JPEG, your JPEG colors won’t match your raw colors and vice-versa. Fortunately, I found Adobe’s profile reasonably neutral yet appealing. The examples I've uploaded were only minimally altered and should offer a reliable insight into Panasonic’s overall color palette.

Waiting for a friend, Roam Burgers, San Francisco.

Here’s a center crop at close to 100%. Not bad for an image shot at maximum aperture.

What may be hard to see from these JPEG samples [TOP's blog software subtly blurs posted pictures—it's a bug, not a feature. —Ed.] is the surprising amount of micro-detail they have. We’re talking fine textures that go on and on. I attribute this to the GX85's IBIS, lack of an anti-aliasing filter, accurate focus, and good glass. Is there as much detail and low noise as you’d get from a full-frame camera? No, but unless you're making huge prints or pixel peeping and have perfect technique, you’ll never see the difference. You'd also have to shoot with a much larger, heavier, noisier camera that uses large and heavy lenses. Thanks, but I’d take the Panasonic GX85 any day.

The Panasonic GX85

If you can’t get great street shots with this camera, then trust me my friend, it won't be the camera's fault.

Gordon

Old friend Gordon Lewis, originally a colleague of Mike's from Camera & Darkroom magazine and later the writer of the blog Shutterfinger, is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and three kids. In a former life, he wrote sitcoms in Hollywood.

©2017 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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

Street stealth
Buy a GX85

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

Ricardo Silva Cordeiro: "Loved the review, thanks for sharing. This camera received a lot of negative feedback upon its release but when I handled one on a store I felt there was something special about it. I investigated a bit more and yes, the viewfinder isn't top-notch and it has an 'older' 16-MP sensor, but everything else seems just perfect and it looks like camera users (not testers) are loving it. The handling, responsiveness, low-profile look and small size are ideal for street shooting.

"Panasonic's UI is among the best too, as is their AF technology as long as you use single point only (in my experience Panasonic AF is only reliable that way; use multiple-point AF and you will end up with mostly front-focused shots. Happens with my LF1, LX100 and ZS100). And the sound of that shutter is even better than the one of the E-M5 which I thought was the best. I'm struggling not to get back to the ever-attractive Micro 4/3 system, but if I do I'm almost certain it will be with this camera plus a Leica 15mm ƒ/1.7 and Panasonic 25mm ƒ/1.7."

MarkB: "I really liked Gordon's thorough overview (not 'review') of the GX85, but once again, his sample photos show what a competent and experienced photographer can do with the Panasonic... not what I can expect to achieve. Like watching the Stig do laps in a reasonably priced car!"

Does It Really Have to Be This Hard?

Guest Post by Gordon Lewis

Prompted by Mike’s “Simple Is the Next Revolution” post and with a rented Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II in hand, I decided to list the minimum settings I felt necessary to set it up for my style of shooting. These are the settings I would want regardless of the brand or model of camera. Here are my most important, in no particular order of priority:

• Recording mode: Raw
• Color space: Adobe RGB
• Back-button focus (to separate autofocus from the shutter button and assign it to another button.)
• Front dial (the one closest to the lens) for aperture settings
• Rear dial for exposure compensation in auto modes and shutter speed in manual exposure mode
• Single-shot autofocus (as opposed to continuous autofocus)
• Single, manually-adjustable focus point or area
• Center-focus
• AF confirmation sound off
• Focus priority off (so that I can still shoot even if the camera thinks the image is not in focus)
• Touchscreen off (to prevent unpredictable changes caused by accidental touches)

Auto ISO, Auto White Balance, Matrix metering pattern, and single-frame shooting (as opposed to continuous) are usually the defaults, in which case I leave them as-is. For a mirrorless camera such as the E-M10 Mark II I also add features that are unavailable on DSLRs. The most important to me are:

• Manual focus assist: ON
• Manual focus triggered by turning the lens’ focusing ring: ON
• Viewfinder brightness reflects exposure setting: ON

Keep in mind that I’m mainly a street and travel photographer. I want fast and accurate focus and exposure for one shot at a time. If I shot sports my settings would be completely different; but then, so would the camera.

It’s great that digital cameras allow you to do all this, and it’s true that once you’ve done it you seldom have to do it again. On the other hand, depending on how well the menu system is set up, figuring out how to do it can test even the most patient soul.

For example, to set up back-button focus with the E-M10 you first have to decouple autofocus from the shutter button. You then have to assign AF to some other button, presumably one located near where your right thumb comes into contact with the back of the camera—hence the term "back-button focus."

The problem is, it’s not at all obvious how to do this. The instruction manual makes no explicit reference to back-button focus at all. Instead, you somehow have figure out that to decouple AF from the shutter button you need to go to the Utility menu, select AEL/AFL, then change S-AF from Mode 1, the default, to Mode 3. I kid you not. It takes a similarly arcane procedure and multiple navigation button clicks to assign autofocus to the Fn1 button on the back of the camera.

Bear in mind that I’m a Harvard graduate with over 40 years of photographic experience. I do instructional design and technical training for a living. It’s therefore reasonable to suspect that if I find it a challenge to figure these things out, others will too. More to the point, just because someone can perform an unnecessarily difficult task doesn’t mean they like to.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II

Some of you Olympus owners may infer from all this that I’m smearing the fine reputation of Olympus cameras. To the contrary: You can take considerable pride and solace in the fact that camera setup is no easier nor more intuitive with Sony or Fuji cameras either. I do find setup slightly easier with Panasonic mirrorless cameras and Canon, Nikon and Pentax DSLRs, but that’s still not saying much.

If you’re looking at the list above and wondering why you should have to do all this just to take a simple picture, the answer is, you don’t. Practically all enthusiast cameras these days have a “full auto” setting that lets you just point and shoot to your heart’s content. The drawback is you then give up practically all control over what the camera is doing and how, in which case, why buy such a complicated camera at all? The fact is that fewer and fewer people are willing to and I, for one, understand why.

Gordon

UPDATE Wednesday (from Gordon): In answer to some of the questions and comments I’ve received so far:

1. My list of settings is for example only. It is not a recommendation to anyone else. If I wanted to or had to I could make do with far fewer and without much complaint. That said, several photographers commented that their list would be a lot like mine, so my list wasn’t entirely fanciful either.
2. The Adobe RGB setting just happened to pop into my head while I was typing. Sometimes I use this setting, sometimes I don’t, and in either case I don’t find it has any effect on my raw files or exposures. Thom Hogan’s suggestion to use RawDigger to analyze my raw files, though well-informed and helpful, would be moving more in the direction of more complexity for me rather than less. Thanks, but no thanks.
3. The reason I prefer to set my cameras for back-button focus if possible is because I don’t want the camera to re-focus every time I press the shutter button. This is important because I generally use the center AF point only. BBF avoids the need to keep the shutter button half-pressed to lock-in focus before I re-compose and shoot. I can focus once, re-frame, then shoot to my heart’s content without worrying that the camera will re-focus between shots. This only applies to still subjects, of course. With moving subjects I use continuous focus, a larger off-center AF area, and keep the focus button depressed while shooting.
4. I agree with those who pointed out that the Fn1 button on Olympus OM-D cameras is too small for optimum use as a BBF button. That’s a separate rant for a different time.
5. Finally, I also agree with shooters who prefer pre-automation film cameras. In general, the more I can get my digital cameras to behave like my Nikon FM3A, the better I like them. The main point of my post is that it can be surprisingly difficult to simplify how some cameras operate.

Old friend Gordon Lewis, originally a colleague from Camera & Darkroom magazine, is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook. He lives in Philadelphia with his wife and three kids.

©2016 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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

TOP's links!

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

Michael Matthews: "That 40 years of photographic experience does give you an advantage: you know exactly what you want. The challenge lies in finding it. Those of us who are occasional photographers (but would like to do better) have to come to grips repeatedly with the near-infinite complexity of settings and the brain-breakingly obscure way their functions are named and hidden in sub-sub-menus. I'm not buying another camera until it comes equipped with Kirk Tuck's Auto-Pro Mode."

Ricardo Silva Cordeiro (partial comment): "Almost all brands have seemed stuck on the same kind of 'engineery' interface for years. They don't have basic notions of design like the fundamental 'bauhauesque' elegance of simplicity. I think it's time for companies to actually hire outside interface design teams, preferably non-photographic-driven ones.

"From what I've seen online, the new Hasselblad X1D takes a bold step in the right direction in termos of interface/ergonomics design."

D. Hufford (partial comment): "After I have everything set up, sooner or later something will be accidentally changed. There was the time I somehow turned on the touch screen of the GX7 and got the focus point stuck down in the lower left hand corner. Couldn't fix that til I got home and Googled. Then there was the dark, snowy night with the Fuji X100 when I my gloved hands somehow set it to video and I searched the menu system for 10 minutes to figure out how to shut it off."

Mike adds: This is what I hate most about modern cameras. It would be intolerable, except that every camera is afflicted with it to some degree so we have to put up with it.

Gabe (partial comment): "Aw come on folks—I thought this was about simplification! FWIW, pity there's no manual available for abbreviated slangology, so OTOH, not to feel left out, there are a few clarifications I've added to my photographic vocabulary:

• RTB: reboot the bugger (goes hand in hand with...)
• TOBCTT: take out battery, count to twenty
• TAWARM: take a week and read the manual
• TTDSWH: turn that dial and see what happens
• AM: Ask Moose (applicable to Olympus)

"Submitted for your approval—my entry for clarifying the 'Micro Four Thirds' naming kerfuffle: 'Short Flange Distance Mirror Deprived Four Thirds Sensor Imaging Mechanism.' Now applying the GM (Groucho Marx) rules of clarification that would abbreviate as: 'Shoflad Mirdefot Sim.'"

Henning Wulff: "I use(d) Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony and Leica M digital cameras. Olympus and Sony are the worst to set up and understand; Canon and Panasonic somewhat better, but Leica M is by far the easiest, most intuitive and simplest. No autofocus, but good manul focus  :-). 

"A comment was made that computers and phones are getting simpler and more intuitive to use. We can thank one person for that: Steve Jobs. His at times tyrannical insistence on an intuitive interface has permeated both types of products. We're still in Windows 3 days with camera UI's."

John Doty: "What I don't understand is why we cannot pull up a menu on our computer, select the options, assign the buttons to do what we would like them to do and then download all this information to the camera. It is (should be) relatively simple, after all, someone set the functions the same way when the camera was designed and programmed. Why can't we do the same with our cameras now? Of course there should always be the 'Reset to Factory Defaults' button included."

Gordon Lewis

Following up on my iPhone posts from last week, today I'll post some pictures from my recent trip, so you can share a few of the things I saw and meet a few of the people.

First, the street photographer (and author of Street Photography) in action—here's my favorite shot of Gordon from our day together in New York.

(It's also a good illustration of why I'm liking the Fuji 14mm lens—one of the big surprises in my recent photographic life. I'm suddenly "seeing wide," and I have no idea why. My 14mm [21mm equivalent] is currently my most-used lens.)

Gordon's an affable and good-humored guy, and those are the qualities that come across front and center, but behind his natural amiability is a thoughtful and incisive mind. He's an astute observer of life and the human condition and has a wry take on the photographic scene. Meeting him, you come away impressed by his forthrightness and natural lack of pretension, too. And I loved his behind-the-scenes stories of his time working in Hollywood, told over lunch.

Don't look now, Gordon, but somebody's looking over your shoulder

We did have fun.

Next up, some pictures (and a few product and exhibit mentions) from our day at the show.

Mike
(Thanks to Mr. Lewis)

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Do You Trust Your Camera?

Written by Gordon Lewis

Is it just me, or are today's digital cameras getting downright sneaky? The companies that sell them would like you to believe their programmable wonders will take care of all everything that gets in the way of your creativity—trivial tasks such as focusing, exposure, white balance, and contrast compensation for example. Then, as soon as you give these cameras your complete and unquestioning trust, they do something completely unexpected and just plain Wrong.

Have you ever had the focusing point you so carefully selected shift elsewhere and without warning? Have you ever set the touch screen feature to “off” only to discover that the camera has somehow turned it back on again, and not only that, but also exposed twenty perfectly focused frames of your buttocks? How about seeing the white balance change from neutral to cool when you switch lenses, even when the new lens is pointed at exactly the same subject?

Don’t even get me started on focusing accuracy and consistency. I’ve owned cameras that will chose a different plane of focus every time I activate the AF, even when the camera is on a tripod and the subject is motionless. (Can a rock breathe?)

I’ve learned over time never to mention such quirks and inconsistencies when referring to a specific camera, because some expert user will invariably appear from the ether to inform me that, had I taken the trouble to read sidebar number two on page 229 of the recently revised PDF edition of the owner’s manual, I would clearly understand that the camera was faultless and had done exactly what I had programmed it to do. My fragile ego can survive such humiliation; I just wish my mis-focused, poorly exposed photos could.

I probably shouldn’t be telling you this, but at times I become so paranoid and distrustful of some cameras that I resort to manual settings—or at least I try. How truly manual can such settings be when the lens has no aperture ring and the body has no shutter speed dial? Given that even manual settings are programmable, there’s always the chance that whatever your camera was set to when you shut it off may not be what it’s set to when you switch it back on.

For some, this unpredictability adds a sense of fun and adventure to their photography. For me, it fosters a sense of wonder: I wonder what devious little tricks my camera has up its sleeve for next time. Am I the only one who’s had this experience? Am I the only one who feels this way? Or have I only scratched the surface of the perfidies today’s cameras are capable of? I’d truly like to know.

Gordon

Harvard alum Gordon Lewis has written about those treacherous cameras for decades, for many photography magazines. Most recently he is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook.

©2015 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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

TOP's links!

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

Bob: "My experiences are similar to yours. And as Hugh Smith noted, figuring out which setting you inadvertently changed just so you can figure out how to reverse it, only brings added frustration.

"I use Olympus cameras, and agree with John Krumm that it helps to stick with one system and learn that as well as possible. But while I like the cameras and especially the lenses, I'm frustrated by the lack of quality documentation for that company's products. They might as well have not added a bunch of features, because I haven't yet figured out how to use them. I know, I know, it's my fault; I should spend more time learning how it works. (But I checked an actuarial chart and I’ve only got 25 years left to live. So I obviously don’t have enough time to waste learning my way through some Byzantine menu system.) I finally complained to Olympus after receiving an offer to purchase a video to help me use their camera. They sent a courteous response, a printed copy of their full manual (which wasn’t much better than the abridged version that’s included in the box), and a coupon for a discount on another Olympus product. (I used it to purchase their 75mm lens, which I really like. Yet it it strikes me that the outcome of that whole interaction benefited Olympus rather more than me.)

"My day job has been with a software company that writes ERP (enterprise resource planning) software for businesses. While the company spends significantly to produce documentation, it also receives ongoing requests for content. The interface on my phone frustrates me, as does the interface for cable TV and the Internet service I get through the cable company, and on and on. I think the lack of documentation for technical products borders on being unethical. The fact that there’s a manual of sorts sent with a camera isn’t enough. I’d like the scenarios that the features were designed to address described in the documentation, along with better procedural documentation for implementing those features. If they’re too difficult (which is to say, too expensive) to document, maybe the companies should design the interfaces so they’re easier to use in the first place. The other day I overheard a colleague who works on user experience telling another colleague that the most effective product demonstration he’s given involves showing customers how to hide all the fields they don’t use on our complex data entry forms. To be clear, all those options make the product powerful; you can tailor it to fit a wide range of business situations. But the complexity makes it awfully challenging.

"Personally, I don’t see this changing until users demand better interfaces and better documentation as criteria for purchasing the next updated camera. That’s a long way of saying that I don’t see this changing."

Ghana Reflections

Words and photographs by Gordon Lewis

My wife and three kids and I recently returned from a two-week trip to Ghana. This excursion consisted of a week of volunteer activities in Lolito, a small village in the Volta region, followed by a week of sightseeing in Accra (the capitol) and Cape Coast, the former center of the slave trade. Not only was this our first trip to Ghana, it was our first trip to the African continent. This holds special significance for most people of African-American heritage, just as a visit to Ireland might for Irish-Americans.

We had researched and talked with Ghanian friends before the trip, so we had a good idea of what to expect. Nevertheless, there are always a few surprises when visiting a country so different from one’s own. One such surprise was that, despite heritage, we couldn't pass for African, at least not by Ghanian standards. Our skin wasn’t dark enough, we didn’t speak any of the local languages, and the English we spoke had a distinctly non-Ghanian accent. We were obroni—foreigners. This made me a lot more conspicuous than I expected, even more so when I had a DSLR slung over my shoulder and my multi-hued family in tow. My street photographer’s mindset of keeping a low profile was often useless. Instead, I had to resign myself to being the center of attention—not that there’s anything wrong with that.

This situation was most acute when I was anywhere near street vendors eager to make a sale, less so when I was visiting crowded local markets and could wander around long enough for my novelty status to wear off. Fortunately, and with few exceptions, the people I encountered were friendly and liked being photographed. Even indifference would draw a smile when I shared the results. Patience, mutual respect, a cheerful attitude, and humility are a universal currency.

Another pleasant surprise was that the continually overcast skies in Ghana, which I had expected based on prior research, did not result in drab, washed-out images. In fact, the reduced lighting contrast made it easier to record acceptable shadow detail in dark African skin tones without blowing out the highlights or having to resort to flash fill. Shooting in color added enough additional “pop” that I rarely felt the need to touch a saturation or contrast slider. Here's a very small but representative sampling of the images I got.

Lolito village boys, Ghana

 

Painter, Lolito, Ghana

 

Hot pepper vendor, Lolito-area market, Ghana

 

Bronze sculpture vendor, Accra arts and crafts marketplace, Ghana

 

Painted man on Oxford Street, Accra, Ghana

 

Late afternoon in Internet cafe, Accra, Ghana

My biggest regret was losing an SD card that had two days' worth of my best shots. I left my laptop at home for weight reasons and was well aware of the risk of not being able to make daily backups. Nevertheless, the constant activity of traveling, packing, unpacking, shooting, and card-swapping made keeping track of several identical-looking cards an even bigger challenge than I expected. I console myself with the knowledge that my family and I had a wonderful time and returned home safely, with no major mishaps, infections, or digestive distress.

As a final note for those of you who may be curious, the equipment I brought with me was nothing special: a Canon EOS 70D with 18–55mm ƒ/3.5–5.6 STM kit zoom, 28mm ƒ/2.8 IS USM, and 50mm ƒ/1.8 STM. The zoom was for daylight, the primes for low-light. Because of their quick and quiet focusing, all three lenses were equally handy for video. The 70D’s large battery capacity and low current drain were also a great comfort in a country where power outages are common. The combined weight was still under five pounds, which is my personal limit for travel.

If you like the photos that accompany this post and aspire to something similar, my advice would be that it's more important to be in the right place than to have the "right" equipment.

For more photos from Ghana, feel free to visit my online gallery.

Gordon

Friend and regular contributor Gordon Lewis is the author of Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment, published by Rocky Nook.

©2015 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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

TOP's links!

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

John Garrity (partial comment): "Gordon Lewis's post is pertinent for myself as I'm currently in my wife's home city in China. Being tall and a 'long nose' I stick out. Am an object of curiosity—frequently at the receiving end of stares, which while often impassive are not hostile. I just smile back and say hello in Mandarin, while if at a suitable distance and appropriate, flap a hand in a gentle wave, and embarrassment normally melts. Photographing people here is easy if you are patient. Wait ten minutes and don't hide what you are doing, then you soon become a familiar if eccentric presence."

[For the full text of partially excerpted comments, please see the Comments Section. —Ed.]

Ken Tanaka: "A wonderful photo essay, Gordon. The best photographs pose more questions than they answer, and some of yours pose memorable questions. Was that man painting bars on his house's windows? Is that fellow the sculptor of those bronze pieces? And, best of all, what's up with that painted fellow walking near the car?! (I think he has a brother in downtown Chicago, by the way.)

"Your remarks about being an obvious foreigner in a country with which you might feel genealogically linked resonates with me. Although I do not have strong Japanese facial features I recall being rather a bit embarrassed while visiting Japan. In one incident a group of museum curators, guided by my name, immediately began assuming that I could act as translator for my party of fellow Americans. My slightly yellow face turned quite red.

"Thank you for your delightful notes, and for the reminder that being and seeing trumps the 'right' lens and camera."

The Best (and Worst) Cameras for Street Photography

Guest post by Gordon Lewis

I’ve been practicing street photography for the past forty years, and have done it with practically every brand and type of camera there is. I’ve used rangefinders, SLRs, DSLRs, 35mm, medium-format, and pocket cameras. Some have had interchangable lens mounts, others have had fixed lenses. I’ve even used large format and Polaroid, although not for street photography. I can therefore state with assurance that, if you’re motivated enough, you can use practically any type of camera for street photography, as long as it’s quick and easy to operate and does not require a tripod.

The quick and easy to operate part is essential. If you’re a street shooter, one second can literally mean the difference between capturing the perfect moment or missing it entirely. Street shooters therefore look for a camera that’s ready in an instant, with no startup lag or delay. Once the camera is ready to shoot, any perceptible shutter lag is a deal-breaker. The autofocus (assuming your camera has it) has to be just as responsive and, better yet, accurate.

Easy-to-operate is a bit more subjective. I define it as a camera that, rather than insisting you use it on its own terms, seems able to read your mind and follow your will. A commonly used term to describe this quality is “transparent.” The opposite is a camera so obstinate it makes you want to hurl it against a brick wall and spit on the shattered remnants.

It certainly helps to have a camera with reliable autoexposure and white balance, as well as enough dynamic range to handle high-contrast lighting without blowing out the highlights or turning shadows solid black. If you’re shooting raw, however, these qualities are secondary and can be adjusted after the fact. Low noise at high ISOs is another minor concern when you’re shooting outdoors in decent light. In low light a touch of “grain” adds character.

As simple and obvious as these requirements might seem, cameras that have them all are not easy to find. For example, some cameras are slow to power up and be ready to shoot. Others add to this delay by also being slow to wake up from battery-conserving “sleep mode,” or requiring the lens to also power-up.

There’s also the issue of battery life. Given that all digital cameras and even some film cameras are completely battery-dependent, you have to make sure you have a fully-charged battery or two on hand while you’re out shooting, otherwise you run the risk of holding a paperweight instead of a camera. There are, of course, cameras that will shoot for several days on a full battery charge, but these tend to be larger cameras that have correspondingly larger batteries. Most street shooters prefer small cameras: They attract less attention and are more comfortable to carry for long periods of time.

Exercise Caution: This was shot recently with my old faithful Nikon FM3A with 50mm ƒ/1.8 AI Nikkor, loaded with Kodak Gold 400. It's an examle of the benefits of minimal automation: Because I focused manually and by eye, I knew the camera couldn’t try to refocus as soon as the bicyclist in the foreground appeared in the frame.

One thing to be vigilant for is how often the supposedly sophisticated AF systems in some cameras can misfocus, even when aimed at static or slow-moving subjects. I’ve owned a Nikon D7000 with 39 AF points and micro-focus adjustment and a Canon EOS 60D with 9 AF points and no micro-focus adjustment. Both have focused so inconsistently that I’ve either had to send them in for repair or get rid of them. DSLRs with optical viewfinders offer almost no pre-exposure confirmation of whether the image is in focus or not. The image can look sharp through the optical viewfinder yet be out of focus when you review it.

My limited experience with mirrorless cameras is that they focus more reliably, but not always as quickly, especially in low light. In the past, you could circumvent such AF issues by pre-setting focus manually. Today, few lenses that still have a usable focusing scale, index, and depth-of-field markings that the only other available option is prayer.

My current favorite cameras for street photography are the Olympus OM-D E-M1 with 25mm ƒ/1.8 Zuiko, which I have rented but don’t own, and my Nikon FM3A with 50mm ƒ/1.8 AI Nikkor. Both meet almost all of the criteria I’ve listed, although in different ways. I could be missing something though. If you’re a dedicated street photographer and have found the perfect camera for your needs, I’d love to hear about it; that is, unless it’s bulky, heavy, laughably expensive, and notoriously difficult to use, in which case you should probably keep it to yourself.

Gordon

CORRECTION: "OM-10" should have been "OM-D E-M1." Sorry for the error. —Ed.

Gordon Lewis's excellent new book on street photography has just begun shipping. Here's the U.K. link.

©2014 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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

TOP's links!

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

Will Your Photos Outlast You?

Words and photographs by Gordon Lewis

One of my ongoing interests—I won’t use the word concerns because that could imply worry or anxiety—is how long my images will last. Given my own impermanence, I lack the hubris to expect that any photographs I’ve produced will last forever. I’d certainly love for later generations to consider my work good enough to be worth maintaining, but that’s up to them to decide, not me. In any event, I won’t be around to enjoy it.

All I’d really like at this point is that my images last at least as long as I do. I’m 61 years old and have been practicing photography for over 45 years. I’m happy to report that most of my photos are in remarkably good health. (So am I, by the way.) I still have negatives and prints from the late '60s that I developed when I was in high school. These are all black-and-white; I wasn’t shooting in color then. Although I’ve been reasonably careful about proper processing and storage, I haven’t been fanatical, so the fact that these images have lasted as long as they have is a testament to the fundamental stability of B&W film and print media. Although it’s more difficult to produce prints or JPEGs from my old film images than from files shot with a digital camera, it’s still possible. If I reproduce my film images digitally, the results can be significantly better than what I was able to achieve in the darkroom. (And I was a pretty damned good B&W printer, thank you very much.)

I shot this photo of the legendary bluesman Lightnin’ Hopkins, at the Ash Grove, a folk and blues club in Los Angeles. The Ash Grove burned to the ground in 1973. Hopkins died in 1982. This image is scanned
from the original Tri-X negative.

There are exceptions of course. Prints I made on resin-coated papers are much more prone to bronzing and other discolorations than my fiber prints, especially when mounted under glass. Color transparencies have been more stable than color negatives and prints, though some of my oldest color prints have that authentically “aged” look that digital filters try to mimic.

Ironically, some of my early attempts at digital archiving have been the least stable of all. Images I once copied onto Zip Drives and Kodak Photo CDs are now irretrievable. I’m still able to read my Kodak Picture Disks on 3.5" floppy media, but the resolution and image quality are only slightly better than what you’d expect with a decent camera phone. That said, my more recent digital archives on external hard drives are doing fine so far.

Another exception to digital decay is my digital prints. Inkjet pigment prints of mine have been framed and exposed to indirect sunlight for at least ten years and still look as good as the day I printed them. I also have images that have been digitally printed onto silver-based color paper. These have been stored in boxes, folders, or albums and still look fine, which is to say they generally don’t look as good as the prints I made myself, but they are more than good enough for family archiving purposes.

This, in my opinion, is one of the strongest arguments for making any prints you produce as archival as possible: Why go through the time and expense of printing if fading may cause you to have to reprint years later, with no guarantee that you’ll be able to find the original negative or file, or duplicate your original printer profile, paper, and settings? It’s far more efficient to get it right the first time. Also, should I—or you—drop dead tomorrow, prints in clearly labeled boxes, envelopes, or folders are a lot easier for your survivors to find and share than raw files on one of your backup drives.

If there’s any drawback to being consistent and well organized in the way you maintain your images over time, it’s that word will begin to spread among your friends, acquaintances, and relatives whose own photo filing methods are, shall we say, lacking. You’d be surprised how often I get calls or emails from people I photographed years ago and barely remember, asking if I still have the prints or negatives and, if so, whether I can send them a copy. More often than not, I can. I don’t mind either; after all, it’s flattering that my photographs would be important enough to someone else that they would seek me out for copies years later.

This is one of my first successful attempts at shooting and processing my own film. It’s of my dog Prince and was most likely shot in the summer
of 1967, on the front porch of my home.

The person you don’t want to be is the one who can’t find a photo you shot three months ago, has no backup copies of his image files, either no prints or prints and negs stored in a damp basement, or has all of his images stored on a hard drive that has started making “funny noises.”

Laugh if you’d like, but for those of you who have been active photographers for at least a decade or two, can you locate your earliest images and, if so, what condition are they in? I’d really be curious to know.

Gordon

©2014 by Gordon Lewis, all rights reserved

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

TOP's links!

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

Jordi P: "As a 19-year-old it is a question I sometimes ponder. I am thinking about my own lifetime posterity rather than poshumously. Still have the original files of my first pictures I took in 2004 as a kid.

"(Cringed a bit on the decade mentioned on the last paragraph.) Took up film shooting for learning and all the negs, prints and slides shot I have in a drawer. Should get around classifying them one day. On the external HDD's I got I finally got sround to sorting the photos by year and month subfolders last christmas. Should do a backup soon again.

"The after I die question is one I don'think about! Despite growing in the digital age, I mistrust digital media for unassisted archiving. Given the nature nowadays of this medium, I expect a 'digital dark age' of some sort. Causalities: In 2009 and 2011 I misplaced (lost) a couple of folders. Sadly the former contained photos of a family friend that passed away. Resalised its value late. Nowadays I do a lot of casual photography around my college life and for sure I am going to be the one who keeps photos of things. A quote that has been etched in my mind, by Mr John Free, is: 'It's not about you, it's about them.' So I hope to not be the guy with lost files as it isn't only me the one affected."

Stephen Cowdery: "I have tens of thousands of images going back to the mid-'60s, negatives and slides, all in pages in three ring binders by year. I can find any image in a couple of minutes. B&W negs are all perfect, color negs have shifted but are usually restorable, Kodachromes, Anscochromes (GAF) 3M slides are very good, but Ektachromes are all over the place—some from the '70s have faded to red quite badly, others are OK.

"I worked many years in a lab specializing in printing from old media. The only B&W negs which were a problem were very old nitrate-based ones which had started to dissolve(100+ years old.) Color negs from the '50s were usually very bad, old slides from that era usually had some fading (except Kodachromes) and often had fungus spots.  Prints were all over the place—the old prints in the best condition had all been toned."

Wolfgang Lonien: "Gordon! So good to hear/read from you. Though it's only since December, I miss your 'Shutterfinger' blog—but I also understand the perfectly good reasons to stop you listed there. Wishing you and yours well from Germany—and thanks for this article as well!"

Speed: "My prints, negatives and slides are like Schrödinger's cat—they are both there and not there. In my mind all are well preserved in sleeves, envelopes and folders in a box in the basement. In reality they may be lost. As long as I don't open the box...."

Joseph Brunjes: "shoot most of my serious work on 8x10 tintype. I like tintypes because you get a 'print' minutes after the exposure. (I procrastinate with printing my B&W negatives.) We still have tintypes from the 1860s that were not stored in climate controled spaces or behind glass. My varnished plates should easily last hundreds of years."