The Online Photographer

Three Books Chosen by Ken Tanaka

Written by Ken Tanaka

2019 saw the publication of another crop of excellent, engaging photobooks. Frankly I cannot imagine nominating any of those I’ve seen as “best.” But if I had to choose a few most likely to be of interest to my fellow TOP readers it would be these.

Let’s start with two books associated with museum exhibitions. 2019 was the year that photography’s first commercial format, the daguerreotype, got new and deeper looks. The Nelson-Atkins Museum in Kansas City and New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art each produced superb 2019 exhibitions that highlighted the earliest roles of daguerreotype photography in various documentary work.

Golden Prospects: Daguerreotypes of the California Gold Rush
Jane L. Aspinwall, with contributions by Keith F. Davis
Hall Family Foundation / The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 2019

The California Gold Rush of 1848-1855 was inarguably one of most significant social, political, and economic events in 19th century American hisory. Today such events (or even our lunch plates) are covered by photography in every imaginable (and unimaginable) way. But in 1848 photography was brand new. There were no conventions or best practices for its use. And yet dageurreotypists soon “became the mediators of the world’s truth.” They quickly learned to weave a contiguous visual story fabric from what otherwise seemed like utter chaos.

Golden Prospects represents a remarkable body of curatorial scholarship on a foundational moment in photography’s history. It also represents an eye-opening view of just how good photography became so quickly. Considering the cumbersome nature of producing usable dags at all, it’s astonishing to see so much work from so many collections gathered to put such clear focus on such a big moment.

Golden Prospects is not technically a photobook. But it is a mesmerizing deep stare into one of photography’s earliest opportunities to construct a big story for the rest of the world.

Monumental Journey: The Daguerreotypes of Girault de Prangey
Stephen C. Pinson (and many other contributors)
The Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art, New York, 2019

Here’s the basic setup for Monumental Journey: Girault de Prangey, a rich 37-year-old single guy from northeastern France with some formal art education, becomes obsessed with the new daguerreotype photo tech. About 1842, just a few years before the start of the California Gold Rush (above), he begins three years of travel throughout the Mediterranean region, where he extensively and methodically photographs landmark sites and scenes he visits. Upon returning to his home he meticulously labels and organizes the roughly 1,000 resulting plates and stores them in custom-made wooden cases. He writes a few articles on his work and even self-publishes a book of some of this work, but his work is largely ignored. So eventually the wood cases are stashed in his attic, not to be re-discovered until long after his 1892 death.

There is a long, somewhat sinuous story between the rediscovery of this work and today. Some pieces were lost and nearly a century of neglect have not left this work in pristine condition. But it still shines as among the most thoughtful and skillfully-created collection of amateur dauguerrotypes in existence. Many of Girault’s images represent first-and-only records for many archeological sites and subjects which have since been lost to time and change. Additionally, since Girault had no need to conform to commercial practices (i.e. standard enclosure sizes and aspect ratios) he could make his plate exposures according to the needs of his subjects. So we see far more panoramic and vertical plates than are usually seen in other collections.

Like Golden Prospects, Monumental Journey is not a photobook, per se. It’s an exhibition catalog and a body of scholarly work. But Girault de Prangey’s work represents one of the first and most earnest efforts at architectural and archeological documentation with photography.

And here is one standout book not about daguerreotypy:

André Kertész: Marcher Dans L’Image (Walk in the Picture) [French only]
Cédric De Veigy
André Frère Éditions, 2019
Link to the exhibition website

If you’ve admired André Kertész’s work as long and as deeply as I have you may imagine you’ve seen everything there is to see. And then something like this comes along to make you realize you’re not there yet.

Drawn from scans of Kertész’s archive negatives in Paris, Marcher Dans L’Image is a largely passive analysis of how Kertész made his framing and composition choices for a variety of scenes he shot with his Leica between 1930 and 1936. I can guarantee that most of the images and scenes will be new to your eyes, as most have never been published.

If you’re someone fascinated by looking at famous photographers’ contact sheets you’ll be over the moon with this book. Images, all beautifully printed, are not presented as raw contact sheets but rather as page layouts showing series alternatives.

Do note that the book is entirely in French. No, I don’t really read French. But due to the magic of the Google Translate app and my iPhone I can read just about anything. Mercifully, there is relatively little text to translate as the presentation is mostly visual. So no need to fear that you’ll not understand the material.

Marcher Dans L’Image is only available from the publisher or on the secondary market. It accompanies an exhibition, open until February 9th, 2020, at the Robert Doisneau House of Photography, 1 rue du Division du Général Leclerc, 94250 Gentilly, France.

Ken

Longtime reader and occasional contributor Kenneth Tanaka has been actively engaged in photography and the arts for many years. His own recent book To Build, a lyrical look at the accidental beauty of large-scale construction sites, was recently published on Blurb. It was distilled from approximately a dozen years of working. It's expensive in paper, but you can see all the photos in the preview at Blurb—and I recommend you do that! —Ed.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Kenneth Tanaka. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support The Online Photographer through Patreon

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

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "Just purchased the Kertesz book and really look forward to getting it. This is a perfect intersection of my photographic interests. He is one of my favorites and I'm always very interested in the editing process employed by various photographers. Thanks for the suggestion."

hugh crawford: "Thanks for the pointer to Girault de Prangey. I can't believe I missed this up until now."

Moose: "Re 'His own recent book To Build, a lyrical look at the accidental beauty of large-scale construction sites, was recently published on Blurb.' It's only half January, and I'll bet Mr. Tanaka's book will be my photo book of the year. Not my sort of subject, other than a few abstract reflections, but I was mesmerized. The colors, shapes, perfect moments in human motion, are wonderful. But the compositions! What a masterful eye. Also a great sense of order and facing page selections. I've enjoyed some of your work before, but none has grabbed me like this."

Two Last Pickins

 Written by Ken Tanaka

One of the world’s little ironies, at least to me, is that while we’re unarguably living in the golden age for photographic technology, we’re also in the late twilight of the golden age of great photography. The people who propelled the medium to great heights during the last century are either gone or long retired and there is no true wave of replacements. What’s more, their bodies of works have been almost thoroughly picked clean, like old carcasses in the wild. Cartier-Bresson, Frank, Winogrand, Kertesz, Doisneau, et al. have all been most thoroughly analyzed, exhibited, and retrospected. We’ve seen it all.

Well, almost. Yes, the masterpiece images and strongest bodies of work are all well-known. But there still are a few worthwhile as-yet unseen pickin’s on those carcasses. Here are two recent books that offer proof.

•

One, Two, Three, More
Helen Levitt
PowerHouse Books, 2017, Brooklyn, NY (UK link)

Helen Levitt’s name has been synonymous with “street photography” as long as the genre has existed. In fact, she almost defined it. While she has not had quite the number of publications and exhibitions that buoyed many of her contemporaries to fame her work became firmly established among the twentieth century’s greats well before her death in 2009.

Designed by Levitt’s long-time assistant and friend, Marvin Hoshino, One, Two, Three, More represents a deeper dive into some of Levitt’s early (1934 to 1946) street work. While some of the book’s approximately 150 B&W photos will be familiar to fans most have never been published. According to an LFI interview with Hoshino, he gathered the images entirely from prints, some of which were work prints and others signed.

As with all of Levitt’s books the formatting and presentation of One, Two, Three, More is simple and unpretentious. One image per page, with both a recto and verso image. No double-trucking. No full bleeds. No captions. No dates or other references. Just the images. I was puzzled by the book’s title and corresponding section organization until reading that Hoshino organized the images according to the number of people in them. I would not have picked up that puzzle for a long time.

Although One, Two, Three, More could introduce someone to Levitt’s work it’s probably going to be most compelling to long-time fans. It’s almost like looking at a long-form contact sheet. Some images look like they required heavy preparation. Most of the frames feature Levitt’s characteristically masterful framing and timing but there are plenty that don’t quite meet her normal standards. And for me those imperfect frames are what make One, Two, Three, More a treasure to review. They make Levitt mortal and her work even more special.

I thank Marvin Hoshino and PowerHouse for making the investment in giving us (at least) one last helping of Helen Levitt’s work that we might not have otherwise seen.

Addendum: I recently learned that there is another 2017 book of Helen Levitt’s work, much of it also published for the first time. Manhattan Transit: The Subway Photographs of Helen Levitt, published by Walther König, looks even more intriguing! A copy is on its way to me. (Here's the UK link.)

Pittsburgh 1950
Elliot Erwitt
Gost, 2017, London (UK link)

There have been enough volumes of Elliot Erwitt’s photography published to fill a bookstore. Could anything possibly be left unseen? Well, it turns out there is.

National Geographic photo editor Vaughn Wallace was doing research for his thesis at the University of Pittsburgh when he came upon this forgotten, very early body of Erwitt’s documentary work at the Pittsburgh Photographic Library. It seems that Erwitt, who was just starting his career, had met renowned photo editor Roy Stryker in 1948. In 1950 Stryker enlisted a group of photographers, including Erwitt, to help document Pittsburgh at mid-century. Unusually, Stryker gave Erwitt no particular coverage mandates; he was free to shoot whatever caught his eye. And that’s exactly what he did. Perhaps predictably, Stryker rejected most (maybe all) the images in this book, banishing them to a “Kill” file. Fortunately for us Stryker did not destroy the negatives with a paper punch, as was his tendency.

Like Levitt’s book, some of these early Erwitt images are a bit rough and far from Erwitt’s best. But many seem wonderfully un-self-conscious, rather like the images many of us made before we “understood” photography. But you can already see the talent and form that Erwitt would hone so keenly over the coming decades of his career. His timings and frame constructions, the deadpan humor, the ironic juxtapositions—they’re distinctly Erwitt.

Beyond the actual images, this book features a genuine co-star: the gorgeous B&W gravure printing. I had no idea that such lush gravure printing was even possible today. The deep blacks are so deep you feel you can fall into them. Some pages have so much ink that they’re almost reliefs that could be read with your fingers as well as your eyes. I have found no notes on the book’s production, so I cannot say with certainty that it employed photogravure. But the look, the feel, and the scent of the pages seems unmistakable to me. Having such a lovely graphic arts product is alone worth the price of the book. My hat’s off to Gost and its production team!

•

Will these books really represent the last we see published of Levitt’s and Erwitt’s works? Certainly not. Endless retrospection is at the core of every curator’s / historian’s very being. But, just as certainly, the images in these books must represent nearly the last Levitt and Erwitt works that are truly new to the public eye. And that’s what makes them worth seeing.

Ken

©2018 by Kenneth Tanaka, all rights reserved

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

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

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

No featured comments yet—please check back soon!

The Water Walker

The Water Walker. Photo by Kenneth Tanaka

Written by Kenneth Tanaka

One of photography's old chestnuts is that if you stare at something long enough you will eventually see something remarkable. Maybe it's not such an "old chestnut," after all.

I have been staring at Lake Michigan and, particularly, Chicago's Monroe Harbor for nearly thirty years, year in and year out. I never tire of looking at it. The scene is always changing, but never more so than in winter when freezing and precipitation often produce amazing scenes of abstract beauty.

I was photographing just such a scene one afternoon in late February (2014) as the harbor's surface was re-freezing following a brief thaw. Suddenly I saw something remarkable in my viewfinder: a man walking across the thin ice! Was this real? Where had he come from? That ice is only a couple of days old. Is he crazy? My jaw dropped and took my gut with it as I was certain I was seeing the final moments of someone's life. Falling into that water at this time of the year would certainly kill anyone within a few minutes, as it already had elsewhere along the Chicago lakefront during this winter. Nevertheless the man appeared to be walking completely nonchalantly, slightly under-dressed for the 10°F weather. Was he suicidal, I wondered?

At my first sight there was no evidence of any reaction to this stunt. There was nobody on shore, no emergency personnel as this fellow strolled across the harbor ice, apparently trying to reach the breakwater that forms the harbor. I was certain that each step would be his last, and that we would soon helplessly watch him sink into the icy water. As my wife was ready to call 911 we were relieved to hear sirens heading toward the harbor. At about this same time the "water walker" seemed to encounter ice that rattled his nerves enough to force a retreat. I captured this image as he turned and walked, again nonchalantly, back toward shore where a group of fire/rescue personnel and police officers anxiously awaited him.

I'm happy to report that the man safely returned to shore, apparently perfectly dry, and greeted his prospective rescuers with what appeared from my distant vantage to be a "Gee, what's the fuss?" attitude. Police and fire personnel spoke with him for a few minutes and then loaded him into a waiting ambulance, even though he seemed in fine condition.

And that's the last I heard of this stunt. No news coverage whatsoever.

In my years watching the lake and harbor I have never seen anyone try such a stunt. And of course I certainly would never encourage anyone to try it. But it sure made for a wonderful, rather surreal late afternoon image, didn't it?

I realize that there are likely to be a few readers/viewers who may be suspicious that I've created the "Water Walker" with Photoshop. For them I add the following image showing the fellow as he reached shore.

One last note. A good friend remarked that the image looks equally fascinating when inverted, since it does not show a horizon and the walker is so cleanly reflected. I agree!

Ken

UPDATE 10 p.m. Saturday: Since Mike posted this piece my wife found a kind of news item concerning the incident. Believe me, this fellow required no 'rescue,' luckily for everyone. In answer to another inquiry, I can assure everyone that relatively little post-processing was performed on the image. Just enough to make it work nicely in a print. And, finally, someone asked privately about the camera. I used a Fujifilm X-E2 with the XF 55–200mm lens for this image. —Ken

©2014 by Kenneth Tanaka, all rights reserved

Original contents copyright 2014 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.

You can find the link to our affiliates at the bottom of all our posts.

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

Edward Taylor: "Actually, this incident was reported on the national news. I saw this on the evening news (I think NBC). They showed him walking back to shore and being 'rescued.'"

David Paterson: "An otherwise good friend of mine tells me that all my pictures look better upside-down."

Carl Schmidt: "I've read this blog for years but never felt compelled to write anything until now. It's a beautiful picture and one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I assume there's minimal or no post processing. It's the real thing."

Vivian's Selfies

Reviewed by Kenneth Tanaka

Vivian Maier: Self-Portraits by John Maloof

Amazon U.S. link
Amazon U.K. link
Book Depository link
Other TOP Amazon links

By now the legend of Vivian Maier should be familiar to most TOP readers. Maier was a Chicago nanny who also turned out to be an extraordinarily devoted and talented, but intensely secretive, candid "street" photographer. Since her basically posthumous discovery following a series of 2007 abandoned property auctions, Maier has become a de facto patron saint for amateur photographers worldwide. With each batch of newly disclosed work, Maier’s talent emerges as clearly equivalent, and in many cases superior, to many of the most celebrated street photographers of the 20th century.

Two books of Maier's work have been previously published, one each from the collections of John Maloof and Jeffrey Goldstein, the primary holders of Maier's work. Vivian Maier: Self-Portraits is drawn from Maloof's collection and, as the title implies, presents a specific genre of her images.

I jokingly referred to the images in this book as "selfies" (proclaimed this year's word of the year by the Oxford English Dictionary). But none of the book's 89 images actually resemble the look-at-me snapshots that have become mainstays on social sites. Rather, Maier's "self-portraits" appear to be a mixture of carefully composed scenes and inadvertent self-inclusions, with a smattering of images taken by others with Maier's camera.

In her introductory essay, Elizabeth Avedon observed that the images lack hints of emotion. I agree. None have a happy or even a commemorative feeling, although many do appear to have been taken during Maier's travels. Vivian didn't seem to enjoy smiling. Several do convey a slightly narcissistic feeling, particularly those of her that resemble press portraits. But none impress me as images of a lonely person. Rather, they're images of a person alone. Many seem to be experiments in using herself in compositions.

Although a few of the images have been previously published, most will be new to your eyes. This is especially true of the final 30 images which are in color. Apparently Maier enthusiastically adopted color later in her life, after dabbling with it since the 1950s. Judging by the images in the book she had a nice eye for color compositions, too.

The book itself is the same 10x11" squarish layout as Maloof's 2011 book by PowerHouse. But I'm delighted to report that the print quality of images in this book, which is also published by PowerHouse, is exponentially superior to that 2011 book. In fact both the color and B&W plates look about as good as it gets in photobooks today.

(A Kindle edition is scheduled for release on November 26, 2013.)

If you're already hooked on following the discovery of Vivian Maier's work, as I am, buying this book is a no-brainer. But even aside from the contextual lore the plates in this book present an excellent study of possibilities for creative photographic self-representation. I know of no other book of such a study and for that reason alone it's worth the investment for dedicated photographers.

If you're in New York before December 15, 2013 you might want to visit the corresponding "Vivian Maier: Self Portrait" show at the Howard Greenberg Gallery.

Ken

©2013 by Kenneth Tanaka, 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:

Doug C: "Thanks for the tip. We just got in from seeing the show. Well worthwhile. Beautiful work. I would not have known about it had I not read this post."

Steve Barnett: "Ken writes, 'I know of no other book of such a study and for that reason alone it's worth the investment for dedicated photographers.' There is Lee Friedlander's book Self Portrait. Of course 'selfies' have been made by painters for centuries, so it makes me curious why some people feel uncomfortable about photographers taking it seriously. I think it gave Maier that excuse we all might need from time to time to explore idea's in a freer way, something that can be laughed off, but underneath there is an idea forming."

Mike adds: I was surprised to discover that The 2005 reprint of Lee Friedlander's Self Portrait is still available. Not only that, but Lee has reprised the idea, in a 2011 Yale Art Gallery title.

Lest We Forget

Written by Kenneth Tanaka

This week I lost a member of my family, someone who was part of my daily world for nearly half of my life. It can be all too easy to take someone so close for granted and let them become invisible. To my great dismay, despite owning a small fortune worth of camera equipment, that's what I had done. I could find no photos of him amidst the tens of thousands of images in my library.

Fortunately my wife, the sharper member of our partnership, had not suffered such a lapse and had an excellent series of snapshots from earlier this year. It was wonderful to see them. They'll certainly be treasures for the rest of our lives.

Which leads me to the point of this piece. Lest we forget, the primary reason most of us originally bought cameras was to record our lives. Our families. Our friends. Our travels. The things that give us joy. The things we love and care most for. The pursuit of "art" and self-expression is also a wonderful use of a camera. But it's a terrible mistake to allow such pursuits to distract you from covering all of the personal treasures of your life.

So may I suggest that today would be a good time to take pictures of the important souls in your world if you don't routinely do so. PRINT the pictures, the good and the "bad," and put them in a safe place. I can almost guarantee that one day they will become the most valuable pictures in your collection.

©2013 by Kenneth Tanaka, 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:

Son of Tarzan: "So beautifully stated Kenneth. Thank you for sharing and more importantly, reminding us the value of memories, especially visual ones.  That is the best reason for anyone's use of the photographic process. I am passing your words on to many of my family and friends."

Bill Poole: "One of my favorite photo anthologies is called simply Family: Photographers Photograph their Families—from Phaidon and with lovely reproductions. Well-known photographers' pics of the people closest to them. I bought my copy used and was surprised to find that it is still in print."

M. G. Van Drunen: "Wow Ken, what amazing timing. My wife and I returned home about two hours ago from the funeral of a dear friend who succumbed to pancreatic cancer at the age of 58. We have traveled with Ken and Arlene for nearly 35 years.

"After she passed away her husband contacted me to check my files for pictures to be used by the funeral home in a video slide show for the wake. I was able to do this and it just made clear to me exactly what you have written...the pictures of Mount Rushmore are nice, but the pictures of Arlene standing in front with the Presidents in the background have now become priceless to me and hopefully her family.

"One more thought: The journey toward mastering the 'arty' shots has also help my priceless family and friend shots.

"Thanks for sharing your thoughts."

Abelardo Morell: The Universe Next Door

By Kenneth Tanaka

What does the expression "a photographer's photographer" mean to you? To me it's a genre-independent designation far beyond simply a "good" or "prolific" photographer. To me it's someone who leverages a mastery of the photographic medium toward making more sophisticated observations than the usual superficial self-evidence. It's a visually curious and voracious person who sees first with a keen mind then, perhaps, with a lens. And sometimes it's someone who doesn't even need a camera to make a picture.

Abelardo (Abe) Morell is, to me, a photographer's photographer. I believe that the Art Institute of Chicago's new show, "Abelardo Morell: The Universe Next Door" firmly buttresses my opinion.

Abe's work defies conventional categorization. It's certainly not street, fashion, or any form of reportage even though Frank, Levitt and Arbus were some of the photographers he most admired. Nor is it purely conceptual, although this, on average, comes closest to the mark. I just call Abe's work "deep seeing." It's simultaneously meditative, inventive, and investigative.

If you're only barely aware of Abe Morell it's likely you know of his jaw-dropping camera obscura work in which he has inarguably established the gold standard. He began doing camera obscura experiments as an instructional exercise during his 27-year photographic teaching career at at the Massachussetts College of Art and Design (a.k.a. MassArt). It gradually became a passionate pursuit that, as it became more sophisticated, has drawn him to many locations in the world, with many visual objectives. Today, with the aid of a periscoped custom dome tent, Abe can take the basic technique nearly anywhere, a freedom that's leading him in new artistic directions.

But Abe's work is far broader and deeper than camera obscura. The birth of his first child in 1986 and the consequent limitations imposed by home-bound infant care became the genesis of much of his most fascinating work. Unable to wander the world in search of images, Abe began to explore the world of his home. Switching from a small 35mm camera to a large-format view camera he began contemplating the simplest of household scenes and objects. Wet footprints on a bathroom floor. Crayons. Baby bottles. The view of his home from an infant's point of view. Gradually this work became more sophisticated and complex as he began conveying characteristics such as materiality and the cultural meanings of objects such as books, money, maps, and the indivisible relationship between photography and time.

Skimming Abe's work generally does not work. In nearly every frame there's more going on than is immediately apparent. The complexity of constructions and their meanings often require contemplation and sometimes additional notes. For example the image titled "Shadows during Solar Eclipse, 1994" apparently shows sunlight filtered through a tree canopy and striking the ground. Sounds dull, eh? But then you learn that each of those spots is a camera obscura image of the sun in partial eclipse, created by the momentary gaps between tree leaves. Then you realize that camera obscura images of the sun are always projected all around you in a forest. What's not to love about such revelatory work?

"The Universe Next Door" is a 25-year retrospective show of Abe's work conceived and curated principally by Art Institute of Chicago Associate Curator of Photography, Elizabeth Siegel, over a four-year period. It's an enormous show, featuring over 100 prints occupying four of the AIC's five photography galleries across two buildings.

Speaking of prints, they're simply gorgeous. Abe was for many years a devoted silver gelatin B&W guy. But several years ago, probably for practical reasons, he begun shooting with a digital back and also adopted inkjet printing for both color and B&W. If you visit the show, I challenge you to distinguish between the pigment and wet prints without reading labels. You can't. This is positively the most seamless intermixed presentation of digital/film, wet/pigment photography and printing I have ever seen and a monumental (if unintended) middle finger to those who continue to claim that digital printing is inherently inferior to chemical.

One last thought on the requisite characteristics that make a "photographer's photographer" in my book: they tend to be inspirational. Their creative energy becomes infectious and incites others to pick up a camera. Whether or not Abe Morell's work tickles your fancy I can almost guarantee that it will prompt you to investigate something new, or something old in a new way, with your camera. I'm sure that the educator in Abe would be elated to have such an effect on you.

Ken

Abelardo Morell: The Universe Next Door is at the Art Institute of Chicago from June 1  to September 2, 2013. From Chicago it will travel to Los Angeles's Getty Museum October 1, 2013 – January 5, 2014, and then on to Atlanta's High Museum of Art February 22 – May 18, 2014. I urge you to try to see the show in person. The prints alone are worth the visit, although the images are certain to tattoo your mind.

Failing that, however, the outstanding catalog by Elizabeth Siegel is available from Amazon. (Here's the U.K. link.)

Video: Abelardo Morell on Photography, Life, and Dancing

Our friend Ken Tanaka, who writes periodically for TOP and comments often, lives right next door to the Art Institute of Chicago and is enthusiastically involved with the museum world in many ways. Visit his (very nice, frequently updated) website here.

Original contents copyright 2013 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:

Patrick Snook: "In the video linked here I saw in just three minutes the most compelling photography I've seen in three or more years. And the unpretentious commentary rings true and clear. Perfect, or as near as it gets. Thanks for bringing this photographer to TOP!"

Charles Wick: "I first met Abe in 1967 through my college roomate. Knowing him was from the first a revelation: his constant curiosity, playfulness,good humor and insightfulness have been a touchstone for me in my life since then. While he distances himself from his early street stuff, I remember the photos he did in college even now for their brilliant surprises and revelations. I have a couple of his discards from this time and still marvel when I look at them. To Abe, I can only say 'Ungark Geb!!'"

Richard Tugwell: "A new photographer to me, and an eye-opener—thanks Ken for the review. I'm not sure about the term 'photographer's photographer'—sounds a bit esoteric to me, and I would think anyone who enjoys looking will enjoy this guy's ability to see. Inspirational, certainly."

Guest Post: Why Do You Photograph?*

By Kenneth Tanaka

January is, of course, the traditional time of the year for introspection and making resolutions for various self-improvement instigations and abatements. January is also the typical time for photography enthusiasts to make any number of resolutions concerning equipment, projects, and development. You may recall that last year at this time I wrote an essay titled "Ah, January!"** offering thoughts and suggestions towards such ends.

This year I want to offer a slightly different suggestion. Have you ever taken one giant step back to just ask yourself why you photograph at all?

Vocational photographers are, of course, exempted from such interrogation. And certainly one's motives for snapping family, friends, and special life events (travel, graduation, release from prison, etc.) are universally self-evident.

But why do you photograph beyond those categories? What are you getting from it? What do you strive to achieve with your camera? What role does enjoyment of new equipment really play in your photographic activities? What do you actually do with all your photos? Who do you consider the audience for your photographs to be? Is that the audience you want? Do you model yourself against particular photographers and/or types of photography?

Our answers to such questions can be more than idle musings. They can, indeed they should, help crystallize some of our photographic intentions for the coming year. But even if you can't mine any answer more profound than "'Cuz it's fun to do!" (which is perfectly legitimate), I think it's still worth earnestly visiting the questions at least once each year. One year you just might be inspired to answer differently.

Or you might even decide that photography is no longer something you want to directly pursue. For example, I know more than a few people who were once avid and in some cases rather renowned photographers, but at some point decided that appreciating, collecting, and/or teaching photography offered them more personal fulfillment than actually practicing it.

I also know several folks who used the advent of digital photography to reboot their practice by retracting and simplifying their gear spheres. They divested themselves of all their film-era equipment and now use only pocketable carry-anywhere cameras, mostly of the fixed-lens design. To a person they each remark that this change has had a powerfully clarifying effect on their work and brought them much more enjoyment.

Whyever, whatever, and however you photograph this year here's wishing my fellow TOP readers a healthy, peaceful and interesting 2013!

Ken

* This title is not to be confused with Robert Adams's excellent collection of essays published in 2005 by Aperture under the title Why People Photograph. Highly recommended reading, but not directly related.

** You may recall the dreamy little twilight winter scene, below, that I included with that piece:

This is how that same location appears today, exactly one year later:

Such documentary presentations are something that photography is uniquely qualified to produce, and would certainly qualify as an answer to the title question!

Original contents copyright 2012 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:

Ranjit Grover: "I guess it is bit like climbing the mountains. Why should any one climb a mountain? It is a compulsive behavior. So is photography. Many photographers do not even care to show their work to others. The mere act of getting the picture is what gives them the satisfaction. Documentation is only part of the story. For whom is the documentation done? For the present generation or the coming generations? Would they care? Who is interested in the photo of my aged neighbor? Obviously there would be no direct, clear cut, unambiguous answer for that age old question 'Why do we shoot pictures?' It is a profoundly philosophical question that will not get an answer for a very, very long time."

Animesh Ray: "Why do I photograph? I wanted to be a painter very early in life but soon found out that I lack both the ability and the talent. Instead, I found that I was intuitive with the camera. Ever since it has been the easier way of giving vent to a creative urge. Now it appears that I might indeed leave one or two prints on the wall that my descendants could mull over after I am gone. That is the driver."

Roger Overall: "You ask great questions, Ken, but I'm so troubled by your two photographs at the end of the post, I can't concentrate hard enough to answer them. My mind is hungry for a third photograph next year of the site. I want a happy ending to the story you're telling with the two photographs so far. I need a conclusion in part three that eases my mind and shows that all is well with the park. I hope to see that it is improved, rather than destroyed. Will you show us the ending in a third picture?"

icexe: "Years ago I used to care so much about the art, about making that perfectly exposed, perfectly composed, mind-blowing image. But with the advent of digital photography and the Internet, it seems no matter how great an image I made, hundreds of other people  out there already did it, and did it far better than I did.

"I often felt like I was spending thousands of dollars on equipment just to make 'me too' derivative photos that really no one but a few facebook friends might spend more a few seconds looking at. I entered a few photo contests, only to feel even less capable when my 'best' attempts wouldn't even make it past the middle of the pack at best.
Finally, I said to myself, 'Really, who was I trying to impress anyway?'

"So recently my photos have become far more personal; I take photos for me, to capture moments that mean something to me. I've mostly dumped the big, heavy, expensive gear for a simpler MFT setup with a fixed lens.

"I don't care as much now about 'perfection,' I care much more about emotion. I know the stories of all the images I frame on my wall, they may seem uninteresting to most people, but to me they are a reminder of snippets from my life.  Ultimately, these are the photos worth taking."

Mark: "Well, it's a given I'm never a featured comment, but that doesn't stop me from offering my two cents. Why do I photograph? All I need do is look at the walls in my home all adorned with my photos over the years, from when my kids were babies to now, when the oldest is 26 and the youngest 21. The memories, the smiles, the teardrops, are all the proof positive I need that I took up the right hobby. I'll practice it until my last breath."

Mike replies: Best comment so far.  :-)

bertram eiche: "I take photos because it satisfies me. I like to enhance my memories with beauty. I'm far beyond the 10,000 hours rule. Photography became just a part of me. I'm never without a camera. Just love it."

Steve Caddy: "The answer for me came before I started actively asking the question. I'd already half decided to give the hobby away in favor of devoting time to focus on other things; family, work, cycling...that kind of thing. My wife was pregnant and I was going to have less time to devote to my already too numerous (and too consuming) interests.

"My wife  doesn't care much for 'photography.' She tends to bemoan anything larger than pocketable or more expensive than a couple of hundred dollars and sees pictures as 'photo of girl', 'photo of lamp-post' regardless of light, composition, moment or metaphor. When our son was unexpectedly born at 23 weeks gestation she said to me: 'Go home and get a camera. I want you to take pictures.'

"I went home and got a Mamiya 645, an M6, and an old DSLR. We took a lot of pictures of each other, our lifeless boy, the room, the passing light as the outside world kept going; the thick weight of emptiness that descends over you at such times.

"In the weeks after we came home from the hospital, going through the images, there were three 6x4.5 black and whites of my wife holding our tiny, tiny son and, seeing them, I started to understand what we had been through.

"We wouldn't have had that if I didn't make those pictures, and the ones from the other cameras weren't the same. Somehow in the sorrow, the big, slow, deliberate, heavy one, with the controls that are workable through tear-filled eyes and mechanical noises as real and physical as ourselves was the one that made images that would teach me something about myself, my wife, the strength of our marriage and the meaning of our children.

"When I saw those photos, that's when I knew not to stop making pictures. Even if nobody but we see them, they help us know the world and ourselves."

Olympus E-M5 First Notes (vs. NEX-7 and E-P3)

Here's a Canon TLb next to the Olympus E-M5. I didn't have an Olympus OM body handy, but I think this still gives a good estimate of how relatively
small everyday SLR bodies used to be.

By Ken Tanaka

So you own (or want) a Sony NEX-7 or an Olympus Pen E-P3 but your eye has begun wandering over to that cute little Olympus OM-D E-M5 that's just come onto the market? I think you're in good company.

Mike is planning a more comprehensive article on the Olympus E-M5 in the future. But meanwhile I thought some TOP readers might appreciate notes comparing the E-M5 to the NEX-7 and E-P3. Mind you, these are just notes—not a comprehensive review or an analysis. Just a list of my own early comparative observations that I've not found elsewhere and that you might find interesting. So here goes.

Feeling and size
Honestly, right out of the box the E-P3 reminded me a bit of the little Olympus E-420 which I owned briefly. It's about the same size, although of different proportions.

The E-M5 has a very solidly-built feeling very similar to the E-P3. The NEX-7's in-hand feeling is not really comparable due to its rather minimalist, low-mass design. Although the E-M5 not heavy, it has a nice in-hand heft.

As you can see, the three cameras are quite close in size. The E-P3 and E-M5 are closest in profile, although the latter is just a bit thicker. With its integrated electronic viewfinder (EVF), the E-M5 is shorter and sleeker than the E-P3 plus VF-2 electronic viewfinder configuration. The NEX-7 is certainly the sleekest completely integrated design among the three cameras.

Shutter
I'm not a shutter sound fetishist. But the E-M5 shutter's lovely, soft, quiet thunk is really worth noting. (Kirk Tuck suggested that it may be similar to the sound/feel of a Bentley's door closing. Yup, that's close!) Much softer and quieter than the E-P3's clack. Also softer than the NEX-7's (different) clack. Very gentle but reassuring vibration in-hand. Very discreet sound. Love it.

Electronic Viewfinder (EVF) and LCD
Olympus's VF-2 viewfinder, offered as an accessory on the E-P2/P3, has been my favorite EVF to date. It's bright and presents a tonally rich image. Sony's NEX viewfinder is bright and detailed but is very harsh and contrasty. So I was delighted to find that the E-M5's EVF has the same characteristics as the VF-2. It's excellent.

It's also worth noting that the E-M5's viewfinder is much easier to use when wearing eyeglasses. The NEX-7's viewfinder disengages unless you keep your eye nearly pressed to the cup. The E-M5's viewfinder sensor is much more lenient and a joy to use with glasses. Well done Oly!

The LCD panels of the NEX-7 and E-M5 are basically identical in operational performance and function. Both are about the same size, both tilt up 90 degrees and down approximately 45 degrees, with similar hinge designs. The NEX-7's LCD is thinner and easier to manipulate quickly with just a finger. The E-M5's LCD is much stiffer and wants you to first flip the top edge out before lifting the bottom edge. Some might prefer the E-M5's LCD for being a design less prone to accidental pop-outs.

The E-M5's LCD in "faux Rolleiflex" position versus the
NEX-7 in the same position.

But one area in which the two LCDs differ is touch-sensitive operation. The E-M5 shares the E-P3's iPhone-like touch-sensitive screen. When enabled, it lets you select focus point, swipe through image previews, and even focus and shoot with just a tap. With the E-M5's tilting screen you can basically keep the camera at waist level and merely glance/tap to shoot. It's an addictive and effective 21st-century design feature.

Although the NEX-5n featured a similar touch-sensitive LCD, the NEX-7 does not. I was disappointed by this omission, even though it was never as widely functional as Olympus's design.

Nits
Power switch: The E-M5's power switch is a mechanical lever similar to the design found on Canon's 1D series, rather than the E-P3's electronic button. Frankly I've found it to be an awkward design choice.

The rubber thumb bumper (say that three times fast) is an excellent design detail for secure grip, not found on the other cameras.

The E-M5's "Super Control Panel" (SCP) consolidates the most often needed settings into a single lcd screen matrix enabling you to quickly find basic settings.

Spongy buttons: The E-M5's control buttons are small and spongy, lacking tactile feedback. This is rather disappointing design choice. While no cameras have large buttons today, they do generally offer tactile feedback when pressed.

The E-M5 features a new battery, the BLN-1. Really? Why couldn't it have used the same battery as the E-P3? Of course, as I write this, extra BLN-1 batteries are nowhere to be found.

While I'm talking about power, why in the world does Olympus continue to offer a corded-only battery charger?

Image quality
I'll leave this to real reviewers. But I have been extremely impressed with the first images coming out of this camera. A bit more detailed and refined than the E-P3 but perhaps not in quite the same league with the larger sensor of the NEX-7. Neutral JPEGs have somewhat the same warm, magenta appearance as those from the E-P3 (and E-P2) but perhaps a bit less so to my eye.

Ken

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Ken White: "The more I use the E-M5, the more impressed I am with how competent it is as a complete package. This weekend being Mothers Day, I had several relatives over who turned out to be perfect victims for some Strobist-style portraits.

"I shot the EM-5 45mm side-by-side with my Canon 60D 85mm ƒ/1.8. Both did very well in terms of image output, with the 60D being slightly better. The big difference for me came down to handling and focusing. Here the EM-5 clearly won the day. It is light and responsive. A real joy to use.

"By comparison the 60D was heavy and hard to handle. It was not bad, but definitely not as easy to use or responsive as the little Olympus. Sometimes a piece of equipment just feels right in your hand. For me the EM-5 is right."

Featured Comment by GH: "Thanks for the insights, Ken. For what it's worth, a little tip with the NEX-7's EVF is to set your Creative Style to Neutral or Portrait and set contrast to –3, and it'll open up the EVF's contrast quite a bit. Of course, this will affect your JPEG output, but, assuming you're a Raw shooter, this won't matter."

[The following two comments came in right next to each other. Click the image for a somewhat larger (more readable) version. The screenshot is from the comment moderation pane. I just thought it was kinda funny that they both opened with the exact same expression but had opposite opinions. —MJ]

Featured Comment by Doug Reilly: "Finally, after all these years, the potential of 4/3 and Micro 4/3 has been realized. That's the way I feel when I pick up the E-M5 with the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm lenses."

Featured Comment by almostinfamous: "Image stabilization is among the best I have used, and it positively shines while shooting videos. Panning, especially, is smooth as silk. Oh, but the buttons—more like foam than sponge methinks—really cheesed me off and made it feel more like a toy than the otherwise solid camera it is."

Featured Comment by Liv: "I got one for my birthday last week. I was really excited to learn to use it in manual. (I had an entry level Nikon DSLR—I think it was a D3000 but I can't really remember—which was stolen when I was overseas before I got to learning much about it. I've been hanging out for something like this to be invented because I always felt that the Nikon was too big).

"My problem is this—when you change the settings, it shows up straight away on the screen and in the viewfinder. So while my photos are coming out great I don't think I'm learning anything, just twisting dials until it looks how I want it to.

"So probably not an issue for most people here but as a 20-year-old just starting out, this has been my only disappointment.

"I still love it though!"

Featured Comment by Dan: "Wondering if the button tactility was compromised by the weatherproofing—rubber gaskets, after all...."

Featured [partial] Comment by Gaspar Heurtley: "Some want bigger sensors, some want more DR, some want B&W only—all I want is a camera with technology from the future and handling from the past."

Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw

Sony NEX-5N camera JPEG, 1.6 sec. @ ISO 800, –3/10 EV

By Ken Tanaka

A couple of months ago I suggested keeping an open mind toward using in-camera image processing, and a number of people asked me to expand on the subject. So I thought I'd just share the logic behind my suggestion and some notes on my own practices.

First things first: no, I am not advocating that anyone abandon using Raw* image files. They are undeniably essential for any application requiring extensive manipulation of the image, particularly significant enlargements. Further, Raw will be the most practical choice if you expect to apply extreme tonal variations on those images. If you need Raw, shoot Raw. Simple as that.

That said, however, the fact is that the majority of my own images remain rather close to their original capture state. I'll bet yours do, too. And with 10 MP being today's apparent minimum resolution for new cameras, I rarely need to even stretch a file any more. The native resolution is nearly always adequate for even larger prints.

So with 1+ terabyte of mostly Raw files hogging my disc space, I asked myself a few simple questions. Does an all-Raw image work flow make any sense? Should I be taking advantage of the substantial storage and processing economies of using pre-cooked camera JPEG files as my new "standard"? Shouldn’t I be taking advantage of the enormous strides that camera manufacturers have made in in-camera image processing? And the big question: Will anyone call me a sissy if I use in-camera JPEGs?!

Why shoot JPEG? Because that's where the money went!**
The major camera manufacturers invest substantial sums toward refining their image processing technologies***. It's what they're most proud of as the hearts of their cameras and a key part of their proprietary competitive weaponry. Processing systems such as Canon's DIGIC system, Nikon's EXPEED system, and Fujifim's EXR system integrate the operation of the camera with the lens and sensor in an attempt to optimize the recorded image.

Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home. This made perfect sense years ago when the chef was still in school. But today many in-camera chefs are James Beard Award candidates. It's definitely time for a re-think.

Back to the future!
So now that you're eager to use all the new technology in your camera, I'm going to suggest you shoot like it's 1980. Yup. Even the best camera JPEG is an 8-bit file which affords less adjustment leeway than a raw file. So the best general guidance I can offer when shooting JPEGs is to be careful with your exposures. We've all become sloppy as cameras have become more automated. Many of the camera processors realize this and have programs that automatically compensate for our carelessness. But the best strategy is to devote some "quality time" to become deeply, almost instinctively familiar with your camera's metering and processing responses. I guarantee that the investment will repay you with excellent dividends.

I'll have mine medium-rare, but hold the sauce, please
I approach in-camera processing to get the best of what it can provide. But usually nothing more. That is, I generally use the most neutral color profile and medium contrast and sharpness. This provides the camera's essential technical corrections and tonal adjustments but steers clear of the faux effects such as "Holga," "Antique," and "MFA Candidate." This produces a file with color and contrast tonality that's generally straight down the middle of the road and able to equally accommodate + or – bumps. It looks more lively than a purely linear Raw image but not vivid.

What about B&W conversions?
Black-and-white conversions are more technically and aesthetically complex than simply nudging chroma and luminance. Reducing relatively rich color data to a few shades of gray is tricky for anything fancier than simple desaturation. B&W conversions also tend to be wandering manual processes as you lurch through slider settings in search of perfection. Staying within a higher-bit color system offers you a wider aisle down which to lurch.

Conversions to B&W can strain the JPEG’s limitations, as shown in this conversion of a gradient portion of a scene.

For this reason I recommend taking either of two approaches. First, experiment to see if your camera's processor can produce a conversion that you like. You may discover that it can usually produce a good average head-start baseline.

Failing that, I recommend that you simply use Raw files for images destined for B&W conversion. This is especially true for scenes featuring color gradients and/or a densely varied palette of colors and tones. Why needlessly suffer?

Other notes
I've already made the point of taking care with your exposures when shooting JPEGs. To that end, if your camera's exposure compensation facility is not already second nature to you (wagging finger), invest the time to make it so. Exposure compensation may be among the least-used features on advanced cameras, even though it's incredibly valuable and powerful for providing the crucial nudging important for getting the best images straight from the camera (Raw or JPEG).

• The "expose-to-the-right" mantra is not always the best strategy for JPEGs. In my own experience, well-lit scenes with high-contrast ratios will, indeed, benefit from + exposure compensation. But predominantly dark scenes featuring bright points or pools, such as the top image, often benefit from – compensation. Again, forget dogma and experiment for yourself.

• Beware of resolution reductions that certain in-camera rendering modes may produce. For example, the Fujifilm X10's EXR mode devoted to minimizing low-light noise uses a pixel-binning**** technique which halves the camera's resolution. I'm not suggesting abstinence, just cognizance.

• Editing JPEG image files in Lightroom and Bridge is essentially identical to editing Raw files. (I use the Camera Raw editor in Bridge for making edits to JPEGs as well as Raw files.) In fact I expect that you'll rarely take note of the difference.

• Images processed from Raw files tend to have basically the same initial appearance, camera to camera, principally determined by your converter. But camera JPEGs show much more character of both the camera body body and the lens. Just an observation.

Photography has always been highly susceptible to dogmatic practices, fetishes, and gospels. "Only film...," "Only prime lenses...," "Only viewfinders...," "Only full-frame...," "Only Raw files...." The problem with dogmas is that although they're often founded in point-in-time best-practices they can become dated millstones in a field with such an inconstant technical environment as photography. That's exactly the case with the "Raw-only" dogma. If you use a late-model camera and have largely ignored its image processor, you owe it to yourself to explore it, even if you're a placard-waving "Raw-only club" member. You may find that you can better allocate your post-processing time or, better, spend more time just studying your images.

And nobody's going to call you a sissy or kick sand in your face at the beach if you start using in-camera JPEGs.

Ken

*[Just an editorial note...we can never decide whether to write it "raw" or "RAW" (it's not an acronym) so TOP's site style is simply to split the difference and write "Raw." This is on us, not Ken. "JPEG," however, is an acronym. —Mike the Ed.]

**Apologies to Willie Sutton for adapting his famous line.

***There are some exceptions. Within my own collection of cameras two, of the most expensive, the Leica M8.2 and M9, are ironically among them. The JPEG images from these cameras are downright primitive.

****Pixel-binning is a software/firmware algorithm to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of an image sensor by merging data from adjacent pixels. The compromise improves image quality but results in less image data.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2012 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Bill Mitchell: "AMEN! Three cheers and a tiger."

Featured Comment by Jim Allen: "Your analogy of buying a meal from a nice restaurant and taking it home to cook it yourself kind of struck me like a good solid smack. What a perfect description. I never thought to look at it that way, and have been pretty firmly in the 'just shoot Raw' camp. For a long time. Not a placard-waving demonstrator mind you, just always shot Raw by default, having read many recommendations to do so in the not too distant past. I've always set the point and shoot cameras I've owned to shoot 'fine' JPEGs without a second thought, and sometimes have been quite taken with the images thus produced. I've always assumed I needed to sit there in front of Lightroom as a kind of after shoot ritual with my DSLR work. Not always eager to give up the extra time required either. I feel a bit like an idiot for never even really trying out the JPEG capabilities of my Canon DSLRs. I think I've set them to take small JPEGs for Ebay once or twice, but that's it. HMMmmm. I think I'll try your advice and see what I see.

"Thanks for the article, it really was an intriguing read. Long have I wandered in the forest, and suddenly the trees come into focus."

Featured Comment by h.linton: "Interesting idea. I was actually thinking about this very thing this past week and after some thought realized that the only advantage (to my mind) would be the extra capacity on the CF card which is not an incentive to change. I get your logic though, but, in the digital world that I inhabit, it's the post-processing 'signature' that I create myself that I'm most interested in—not what some camera manufacturer might come up with."

Featured [partial] Comment by Zeeman: "There is another consideration though—one does not always know, at the time of image capture, how the image might eventually be used. It is no stretch to imagine that a photographer might take a photo, 'sleep on it,' and retrospectively decide that it looks better in black and white."

Featured Comment by marek: "The flip side is that a good Raw converter at home (perhaps from the very same camera company) is like having the 5-star Michelin chef living in at home listening to our every culinary desire?"

Featured Comment by John Krumm: "I shoot Raw, but when teaching middle school students (as I was this morning) we always have the DSLRs (Oly 520's) set to JPEG. The files look great in Aperture, and it's all so much easier to handle. There's an art to getting perfect jpegs, adjusting contrast as needed, watching specular highlights...it can help your Raw shooting in the end, since it forces you to think about the light more."

Featured Comment by Peter Silvia: "In keeping with this train of thought, Antonin Kratochvil is interviewed here and says that he shoots JPEG."

Featured Comment by K.H.: "Shooting JPEG is the equivalent of taking your colour film to the drug store for some body else to print it for you, shooting in Raw is like having your own darkroom, in my opinion."

Featured Comment by Murray Lord: "I liked what Gianni Galassi posted on his blog a while ago: 'I'm allergic to Raw formats and I expect a good camera to properly do its job, which is to take a photograph and properly process it into a usable file, instead of subcontracting this task to the photographer.'"

Featured [partial] Comment by Ed: "I compare .jpg to .mp3 files. They are great for listening to music in a bus, but not perfect for use on a 40,000 dollar sound system. Not perfect for editing either. But having said that, if you are happy with the end result there is no need to go elsewhere and indeed new in camera engines are improving."

Featured [partial] Comment by Roy: "Hmm. Shooting JPEG only is effectively to intentionally restrict your options. Given that shooting Raw and JPEG simultaneously is a cost free option—card space excepted—the argument is no argument at all."

Featured Comment by Nico Burns: "I still see very little disadvantage to shooting Raw+JPEG. I have a 16GB SD card, which allows me to take about [?] Raw+JPEG images before I run out of room. Hard drives are also fairly cheap. IMO having the Raw there just-in-case is definitely worth it those couple of times you need it."

Featured Comment by Jeffy: "JPEG makes me money."

Featured Comment by Jeff Johnston [no relation —MJ]: "Will anyone call me a sissy if I use in-camera JPEGs?! Yes."

Ah, January!

First Snow, Chicago, 2012

By Ken Tanaka

Here we are in the traditional month for self-assessment and the concomitant vows for change and improvement. Photography is such a natural subject for this ritual. So I thought I'd devote my first monthly TOP column to a few self-assessment topics and some potentially inertia-disruptive ideas. If you're comfortable with your photography or simply have no interest in contemplating changing what you're doing then please just carry on, with my best regards, and look for my February column.

For everyone else, here are a few thoughts and suggestions that might prompt you to turn a new page with your camera this year. And, yes, each of these questions and subjects is drawn principally from my own ongoing self-audits and practices.

How do you feel?
This may seem an odd question but the answer is fundamental to realizing how you can best pursue photography. How is your health? How's your weight, your energy, your mobility, and most importantly your eyesight? Are you unrealistically pursuing a style of photography that's become too physically demanding for you? I don't mean just arduous treks with heavy kits but also long hours on your feet in a studio or darkroom.

More than ever, photography offers virtually everyone with eyesight the opportunity to participate. Indeed, today's small, light, powerful cameras enable you to achieve spectacular success even with rather restrictive physical limitations. You no longer have to carry heavy camera kits to get good technical-quality imagery. So if you've not already done so, now's a good time to evaluate if your equipment, subjects, and style are really good choices for your age and physical condition as well as for your goals.

Are you dead-ended?
Have you been hammering the same type of nail with the same type of hammer and producing the same results for years? Thwack, thwack, thwack. If that's what you enjoy, or it's what you have to do vocationally, more power to you. Otherwise, it's probably time to change your tune. Peter MacGill, of the Pace/MacGill Gallery in New York, knew Harry Callahan quite well and recalls him saying that when he hit a dead end he either changed the subject or changed the camera. Not a bad strategy.

Are you really paying attention to your own work?
Many golfers spend great amounts of time (and money) analyzing their swings in search of performance-sapping flaws. Digital photography and powerful image management tools such as Lightroom and Aperture enable you to do the same, and better, for your photography. Do you realize that you can easily run a query in Lightroom that asks a complex question such as, "How many 3-star (or higher) images did I take last year with my _______ camera and 24mm lens?" Try doing that with your slide and negative collection! More importantly, you can also very quickly assemble "collections" of your images based on such technical (EXIF) queries, on keyword searches, or just by simply placing images into a collection.

This type of facility is not only a tremendous image management system, it's also an incredibly powerful "golf swing" analyzer that was only a dream 10+ years ago. It can, for example, certainly help you determine if you've reached "dead ends." Are you using such a tool to its fullest advantage to study your own work? If you're only using Lightroom or Aperture as Raw converters and print-pushers you're badly short-changing yourself.

'Painting' your pictures
Photography, at least as practiced casually, is largely an exercise in exclusion. Your frame crops the world. Conversely, painting and drawing are all about inclusion and rendering. Figurative painters must decide not only what to include on the canvas but also how to organize and tonally "light" those elements. That level of visual sensitivity, once acquired, tends to really pay off in photography. It's long been my observation that nearly anyone with good training in painting and drawing will almost immediately surpass the camera work of even a relative photo veteran without such training. It just imparts a keener eye for organizing elements in space.

So if you've not had the benefit of any formal art instruction consider getting some. Don't be discouraged if you suck at drawing or painting. You probably will. If it was easy Pope Julius II would have hired a relative to paint the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. You're not trying to train your hands at this point but, rather, your eyes and brain. I can almost guarantee that $1 invested here will be vastly more beneficial than the same $1 spent on new gear.

What are you lookin' at?
Speaking of the broader art arena, do you spend all of your lookin’ time staring at photos? If so consider devoting more attention to other art media. You may not immediately see how studying, for example, Mannerist or Baroque paintings could improve your photography, but many can actually be very powerful lessons on gesture, proportion, disclosure, and spacial hierarchy, particularly if you mainly photograph people. Similarly if you want to photograph the wind you'll want to study Winslow Homer, who solved the visual problem of painting it. If you want to see the work of a real modern day (20th century) Renaissance artist you’ll want to spend time with Charles Sheeler. He’s among my favorite American modernists because he worked both on canvas/paper and on film, often solving complex visual problems on parallel media.

Get your camera money's worth
The dogma of using only camera-Raw image files was well-founded in the days when in-camera processing produced horror shows and anything shot higher than ISO 200 looked like pointillism.

But those days are gone. Many billions of yen have been invested over the past few camera generations to super-charge the image processors in even rather humble cameras. Indeed, a substantial slice of the R&D budgets for new cameras is earmarked for refining and improving the in-camera processors. And these investments have delivered some truly striking results with nearly sci-fi class image capture automation aids and processing sophistication. To completely ignore these facilities on today's cameras is to discard a big portion of their intrinsic value. Yes, there are times when a Raw file is a must-have. But the plain, blasphemous truth is that most of your images might be better, and more practically handled by your camera's own processor, at least as a starting point. It probably knows much more about what needs fixin' than you do. Wasn't it Ctein who recently remarked here that nobody cares how much time you spent on an image? He is right.

•     •     •

I hope that at least one of these ideas helps to nudge you toward at least a slightly richer photography experience in 2012.

Ken

Ken Tanaka's monthly column on TOP appears in the middle of each month.

-

Further Resources
A little more information and inspiration for your cogitation:

Henry Wessel Interviews
Henry Wessel is among my favorite photographers. He's not quite as well known or as dealer-hyped as many of his contemporaries from the 1970s. But his eye is at least as keen as anyone's and he's quite a lively articulator of his work. I've never had the chance to meet him but I feel I know him through many brief interviews such as these 2007 clips produced for his SFMoMA retrospective. He's an inspirational "Frank Buck" with a camera.

KQED Spark Interview

SFMoMA Interview: Photography and the Mind

SFMoMA Interview: Photographing from the Road

Slinkachu
You want "different"? Here 'tis. Slinkachu is a British photographic artist whose specialty is creating and photographing miniature installation sets in cities throughout Europe. Very different, very clever stuff requiring both conceptual vision and good camera craftsmanship. 

Big Bad City (book)

The Economist: More Intelligent Life (2009 [?] interview)

Snapshot: Painters and Photography, Bonnard to Vuillard (Phillips Collection) I suggested trying to envision and construct your photographs in a more painterly process. This book, the catalog for a current exhibition, presents the parallel concept: late 19th century painters who embraced and integrated the new medium of photography into their work as painters. Fascinating stuff.

The exhibition opens at The Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C., Feb 4–May 6, 2012.

Charles Sheeler: Across Media This is an excellent catalog from a seminal 2006/2007 exhibition of Sheeler’s work and a perfect single-resource to become familiar with Sheeler.

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by G. Con Gomez: "Great article. I just checked out Charles Sheeler and Winslow Homer and was again reminded how little I know about the world in general. So many intellects, so much art and knowledge, so much that can make my world better and I am saddened because I will never know it all. Maybe that's a good thing, though—I can always find something that will make my heart beat a little faster. Articles like yours apropos to passion, self discovery and knowledge will always be appreciated."

Featured Comment by Doug Reilly: "Ken, I really appreciate your paragraph on in-camera processing. That's one of the parameters I judge and choose cameras on. I want to be able to get a good JPEG out of the camera and if I can, well, that's less time I spend in post processing. Using cameras with good JPEG engines, I often cannot top them when trying to work from Raw. That might just mean I'm bad at post-processing. But I also don't enjoy that aspect of photography as much as the recording of the image, so the less time I spend doing that, the more time I have to shoot. And JPEG profiles are like film to me, each with their own character. Good ones (like the ones produced by the Epson R-D1 for example) are something to savor."

Fujifilm FinePix X10 Impressions

General Introduction: I'm pleased to say that my friend Ken Tanaka plans to write a column for us on a regular basis, tentatively planned to publish in the middle Friday of each month. Ken has multiple areas of expertise within photography, especially (but not exclusively) having to do with his close connections to the museum world. I'll be very much looking forward to his contributions to TOP. —Mike

-

By Ken Tanaka

Many camera aficionados will remember 2011 as the year that Fujifilm emerged as a new creative force in the somewhat moribund arena of enthusiast-class cameras. Fujifilm's X100 staked claim to new ground with its innovative amalgamation of new technologies and new old styling. Now just a few months later Fujifilm's introduction of the X100's smaller sibling, the Fujifilm X10, is establishing the high ground in compact enthusiast cameras.

I have now spent just over a week using this new and innovative camera daily. In briefest terms, I like the Fujifilm X10 very much, perhaps even more than I like its big brother. Here's why.

At-a-glance comparisons
Categorically the X10 is an advanced fixed-lens compact camera in the same family as the Canon G11/G12, Nikon P7000, Nikon J1, Panasonic DMC-LX5, et al. Like its larger sibling, the X10 is styled and finished to resemble a classic 35mm rangefinder camera. But styling is where the similarity ends; the X10 has nothing in common with a Leica M or a Zeiss Ikon.

Within its class the X10 is slightly larger, or at least differently proportioned, than many of its peers. I find it more comfortable to handle than the common compact body designs as exemplified by the Panasonic LX5. But more on this later.

Fujifilm X10 and Panasonic DMC-LX5

The X10 is nicely jacket-pocketable but not nearly as universally pocketable as the popular advanced sub-compact Canon S90/95/100.

Fujifilm X10 and Canon S90

After seeing the X10 called the X100's "little brother" so often in early reviews I was rather surprised to discover that it really is not that much smaller or lighter than the X100.

Fuifilm X10 and Fujifilm X100

Shooting with the X10
Right out of the box the X10 felt quite good in my hands. It has very solid metal construction with substantial heft, but it's not heavy. The textured leather-like covering, the front finger grip, and rear rubber thumb tab provide a secure in-hand feeling.

As shown above, the X10's controls are organized nearly identically to the X100's. The top dials, shutter button, and programmable function button are located exactly the same on both cameras. Note, though, that where the X100 features a shutter speed dial the X10 features a mode dial. The exposure compensation dial is perfectly placed for fast blind adjustment, although I wish it was not so tight.

The X10's unique power switch, which momentarily puzzled me, is a tiny bit of industrial design genius. To turn the camera on you simply twist the lens barrel counter-clockwise, the same motion required to zoom the lens. A collateral benefit of this design is that you cannot accidentally leave the lens cap on the lens. I like this design very much [me too —Ed.]. Note that you can also power-up the camera for image viewing by simply hold-pressing the Play button.

The X10's autofocusing system is generally quite quick in good-to-moderate light. (Much quicker than the X100's auto-focus.) But, characteristic of its contrast detection system, it becomes confused in any light when it doesn't see vertically-oriented edges or strong spots. The good news is that unlike the X100, which wobbles for a second before abandoning autofocus, the X10 immediately displays the dreaded Red Square of Focus Surrender, thus allowing you to adjust far more quickly.

The X10's Fujinon 7.1mm–28.4mm (35mm equivalence: 28mm–112mm) ƒ/2–2.8 lens is perhaps the real star of the camera. Composed of 11 glass elements, this lens is quite sharp, offers excellent contrast and color fidelity, and is quite fast. The design and coatings also seem extremely flare-resistant. Try as I might I was only able to induce really bad veiling glare once.

For those who insist on the camera-to-face meme the X10 does have an optical viewfinder. Yes, in fairness, it's a bright, sharp finder that can be very handy in bright conditions. I'm glad it's there. But it does only cover 85% of the frame (sometimes a bit less if you subtract the lower right corner blocked by the lens barrel at wide angles) and it's no match for the X100's super bionic Hybrid Viewfinder.

What about those 'white disks'?
Early X10 buyers reported a phenomenon whereby spots of blown exposure would appear as circular white disks. Having seen some examples posted online I was naturally very keen to quickly determine if my own camera had this problem. I am relieved to write that I have not been able to reproduce this problem at all.

Image quality
In brief, very good to excellent. The X10's oversized 2/3-inch EXR CMOS 12-MP sensor really seems to shine. Details are held nicely in all but the most extreme frames and, when given the mandate to do so, the X10 can nicely stretch its dynamic range, either through using the "EXR" mode or by using the automated bracketing in "Adv"anced mode. The camera's EXR processor is certainly to be credited for such quality. I've done nearly all of my X10 shooting to-date in large-fine JPG mode which (not to steal the thunder from my planned "The Joys of JPEGgin'" article) I believe is the best way to take fullest advantage of this camera's abilities. Just a few days before I finished this article, Adobe released an update to Camera Raw which could process X10 raw image files. Frankly, I was not impressed, and still prefer working in JPG with this camera. If you decide to try an X10 I strongly encourage you to devote your initial efforts toward exploring the camera's many internal processing options. I realize that if you're a die-hard Raw shooter you might have to be sedated to even consider such an excursion into consumer mode. But I absolutely guarantee that your excursion with the X10 will, more often than not, be amply rewarded by image quality that you'd be unlikely to achieve through desktop Raw cooking. Shoot Raw+JPG to see for yourself.

High ISO and noise
The sample images I've linked below speak to this aspect of performance. Most were recorded above ISO 400 and many at ISO 1600. Noise is just not an issue in this camera within any normal working range up to ISO 3200. Further, I get the best results when I don't try to outsmart the camera—that is, when I let it determine ISO. With regard to s/n processing, this camera is far, far smarter than I am.

I might add that "noise" is becoming a non-issue nearly across the range of these cameras. I plan an upcoming article that treats this, and related practice topics, soon, so stay tuned.

So what's wrong with the X10?
Not much, and nothing grievous. The lens could be 4mm wider (for which I'd gladly trade 4mm on the long end) but it's not a significant inconvenience for me.

The camera's menu system. like that of the X100, could benefit from a re-think. It's at least logical, organized into "Shooting" and "Set-Up" groups of settings. But each group is just too damn long. Mercifully, the camera's design keeps you out of the menus most of the time.

It would also be nice if the optical viewfinder covered much more of the actual frame and offered one or two status annunciators within the eye field, such as exposure compensation status.

And can't the X10 be taught to wake from sleep without having to recycle through power off?

But these are mostly nits. Your nits may vary.

Conclusion
The Fujifilm X10 is an outstanding new entry into the rather sleepy sameness of enthusiast compact cameras. In the same design spirit as the X100, the X10 amalgamates proven and practical older design features (which young folks call "retro") with some of today's most advanced imaging technologies to deliver a camera that feels and performs a bit beyond its class.

I have become fond, and familiar, enough with the X10 in the past week to say that I'm likely to adopt it as my primary casual pocket camera. Cameras tend to be very personal gadgets. Whether or not you would react similarly I cannot speculate. But I will risk predicting that, as a TOP reader, you would at least find the X10 an interesting and unique—perhaps even charming—camera.

Recommended detailed reviews and previews
The Internet is already brimming with reviews of the Fujifilm X10. You could easily spend most of a day reading through them. If you need more detailed information about the X10 here are the places where you'll find the most accurate information and useful assessments that I've encountered.

Fujifilm's X10 Product Pages

Fujifilm X10 Manual (PDF)

DPReview Preview

Luminous Landscape Review

Photography Blog Review

A three-part YouTube video series on the X10 by "The Fuji Guys" (Fujifilm employees). Informative and entertaining.

Sample Images
Offering online 72-dpi sRGB camera sample images is normally about as useful as offering online pie tasting. But I offer these samples because they do show what the X10's image oven is capable of producing mostly on its own. I also think they're worth glancing because they're not the usual daytime samples of flowers and scenics normally presented with camera reviews. My samples are mostly in evening street lighting or fading daylight. I have applied mild sharpening, some cropping, and some gentle hip-bump tonal adjustments to nearly all the images. But, except where noted, what you're seeing is essentially what I got from the X10.

Ken

Fuji X10 from Amazon.com

Fuji X10 from Amazon U.K.

Links to Amazon.ca and Amazon.de

Fuji X10 at B&H Photo (currently out of stock)

Send this post to a friend

Please help support TOP by patronizing our sponsors B&H Photo and Amazon

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by David: "I have been using the X10 for about 6 weeks alongside an x100 and Leica M. You are absolutely right about the JPEG in-camera processing, it is superb. I have mainly used the X10 at night on the streets and it is exceptional.

"Gripes—the optical finder is useless with the lens hood on; wake up in EXR Mode is dire. The EXR mode at night is great by the way. But that is it—each day I am amazed by the quality, and the handling is superb. Add a bigger sensor, the X100 viewfinder, interchangable lenses and you have the new Fuji X to be launched next year—and then, would anyone like to but my X10, X100 and M9? Good review, Ken."

Featured Comment by Will Duquette: "What's your experience with battery life?"

Ken replies: Good question, as others have remarked that it's short. The X10 uses Fuji's NP-50 3.7V battery. I've been using both the official Fuji brand as well as the MaximalPower brand and have been impressed with their longevity, particularly in cold weather. On my first evening, which was fridgidly in the mid-20°F's, the Fuji battery level barely budged one click after two hours of nearly continuous-on and 200 frames. I had a similar experience last night in just slightly warmer temps after 90 minutes. So the X10's battery life seems at least no weaker than any of its peers and may be better than some. Plus, while the Fuji NP-50's run over $30, the MaximalPower replacements cost $5.75 at Amazon.

Featured Comment by Scott Baker: "It's official. I'm gonna have to buy one of these things."

Featured Comment by Arthur: "I have a huge crush on the X10, but the review sites have left me wanting. All the pixel-peeping comparison shots show the X10's full resolution images (which seem to look about the same as the competition). I'd really like to see the X10's low-noise EXR mode compared to resized images from say the S100 or what have you, as I see myself using a camera like this an awful lot in the 800–1600 ISO range. I don't mind 6MP images at all if the image quality is as good as the marketing materials say."

Ken replies: I have added several images to the samples gallery, from image 14 up, specifically to show ISO 3200 examples and the camera's EXR "Dynamic Range" optimization processing. These really are JPGs right from the chicken with basically no other cooking.

Featured Comment by emptyspaces: "One thing I like about the X10 is that you can view images without twisting the barrel to turn it on - just hold down the play button for 'one Mississippi' and it's on. Tap it again to turn it off. Cool. Auto ISO is great, you choose the limit (400, 800, 1600, or 3200). EXR pixel binning works. And you still get a 6MP image. Sweep panoramas are awesome, all the way to 360 degrees. It's a pretty good movie camera. 112mm ƒ/2.8 on a sensor 2X the size of the Canon S95—you can blur the backgrounds pretty well. Totally awesome 'super macro' mode.

"Here's one, shot at 1600 in jpg mode, with just a hint of luminance smoothing in LR3.

"The X10 rocks!"

Featured [partial] Comment by Josh Wand: "To me there's something missing in these images—there's a level of sharpness (microcontrast?) that's just not there in the full-res, which shows even when resized to screen resolution.

"I'd say it's a function of sensor size, except I get better sharpness and microcontrast from my new iPhone's camera! (The camera in the 4S is really pretty darn good.)

"This sense of definition in edges, the sense of the way the light is falling even on a surface, is missing from all the small-sensor cameras I see. Some shots with Micro 4/3 cameras have it, and many of the shots I see with the APS-C sized X100 have it. But in all the X10 images I've seen, everything just looks smudgy.

"This quality is pretty important to my work, and if the camera can't do it then I'm not buying it, no matter how much I want something small and unintimidating that I can put up to my eye. (I tried going back to film with my Canonet; sadly, reliable C-41 processing is no longer available in my city.)

"Maybe someone else can articulate this better? Or tell me the term I'm searching for?"

Mike replies: What you want is a Leica S2. Totally wonderful microcontrast and fine resolution; in my limited experience of the camera, it seems endless.

Featured Comment by Leigh Youdale: "Viewfinder? Better than the EVF on the GF1 I just sold, but more coverage than 85% would be nice to have, I agree.

"Battery? I'd never take 200 shots in a day anyway, but I bought and carry a spare battery.

"Image Quality? JPEGs are excellent. Not bothering with Raw. It's not a full frame DSLR and doesn't pretend to be.

"Handling? Great. I wanted a light, compact, versatile digital camera with an optical viewfinder and zoom for travel, family and other everyday use. The X10 delivers. The GF1 was very good but with the EVF attached and kit zoom it was not compact, plus the EVF was poor.

"Pocketable? Well, in a coat maybe, or a small belt mounted pouch like the Lowepro I use. The pouch also has a shoulder strap, so it can be carried in a couple of ways.

"I feel some people are too inclined to voice criticisms based on what they read or think or imagine, without having handled and used an X10. I like mine very much and it's a keeper, for sure.

"And I still have the M6 and the Rolleiflex for serious B&W work."