Seemingly stuck in the past... [2]

Just yesterday my wife and I were at Darty looking at a couple things for the apartment.  Naturally I was curious to see what they had on hand by way of cameras.  Well, for 250Euro they have a Sony A5000 + 16-50mm kit lens.  What a screaming deal.

I have an A5000 body with the 20mpixel sensor and it's my "go to" camera for so many situations.  It's very light and compact and images really "pop", almost like a "Goldielocks" camera.  Just right.  Or almost.

If you know anything about Europe you'll know that the sun loves to play "cache-cache" for three quarters of the year.  This means that much of the time the A5000 and NEX-5T work just fine when mated to a few old Nikkors.  I can clearly see the screen when making focusing decisions.

Sony A5000 + Lens Turbo II focal reducer + Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/2 Ai
Come summer and the sun makes a full throated roaring appearance.  There are a lot of vintage automobile events that I like to attend and, well, focusing can be difficult when using old manual focus optics.

In addition to the A5000 (just one, thank you very much) and the NEX-5T (of which I am now rich in three examples, heaven help me!) I also have an A6000 body with the fabulous 24mpixel sensor.  After shooting mostly Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses for the past year, I came to realize I like the rangefinder EVF for making precise focusing decisions when shooting in full summer sun.

To get to a setup that works well for me I needed to customize the A6000's button functions.  Among the normal customizations needed to shoot manual focus lenses on the A6000 I made the big button in the center of the wheel on the back of the camera enlarge the scene when I tap it two or three times.  Now I can be using the EVF, tap the big button, focus, lightly tap the shutter release get out of the magnifier mode and to return to full scene mode, compose and trigger the shutter.  Simple, actually.  My description sounds worse than it really in practice is.

What tickles the funny bone is that all of my cameras are small, light, and rather inexpensive.  My AF lenses (Sigma and Sony) are small, light, and inexpensive.  The Nikon Nikkors that I have probably too many of are quite sharp and quite inexpensive these days.

There are two adapters that I use to mount the Nikkors on the Sony APS-C mirrorless cameras.  One is an inexpensive adapter that multiplies the effective focal length of a lens by 1.5x.  For instance, a lens marked 50mm will be cropped to an effective focal length of 75mm when shot on an APS-C sensor camera.

The second adapter I use is a Lens Turbo II focal reducer.  This adapter includes optics that shrink the coverage of a full frame 35mm lens to fit the APS-C format.  The effective field of view, therefore, remains unchanged.  For example, a 50mm f/2 lens becomes a 33mm f/1.2 on APS-C and gives the exact same field of view and depth of field as when the 50mm lens is used on full frame 35mm cameras.

Sony A5000 - paid 225Euro Lens Turbo II focal reducer - paid 120Euro Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/2 Ai - paid 7Euro (yes, seven Euro)
Looking around at the current state of imaging technologies makes me realize that I'm carrying a lot of equipment and making complex decisions just to take a picture.  None of this includes a currently fashionable One Does Everything mobile phone (Samsung, Apple, or Google).  How quickly I've once again become a luddite.  Such are the wages of being retired and living on a fixed income.

I wrote a little about how strange it feels to once again be surrounded by changing imaging technologies and to continue to work from the back end of the technology wave.  A friend commented that, effectively, what does it matter the equipment as long as one creates beauty?

And that's a good goal, isn't it?  Creating beauty.

OK.  Onward.

Seemingly stuck in the past...

I feel increasingly like I'm stuck in the past.  Make no mistake, I enjoy being stuck there.  But I can very easily measure the distance between where I am and where imaging technologies have gone by taking a look at the current state of the art.



Petapixel has an article about a Chinese phone manufacturer who sells a 50mpixel imaging device that is all too shockingly close in image quality to Canon's 5Ds 50monsterpixel.  The comment about the use of computational imaging explained some of the improbably good technologies that are now available.

It's been a number of years since I thrashed and whinged over leaving traditional silver film photography behind to dive into digital.  Even then I felt like I was following the trailing edge of changes in imaging technologies.

I'd been heavily invested in large and medium format cameras and lenses.  Exotic lenses were fascinating to me.  New film developing techniques were followed with great interest.  The latest advances in film production were tracked.  A room in the basement was filled with enlargers, print paper, boxes of film, and large format film cameras of all sizes and shapes.  The collection of lenses I could choose from was rather impressive.

Then suddenly, in the blink of an eye, I went from packing a 4x5 Speed Graphic, three small fabulously sharp lenses, Kodak Readyloads, and boxes of Polaroid Type-55 for a business trip to India, to realizing there was no room left in the suitcase for my clothes, to jettisoning the entire rig and buying a wee-Canon A640 digital point and shoot.

My first digital images were nothing to write home about.  There was no RAW option on the camera, and the jpg processing left many images looking more like water colorings than photographs.  But the next trip to India had me carrying a Canon 5D MkII and a 24-105L.  I came home with a number of images the second trip that I still enjoy.

After moving to Europe sold my Canon DSLRs and moved my camera kit into Sony APS-C mirrorless.  The size, adaptability, and image quality of these cameras continue to impress me.

In the past year I've watched the prices of used camera gear drop and I wonder if the market is saturated.  First I picked up a Sony NEX-5T with kit lens for 150Euro.  I sold the lens for 60Euro, which left me with a 90Euro camera body.

Then I watched as old manual focus lens prices in some cases dropped like a rock.  Lenses that used to cost  a minor fortune were suddenly available for around 50 Euro or less.

Since I'm retired, living on a fixed income, but still enjoy playing around with camera gear, I found these developments (pardon the pun) rather exciting.  Which led me to consider the lowest price two lens camera kit that I have on hand.

• 90Euro Sony NEX-5T
• 10Euro Nikon F to NEX adapter
• 55Euro Nikon Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 Ai
• 7Euro Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/2 Ai

All up cost - 162Euro

What do I get with this?  To start, I get a very small, light, WiFi and NFC capable 16mpixel camera.  The images I get out of these thrill me.  No, I don't make prints larger than 13x19, so the sensor size isn't really as small as it might seem compared to current product offerings.

In the 28mm Nikkor f/3.5 I get a 40mm full-frame equivalent lens that is sharp from wide open.  Sure, the maximum aperture is less than many people prefer, but I don't typically shoot razor thin depth of field images myself.  The effective focal-length slots nicely between full-frame 35mm and 50mm lenses.  It's kind of a Goldielocks lens.

The super cheap 50mm f/2 acts as a 75mm full-frame equivalent optic.  This too is razor sharp from wide open.  At 75mm I find the lens nearly perfect for isolating interesting subject matter in complex environments.  It's also the perfect portrait lens.

Stepping back a moment and thinking about the newest technologies, this inexpensive two lens kit seems archaic.  It feels like I'm following the curve.  Where some people carry just a cell phone, I carry a camera, lenses, and a small tablet to download and process images on.  It seems like a lot of monkey motion.

Considered from another perspective, yes, there is a part of me that would like to try out the latest-greatest imaging tools.  I'm sure it would be fun.  One Does Everything devices, on the surface of the argument, sound rather attractive.  No more shoulder bag weighed down with old bits of metal, plastic, and glass.  No need to carry a small Android tablet.  I could be "In" with the "In Crowd."

But there is, for me, the important consideration of money.  The cost of new Wowy Zowy cell phone camera One Does Everything devices are around 900Euro.  For a quarter of the cost I have the already paid for Sony and Nikkors.

If I ever do go the One Does Everything route I wonder how I'll feel contributing to the low-cost equipment glut?  There are a few lenses that I paid dearly for just a few years ago (like a mint Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 and a 55mm Micro-Nikkor f/3.5).  And there is a life long memory of watching Nikon Kogaku introduce amazing products. But then would it even matter if the images I produced using computational imaging devices were to please me?

For now I think I'll continue to live out my childhood fantasies.  These old Nikkor lenses out-resolve commercially available imaging sensors.  The photographs I make please me.  I enjoy working with old Machine Age gear.  It's still a kick in the pants kind of fun.

Cost vs Quality vs Capability vs Culture vs Memories vs Creativity vs Fun.  These seem to be some of the areas of consideration.  When not out shooting photos, that is.

... and Flickr has been sold...

Many years ago a good friend pointed me to Flickr.  I've been there for 13 years where I post much of my work.  I was there when Yahoo bought and nearly destroyed the image sharing platform.  I was there when Yahoo sold out to Verizon/Oath.  I was there when I decided to close my (also long running) Facebook account, and all attendant Facebook owned company applications (including Instagram).  Flickr is still where I remain today.

This morning I read that Flickr will be sold to SmugMug.  I wonder if Verizon/Oath had this in mind when they purchased Yahoo?  It seems like Verizon/Oath are doing a bit of asset stripping.  And it makes me wonder what they will do with Tumblr, another interesting application, and one that I can't imagine how it fits in Verizon/Oath's platform "strategy" (ie: data mining and sales ala Facebook).

Coming back to SmugMug a moment, when my friend first pointed me to Flickr I wondered what other image sharing platforms might look like.  Over the years I would look at SmugMug and wonder why people liked it.  It seemed so basic and simple.  Eventually I stopped looking at it.  Until today, that is.

When I went to SmugMug to look at the website I was surprised.  Things have changed and it actually looks pretty good.  Still, I can't feel more than a little worried about what changes SmugMug will make to Flickr.

So many things have changed in the past month and a half for how I engage the online world.  First it was the payment problems with px500 and the subsequent announcement of a sale to a Chinese owned company.  I had hoped I could sell a print or two of some work that I was particularly proud of.

Then it was the Cambridge Analytica revelations of data scraping 87 million user accounts on Facebook.  I had a "public" Facebook page devoted to my photography.  I used it as a contact point for models, stylists, and other creative people.  Risking making a solid retreat from the all of these engagement I made a difficult decision to close my Instagram and Facebook accounts.  And indeed my access to the creative world has shrunk.

And now this, the sale of Flickr to SmugMug.  My Flickr hosted images have received nearly 10 million (yes, you read that correctly - 10 million) views.  I really don't want to give up these kinds of eyeballs and this kind of deep access to creative images and talented artists.  I'll have to carefully review the new Terms and Conditions as well as their Data Privacy Statement as soon as they are updated by the new company.

[UPDATE: Here are the new Terms and Conditions]

... the right questions to ask...

Just a couple days after PetaPixel posted back to back articles on two very dedicated practitioners, I stumble across the work of Markus Brunetti.  What caught my eye was a small photograph printed in a recent The New Yorker magazine.  Out to the 'net I went to do a bit of research.

M.Brunetti creates large highly detailed prints of the facades of buildings.  His work concentrates on western European religious structures such as cathedrals, basilicas, and churches.  At first the images seemed simple, almost simplistic.  Yet there is something quiet and vaguely compelling about what the artist has achieved.

Looking to understand M.Brunetti's work, I found this critique.  The author considers Brunetti's work in the context of photo, architectural, and art histories.  It's a long article and the author has a lot to say about topics that I tend to reduce to "if I can't feel it or if I need to have it explained to me, then you've lost me and I'm ready to move along."  I was ready to drop it and try something else.  But for some reason I recognized I might yet again be headed down that familiar path and wondered why I shouldn't stop and think and read and ponder.  So that's what I've done.

Toward the end of the critique the author talks about Orson Welles 1974 film F is for Fake.  In the film Wells asks questions about art, its nature, and our relationship to it.  The more I thought about the questions, the more I realized their potential importance in helping me grapple with the what/why/where of photography.

In the original text, the Welles questions ran together in a long paragraph and I was quickly lost in a sea of words.  For this blog entry I have broken each question out into their own standalone paragraph.  It helps me see more clearly and helps me concentrate my considerations, musing, thoughts, theories, and answers.

What do we want from art? 

What do we want from artists? 

Can we know the deepest secrets of creativity? 

How far will dedication and technique carry us? 

Can we ever know the full meaning of what we create? 

Why do we value the maker when what they make is intended to outlast them? 

What is a collective artistic endeavour?

I have no answers to any of the above.  Not yet, at least. But something tells me these are indeed some of the best questions we can ask.

... which has gotten me to thinking...

I don't usually find what PetaPixel posts to be all that interesting.  But just this week two articles came up that I felt are worthy of notice.  The first was about a NY streetphotographer Louis Mendes.

The second is about a photojournalist who is homeless.  There was a time not so long ago when a photographer could be paid a living wage while working in journalism.  But this seems to no longer be the case.  Aside from two areas of photography, I don't think there is money to be made in photography of any kind.

When I stop and think about all the wonderful photographers I know who ply their craft with dedication, insight, and passion, I can't think of a single one of them who make a living off their images.  Some folks give workshops and make a bit of money that way.  Others sell what they can to galleries, private parties, and museums, but live in near outright poverty.  And yet others work full-time non-photography related jobs to make ends meet.

I wonder, though, when I follow some of the comments people make on various websites about not picking up a camera for less than $1200.  Are they serious and are they really making a living at photography?  I guess it might be the case if they are decent wedding photographers.  Some of the fees claimed to be charged for wedding work seem outrageous to me, but if true, certainly a person could live well.  This is one area where I think there is still money to be made.

The second area is, for many of us, unattainable.  Does Conde Nast really pay Annie Leibovitz a million dollars a year?  Celebrity Photographers are extremely rare.  And I'm not talking about photographers who take pictures of celebrities, either.  No, I'm talking about living photographers who are famous, and by extension, are well rewarded for their work.

So why on earth do some of us put so much time and effort into our craft?  Into our art?  Perhaps there's more to this than just money?

A Wonderful Story...

Check out this article on PetaPixel about Louis Mendes.  It's wonderful how he connects with people and does it in such an elegant way.