The Online Photographer: June 2013

« May 2013 | Main | July 2013 »

June 2013

Friday, 14 June 2013

Lillian and Rebecca

Here's my latest pic, taken last night. I got six or eight good shots last night, but the older I get the more willing I am to let the "just good" ones fall away and concentrate on the ones that have "it" for me—whatever strange grace it is that makes a picture work for me. This is one, but then, they're my friends.

Lillian and Rebecca, daughter and mother

Lately I've been wanting my digital pictures to look like my film pictures so that they all go together. I've got twenty years' worth of prints that looks just like this, black and white with a black line around it. It's a natural look for Tri-X printed with an enlarger, not at all a natural look for digital. But then, digital has no inherent materiality in the modernist sense—it's plastic, it can look like anything. So why can't it look like the rest of my work? It's all one body of work.

It's just that my technique used to have integrity and now it doesn't, is all. I can live with that, I guess. But maybe I'll feel differently a month from now.

Mike

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:

Nick: "I've been trying to make just such a border. Dare I ask what you did to get that slight irregularity to its inside?"

Mike replies: First apply the Type 3 border in Silver Efex Pro 2 > Finishing Adjustments > Image Borders, then (back in Photoshop) crop in from the outer edge.

Ben Rosengart: "I suppose one shouldn't be overly attached to that kind of formal integrity, any more than to anything else. Doing B&W on a color camera means you're already in a state of sin, right?"

Mike replies: 'Zackly.

John London: "That picture has great tones Mike!"

Mike replies: Thanks. You've given me a great compliment: Louis Armstrong's highest compliment to a fellow musician was "He has good tone." I think it was Frank DiPerna (either Frank, or Joe Cameron) who told me that he thought it was a high compliment to photographers, too.

Posted on Friday, 14 June 2013 at 01:24 PM in Random Snaps | Permalink | Comments (46)

Peter In Portugal

A nice short film about our friend Peter Turnley in Portugal, on a Portuguese website, Público; reader John Krill sent me the link.

The interview must be very new—Peter's in Portugal right now, and I notice that one of the pictures featured at the end of the interview is one that I know he took just the other day.

Mike
(Thanks to John)

TOP's links!

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

Ed: "Nice little feature on Peter. He's probably right, photography is about life, most of the time. Or about what's become of it these days. I like the way he shoots, never sneaky, always in the open and in full view of the public and with a lot of Aretha Franklin in his mind."

Manuel: "Let me put this into context, Mike: Público is a portuguese newspaper which employs the best portuguese photojournalists and is very seriously focussed on quality—which, of course, includes photography. Reading this newspaper can be nothing short of a revelation when it comes to knowing the work of the greatest photographers. (And, of course, Peter Turnley is a great photographer, entirely worth Público's attention.) Not only they publish great photographs, but they often publish rather interesting articles on photography. It's a newspaper that's worth reading, and even more so because of the sheer quality of the photographs they publish.

"As you see, that's as far removed from the Chicago Sun-Times affair as you can imagine...."

Posted on Friday, 14 June 2013 at 12:04 PM in Peter Turnley, Photojournalism | Permalink | Comments (9)

Thursday, 13 June 2013

A Worthy Kickstarter

Photo by Rachel Elizabeth Seed

This has got to stop! For the second time in just a few days, my systems went down and an entire post got zapped. This time it was my DSL, which went down for just long enough to wreak mischief. Then it's back, all innocent. "Post? What post?" Grrr.

Anyway...I've missed some important Kickstarter projects that I meant to mention. Time goes by and things get away from me. I'm sure people think I sit here like Solomon, sagely judging each project on its merits, making closely considered judgments as to which to promote and which to ignore. Not hardly. Actually, I'm confused and frazzled these days. This persistent feeling of having too many balls in the air is not a pleasant feeling.

Before it's too late: Rachel Seed is chasing the shade of her mother, who made a number of short films with a number of now-iconic photographers back in the early '70s. Well, you can watch the intro video for yourself (it's good; you'll enjoy it). The project is called A Photographic Memory. A $50 contribution gets you a free download of the finished film, after it's finished. I'd like to see it. I hope I remember to remember.

Not the only worthwhile project I've meant to mention.

Mike
(Thanks to Jim Hughes)

TOP's links!

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

From Rachel Seed: "Dear Mike, I'm glad you enjoyed the trailer and thank you for supporting the project! You should be one of the first to see the films with your pledge. Thanks and all the best, Rachel."

ADDENDUM from Jim Hughes: Rachel Seed's project, "A Photographic Memory," is at its core a search for her mother, whom Rachel never got to know. Sheila Turner-Seed, who would have been my age by now and who was a friend, died suddenly in 1979, when her daughter was 18 months old. Sheila, who had been married to the British photographer Brian Seed for but a few years, was already a respected writer and editor. She was blessed with a keen intelligence and a rare understanding of the photographic impulse. In conjunction with Cornell Capa's International Fund for Concerned Photography (which led to the establishment of the International Center of Photography in New York) and Scholastic Publishing, Sheila embarked on a pioneering project: to compile an oral and visual history of the world's greatest living photographers who were intent on documenting the human spirit. She interviewed the likes of W. Eugene Smith, Don McCullin, Roman Vishniac, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Bruce Davidson, Brian Lanker, Lisette Model, William Albert Allard and, of course, Cornell Capa, for whom Brian Seed had once worked as an assistant and who had introduced the couple.

The result was "Images of Man," a teaching aid widely used not just in photographic education but across the social studies and humanities spectrum. A Teaching Guide was issued as a softcover book, and each photographer's body of work was turned into either slide sets or filmstrips, and accompanied by synchronized tape cassettes offering vivid descriptions of individual photographs and working methods in the photographer's own voice. The program was a revelation to students. Here is an excerpt of Gene Smith discussing his essay about Maude Callen, the Nurse Midwife, with each sentence accompanied by a new projected image: "This essay...is in many ways the most rewarding experience photography has allowed me. At the time of the essay, she bore near total responsibility for several thousand scattered, swampbound backwoods individuals. They are better off for her care, and I certainly know that I am a better person for her influence. And if that sounds like a love letter...it is.

"...So here, at most, I am giving you twenty-five minutes of a lifetime....my lifetime. Anything that may tickle your curiosity, that challenges you, that you wonder, well, what else is behind that? Well, I hope that you take it from there."

Rachel Seed started to discover her mother's voice when she found some leftover materials from the project in her father's home. It included a letter from Brian Seed indicating he was returning to ICP boxes of tapes, transcripts, notes and journals that Sheila had left behind. Rachel, herself a budding photographer, went to New York, was welcomed into the ICP family, and began digging through the boxes, which had evidently been left untouched for more than 30 years. Thus began the quest to accomplish what essentially amounted to a collaboration between Rachel and her mother to produce a film...about photographic memory.

Posted on Thursday, 13 June 2013 at 12:56 PM in Websites and links | Permalink | Comments (20)

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

It's BACK(?)

[UPDATE—Sorry, this is another false alarm, unless Amazon will take your order for a reserved copy. I heard from Dewi and the reprint is (as of a few days ago) fixed for July, which means copies will be shipping in the U.K. by mid-August and in the USA by September.

Might as well try to get an order in, but, as Dewi put it, "Amazon are a little premature." —Mike the Ed.]

Finally, finally—the second edition of Here Far Away has appeared, at long last, from Dewi Lewis Publishing.

I gotta issue my strongest possible "buy recommendation" for this—our Book of the Year for 2012. See my comments here. A tour-de-force of a retrospective.

It's possible that this isn't the second edition, that somebody just found a cache of them in the Amazon warehouse somewhere. We've had a false alarm before. I'll get confirmation from Dewi as soon as I can.

If Here Far Away turns out not to be to your taste (possible), you'll have no trouble at all getting rid of your copy in a year or two. The problem will be the opposite...if you don't have a copy and want one, the time will come soon when it will cost you an obscene wad of cash. Get this while you can. Mark my words.

Mike
(Thanks to Bob Curtis)

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

Marius: "I got the German version some time ago and it's wonderful. Although the pictures could be a little bigger for my taste. And speaking of second editions: I asked the Steidl staff some days ago if they will reprint Color Correction by Ernst Haas (first edition available now for over $ 1,600—through some Amazon affiliate). They told me a reprint is planned for the late fall this year. I really hope to get one this time."

Posted on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 11:22 AM in Books | Permalink | Comments (24)

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud, Part II: The Good

This week's column by Ctein

Last column I told you what is wrong with Adobe's Brave New Photoshop, and we had a jolly good time bashing the Big A, didn't we! Now we've got that out of our system. (and please don't repeat the same rants this week, pretty please? You've had weeks to vent. Let's move on.) This time I'm going to talk about how I've come to think this is a really good idea. Seriously.

Last October, I was on an airplane thinking high and lofty thoughts (I need an airplane to get there) about Adobe's plan to, several years down the road (ahem), move their products to a subscription system. It had not been a prospect that pleased me. But as I followed said thoughts along, an epiphany occurred: This could prove to be the best thing that could happen. For Adobe and, more importantly (to me) for Photoshop users.

And, so, on that flight, I became a convert. While it holds a great many potential "gotchas," I think subscription licensing allows Adobe to solve a whole bunch of problems for them and for us that would otherwise be nearly intractable. I shall explain:

Part 1 of the epiphany: A company like Adobe, with a mature market and an expensive, mature product, is looking at a gloomy future. We are not just entering the post-PC era, we're entering the $.99 application era. Increasingly, people are expecting to pay very little for a piece of software. That trend is even stronger among newer users. It's not a purchasing attitude that is terribly compatible with $500+ programs.

The situation is even more extreme when you look at tablet applications. Adobe just has to be looking hard at those. Aside from it being the major growth market now, a tablet is just such a perfect tool for a traveling photographer. While Photoshop-iOS is just a bit much to hope for with current technologies, think of what you could do with full-fledged Lightroom or Bridge plus ACR on an iPad! But, how many iPad apps have you seen that are priced above $10? Uh huh. Serious disconnect with the market.

(Sidebar: in fact, I'm really surprised that I haven't seen Lightroom or Bridge for the iPad, yet. The hardware is up to the task and even the current desktop interface design works fair-ta-middlin' on an iPad. I think it's gotta be the code port, which isn't trivial. But I'm waiting, he said impatiently.)

Adobe ain't stupid. They can see the handwriting on the wall. Figuring out what to do about it is another matter.

Part 2: The prevailing revenue model for companies like Adobe screws everybody over, badly. Their economies and cash flows depend on new version releases, because the market isn't growing enough anymore to give them significant revenues from new customers. They have to make their money on releases. It's feast with a new release and try not to starve until the next one. This is a destructive and hurtful system.

Ask code jockeys how often they'd like to see new product releases and they'll tell you no more frequently than once every 2–3 years. That gives them enough time to figure out the improvements they'd like to make, write reasonably decent code for them, and properly (fingers crossed, here) debug them.

Ask the folks who control the bank accounts how often they'd like to see new product releases and they'll tell you once a year. Because they need to keep the money coming in, and they need their balance sheets to not fluctuate wildly from fiscal year to fiscal year, and most importantly they need to deal with the plutocracy who actually own their asses and have the attention span and farsightedness of mayflies.

Do you really think the big institutional stockholders give a damn whether the product you buy is buggy as all hell or really has enough new features to be worth the price of upgrading? Nope, not so long as things don't get so bad that you stop buying. Which you won't, because we've all gotten used to the idea that lame and half-baked are adjectives that inevitably accompany version X.0, which will be very quickly followed by version X.1 that fixes a whole bunch (but by no means all) of the crap that should have been fixed before the product was ever allowed out the door.

Except...properly fixing all those known bugs or getting the new feature to really work right would have delayed shipping by so many weeks, and there'd go Someone Important's dividend or stock price.

This gets reflected in the way these companies work. You'd think that mature, well-established companies wouldn't operate like garage startups. Except, they do. They perpetuate a culture that expects their employees to work absurdly long hours without any additional compensation in the weeks/months just before release, to ensure that the product can get rolled out on the schedule the moneymongers have demanded. Doesn't matter that it's an insane way for people to have to live and work. The folks in charge certainly don't care, because they know full well that if you're too sane to put up with that kind of madness, they can likely find someone else who's just as brilliant and more servile (or at least hungrier and more desperate) than you.

All of this is hard to change, especially the too-early, half-baked buggy releases, when your company is entirely dependent upon selling those new releases to stay in business.

What does a subscription economic model do? It gives a producer a way to drop its (perceived) price. In the few years that Adobe has been pursuing this course, it has been steadily pushing the price down. Not as far as I think it needs to go, yet. $19.95 is not a magic number. $9.95 is. It's sales psychology: inflation be damned, single-digit prices still sell hugely better than double digits. (I'll bet you anything that by the time the "introductory year" is up, that first-year price of $9.95 a month will become the permanent price for installed users.)

On the whole, consumers find it more palatable to pay $10 a month on an ongoing basis, than to have to spring for $150 every year or two. It's not about how much it adds up to, it's about how much it hits the cash flow and how it's perceived psychologically. Equally importantly, more people find it palatable. There's been some fallacious thinking that the photography world is divided into three groups: Those who pay for Photoshop, those who pirate Photoshop, and those who don't care at all about Photoshop. Wrong; there's a very large untapped market of people who would get into Photoshop if it wasn't going to cost them more than half a grand. A very large fraction of that group won't think twice about paying the monthly subscription fee; frankly, it's not a lot of money for most photographers, or even for many college students these days.

Want to expand your market? Making your product more affordable is a sure way to do it, and a monthly subscription is definitely perceived as more affordable by more people.

Which is why this is a good deal for Adobe, even at $10 a month.

But what about the rest of us? I mean, personally, I don't care about Adobe getting a good deal. Why do I think this'll be a good deal for me? Because, it makes it possible to break that cycle of abuse that's created by profit-driven product release cycles and that saddles us with half-baked software.

If people are subscribing and they're satisfied with the product they're getting (that's important!), a steady cash flow is assured. There's always some subscriber rot that has to be balanced by new subscribers, but it's predictable and even, not boom or bust like release cycles.

That means there's a lot less pressure to release a new feature until it works really right and there's no pressure to release a new full version. You don't have to rush a half-baked, buggy hunk of code out the door by Date X, tricked up with cooler tailfins and more chrome on the grille, just to insure the rich get even richer. This is good for thee and me: there are fewer changes and the ones there are are more meaningful and useful.

The transition's rocky. You've got to give people an incentive to make the switch, which is why Photoshop CC has the usual panoply of new bells and whistles, both astonishing and trivial. Once that switch is made, though, there's little reason for people to stop subscribing unless a competitor comes out with something preferable. This relieves the code monkeys of much of the burden of trciking out next year's model, because there doesn't even have to be a next year's model. They can concentrate on rolling out new capabilities as they develop them and on fixing the deficiencies that bother users the most rather than on what will sell upgrades (they're not the same thing).

Is it guaranteed to work out this way? Oh, most definitely not. Never underestimate people's ability to figure out ways to screw things up. But it allows for the possibility—even (in this case, I think) the probability. The release-driven profit model just doesn't give you a chance.

There you have it. That's my epiphany, and I'm sticking to it.

Ctein (it's his entire legal name) has been writing for photography publications for more than four decades. This is his 288th column for TOP.

TOP's links!

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

Andre: "I work in the software industry, and Ctein's absolutely correct that businesses that run on a subscription model (or get most of their income from ongoing support contracts) have less external financial pressure to 'get something out the door this quarter.' Whether that will translate into better products in Adobe's case remains to be seen. There are a lot of other drivers of 'bad behavior' in big software houses that can still result in dumb decisions regarding release schedules, feature sets, and product quality."

Doug Howk: "I think the Adobe coders and QA people may see it differently. Its one thing if new features stand alone; but that's unlikely with a huge code base such as Photoshop. Without a target release that all coders/QA etc. are pushing for, you will have more buggy small releases. Its like coding for the cloud: one forgotten update for a file that actually impacted more than one new feature will affect everybody using that code base, i.e. users. Stable releases that have been QA'd as a whole are a lot safer."

Chris Morse: "No Lightroom for iPad? Have you seen Photosmith? Disclosure: I'm co-owner/co-developer."

Gato: "First, I think this is a great deal for new users. Second, I think younger people are far more open to subscription than we older folks. Together that sounds to me like a win for Adobe—and many of their customers. Depending on what assumptions/guesses you make about upgrades and pricing, it looks to me like a new user is ahead for at least five to seven years in terms of cash outlay. Longer if they put the costs on a credit card and pay interest. A lot of people who couldn't afford Photoshop (or Creative Suite) before will likely be jumping in.

"A lot of those prospective users are of a generation already used to buying their music, television, movies and more on subscription. One more $20 tick on the credit card is mostly invisible to them, I suspect.

"For the record, I am a convert. Adobe introduced the subscription model at a time when I desperately needed to buy InDesign and Illustrator. At first I felt forced into the subscription model, but the more I played with the math on the cost the better it looked. By now I've gotten several really useful upgrades, plus I have picked up Premier Pro and attempted my first videos. My next self-assignment is learning the collaboration features in the cloud. That will let me partner with a new business in the next town down the road. I'm supposed to be retired, but I'm using Adobe for some kind of personal or business project almost every day of the week. I'm sure the cloud plan will not work for everyone, but it sure works for me."

Rob: "It seems contradictory to refer to Photoshop as a mature product, while praising the new subscription policy as a means to promote greater innovation by the developers. 'Mature' implies that there are few major innovations remaining to be added to the program. Therefore, periodic upgrades will most likely consist of minor tweaks and frilly features. Nevertheless, Adobe is asking users to pay continually for the privilege of using software that may not be improved substantially over the coming years. It is clear how this is to Adobe's advantage, but not so clear how it is to ours."

Will Frostmill (partial comment): "Ctein, Your scenario is lacking drama and complexity—it is in fact quite dull. And therefore likely to be quite accurate. Good job!"

Posted on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 10:04 AM in Ctein, Software | Permalink | Comments (89)

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

TOP Effect?

I can't claim that this is entirely due to the notorious "TOP effect," but Abelardo Morell: The Universe Next Door is now the #1 Bestseller on Amazon in its category.

Hey, we're at least helping....

Mike

P.S. I'm trying not to buy books these days (no room), but I broke down and ordered it....

TOP's links!

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

Question from struan: "Morell is fantastic. So much intelligence and wit in his work, as well as a refined appreciation for form. The domestic still lives ('Home' on his website) are masterpieces of observation.

"For the impecunious photobook buyer, how does the new exhibition catalogue compare to the 2005 Phaidon book, both in terms of coverage and quality of printing and design?"

Ken Tanaka replies: "I do not own the 2005 book Abelardo Morell published by Phaidon and have only briefly browsed it once so I cannot compare it to this book. But I can say that Abelardo Morell: The Universe Next Door is as about as good as it gets as a photo book. There must be a pound of ink in every volume. The book's plates, both B&W and color, have an excellent fidelity to the actual prints. This must have been no small feat as many of Abe's prints are far from straight-forward.

Additionally, Elizabeth Siegel's long relationship with Abe and his family informs her essay to make it a special read with keen observations. I cannot imagine anyone interested in Abe's work would be disappointed with this catalog. And I also expect it to become very expensive when the tour ends and primary stock runs out.

Jack: "struan, I own the 2005 book which is a treasure. Elizabeth's book is even better."

struan responds: "Ken, Jack, thanks for the replies. It's easy to get precious about photobooks, but I usually have to buy sight unseen, and a personal recommendation is worth a lot. I think it's great that there are two books on Morell available—if only because catalogues do tend to rapidly become both scarce and unaffordable once the show ends."

Posted on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 06:08 PM in Books | Permalink | Comments (8)

The Ideal Editing Software

This might be the most interesting comment from the Editing Software post, which came in rather late in the day from Camilo Polymeris. Camilo points out that not having one program do everything would be a-feature-not-a-bug:

I prefer small, light software that does only one thing and does it well, and am perfectly fine with using one program to organize, one to develop, and one to edit photographs. Plus a bunch of smaller tools to do specialized stuff like panoramas, perspective correction, or HDR, if that is your thing.

In fact, that makes most sense to me. In part it might be my UNIX background, where that approach is standard, and in part the conviction that it leads to overall more flexible and powerful environments, by allowing each user to select the tools that fit his or her workflow the best. So, more than one tool to dominate them all, I would love to see more open intercommunication standards, so each of us can chose their own manager, developer and editor and they still would work nicely together.

Of course we have something approaching this with plugins, although many of those are add-ons to what are already supposed to be full-featured programs. (The more successful plugins then seem to be appropriated by the mother software like the Blob smothering its enemies). It might be interesting to see a "program" that was essentially an empty framework for open-source editing apps that anyone could provide, from which each user could then pick and choose. I don't know enough about it to know how viable such an arrangement might be. It sounds more 21st-century, at least.

Photo Ninja (ya see what I did there?)

I've been experimenting with the nifty Photo Ninja (again) and mean to give PhotoLine a try, too.

Mike

TOP's links!

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

Dave: "I wanted to comment on the original post but didn't have the time...I think we can look at electric guitar for an example of where things might head with image editing software. Guitarists have relied on various effects pedals to modify their tone since the dawn of amplified music. With the digital revolution various guitar effects companies came up with all-in-one digital effects pedals. These all-in-one devices were kind of like Photoshop in that they were designed to be a one stop signal processing solution. However, now that the dust has settled from the guitar digital revolution, most guitarists still use multiple pedals. To get a signature sound a guitarist might use a mix of vintage pedals coupled with some newer digital effect. Guitarist have a very diverse set of tools to choose from. I'm hoping that photography is headed in the same direction."

SerrArris: "I am also following the for-each-purpose-one-program approach. That makes my collection of tools kind of large, but I can work very comfortably that way.

Scanning—Vuescan
Fast edit and finalizing from 16 bit TIFFs—Fixfoto
Batch processing—Irfanview (Fixfoto could also do that, but I am used to the Irfanview GUI for that matter)
RAW Conversion—DxO Labs and Filmpack
Noise reduction (not used any more)—Noise Ninja
Printing—Photoline (Cheapest program that can use ICC profiles)
Multi layer edit, dodging and burning—Gimp
Panoramas—Hugin

"As said, I am confortable with that approach. In fact, the complete software package did cost me less than $400 (with DxO being the most part of that), spread over years. And all the software runs on my outdated Thinkpad T61! Amazing."

Stmpjmpr: "I agree that separate, focused tools would be ideal, but it in order to maintain one of the main benefits of apps like Lightroom and Aperture, nondestructive editing, some standards would have to emerge that communicated the effects of the application as instructions instead of rendering the image with the effects applied. Given that this is a technologically huge hurdle, and that the vendors wouldn't agree to any presented solution that didn't put them at the center (witness RAW formats), we're probably stuck with applications that are too monolithic."

Posted on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 02:14 PM in Software | Permalink | Comments (25)

New Leica? New Leica?

Damn—you know, you stop paying attention for five minutes, and the news just steamrolls right over you. Apparently Leica has released a new camera, and judging from the price it must be a pretty significant product. Yr. Hmbl. Ed. is, however, woefully lacking in awareness at the present moment and will need more time to get up to speed. Is this the "mini-M" that was being bruited about a while back? That doesn't seem possible; this has a fixed lens. Hmm, well, I shall hand the matter over to the Staff.

Unless you want to explain it to me. What's all this, now?

Mike

UPDATE: Right after I posted this (naturally) I got the Leica Forum Newsletter confirming that yes, this is the Mini M. Except it's not—it's a Maxi X2, an APS-C fixed lens compact with a zoom. Amateur Photographer has a review. Me, I'd be looking a lot harder at the Sony RX1 for that kind of dough. But then, the Sony's lens is right for me, and others (so I hear) prefer a zoom.

More likely, I'd be looking hard at a Sony RX100, history having demonstrated that I'll most likely be replacing any compact camera I have within three years or so anyway. The RX100 floats a surprisingly large number of photographers' boats.

One correspondent sent a sarcastic fake announcement that said "Canon Announces Leica X Vario Killer," linking to a Canon EOS M ($549 with lens) and noting that it has "a higher-resolution LCD, longer zoom range, more megapixels on the same size sensor, faster telephoto end, interchangeable lens capability, and 1/6th the price." You do lose the EVF, but you gain interchangeable lenses and easy compatibility with Canon EF and EF-S SLR lenses. But don't write off the Leica too soon....

TOP's links!

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

Harrison Cronbi: "Keep up, Mike. A fixed lens is the new interchangeable lens. Zooms are the new primes. You'll be aware by now ƒ/6.4 is the new ƒ/2. Pop-up flashes are the new optical viewfinders. Crop sensors are the new full frames. Premium compacts are the new compact premiums. And black is the new black."

Gordon Lewis: "Leica has apparently released a compact mirrorless camera with a large, slow, non-interchangeable zoom lens and no EVF for a list price of $2,850. A hood for said lens will be an additional $140. They should manage to sell at least a dozen of either one."

Mike replies: Methinks thou dost misunderestimate the magic of the marque.

Will: "I cannot see the viability of this product. It has a very slow and limited-use lens...a 28–70mm-e lens that's ƒ/3.5–6.4.

"Meanwhile, the Fuji X-E1 can be had for considerably less than half the price, with a 28–85mm-e ƒ/2.8–4 lens that can be removed and replaced with any of the other X-mount lenses. The X-E1 has proven itself to have a fantastic sensor, and that sensor is of a lower resolution by only two digits in both dimensions. Anyone that might be attracted to the Leica X-Vario would certainly also be interested in the X-E1 with kit zoom, and would get a much better camera for considerably less money.

"In fact, an X-E1 with all of Fuji's currently-available lenses is, right now, cheaper than a Leica X Vario. Oh, and you get a body-integrated EVF too. How did Leica look at the marketplace and think that this would be a viable product? After a year or so of reasonably good decision-making, this casts a rather dark shadow over the company's decision-making."

Mike replies: Or you could get a Sony NEX-7 with its kit lens, a comparative bargain right now at less than $1,100.

Rick in CO: "It was a ruse, that as Leica owner I was sorry to see. The 'new' camera is an 'X-Zoom,' certainly not a 'Mini-M.' I didn't think that Leica needed to play those games!"

Michael Matthews: "Well, here's one explanation. [Thom Hogan's analysis at Gearophile —Ed.]"

Ivan Muller: "Having used a Leica X1 almost exclusively for my personal images the last two and a half years I can vouch that in practice its much better than it reads on paper, and it introduced me to the world of 'zone focusing.' I hardly ever shoot wide open, so the new X Vario sounds quite interesting and I am quite sure it will be a very nice camera to use.

"But I also have a Canon EOS M with 22mm ƒ/2 now and I am growing fonder of it day by day...everything just works well, it interfaces nicely with all my other Canon stuff, it's build like a tank, and with my Leica OVF on top has become my new constant companion. The touchscreen is great and fast and hopefully some or all of the AF issues will be sorted by the end of the month. And yes I feel so much better using a camera that cost only a fraction of the Leica...but is its equal in so many ways and betters it where it counts...maybe not a Leica killer as far as image goes but certainly in everything else!"

Posted on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 01:16 PM in Cameras, new | Permalink | Comments (30)

Clueless or Calculating?

I didn't actually know this when I wrote yesterday's post about photo editing software—I'm generally more clueless than calculating—but it turns out that Adobe is about to release the newest edition of Lightroom, Lightroom 5. You can order it now, available for download from Amazon, or as a download or in the box from B&H Photo. (I don't know about you, but I prefer to have a disc version of my major software products. Why? Because I needed to, once. Once was enough.)

Do I need to try LR? I'm quaking in me boots...I have too much to do lately already, what with the great home reorganization project soaking up the leftovers of my rather minimal supply of personal energy.

And by the bye, did that post set a record for the number of Featured Comments in the shortest time? I think maybe it did.

Mike

P.S. Speaking of calculating...the nod for the funniest idea in the Comments recently came from Ed in the Netherlands, who speculated that maybe TOP is put together by a team of professional writers doing a canny imitation, for commercial purposes, of one person with a distinct personality. Made me laugh. Actually, I really am a person (just one), and I really do cobble TOP together from an 11x11' room in a small ranch house in the wilds of Wisconsin. No foolin'.

Here's the calculating part, though: remember that if you buy your software through our links, you make B&H and Amazon share their profits with ol' Mike. And how cool is that?

The Staff, in cracked bathroom mirror

TOP's links!

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

robert e (partial comment): "It surprises me that you don't already use LR, Mike, if only because it's an editor that seems to have been designed by digital-savvy former film photographers for their own use. It's got one foot in the old days and one foot in the new days. Which I think is why it suits me so well. (I don't feel it's in any way hindered by the analog paradigm, either.) I think it would be well worth an hour or or two of your time. It shouldn't take more time than that to download, install, and poke around enough to see if you're compatible with each other."

Posted on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 12:51 PM in Software | Permalink | Comments (26)

Monday, 10 June 2013

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.

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."

Posted on Monday, 10 June 2013 at 02:38 PM in Books, Exhibits, Ken Tanaka, Photographers, current | Permalink | Comments (10)

There Is No Good Photo Editing Software

Home sweet home for me...Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)

I've been thinking about this for the past few days now, and I've been struck by an idea that won't leave my head: Is it possible that good photo editing software just doesn't exist?

I use ACR and Photoshop CS6 myself. ACR comes closest for me (I'm happy that Zalman Stern, a member of the core of the ACR development team, is a TOP reader), and I use it for 90% of what I do—but it doesn't do everything and it isn't available separately. To my mind, it would be the best basis for an all-in-one photo editing program for photography. But partly that's because it's still simple, and added complexities have so far been useful and have not (yet?) become pointless or gratuitous.

Lightroom, on the other hand, now does the trick for most photographers, but it too has shortcomings because, like ACR (which it incorporates), it's intended to be used in conjunction with Photoshop. (Lightroom is essentially the greatly expanded distant descendant of Bridge, with DAM capabilities emphasized.)

Second-tier programs such as PWP and GIMP have serious weaknesses or limitations—PWP's Mac capability is a patch, and GIMP is 8-bit only.

Tiny independent RAW-converter-based editors such as Photo Ninja are cool, but haven't penetrated the market or become standard, and most of them don't generate the capital for continuous improvement (I'm guessing). Every now and then a genius like Fabio Riccardi comes along with a better mousetrap, but the marketing and public acceptance aspects of managing a commercial product create substantial walls that impede success (and there's that capital problem...maybe; I don't know).

Aperture and DxO have strengths and weaknesses and seem to offer real alternatives, though it's widely agreed that neither are perfect.

And Photoshop itself isn't it, because photo editing is actually a fairly small part of its overall functionality, it's vastly too complicated even for some regular users (ahem), and it's too expensive...even before CC. It might be the everything-including-the-kitchen-sink software, and the one all the pro graphics and printing people use, but that doesn't make it ideal.

So is it possible that, when it comes to photo editing software, there's just nothing really, well, good out there? Nothing that works well with all files, is reasonably standardized, is intended mainly for photographers, doesn't need to be used in conjunction with other products, and that does most of the things that most of us want it to do but doesn't do most of what we don't need it to do? And that works well, and is reasonably simple to learn and straightforward to master? And that is reasonably affordable, and updates often enough but not too often?

Seems to me we just all sort of muddle along with a) what we've been muddling along with in the past, b) some combination of programs we happen to own or be familiar with, and c) what we can afford.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I'm the first to admit I'm not an expert on software (I'm really not, I'm not being modest)...just observing the passing scene.

Mike

TOP's links!

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

Charles Lanteigne: "Just so I can understand where you're coming from, what would you like ACR/LR to do, that they don't at the moment, that would make them what you'd call 'good photo editing software'?"

Mike replies: As I said, I don't use LR, but I'll answer your question with a question: if LR is everything anybody needs, why are so many people so upset about Photoshop CC?

Bill Pierce: "For a long time, I processed digital images exactly as Mike does—ACR and Photoshop. As Photoshop expanded (understatement alert) to meet the image processing needs of non photographers, a lot of us slipped over to Lightroom, bouncing into Photoshop when we needed to retouch pictures of our wife or girlfriend.

"But, if you want to do it all in one program, from RAW file to print or screen display, here’s another alternative in addition to the ones that you mentioned that’s pretty good—Capture One. Their base interpretation of color and sharpness for a specific camera file can be different from that of the Adobe programs, but is quite good (I think better at times). and, of course, the files are completely adjustable if you want to change their interpretation. They are usually fairly fast in expanding the program to handle the RAW files of new cameras. You can set Capture One to store and retrieve your images either from your existing filing system or in a filing system established by the program. And they promise to always have the latest version of the software downloadable and not updated from the 'cloud.' They usually have some kind of trial period that will let you try out the program for a short period of time without paying for it. The program’s controls are close enough to the Adobe programs that the leaning curve isn’t too horrible. People might want to add it to their list."

David Paterson (partial comment): "Perhaps Photoshop Elements ticks most of the boxes you mention? I don't know—I'm only suggesting; I have very little experience of Elements. My wife uses it but I find the interface so off-putting that I can scarcely bear to use it."

Markus Spring (partial comment): "The former Bibble, now AfterShot Pro, might be quite close to what you look for—nondestructive, extendable, fast, allowing to restrict modifications to regions, it does at least for me 99% I ever needed. And it works on Mac, Win, and even Linux (where it is the only commercialRAW converter available). The problem with it? The last update from Corel, the new owner, dates back ages, and new cameras' RAW files are simple not known to it...."

Speed (partial comment): "Is it possible that a definition of 'good photo editing software' just doesn't exist? Or is different for each user? It is said in the context of a large and complex application that nobody uses more than 15% of its functions but everybody uses a different 15%. My experience is that when I start with a new application I don't know which 15% I need, and with time my use changes and grows."

Kevin Pfeifle (partial comment): "I could not agree more! I'm using both DxO and lightroom. Neither has layers, which I think is a huge problem, but I refuse to pay for Photoshop (too expensive and too many things I don't need or want). LightZone was starting to move in the direction I wanted....

Jack: "Yeah, welcome to the digital world. You could write that third-to-last paragraph about almost any kind of program, from the lowly word processor on up. My pet peeve is that in the digital world there are no experts. It seems that the time it takes to master a new technology advancement is longer than the time to develop a new advancement. It used to be, not that long ago, that you dedicated yourself to learning something, became an expert at it and you were set for a long time. Not any more."

Mike replies: Yeah, that bugs me too. A lot. It always makes me chuckle when somebody asks me to write a detailed comparison of all the major editing programs. That would require mastering them all first. I'll start in on mastering the second one as soon as I master the first one, but I've been working on mastering the first one for 19 years now, and I'm still not close, so they shouldn't hold their breath.

John Yuda (partial comment): "I don't know if they're fully there yet, but Pixelmator and Acorn are both getting very close from my perspective. They're Mac-only, and built on Apple's Core Image technology...."

Ed (partial comment): "You seem to forget the RAWTherapee and that my dear freind is missing out on free greatness."

Jim Kofron: "You indirectly mention Lightzone (Fabio Riccardi), which continues to be my favorite photo editor (even with its warts). I'd like to let you and your readers know that although Fabio closed up LightCrafts, he graciously has donated the code to an open source project that has been gaining some significant momentum since the beginning of the year. The site is Lightproject.org, and I'd encourage your readers and any developer types to participate in this effort. The first couple of times I tried Lightzone, I just didn't get it. On my third trial, something just clicked and I thought to myself—'Brilliant.' It's a great paradigm for photo editing, even if it's missing the 'pixel pushing' tools like a healing brush. I was more than happy to buy the 'lifetime' license, and have used it to finish my photographs ever since. But yes, I think it's safe to say that there are no good (or great) photo editing software packages out there...."

JTW: "I absolutely agree. Software always seems to have the tendency to try to be all things for all people, and ends up being too ponderous, too unwieldy, and too complex (and too expensive). Two examples: Microsoft Word, and Photoshop."

Adam Isler: "I think your title is too strong. Surely there's no 'perfect' photo editing software that has just the right set of features for what you want and no more, with an intuitive interface that makes it a breeze to use. But there's certainly 'good' photo editing software. I myself have standardized on Lightroom with Nik plugins and the occasional use of Photoshop CS5 (and I'm considering whether CC will be worth it for me—waiting to hear from Ctein on Wednesday).

"Am I overjoyed with this set-up? Is it perfect? No. But it's comfortable enough and, while I miss the scent of hypo and acetic acid mixed with sweat from my old bathroom darkroom, this is way better."

Dennis Mook: "I would like to see Lightroom Plus. Take Lightroom, add 50% to the price and give us about 15 of the most commonly used tools we utilize in Photoshop. That would give us database capability, non-destructive initial editing and then the commonly used attributes we go to Photoshop to use for what we now can't do in Lightroom. That would be perfect for me."

Gordon Lewis (partial comment): "Let's remember that image editing (meaning manipulation, not deleting weak images) is an option, not a fundamental requirement."

Stephen Scharf: "Have to respectfully disagree. Despite Adobe's Machiavellian behaviour of late with respect to Creative Cloud, Adobe Lightroom rocks. If you ever had to go through a day's take of 1000+ RAW images for your PR director at the racetrack, identify selects, and burn to a disc in time for deadline press, you'd know what I mean! ;-) ."

Harold Merklinger: "Even before Photoshop existed, I believed that there were certain fundamental principles that guided software developers. The rules go something like this:

Every software package must contain at least one highly useful 'killer' feature or capability not available in any other package.
Every software package must lack at least one essential feature or capability found in nearly every other competing package.
No software package may be entirely free of bugs.
Every software package must contain at least one undocumented feature that every user needs to know.
The native file format must be incompatible with competing software packages and preferably incompatible with earlier versions of the same package.
Where possible, there should be multiple similar, easily confused pairs of functions or capabilities. Any documentation supplied must describe both functions of a pair in a single paragraph and any examples must use both functions in such a way that it is impossible to determine precisely which function does what.

"I believe my list eventually contained a total of 37 such design rules. Suffice it to say that the first two principles alone determine that everyone needs all available software packages.

"That said, I must say that Photoshop has been for me the best of all the software packages I have used. I started with version 2."

Fazal Majid: "Lightroom was not designed as a Photoshop adjunct. Most users report it has the opposite effect—PS usage declines dramatically once you start using LR. Also, in genesis it was a skunkworks project at Macromedia Labs before the company was even acquired by Adobe. Apple's release of Aperture forced Adobe to release LR, albeit for internal political reasons with the tag 'Photoshop' attached to the product name."

Rob (partial comment): "I am a recent convert to Photo Ninja, which I think puts ACR deep in the shade as a raw convertor. At this early stage of its development, PN does not have many of the features and workflow enhancers that can be found in programs such as Lightroom, Aperture and Capture One, but I find that PN's output is so good that I have much less need for additional tweaking in Photoshop than I previously did with other raw convertors."

MJFerron (partial comment): "Actually PS Elements 11 is a nice affordable option."

Marc Rochkind (partial comment): "There's nothing at all in LR that requires, or even suggests, that Photoshop plays a role in the workflow. You can go to PS and back smoothly, which is nice, but this is definitely not central to what you do in LR."

Dan Gorman (partial comment): "The key thing that keeps me coming back to P'shop is the ability to work in layers—including adjustment layers and layer masks—and the resulting ability to make very precise local edits. I'm not aware of any other program that has this capability (though I'd love to be informed otherwise)."

Jamie Pillers (partial comment): "I've used Aperture for several years now, since it first came out. Recently I added the Nik suite of software (which loads as an integral add-on to Aperture). Aperture has always done everything I've needed."

david stock: "Folks might want to check out Photoline. It does virtually everything Photoshop does, for a fraction of the expense. I wouldn't use it for RAW processing, but for those times when you need layers, selections and special tools, it's very capable. Of course, like Photoshop, it has a learning curve...."

David Dyer-Bennet (partial comment): "I actively do not want 'all-in-one' software. I don't want DAM integrated with photo editing, in particular—a nasty path that both Bibble (in v. 5) and Lightroom (from the beginning I believe) went down. [...] As a general philosophical thing, all-in-one tools are second (or so) best at each thing they do, maybe actually best at one thing if you're very lucky. Given how photography pushes data storage processing speed issues, I can't afford second best for many aspects of my photo software."

Tom Kwas: "Once again, as I've said almost every time someone on here talks about 'pro' processing and editing software:

"One: Photoshop was never meant to be a photographer's software, strictly pre-press, and it was marketed to me as such back in the '90s when I was running a big studio for a retailer. For those on here that said it's now getting to have too many features for the general photographer, it always did. It was never written using photo specific terminology that all pro photographers understood, like 'grades' for contrast, and 'stops' for brightness. C'mon, sharpening that has to do with radials and distals? What the what is that? And no 'one button' B&W conversion for years, when other software had it....

"Two: Capture One is what everyone I ever knew in a professional studio used, especially in large commercial studios with a lot of varying equipment and medium format sized digital cameras. Photoshop was only in the pre-press and assembly departments!"

Posted on Monday, 10 June 2013 at 03:39 AM in Software | Permalink | Comments (96)

Sunday, 09 June 2013

Open Mike: Indexer

The saddest sight in my house.

I am in theory as frightened of the idea of pain as the most timid little girl, but in reality I don't seem to be very much in touch with it. Pain, I mean. I often only realize I've damaged myself when I discover blood somewhere. And sometimes when I discover blood I have no idea where it's coming from, and have to search. And I'm frequently mystified by the most common of symptoms. (Something weird is happening...I seem to be sneezing a lot, and my nose is running! What could it be?)

Anyway, it's possible I am sick. I don't really know. I felt unaccountably weary when I began my walk with the dog last night, and I ended up the walk feeling the same way, even though a little exercise often revives me and a walk often leaves me feeling refreshed. I went to bed hours earlier than usual last night, then slept nearly around the clock (twelve hours, for you youngsters who never use round clocks). I woke up once in the middle of the night, to find myself drenched with sweat.

Accordingly, today I thought I might write a little update about my usual energizing solution (and my only drug)...coffee.

Sometimes the old engine just won't rev
But I've had nothing but problems. To begin with, I know I've written about coffee before, but for some reason I couldn't find it. It's possible the explanation might be mental fog, rather than Search Engine imprecision.

Or maybe I need an indexer. My late friend Phil Davis's wife Martha did that for a living: she indexed books. Google is a TOP index about like Searchlight is a hard drive index: both lack the human touch, which you need sometimes.

Secondly, I cannot type today. I have good and bad typing days; sometimes I fly right along; other times I make so many mistakes I nearly grind to a halt. Today it's the latter.

Finally, WE Energies ("WE" stands for Wisconsin Energies, which I guess means that "WE Energies," which is what they call themselves, means "Wisconsin Energies Energies"—editors needed everywhere—) did a modest impression of a third-world country and cut off the electricity for half a minute a while ago. This brought the Rube-Goldbergian electrical edifice that is TOP World Headquarters to its knees, as various surge protectors and AC regenerators amidst the horrendous tangle of wires and cables went into crisis mode and helpfully erased everything I had just written.

And I might have mentioned before that I seem to have an insurmountable mental blockage against writing something over again. I can't seem to will myself to do it, almost no matter the stakes (I lost a good friend over it once, even). I'm used to this. It's been consistent, all my life.

Funny that I'm the opposite way with printmaking. Whether darkroom or digital, I almost always prefer to start from scratch each time I reprint, rather than use whatever settings I arrived at the first time around; no matter how well I did it before, I always think I can do it better the next time. Not with writing.

Try again
Anyway, here's your truncated, interrupted, mentally fogged update on my coffee adventures:

I bought a Behmor 1600 in December of 2011 and have been roasting green coffee beans in my kitchen ever since. It took me a while to set up the equipment (a small Shop-Vac under the worktable is a must for cleanup) and iron out my protocols, but I got up to speed relatively quickly and have been cruising effortlessly ever since.

I am remarkably (for me) not obsessive about it at all. I don't pine for nicer roasters, I don't experiment with the various roasting "profiles," and I'm lackadiasical about the degree of roast. (A good visual is here. I aim for anything from about 9 to 13 on the chart at the link, and I usually do it as Joe Behm suggests: by time. I've found that 6.5 ounces on the "1/2 Pound" setting works best, and I give it about 1:50 past the onset of first crack—a little more for coffees that need to be a little darker, a little less for coffees that need to be a little lighter.)

I don't even much care for experimenting with various fine green coffees from around the world. That, however, is obligatory...coffee is an organic product, not an industrial one, and the supply is always changing. The very best decaf I found, for instance, is not available right now. Furthermore, batches and crops change from year to year. Just because you loved a particular coffee one year doesn't mean it will taste the same the next. So you have to keep experimenting. You don't have a choice. Might as well enjoy it.

The absolute best in my experience is Phil Rosenberg's Kona (him I found). I've just run out...maybe that's why I'm feeling sick!

It took me a fair amount of effort to arrive at the grind and the brewing method I use, but now I don't stress about it. I have a Breville BCG800XL which I use one-shot, not as a dosing grinder. (And note that the 800XL is essentially an expresso grinder and does not work well for French press. It works fine for drip.) For brewing I use the simple but marvelous large Clever Coffee Dripper, which is truly the best of all possible solutions for coffee brewing. I heat the (bottled) water in a Bonavita (see my review of it at Amazon). Incidentally I recommend the Clever Coffee Dripper and Bonavita pourover kettles whether you roast your own coffee or not.

Scott Rao's Everything But Espresso is the most helpful of many books I bought and many websites and videos I perused; dismayingly, it is out of print. (Sometimes it seems like every good book I know about is out of print. We need a better system.)

Once you come up the rather steep learning curve, roasting your own coffee is a cinch. It's fast, it's easy, and it really doesn't seem inconvenient at all. I'll sometimes wake up to find I'm out of roasted coffee, and I don't even mind roasting up a batch prior to brewing. It's no more effort than emptying the dishwasher, and about as challenging and stressful.

I also don't use sugar in my coffee any more, ever. A good cup of coffee is not bitter, at all, and simply doesn't need sugar.

I have not bought so much as a single ounce of roasted coffee in the last year and a half. Roasting my own is a habit now, and I'm perfectly happy to do it.

And it's worth it. I make a pretty good cup of coffee now. At least, good enough for me.

Mike

"Open Mike" is TOP's once-on-Sundays indulgence of its editor's dyspeptic blats about this and that.

TOP's links!

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

Stan B.: "Ya must be illin'—ya didn't even mention Calidoscopio!!! P.S. Maybe just one of those being in your fifties things. 'Enjoy' it while it lasts—I don't relish the next decade...."

Mike replies: Wow. I actually do feel better now.

Chuck Holst: "You are right that Google is no index; it is at best a concordance engine, as is the search feature on the Kindle. The difference between a concordance and an index is that a concordance is a list of word locations whereas an index is a list of idea, topic, and name locations. A good index cannot be created mechanically; it must be created a person who understands the material. Furthermore, a good indexer creates multiple entry points, because different people use different words for the same thing. And this is one of my pet peeves about nonfiction ebooks that lack indexes or, just as bad, substitute photos of the original index pages for a good index with page links. A search feature is no substitute for a good index."

Luke: "Where, physically, do you roast coffee? Outdoors? I find the smell of roasting coffee extremely vile. How do you deal with the fumes?"

Mike replies: The Behmor 1600 has "smoke suppression technology" (basically a catalytic converter) and I don't roast dark, preferring medium roasts. But it's necessary to roast in an area that has an exhaust fan. I keep the fan on for about 15 minutes after roasting with the outside door cracked and the door between the kitchen and the rest of the house closed. No problem...at least for my nose.

Posted on Sunday, 09 June 2013 at 05:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (27)

Friday, 07 June 2013

Have a Nice Weekend

Want some movie suggestions? I found this nice list of "rom-coms" that has some good ones—it has a few of my favorites on it (although I couldn't stand Say Anything). Maybe I'll watch Annie Hall again. It's been a while. The list's #4 pick is my brother Charlie's #1 favorite romantic comedy, and it has my #1 at #34.

And don't forget the Belmont tomorrow!

I'll be taking Saturday off as usual. Coming up on Monday we have a great article by Ken Tanaka about a wonderful and perhaps somewhat overlooked contemporary photographer. Thank you for reading; see you on Sunday.

Mike

TOP's links!

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

Patrick: "I suppose such a list a supposed to generate a little discussion, but man, he's got some real clinkers in there, namely, number 15 and 16 should not be on the list. Your own number 1 (his 34) should be top five. Here is the properly ranked top 5:

The Apartment
Groundhog Day
The Lady Eve
About a Boy
Eternal Sunshine/Princess Bride (tie)."

Posted on Friday, 07 June 2013 at 07:25 PM in Blog Notes | Permalink | Comments (18)

Sad Development!

You might remember this picture of mine from a long-ago print sale. Well, a couple of weeks ago a city truck arrived (early in the morning in order to wake me up, but never mind that) and removed the streetlight. That's all they did. Plucked the streetlight out of the ground and took it away. It's gone. There's an orange cone where it used to be. I have no idea if they're going to put it back or if it's gone for good.

Really ought to be the number one consideration for photographers of the real world: here today, gone tomorrow. Alan Watts has a nice segment in one of his lectures where he talks about even the physical world being evanescent and phantasmagoric. He notes that we think of, say, an apple as having solidity and physical presence, but "a hundred years from now, where is the apple?" And in fact, he notes, the entire physical world is that way...constantly coming into and going out of being.

Photograph what you want to while you can—you never know how long anything is going to be there. And value the photographs you have of things once familiar—someday it may be all that is left of that thing.

Mike

TOP's links!

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

Ed Hawco: "Boy, do I have to learn that lesson over and over. Most recently, on a street near where I work they knocked down an old greystone house in preparation for (yet another) condo tower. It left a marvelous 'ghost building' against the adjacent wall, which I grabbed an Instagram snap of. I planned to go back later with my OM-D and get a better quality shot. When I returned two weeks later they had put up a temporary sales office building that covers the ghost house! Grrrr!"

Photo by Ed Hawco

ted: "Point very well taken. Your point applies to much more than just photography. I spent the summer of 1977 working in Mt. Rainier National Park. On a day off I had the opportunity to climb Mt. St. Helens, but I declined, figuring, why drive all that way when there was so much wonderful hiking and climbing at Mt. Rainier? Besides, I thought, the mountain will always be there.

"Less than three years later Mt. St. Helens erupted, completely changing the mountain. I suppose it's true that the mountain is still there, but it's totally different from the mountain I could have climbed back in 1977."

chuck lavis: "Your post reminded me of a pic I took at a neighbor's house four years ago. My daughter was two at the time. Now she is six and the neighbor's house is two McMansions. I was trying your 'Leica for a year' program at the time. Really glad I did."

Photo by Chuck Lavis

Posted on Friday, 07 June 2013 at 01:08 PM in Visual Culture | Permalink | Comments (31)

What You Like and Don't Like About TOP

Still on the subject of backgrounders (because I do tend to make like a pit bull playing tug-o'-war with certain topics, at least until my jaws get tired—heh—), another comment I got under the "Affiliate Website" post that was very helpful to me came from frequent comment contributor David Dyer-Bennet:

Best of luck with the TOP expansion!

While I have no illusions that you run TOP especially for me-me-me!!!, this seems like the sort of occasion where reader feedback is appropriate.

Things I particularly like about TOP:

A focus on making, taking, capturing, creating, or in some other way obtaining photographs (often by buying books :-) ).

A literate and reasonably intelligent commentariat, who don't reliably agree with me.

A policy and tradition of civil debate, which is enforced when necessary.

Somewhat slow-moving discussions (messages don't often appear within even half an hour of being submitted), which tends to keep the message count down and encourage a bit more thinking before posting. I sometimes find the slow movement frustrating, but on consideration I strongly suspect it's a net positive.

Some things I'd like to see in the future of TOP:

A more predictable morning update time. For me personally, updating reliably at 11am is better than updating somewhere between 8 and 11, and much better than updating somewhere between 8 and noon. (Those specific times aren't important, just examples.) While for avoiding work, repeated checks not turning up anything sounds like it would be good, I find it frustrating.

Educational (not quite as low-level as simply instructional) columns, perhaps by temporary columnists who come on to do one series of defined length. Composition, color theory, lens renderings, modern papers for inkjet, B&W conversion, noise reduction; I'm a modern worker. But calotype, view camera movements, sheet-film processing, and so forth too.

More photos. Maybe ask some people on as photo columnists, to post a photo a week or a month or something? Quite possibly limited-term, as I suggested for other columnists above. Maybe somebody to point us at one good photo publicly posted to the web each week? Or maybe three such people? Or ten doing one a month?

I love the idea of the photo-columnists. That's inspired. That will be on the list of things to add when I have a part-time assistant at some point in the rose-hued future.

That makes me think of my dead idea of doing occasional "mini-portfolios," which, I have to tell you, foundered. I contacted no fewer than three photographers asking if I could post a mini-portfolio of five to eight examples of their work. None of the three even answered me. So it turns out that people who already know TOP realize that it's a goldmine for PR and that it has some serious reach, but, among people who don't already know it, it has no purchase or sway. You know what they say: Oh well.

That Dead Idea File is disconcertingly large, and contains many ideas that I still think are good ones.

David's comment about the slow pace* reminds me of one of Craig Ferguson's jokes: When you're about to blurt something out just because it came into your head, you need to ask yourself three little questions. 1. Does this need to be said? 2. Does it need to be said by me? and 3. Do I need to say it right now? Of course Craig then adds that it took him three marriages to learn to ask those questions before opening his mouth.

As far as posting by a certain time every morning...I could try. In practice, my son sets the timetable for TOP. When he had to get up for school every morning at 6:00, it meant that I also had to get up by 6:00, and the first post usually went up quite early; now he's home from college for summer break, and stays up till all hours of the night, which usually means that I have to stay up until very late every night too (because otherwise he wakes me up), which in turn means that the posts go up very late in the morning and sometimes not until mid-day. Left to my own devices I'd go to bed by 11:00 or 12:00 and get up by 7:00 or 8:00, but I'm not often in charge of the family schedule.

I could try to auto-post a small blip every morning—I can set the software to do that—but I'd have to write them at night and set them to auto-post at some predetermined time in the morning. The problem with auto-posting while I'm asleep is that then I'm not there to monitor mistakes and check links, and some egregious error might post and then sit there festering for hours. Regardless of all that, though, some serious thought about scheduling and pace might well be in order.

I would say the biggest influence on the pace of posting is that the post itself is only half of the story. The other half is the discussion that follows. Various topics have varying amounts of energy. This week is a great example. Ctein's post about Photoshop CC clearly has a lot of energy (that is, people want to talk about it). Even after I posted on top of it yesterday, comments were still coming in about Adobe and CC. While the way to make more money with a site like this is with lots of short posts at a furious pace, that shuts down the discussions that ensue. I like to let the discussions breathe when it seems like they want to.

Well, 'nuff from me. Speaking of ensuing discussions, how about you? Got anything to contribute about what you like or don't like about TOP, and what you'd like to see in that rose-hued future?

(But do keep in mind what Craig said.)

Mike

*Ctein himself was complaining about this just yesterday—I had workmen here and during one stretch didn't get the comments updated for a full 18 hours, which Ctein thinks is a day and a half in Internet time.

TOP's links!

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

James Sinks (partial comment): "I'd like more pictures on TOP, but keep it a wordy place, rather than a picturey place."

[For James's whole comment, as with any other "partial comment," please see the Comments section. —Ed.]

Art in LA: "Wow, I'm part of the 'reasonably intelligent commentariat'...I'm so marginally awesome!"

adamct (partial comment): "To be honest, I love T.O.P. as it is. That said, I love the idea of trying new things."

Posted on Friday, 07 June 2013 at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (68)

Thursday, 06 June 2013

Updates: I Lose

1. Okay, I lose the bet. (This updates the "Affilate Websites" post.) We did sell one copy of Joyland yesterday, but no drills or yardage GPS measuring thingys. Still, somebody bought some drill bits, which probably derived from that link. And, among other things:

A copy of the movie "Jaws" on Blu-Ray;
Energizer watch batteries;
An oven thermometer;
A bottle of "Contradiction by Calvin Klein" perfume.

The experiment inadvertently demonstrated two interesting things. First of all* when I wrote the first draft of this piece, that drill I linked was the hottest selling thing on Amazon, but it cost $98. By the time the piece was posted, the price had gone back up to a hundred and a half. Oops!

Also, two years ago we would have sold a drill and a yardage thingy. These days, more and more people are creating websites just to sell things via links, which means there's a lot more competition for your sales links, which means TOP is getting less than the share it used to get.

This is one reason why I need to be nimble and begin switching over to the print sales as a model of keeping the site going. Which is why I need more room, which is why I need a new office, which is why I have to look at new houses. It's all interconnected....

Anyway, I think you get how this works. By the bye, I know I didn't have to explain all that yesterday. But I like keeping things open, and besides, I think it's interesting.

2. I know this is OT, but this is so interesting I have to mention it. I went and looked at that house down the street that has all the office space. It was a custom design, built in the 1950s by a locally famous car dealer. So, you know how older car dealerships often have the showroom up front, and a row of offices in back? And each office has a window that overlooks the showroom floor. And often the doors to some of the offices are off a little inset atrium area.

Well, the car dealer built his basement as a mirror of a car dealership! There's one big, long room, then a little inset atrium with doors leading to smaller offices on either side, and the offices have windows in them that look out to the larger interior space (I took pictures, but I really can't show them because it would be an invasion of the current occupant's privacy. Here's a professional rendering by TOP's resident expert graphic artist:

(Sorry; we recently fired our entire graphics staff in a Pyrrhic cost-cutting move.)

Anyway, it made the laugh. The car dealer built a little mini car dealership in his basement! Either he liked the way the arrangement worked, or it reminded him of his dealership, which was probably his pride and joy, not to mention what paid his bills.

It would be a perfect arrangement for a work-at-home parent who has to supervise small children while working, not to mention ideal for an Internet Tycoon supervising minions. George Tice had a similar arrangement when his children were small—his darkroom was next to their playroom, and he built a large window covered with rubylith between the two rooms so he could keep an eye on the kids while he printed.

3. I took Ctein at his word yesterday, and am not going to try to guess why he thinks Photoshop CC is a good thing. Meanwhile, anybody use GIMP? I've never even seen it, but I notice that Rocky Nook, whose books I generally like, has a new book out about it (the link is to the Kindle version; there's also a dead trees stack o' paper version). All I know about Linux is that he was the little dude with the blankie from Charlie Brown. Speaking of which, I think I have too strong an infantile attachment fixation on ACR to ever do without it; but who knows. I've been known to change in the past. If rarely.

4. Luddite agitators continue to militate pointlessly in Chicago. (Romenesko is following this, in case you want to too.) Meanwhile, one ultraconservative talk show host has given his take on the issue. Does that guy know he's funny?

Mike
(Thanks to Tom Kwas)

*Latest pet peeve: "first off." Like fingernails on the blackboard x 3. Speak English! Just leave the "off" OFF!

TOP's links!

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

Martin: "Hey, I bought the drill! (Along with some bits, tools, and AA batteries.) Curious that it hasn't shown up. Maybe another reader actually did buy a GPS thingy, and then you can claim victory."

Mike replies: I'll check the reports again tomorrow and post another update. Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat wouldn't be the usual order for me, but I'm game to try.

Nathan deGargoyle: "You can mark me as a +1 for GIMP. Apart from a brief flirtation with Elements, Gimp with UFRAW are all I have ever used, although I may be biased. I actually got into photography via GIMP rather than vice versa. I started playing with image manipulation about seven years ago, generally using found images on the Web. An acquaintance suggested looking at the Mathmap group on Flickr and particularly the Escher-Droste images. I got so hooked that I started taking pictures with a cheap point-and-shoot so that I would have appropriate images to manipulate. Soon I found that the photography was more interesting than the manipulation, and the rest is history. Be that as it may, I can heartily recommend GIMP to anyone fleeing the ravening clutches of Photo$haft."

Andreas Plath: "I've used GIMP since the very first release and I can tell you that it is a fine piece of software but not quite there for serious photography work. The main reason for that is that it currently only supports 8-bit color image processing. Support for higher bit-depth is on the roadmap, but GIMP is developed by a small team of generous people in their spare time, so don't hold your breath. Development cycles are known to be very long. I currently use Picture Window Pro for my photography work and I find it quite up to the task."

Mike replies: I believe PWP is Elbonian, no? I speak only Mac.

Posted on Thursday, 06 June 2013 at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (42)

Wednesday, 05 June 2013

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud, Part I: The Bad

This week's column by Ctein

This is the first part of a two column series on Photoshop CC. In this column I will talk about what Adobe got wrong (oh, so badly wrong!) Pertinently, I'll also correct some broad misconceptions that people have about Photoshop CC. Feel free to rant, fume, and bloviate to your hearts content in comments; that's what this week's column is for.

Next week, I'll talk about why I decided (to my surprise) that this is a really good thing for Photoshop users and Adobe, both. No, don't anticipate me; you will not be able to guess where I'm going with this. I think I've got an interesting take on the whole thing; if we can get our rants out of our system this week, we'll have an illuminating discussion next week. (So call me a cockeyed optimist.)

I'm limiting my scope to Photoshop. I don't use Lightroom, and I rarely, if ever, use any of the other Creative Suite components (in other words, I am typical of 90% of photographers using Photoshop). If you're a Lightroom or major Creative Suite user, you likely have concerns and issues that I'm not competent to discuss. That doesn't mean I think your gripes aren't legitimate, just that I am restricting my scope.

Diving into the lava pit, without further ado...

Adobe did not spring this on us in the worst possible way, but it's way high up on the incompetence scale. Some of their strategy and marketing people need to be fired. I'm not kidding. Most of the whirlwind they are reaping is entirely of their own making and was entirely unnecessary.

To start with, there's the style. You don't surprise customers with a change like this with one month's notice. Yes, Adobe's been talking about this fundamental strategic change for several years, now, but only with vague timetables that put it years in the future. The result was entirely predictable, forcing people to make long-term strategy decisions, with just a month to figure this all out before the hammer falls? How much would you think this might piss people off?

Enough that you see a marked uptick in people using the phrase "Adobe tax." Yes, it's a brain-dead, bumper-sticker-slogan bit of rhetoric (you call your monthly phone or garbage collection bills "phone tax" or "garbage tax"? Really??), but it's a fair indicator that people are really upset. A change.org petition? OMG. Sure, it has no force whatsoever and a pretty small number of signatories compared to Adobe's installed base, but when was the last time you saw anyone attempt to start a social movement over a change in product licensing terms?!

PR-wise, Adobe couldn't have made it much worse if they'd offered to kill a puppy with every purchase of Photoshop CC.

Oh, wait. They did manage to make it much worse. There was the content. The murky, unclear, incomplete, convoluted content. That's where most of the misconceptions come from. In the days following the announcement, a large number of people were unclear about just what this physically entailed, because Adobe had decided to wrap the whole thing up in the high concept of the Creative Cloud. Was the new Photoshop application going to be client-resident or server-resident? Where did your files live? Were updates going to be push-obligatory or optional? Would you even be able to buy CS after CC comes out?

I had a friend who is exceptionally knowledgeable about streaming and server-based technologies and services (because it's her job to be) ask me three days after the announcement if the new Photoshop was going to be client or server based, because the short-form press releases hadn't made that clear even to her. (If it were server-based, she was most curious how they'd solved some bandwidth/latency problems.) I had to ask Adobe's PR agency several questions myself, because I couldn't figure them out even after delving deeply into the Adobe website. In a couple of cases they couldn't give me an answer because Adobe hadn't told them yet.

Here in a nutshell is what's really going on (I'm glossing over some technical details). Photoshop CC is not any different from Photoshop CS. It resides on your computer. The files you work on reside on your computer. It does not require a constant connection to the Internet to work. It does require a periodic connection to keep working...but so do CS versions of Photoshop! You didn't know that? True. I've had CS occasionally reset itself and need to login to revalidate my copy and pull it out of 30-day-trial mode. In some cases it's even needed me to reenter the serial number.

The only difference for the user is that Photoshop CC revalidates itself on a regular basis (30–99 days, depending on the license), while Photoshop CS only does it when some internal bit of logic deems it necessary. That's it.

That discredits the argument that this change is somehow about dealing with piracy (next week I'll tell you what it is about; be patient). It'll be no more difficult to pirate Photoshop CC than CS. Well, okay, they may have rolled out some new anti-piracy tweaks to the activation/validation system in the new version, because they're always working on that, but it's nothing inherent in the CC model; those would have been in CS 6.5.

The reason all this misinformation is out there is because Adobe couldn't figure out that they needed to explain this cleanly and simply, and not inextricably and confusingly wrap up the presentation in some fancy Cloud conceptual package that was irrelevant to most Photoshop users.

Then there's the confusion on pricing. A lot, maybe even a majority, of existing users think their Photoshop costs are going to go up, because they'll be paying out $20 a month. Except, they won't. For existing users, the price is $10 a month. It's only $20 a month for brand-new users (or current users of really old versions). Yes, it's a one-year "introductory" price. But, I've got good reason to think it'll become permanent and, anyway, that's what it is now. Ten dollars. Not $20.

Except...was this clearly and prominently displayed on the Adobe website? No! You found this out only if you drilled down through the purchase options. It's not that Adobe is trying to rip us off; the information does come up clearly once you get a layer or two in and before you'd be making a purchase. It's maladroit presentation.

Dear Adobe, since it seems you do not know how to suck eggs, let me explain this to you. Here is the way you present something like that, especially since your primary audience is a pre-existing installed user base: The very first page that discusses pricing should say "Price for the next year: $9.95 for users of Photoshop CS[x] and later." And the price for new users? That goes in smaller type or maybe even footnoted. Oh, and not so by the way, this information should be very near the top of the presentation because, y'know, it's the very first question people are going to ask, and making them dig for the information is not good salesmanship, it's just plain poking at the bear. Except, it seems you don't know that, so I'm telling you.

All of this, plus these postings:

Photoshop and Creative Cloud: We're Listening

Creative Cloud team: We're listening; stay tuned

You should never lose access to your work, period

...make it clear that someone(s) at Adobe whose job was to think these things through did not do so. Not even a little bit. We're not talking about rocket-science corporate communications issues; these are all such basic and predictable concerns and questions that Adobe should have had all the answers ready and promulgated clearly and prominently the moment they made their announcement.

Adobe truly earned all the vitriol that's been directed at them.

That's it for this week. As I said, next week I'll tell you why I've decided I actually like this idea, despite Adobe's best efforts to make me hate it. For now, have fun with the torches and pitchforks and tar and feathers. Just remember, kids, to have a responsible adult around. I mean, it's all fun and games until someone trips and pokes an eye out out with one of those pitchforks....

Ctein

Regular columnist Ctein explicates the pros and cons every week on TOP.

TOP's links!

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

George Feucht (partial comment): "OWNING something (that doesn't require costly upkeep) is much better in the long run than RENTING it."

Eric: "A monthly subscription for $10? Check out the European prices...."

Mark Cotter: "I jumped to CC about six months ago. I figured that I use Photoshop, InDesign, Lightroom and Premiere (occasionally) enough to justify the cost. And I decided that I preferred the idea of always having the current version rather than upgrading every couple of years when I couldn't work effectively with the files others had sent me. OK, not quite the person you were aiming your column at but I do agree with you—and I expect to agree with you next week. Oh, and I work in education so get a hefty discount. Win-win for me!"

Mark Roberts: "What's infuriating—and infuriating is the word for it—about this 'Creative Cloud' is that one will no longer be able to just buy Photoshop and be done with it. (Yes, I'm aware that technically one 'licenses,' rather than purchases, Photoshop.) The amount of the payment is less annoying that the fact that it is recurrent; it'll keep coming back on a regular basis. 'Nickel and Dimed,' 'Death of a Thousand Cuts,' whatever you want to call it. I already have too many of them in my life. I suspect many others do, too."

David (partial comment): "I don't rent anything except floor sanders, jackhammers and some extra lighting equipment when I need it."

Posted on Wednesday, 05 June 2013 at 03:03 PM in Ctein, Software | Permalink | Comments (57)

How Affiliate Websites Work

I got a bitter and cynical complaint yesterday (which I didn't publish) about all the positive camera reviews on TOP. I thought it might be an opportunity to explain how all this stuff actually works. I know a lot about this subject, having made all or part of my living from this for eight years now. I'm one of a relatively few people who manage that.

Continue reading "How Affiliate Websites Work" »

Posted on Wednesday, 05 June 2013 at 02:36 PM in Blog Notes, Followups, Jim Hughes | Permalink | Comments (31)

Tuesday, 04 June 2013

Deal o' the Day

The Lowepro Versapack 200 All-Weather backpack is available right now for the pain-free price of less than $50 from B&H, marked down from $120—that's more or less $70 off, as I guess you know if you are capable of doing simple arithmetic in your head.

It has a lightly padded upper compartment for personal items and a more heavily padded lower compartment for camera gear, and can be configured in several different ways so you can access it in different ways and to accommodate different camera outfits.

Yr. Hmbl. Ed. doesn't use backpacks, and TOP has never once published a post about camera bags (that I can recall, anyway), but my friends at B&H tell me this is a popular backpack among photographers and is selling briskly at the sale price. More pics at the link.

Mike

TOP's links!

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

Kalli: "I don't particularly care for backpacks for camera gear, but sometimes I seem to need one (less so after I went Micro 4/3). I've had a the Versapack for probably over three years and I like it very much. First off, it's light. The bag itself is no more than a kilo, I think. Second, it's made for a photographer who's actually also a human being. By that I mean that it's not made for just carrying camera gear, but also the stuff a human might want to carry around for a long day's outing. As a bonus you can collapse it so that it becomes quite compact. Handy if you need to pack it into your suitcase, for example. So, yeah, this bag nut, who hates camera bags and dislikes backpacks, likes this one."

James Ullrich: "It would be nice if the backpack had the camera space on top and other on the bottom. Water bottles sometimes leak and it is better to have that on the bottom. Additionally, if a pack is set down hard, it is better that the camera stuff is on top."

Posted on Tuesday, 04 June 2013 at 01:49 PM in Photo equipment | Permalink | Comments (12)

Fuji X-E1: The Keeper (Part II)

[Ed. Note: In case you missed this in yesterday's Part I, Fuji XF lens rebates are back. Go to B&H Photo, search one of the interchangeable-lens X cameras, either ther X-E1 under review here or the X-Pro1, then click "Savings Available." Rebates are $300 for the 18–55mm zoom, 60mm macro, and 18mm, and $200 on the 35mm ƒ/1.4 and the 14mm. If you start from our link here, we get a little reward if you make a purchase. Thanks for using our links!]

By Jim Hughes (continued from yesterday)

...Picking up where we left off, some example pictures taken with the Fuji X-E1:

For sale: Baskets Crafted out of Recycled Outlawed Lobster-Line, Camden, Maine, 2013. Primary colors in outdoor display, photographed under full sun. 35mm Canon, f/5.6, 1/3500, ASA 800, -.67 EV.

Open for Business, Camden, Maine, 2013. Backlit banner in sun, clothes rack in open shade, window at right in deeper shade. 35mm Canon, ƒ/5.6, 1/1300, ISO 800, –.67 EV.

Mail Trucks in a Line, Camden, Maine, 2013.
35mm Canon, ƒ/6.3, 1/4000, ASA 800, –.67 EV.

"Special Edition," Antique Toy Pedal-Plane in Storefront Display Window, Camden, Maine, 2013. 35mm Canon, ƒ/5.6, 1/1200, ASA 800, –1 EV. Good shadow detail, even behind reflections in glass.

A Dog and a Bear in a Pickup Truck, Camden, Maine, 2013. Typical overcast day in Maine. Fuji 18–55mm Zoom set at 55mm, ƒ/7, 1/125, ISO 200, –.67 EV.

Bananas at the corner of Elm and Mechanic Streets, Camden, Maine, 2013. This is why I prefer to focus manually. 35mm Canon, ƒ/5.6, 1/400 sec., ISO 400.

Moose with Deer Antlers (original rack evidently wouldn't fit!), Cappy's Restaurant, Camden, Maine, 2013. Dark interior, available light, overhead incandescent mixed with faint window light. 35mm Canon, ƒ/4, hand-held 1/10-second exposure, ASA 800, –2 EV.

Hand-carved Wooden Bunny with Carrot Smells the Flowers on Main Street, Camden, Maine, 2013. Zoom lens, 37mm, ƒ/5, 1/280, ISO 400, –.67 EV. Open shade. I love the way the Fuji sensor renders muted coloring.

Abandoned House, Rockport, Maine, 2013. Bright sunny day, my normal color settings. Zoom, 32mm, ƒ/5, 1/3500, 400 ISO, –.33 EV.

Same abandoned house, in-camera Film Simulation set to B&W with Yellow Filter. Zoom, 32mm, ƒ/5, 1/1900, ISO 400, –.33 EV. File toned in Aperture by setting Color Temperature slider to 5750 degrees.

Tapestry of Woven Twigs, Camden, Maine, 2013. Full sun behind my right shoulder, peeling monochrome wall. Note shadow detail. Fuji sensor seems to handle subtle and intense equally well. 35mm Canon lens, ƒ/5.6, 1/3500, ISO 800, –.67 EV.

"Vandalism," Rooftop Graffiti, Camden, Maine, 2013. It even happens in a small New England village. 50mm Canon lens, ƒ/8, 1/450,
ISO 200, 0 EV. Bright backlighting.

One final note. As I was leaving the bank in our little town recently, I crossed paths with a well-known architectural photographer who has talked publicly, and eloquently, about his difficult, costly, and ultimately successful transition from large and medium format film to high-end digital. He looked casually down at the camera slung over my shoulder and said, "Hey Jim, is that a new Leica?" I explained that although its quiet shutter had something of the old Leica M4 sound, it was perhaps closer to my previous constant companion, a steel-curtained Canon. "It's a digital Fuji," I noted. He grinned. "Nice!" he said.

Once across the street, I went to the French & Brawn Market, shown in the last picture above, where our New York newspapers are reserved for us daily. In line ahead of me was a wet-plate collodion photographer whose book I reviewed not long ago on these very pages. I caught him staring intently at my Fuji. "That's really a beautiful camera," he finally said.

No one had ever heaped such spontaneous praise on a camera of mine before, and now it had happened twice in one day. I think this one must be a keeper.

Jim

For many years, Jim Hughes was the editor of Camera 35. Later, he was the founding editor of Yr. Hmbl. Ed.'s all-time favorite photo magazine, the original Camera Arts. His books include the superb biography W. Eugene Smith: Shadow and Substance—The Life and Work of an American Photographer, and the monograph Ernst Haas in Black and White. Retired now, he writes occasionally for TOP (see his other articles by finding his name in the "Categories" list in the right-hand sidebar). He lives in Maine.

UPDATE from Jim Hughes: Thanks to all for the comments, a few of which caused me to do a little more research. Although I have used Photoshop in the past, recently I have been teaching myself Aperture on two-year old MacBook Pro, whose 13-inch screen can be a bit misleading depending on its tilt (tilted back, it goes dark!) I previously used Curves to open up shadows and bring down the occasional highlight, a laborious process for me. But it seemed easier, given the greater range of the X-E1 even with JPEGs, to use the Shadow/Highlight and Contrast sliders in Aperture, which I generally like, avoiding Curves altogether. (I gather a RAW converter for X-E1 files in Aperture is just now available, but I read that it still has a few kinks and it won't work with Snow Leopard at the moment, so I'm content to just wait...)

For exhibition prints on my preferred medium, dye sub, I've always liked letting the shadows go fairly dark while exposing for highlight detail. But with the Fuji files, especially for a story intended for the web, I thought I'd try a more open approach, since on the screen all seemed to look good (I haven't started printing them yet), especially large.

But when I shrunk the files for incorporating into the email texts I was sending to Mike, something evidently went awry between the Fuji files, Aperture, my email program, and whatever happens on Mike's end. On the TOP page, I see what some others see, although perhaps not to the same degree. Clicking on the small image to get a larger version helps, as would looking at the even larger email versions I originally sent—if you could see them, which of course you can't. I did go back and look at my Olympus E-PL1 images published recently ("Jaws of Death"), and while my Aperture settings for both camera's files were essentially similar, the Oly files evidenced no haloing that I could see. In truth, the haloing around the "boat" I now do see on my lead picture of the lobster-line baskets I initially took to be faint shadows from secondary reflected light. I didn't think to check because I had taken only that single frame. My first attempt at a corrected version appears below.

This is essentially a version I would print at least as a proof, and then decide what more might be required to make a final print of this particular picture. Which is, I suppose, what I should have done in the first place.

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:

Kent Phelan: "I'm guessing the well-known architectural photographer was Tillman Crane."

Keith B.: "For those that are without an X, but have been wondering about the dire descriptions from DigLloyd and others of weird raw converter artifacts—as I did until I recently acquired an X-E1—all I can say is that the horror stories are severely overblown and have been overplayed. I'm shooting RAW with up-to-date Lightroom doing the conversion, and these test guys must sharpening to a bizarrely high level to get the now-famous 'watercolor effect' on irregularly-shaped color patches such as tree leaves. I expect Lloyd to be critical of bad design, and picky about technical matters. As a subscriber, that's what I paid him to do. But, I'm just not seeing it with the Fuji X RAW conversions issue."

Rob L: "I would caution folks considering the X-E1 and X-Pro1 to at least try the hybrid viewfinder of the X-Pro1 before going the X-E1 route—both are amazing cameras, but man, the X-Pro1 viewfinder is seriously amazing. If the majority of your lens use is going to be adapted, manual focus lenses, then the XE-1 is a better choice: cheaper, more compact, and you'll very rarely use the optical part of the VF. But if you're going to be using Fuji glass(or the groovy new Touits), then giving the X-Pro1 a try may pay off—the hybrid VF is something Leica should have implemented. It's dead brilliant, and shockingly useful."

Stephen Scharf (partial comment): "I've been using an X-Pro1 since early November 2012, and am hard pressed to think of a camera I've been more impressed with since the advent of the Canon 5D. The image quality from these X-cameras (especially the APS-C sensor based cameras) continues to amaze me on an almost daily basis."

Doug Howk: "I rather doubt that Tillman Crane is shooting digital. He's an outstanding platinum printer using LF cameras. More likely the architectural photographer mentioned in the article is Peter Urbanski who switched to digital in 2006."

Jim Hughes replies: Good guesses, wrong names. It was Rockport resident Brian Vanden Brink, whose latest book is Iconic: Perspectives on the Man-Made World.

Posted on Tuesday, 04 June 2013 at 12:16 PM in Camera Reviews, Jim Hughes | Permalink | Comments (30)

The Online Photographer

Recent Posts

+ Sponsors

Resources

June 2013

Friday, 14 June 2013

Lillian and Rebecca

Peter In Portugal

Thursday, 13 June 2013

A Worthy Kickstarter

Wednesday, 12 June 2013

It's BACK(?)

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud, Part II: The Good

Tuesday, 11 June 2013

TOP Effect?

The Ideal Editing Software

New Leica? New Leica?

Clueless or Calculating?

Monday, 10 June 2013

Abelardo Morell: The Universe Next Door

There Is No Good Photo Editing Software

Sunday, 09 June 2013

Open Mike: Indexer

Friday, 07 June 2013

Have a Nice Weekend

Sad Development!

What You Like and Don't Like About TOP

Thursday, 06 June 2013

Updates: I Lose

Wednesday, 05 June 2013

Adobe Photoshop Creative Cloud, Part I: The Bad

How Affiliate Websites Work

Tuesday, 04 June 2013

Deal o' the Day

Fuji X-E1: The Keeper (Part II)

Portals

Search

Categories

Archives

Stats