It's rather slow, painstaking work to match the pictures back up with their names, and I hope I've spelled everyone's name correctly. If I haven't, a) my apologies, and b) please shoot me a quick email so I can correct it.
By the way, I don't know if I mentioned this yet, but we got a lot of really nice submissions that didn't make the semifinal batches. I would say there were about three times as many photos as we selected that could have plausibly made it into one of the three batches. Also, there were six or eight submissions that I never was able to see. I tried to alert every sender if the JPEG didn't come through, but some we never got.
So—as always with contests—don't be discouraged if your picture wasn't chosen. Judging isn't arbitrary, but it is a matter of each judge's taste and discretion.
We'll post the six finalists early next week, along with the judge's explanation of why each selection was made. (Until we do post the finalists, please don't comment about your own picture.)
The way we picked next week's finalists was that the judge and I both picked our own top six, and the three pictures that were on both of our lists made it in. Then we each picked three or four we really wanted to see on the list. I conceded one of his choices, he conceded one of my choices, and then he let me pick the sixth—which I did, but I chose it from among the choices he'd already indicated.
As you might expect, I'm hoping that it's the discussion of our choices that will be the more rewarding part of this exercise, as opposed to any hard ideas about "better and best" to which such judgements pretend.
Mike (Thanks to everyone who participated in the contest!)
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.
Okay, here's where we are with this. TOP Books (whatever it's going to be called—I haven't thought up a good name for it) needs to do a book as a "test case"—to try out the systems and get our feet wet. We've run into a few snags with the idea of doing a book of Mark Surloff's work, although I remain committed to Mark's work and to doing a book of it eventually. But the snags make it seem like that might not be the best first book to pursue.
So I think, to make it easy, the first book will be a book of readers' pictures. We'll use some of the best shots from the initial Reader Contest a year or two ago, and a few from the recent "People Working" contest. What I want to alert you to is that coming up, we'll ask for more submissions from readers for Book #1. So just be aware of that, in case you want to participate.
I didn't give people any warning last time, so I want to make sure to give everyone a proper chance to prepare for next time.
Don't send anything now. This is something I don't want to be a surprise, and I don't want to be limited, so I'll give you plenty of notice about when the entries will open and plenty of opportunity to submit. So no need to worry—if you check in here at TOP every few days or even only every week or so, you're still likely to not miss it.
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.
I've been monitoring this one closely, and I can't tell you how many times I've put up a post like this only to yank it again, as yet another false alarm. Apparently the issue was that Pentti wanted to supervise the press run but either had health troubles, or family health troubles, or had too many commitments. At any rate he couldn't do it, so the second edition got postponed and postponed again and again.
However, I have it on good authority (from Dewi of Dewi Lewis Publishing himself)—it's on. Apparently the press run has been done and the books were in Dewi Lewis Publishing's warehouses as of mid-August.
The second edition of Here Far Away, the beautifully printed lifetime retrospective of Finnish photographer Pentti Sammallahti, TOP's Book of the Year for 2012, is now available to order for later shipment from Amazon.com
(U.S.) (although they're not calling it a pre-order), and copies can be ordered from The Book Depository, too (with free shipping worldwide). Although (frustratingly!) you can't pre-order the book in the U.K. yet, the U.K. will be the first ones to actually get books to ship—the press release says the book will start shipping in the U.K. on Monday and that Amazon in the U.S. will get copies in mid-October.
If there are any left by then. As ever, one never knows with photo books. The lovely little Steidl book Saul Leiter: Early Color
went through this same long and very uncertain interval between the first and second editions, and was scarce as hens teeth and got very expensive as the limited supply got fought over—and now it's still available new and has been easy as 1-2-3 to get for several years now.
So you just never know how this is going to go. The anxiously awaited Second Edition of Here Far Away could sell out pronto and never be reprinted, or the book could stay in print from now on for an easy tenure. The first edition sold out in record time, only a few weeks. Presumably that means they printed more on the second go-round. That I don't know.
At any rate, our "Book of the Year" is meant to say, in effect, "If you only buy one book this year...." So it should go without saying that this is one we think you shouldn't miss. Harrowing as the task may be to actually get your very own copy into your hot little hands.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Olli Thomson: "Delighted to see this back in print. I was lucky enough to get my hands on one from the first run.
"I think it's a real shame that so many photobooks have such small
print runs. I understand that these are never going to high volume books
but in the era of print on demand you would think it would be possible
to continue to make them available.
"I understand too that limited print run plus high quality production
standards equals high prices, but I do suspect that some publishers
take advantage to push the prices even higher—beyond the budget of some
of us.
"I still recall how excited I was when I first came across Bert Teunissen's work Domestic Landscapes and how disappointed I was to discover that the book/s had long sold out and cost hundreds of dollars from specialist shops."
3. The data source for the Top 10 Chart can be found in this spreadsheet tally.
(Big thanks to Sarge in the Philippines, TOP's volunteer statistician, for this!)
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.
Oh, and here's something that Peter and I witnessed last evening. We were on the outdoor deck at Slice N' Dice Sushi in Pewaukee Lake, the newest venture of my restaurateur friends Quyen, Siam, and Koson. Well after sunset, the table next to us arranged themselves for a group portrait. Everybody posed, the designated photographer held up a cellphone and hemmed and hawed in the usual way: "Wait—okay, hold it! Everybody hold it! Okay, smii-ile!"—and then the cellphone flickered out a weak wash of light and the deed was done.
And this all happened in the dark. I mean, it was dark when the group got in position and everyone put their arms around each other. And nobody seemed to bat an eye. Nobody even commented on it; the whole lot of them took it completely for granted.
This just struck me as a real change from ancient times—well before my time—when Aunt Gertie would herd the family outdoors and put the blazing sun behind her before anyone considered the light to be sufficient for a photograph. How many old snapshots have I seen of half-willing family members standing in a yard or by a front door squinting against sunshine?
Anyway, no big deal. Just struck me as another sign o' the times.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
rnewman: "Ah, yes, I remember it well—the 20-second nighttime exposures (make
that 28 seconds with reciprocity) on 100ASA film (pre-ISO here in the U.S.). Now
it can be 1/100 at 12,500 ISO without the golf ball sized grain. May
those good old days never be forced on me again!"
Andrea: "Probably it was too much dark for a decent picture, but some
insta-filters and insta-moments later, and the art was uploaded on
Somebook or Picasomething. Another sign of the times...."
Doug C: "With modern technology I guess it works, but this reminds me of a rather unpleasant job I did a number of years ago.
"The job was to photograph a group of about 200 Dodge Vipers at dawn. I had marked out the area the day before so we would know where to park the cars. But I arrived at 6:00 a.m. to find that my markings had been cleaned up—removed. I was shooting with a #10 Cirkut and trust me, with a view camera you can see nothing until the sun comes up, not even the headlights of the cars. I set out some cones to indicate where they should park, just from memory and guessing. And then set up the camera and waited for the sun.
"Amazingly, the composition worked. My cones were within a few feet of where the chalk lines had been the day before. But it gives me chills to think about it because with the Cirkut you cannot point the camera further down to get that front row into the frame, and I was on a scissors lift hemmed in by immovable objects so I could not change my vantage point. The cars would either be on the ground glass when the sun came up or not.
"These days I could use a digital back up to save me, but back then...."
Taken at Harley-Davidson's 100th Anniversary, ten years ago. Photo by Peter Turnley.
I was away from the desk for most of yesterday. Which, much as I love you, I need sometimes.
One of the oddities of the Internet age is "friends you've never met." At this point I've had ongoing online friendships that have lasted for as much as 18 years with people I've never met face to face! (Bob and Walt, Ailsa, et al., you all know who you are.) In a number of other cases, such people have gone on to become good in-person friends too (Nick, Oren, and more...).
Possibly my best friend-I've-never-met I finally met yesterday. A momentous event! And what do you know, Peter Turnley in person is—speaking objectively, now—one of the world's great guys.
The mountain had to come to Mahomet*. Milwaukee isn't on the way to anywhere, and visitors seldom pass this way. But Peter has been photographing Harley-Davidson's periodic anniversary bashes here for a decade now, and H-D hired him this time for three days of shooting at the 110th Anniversary celebration this week. So he flew in a day early so we could meet and break bread.
Peter's well-worn M Monochrom, his current camera of choice. You'd think I could illustrate this post with a better picture than this, but none of my other snaps "turned out."
Peter and I have a lot in common. We also have a lot not in common, for instance the fact that he's a globetrotter and I'm a homebody, and he'll photograph anything and anyone fearlessly and I'm afraid to shoot anyone I don't know. This would seem to predict that I'd enjoy his company more than he'd enjoy mine, but we got along great and talked nonstop all afternoon and evening. I think our shared idealistic love of photography trumps all, when you get right down to it.
We stopped by the Milwaukee Art Museum and had a nice long talk with Photography Curator Lisa Sutcliffe, too (they'd never met). I really like Lisa as well, and always enjoy seeing her.
Anyway I had a great time. I think the word for the effect of such visits on my psyche is "revivifying." I had to look up that word to make sure it fits. It does.
We are going to do our level best to get me to one of Peter's Paris Workshops in the coming year, something I finally feel free to do now that Zander's in college and has his own car (Lulu will have to go to the doggie hotel). Granted, I got lost twice yesterday driving around in my own town, so travel might not be my strong suit. But I think the revivification will make it worth it.
Mike
*"Mahomet cald the Hill to come to him. And when the Hill stood still, he
was neuer a whit abashed, but said; If the Hill will not come to
Mahomet, Mahomet wil go to the hil." —Francis Bacon, Essays, A.D. 1625.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Steve Rosenblum: "Since I'm pretty sure I 'introduced' you guys eight or nine years ago, this post made my day. It's not necessary for people to be very similar to become good friends, only that they have enough in common to connect on a core level and otherwise admire/respect the parts that are different. You are both lovely guys (who I know and admire individually) and I'm very happy that you enjoyed each others' company. I would love to see Peter's photos of you!"
Mike replies: What, and break that nice Leica?
Ken Jarecke: "Sounds like a wonderful day. I hope you pulled some great stories out of him...he's got a few!"
Mike replies: Ken, on the way back to the hotel I got regaled with one of the greatest lost-camera stories I've ever heard. One I'm not allowed to repeat, very unfortunately. But...yeah.
Earlier this month, I was off photographing at the Peterborough Lift
Lock with Christopher Sanderson and Michael Reichmann, using both my
IR-converted Olympus Pen and my utterly conventional Olympus E-M5
(guess I can't call it the "OM-D" any longer). Quickly, I became
acutely aware of a peculiarity that had been nagging at the back of
my consciousness for some weeks.
I never have any problem photographing in several different media at
the same time. I wrote about this some years ago, in "I Am The Camera...Or Is It The Other Way Around?" It doesn't matter to me what medium or format I'm using; when I
pick up the camera I just naturally compose within the constraints of
that tool.
I've always been a telephoto kind of guy. At various times I use
everything from extreme wide-angle to extreme telephoto, but moderate
telephoto fits best with my mind's eye. The 45mm Olympus lens is my
perfect lens. If I were forced to work with one and only one lens, it
would be that. It's the lens I always have mounted on the E-M5 when
I'm carrying around just the camera and one lens. This is true
whether I'm photographing day or night, nature or urban, color or
B&W, my "vision" doesn't much change with the medium.
...Except for this: when I'm photographing narrow-band deep infrared,
it's different! Then, the right field of view for my mind's eye seems
to be strong wide-angle. The Olympus 12mm lens is a lens I'm not
particularly fond of for regular work; it just usually doesn't fit
with the way I see. Yet in the deep IR it seems to be just about perfect.
Now what's with that?!
As an experiment I tried swapping lenses between the two cameras.
Nope. The 45mm on the IR Pen wasn't especially inspiring. Oh, sure,
if I worked hard enough, I could find good compositions. I can find
good compositions with anything. But mostly it felt like I was
forcing myself to see that way, the same way the 12mm usually feels
for my regular photography. There's a real strong preference that's
not in my imagination, and it's the first time I've ever found myself
instinctively drawn to strong wide-angle lens compositions.
I repeat. What's with that?!
Figures 1 and 2 are typical of the work I did that day, with the 12mm
on the IR Pen and the 45mm on the E-M5. (A gentle reminder:
illustrations illustrate—they do not prove. If you like one of
these photos much better than the other, well, that's you. Me, I like
them equally well, and this is about me. So, no judgement-passing,
please?)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Understand, the question isn't why I like telephoto lenses normally,
that's just what it is. The question is what's so different (and why!) when I
pick up the IR Pen? I mentioned this to Chris and Michael, and Chris
trotted out several quarter-baked notions:
Hypothesis 1: Conventional color and panchromatic B&W are very rich
media, tone and color-wise—lots and lots of visual information in
every square degree. I don't feel the need for wide angle because
I've got plenty of visual content; more may even confuse the picture
by trying to say too much at once. Narrow-band deep IR provides much
less visual information per square degree, so I can include more
material before hitting the "this picture is full" point.
Hypothesis 2: Panchro B&W and color are the normal ways we see the
world. Deep narrow band IR is an alien world of novel and unfamiliar
information, so I want to grab as much of it as I can in a single
photograph, to satisfy my visual curiosity and provide context for
new understanding.
Hypothesis 3: I'm simply greedy, sensation-wise. I like complicated
photographs. The low info density of the IR has me saying
(compositionally), "More, more, I'm still hungry!" which the wide
angle provides.
Are any of these right, in part or in whole? I have no idea; I'm not
that insightful.
So I tossed the question out to TOP's Brain Trust and something even
more interesting and unexpected popped up. Different ones of us were
using two quite distinct modes of seeing/composing:
Some of us, including me, pick up a camera and the world turns into
Flatland (vis my earlier column). Well, Flatland with layers, he said
oxymoronically. The Z-axis is entirely irrelevant to my compositional
sense. I don't pay any attention to how elements of the composition
are separated from each other by distance. It's only their
relationship in the X-Y plane that affects my compositional sense.
Others of us engage in what I would describe as volumetric seeing.
They do see the three-dimensional relationships between objects and
for them the act of composition is about how they render those
three-dimensional relationships in a two-dimensional plane. That
Z-axis is very important to them, conceptually. Entirely opposite of
me and my ilk.
And what does all of this mean? I do not have the foggiest idea. I
just find it fascinating.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
ben ng: "Funny, I'm the same, i.e. when using IR I tend to use more wide-angle compositions. The exception is when shooting performance or portraits. I see it as using different musical instruments. I take different pictures when I shoot B&W than when I shoot color; when I shoot IR there seems to be a more emotional response...see the results in my flickr link...!
New Sony stuff: Sony last night introduced a new camera, an updated camera, and two new lenses. The 20-MP Sony A3000 is the first NEX camera to have an SLR form factor (compare to the Panasonic GH3). Sony also introduced the new Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16–70mm ƒ/4 ZA and Sony E PZ 18–105 ƒ/4 G OSS lenses. Both lenses feature constant aperture and image stabilization, for video applications. The Sony NEX-5T is said to be even smaller than the NEX-5R, and features some advanced Wi-Fi NFC (near-field communication) capabilities—you can transfer pictures by simply tapping two NFC devices together.
Note the price of the A3000. I thought that was a typo. Maybe it is.
Price drop on Fuji X-E1: Well now, that didn't take long, did it? Seems like just yesterday you were pining for an X-E1 and thinking about that oh-so-distant day in the future when its price would start to come down. Wait no longer.
(That's a tempting little graphic they put up, isn't it? I like that. You click on a camera and then you click on a lens. It's like someone in a restaurant rolled the dessert cart up to you. "I'll have that one....")
Canonic Canon (with the Zeiss Ikon long gone, I can no longer write iconic Ikon): There were certain cameras in the film era that seemed to keep on truckin', and became, well, canonic icons, or whatever. You could get a Pentax 67 from forever, a Leica rangefinder, a Rollei TLR—there were a handful of famous nameplates that lived and prospered long. Dare I claim that the antediluvian Canon G series is one such in the digital era? I'd love to see Dpreview or Imaging-Resource do an article about the many generations of the G and all the defunct competition it has outlived, its ups and downs, hits and misses. (Friends Shawn and Luke, you listening?)
Anyway, there is a new one. This is no longer a modern concept. But the camera I once called "the Swiss Army Knife of digicams" marches vividly on, making yet more friends: The G16. (How fast they grow up. Sixteen already? Sigh.) Definitely recognizable as a continuation of the line, with its small CMOS sensor, nice fixed zoom, and peephole VF. I'd love to see Canon take a page from Leica's book and just call it the "Canon G" and distinguish the different models by model year or part number.
You can see all the newest Canon products on this page. Note also the sleek new S120, newest variant in the S90 line. That was the product o' the moment just a few moments ago, and they're still very nice pocket wonders (although we still recommend this one instead.)
Fun stuff. What do we care that the world is moving on to smartphones? We still dig cameras, dammit Gumby.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Svein-Frode: "It's kind of sad to see Canon continue with outdated tiny sensors in
their 'enthusiast' pocket cams. How the mighty have fallen. The Canon
G16 and S120 are as exciting as a new Toyota Corolla...."
GKFroelich: "You originally wrote, 'We're not done with the new camera introductions for today. Come back tonight, when my lips will be unsealed.' I came back, again and again. Everything alright? No lip (or other) injuries, I hope!"
Mike replies: Sorry, I didn't know what the announcement was going to be when I wrote that. Turned out it was Pentax announcing a bunch of "new" lenses...which are the old lenses with a red band around them and a couple of other alleged refreshmentations. (Including supposedly "better" coatings, which I flat don't buy. There was nothing wrong with Pentax's lens coatings before...they were and are among the best.) Seemed like a manaufactured press event to me, so I passed on announcing it. Except in this reply, I guess.
Kevin Purcell (partial comment): "Wow, Sony have been more daring than I though they would.
This is the VW Bug of APS-C cameras and they tick all of the 'spec
boxes' (lots of megapixels, big sensor, high ISO, 'right SLR shape,'
small size).
"They innovated on three points, I think:
The $400 kit price. That's not body only price nor a typo. This is
going to cause problems for other companies who have been relying on
price points between 150% and 200% higher. It will make this camera much
easier to sell.
They've designed a low cost camera to keep the COG and manufacturing
down. They've gone for inexpensive EVF and LCD (not state of the art).
They must have got the yield of APS-C sensors to a very high level to
push the costs down on the sensor. They've minimized the number of
buttons and other controls to just the basics. I suspect the total part
count of the camera is minimized too and mirrorless means fewer
alignments too. The Sony sensor will be as good as we expect so the
image quality will be good too. Even with the kit lens it should be good
enough for photographing kids indoors.
They know the general public associate the 'SLR shape' with 'good
camera.' Even better, this 'SLR' is smaller than the other more expensive
SLRs. It's the same size as the Panasonic G5/G6.
"From a strategic view point this will gain Sony market share (and chance
at upsell too)." [See Kevin's complete comment in the Comments Section. —Ed.]
I should clarify, regarding the post two down from this one...it's not that I don't like video and motion pictures; I do, and I greatly admire many of the better workers in that medium and their works. It's just that I've always known I'm never going to master it myself. All I'm saying is that it's a different thing and it ain't my thing. That's why I generally haven't much cared if my cameras can shoot video or not.
Clearer, I hope? I'm not knocking pictures that move.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Ed Shields: "I too used to have the same view; interesting but not for me as it's a
whole new set of skills and software. But that was until last Spring
when I took a short workshop in how to make movies and made one myself.
It is different and it isn't easy, but it sure is fun. I've made two short
3 1/2 minute videos and I'm working on a third one, from a family
reunion. It's FUN."
Chuck: "I did not read that one. Saw the pool table and kept going!"
Note that in what follows, I'm not telling you what to feel about this link; I'm telling you how I feel about it.
Some time ago, I wrote some flippant comments about graffiti artists, and a reader who happens to own a few urban buildings objected strenuously to my insinuations that graffiti could possibly be art and might possibly be worthy of preserving. He felt strongly that I had no perspective on the matter, and regaled us with tales of the difficulties of fighting off the taggers. He considered graffiti to be vandalism. I backed off from my earlier attitude...without sympathizing entirely.
Big Jay McNeely driving the crowd into a frenzy at the Olympic Auditiorium, Los Angeles, 1953. Photo by Bob Willoughby. Photographs that are already perfect do not need "fixing."
I expect some of you to not sympathize entirely, but the whole project of "colorization" just makes me feel tired and old, and sad. It's vandalism. It disregards the way that work evolves to fit techniques and the way that techniques place work in the flow of time and history, and it completely disregards and disrespects the intentionality of the original photographer. Maybe this or that photographer might even have approved of having dopey cartoon pastel colors slathered all over their work ex post facto, but then, if they're dead they can't say.
I mean, really—poor Bob Willoughby! To make such a garish travesty out of his already perfectly eloquent photograph. The willingness of people to treat the work of other individuals as if it's common property to be defaced at will is just debased, and a disgrace. And tawdry, gauche and tasteless to boot. If I never saw another old movie or photograph "colorized" it would be a relief.
Vast differences I've always been interested in the highly various ways that different kinds of art is treated in society. The conventions seem to be self-perpetuating, even though they are almost accidental. People very casually deface other peoples' photographs, while they would never in a million years "correct" an old oil painting by doing more painting on top of it (well, except in the notorious case of a certain daft old Spanish lady). If a playwright writes a play, almost anyone who stages the play will respect the play as a work of art possessing inherent integrity, and will make sure that every word is spoken as it's written; directors and actors have traditionally kept up a spirited and fastidious debate about ad libitum, which is commonly kept to a minimum on the stages of the world. But in the case of screenplays, the tradition is the opposite. The story is not considered to be the spiritual, artistic, or ethical property of its author, and bowdlerizers are hired willy-nilly to adulterate and adumbrate the original. There is even a formula, in Hollywood, to determine the "authorship" of a screenplay by counting the percentage of the words contributed by the various tinkerers with the script. In this way, the original author's "Hey, how ya doin'?" can be changed to "Hi there, how are you these days?" by a subsequent script-fixer, and the hack will get the credit for all of the words except "how." In this way, it's even possible for the original author, whose story it was, to be pushed out of the credits altogether, since, by rule, only the top three script-tinkerers get credits.
And even Hollywood wonders why there aren't better scripts in Hollywood. Well, it's no wonder to me: where artists are systematically disrespected, you don't inspire good artists to give their best. The only way a screenwriter can get any respect in Hollywood is if they are also the director and/or the producer. So why the vast difference between the way that playwrights are treated, and the respect they get, and the treatment accorded to screenwriters? Beats me. Even Faulkner got no respect in Hollywood, fer chrissake.
For the record: I object strenously to any future colorization of any of my monochrome photographs. If these words on a wayback machine are wagging a finger at you from beyond my grave, shame on you, ya jerk.
Mike (Thanks to John Camp)
UPDATE: Okay, I get the "no harm done" argument, except from a respect and "spiritual ownership" perspective. They're just JPEGs, people are arguing. If you feel that way.
I get that some of the pictures so treated are not artwork but documentary records, too. And yes, the car crash picture does look nice in faux color.
What I don't get are two claims being made in the comments—to the effect that "there were no color options available then" and "color adds more realism." To the first, in many cases there were color options available. The pictures vary, of course, but color film was available in 1953 when Bob Willoughby took the picture in the post. Pursuant to that argument, even if "the photographer would have chosen color if he could," as some people said, they didn't—and they surely wouldn't have taken the same pictures if they had. Color works inherently differently than B&W, and what makes a good color picture doesn't necessarily make a good B&W picture and vice-versa. Artists adapt to their materials, even if their materials are imperfect.
The second claim is arrant nonsense! The colorizers are guessing at and inventing the colors in their color versions. How does anyone know that Einstein's shorts were blue? That's a guess. I fail to see how fictitious details of a photograph add more realism to it. The colors added bear no relationship to whatever the reality might have been. They're purely decorative, eye candy for those who crave their sugar. That one's a really wrongheaded claim, in my view. —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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Jon Bloom: "My reaction to this sort of thing is less outrage (because, hey, nobody
is likely to do it to my works) than it is puzzlement. I look at these
things and wonder, 'What value did they think they were adding to this?'
I'm reminded of what Gary Edgerton said of the colorized Casablanca: 'Casablanca in color ended up being much blander in appearance and,
overall, much less visually interesting than its 1942 predecessor.'
Exactly."
Joe Holmes: "Interesting detail: the licensing and performance of plays and musical
plays requires permission from the play's author to stray from the
original concept. Contrast this with music licensing: anyone can cover
any song in any way they like just by paying the licensing fee.
I ran across an interesting artifact of these rules years ago. I bought a
CD by a band called Ye Olde English titled 'Tommy, A Rock-steady
Opera,' which was a Ska version of The Who's complete 'Tommy' rock opera.
But only a few promo copies of the ska version ever existed (you can
still find bootleg copies). Why? Rumor has it that, because 'Tommy' was
being produced on Broadway, it was considered a musical play requiring
permission of The Who. And the band and the Broadway producers were not
agreeing to any competing versions of the musical."
Will: "With you all the way, Mike. Art created in black and white should remain in black and white. But the subject brings up an interesting historical footnote: the colorization of classic films is probably the best thing that ever happened to our film heritage. In order to be colorized, these films had to be thoroughly restored. Because colorization suggested to the rights holders that these films had new value if colorized, it is unlikely these restoration efforts would have occurred otherwise. Many films were saved in this way. But beyond that, public outcry over colorization among film enthusiasts, historians, and critics led to legislative action, including the creation of the National Film Registry, itself a landmark and monumental preservation effort. So vandalism to be sure, but with strangely fortunate consequences. And what of the vandalism itself? It is merely a memory. You can't find colorized versions of Casablanca or It's A Wonderful Life anywhere; but they and Citizen Kane look fantastic, and people will be able to see lesser-known important films like Charles Burnett's A Killer of Sheep for generations to come."
Roy Feldman: "Vandal and Graffiti: Here is a piece I produced for PBS that will air tonight (Same title):
John MacKechnie: "I admit it. I'm an occasional closet de-colorizer. I really dislike the overly photoshopped and HDR'd cartoon-color shots that are in fashion today. So I find myself applying a little Silver Efex Pro ointment. Sometimes it works wonders."
Steve Pritchard: "Ah, Elizabeth Taylor and her legendary violet-coloured eyes. No, hang
on, I mean green. No, no, wait a minute.... See, now I'm just confused."
The 4 ball (solid purple) is touching the rail; the 11 ball (red stripe) is touching the 4. The object is to get the 3 ball (solid red) into the corner pocket. Since the two blocking balls are directly in the path of the cue ball, this would seem to be impossible. But behold:
Cool, huh?
So why am I showing you this, when I promised no more pool posts? Well, because it's also the very first video I e-v-e-r made with my NEX-6, when I've always said I have absolutely zero interest in making videos with digital cameras. Showing that a softening of position is possible for even the most recalcitrant of curmudgeons-in-training. What strange things our enthusiasms can lead us to do.
I admit my video technique needs work. (And it's still an extremely good bet that this isn't going to turn into a videography blog any time soon.)
The shot is from page 116 of Ray Martin's The 99 Critical Shots in Pool.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Michel: "What's next, a TOP Instagram account?!?"
Edward Taylor: "Mike, be afraid, be very afraid. I dabbled in video one day after having
barely any interest for 40 years of still photography, and within six
months my focus had shifted to a fifty-fifty mix. I probably spend way
more time on making videos than on photography now (largely because
video is much more time consuming). And if you think photography is
expensive, video seems like a sport for billionaires or perhaps kings.
The camera is often the least of the expense. And, Photoshop is child's
play compared to After Effects.
Still photography and videography are far more dissimilar than similar.
For example, sound is as important as image in videography."
scott kirkpatrick: "Is that you making the shot? Or just shooting the video of making the shot? How do you plan that one?"
Mike replies: That's me doing the shot. And it's actually not hard—you just use follow (shoot high on the cue ball) and aim directly for the 11. The hard part is recognizing what will happen, what Ray Martin in the book calls "ball interplay." The trick is recognizing the counterintuitive way that the two frozen balls will react when struck. The strike whisks them out of the way, and the spin on the cue ball then carries it forward toward the 3. I have yet to miss the shot, so I think anybody could do it. But I would never have figured it out on my own.
Here is another fabulous example of ball interplay on the fly: go to this video and start playing it at about the 21-minute mark. They're playing 10-ball, so by the rules, Efren Reyes has to hit the 4 ball (solid purple) first, and sinking the 10-ball (blue stripe) wins the game.
He appears to be completely stymied; the announcer even says "I don't think there's offense here," i.e., he doesn't even have a shot. Reyes then taps the near corner pocket because by rule he must call the 10 ball. Then watch what he does.
An amazing shot, one that takes unusual mastery just to recognize as possible. (Not for nothing do they call Reyes "The Magician.")
Sorry, now I am talking about pool and not videography. I'll slap myself on the wrist. [g]
Can anyone explain this? It's the graph of our recent traffic. That top dot is well north of 60,000 pageviews. Clearly, we got bumped by some big site somewhere, but I have no idea who or why.
I'd just like to thank those readers who have placed contributions in the Tip Jar* this past week in support of our little contest. Vous êtes très aimable, as my father used to say, one of the French phases he knew: "You are very kind."
We had a bit of a trauma this summer. Pentax, under new management as you are probably aware, decided to leave us—the new managers have a new advertising and publicity plan, which is perfectly understandable**.
Pentax is no longer a company, in fact: the company is simply called Ricoh; "Pentax" has now been demoted to a model name for Ricoh's line of DSLRs. Sort of the opposite of what happened with Contax in 1972, when a model name was promoted to a brand name.
Our new major supporters are Sony and (as you will see) Fuji, both sponsored by B&H Photo, with whom we have a warm working relationship. My liason at B&H has become a friendly voice on the phone. (One of his funniest lines is when I explain to him why I'm not going to link to some product or post a notice about some deal or other. He'll say, with an invisible but still obvious eye-roll, "Oh, that's right, I forgot, Mike Johnston doesn't like to make money!" Always makes me laugh.) Despite my obstinate insistence on only posting links when I think it's convenient for my readers, rather than just for my wallet, B&H Photo has really been stalwart in its support of TOP.
Pentax, however, had an unprecedentedly long tenure as our little site's main advertiser, and I'd like to thank Ned and Michelle and our other friends at that company sincerely. I admit it was not as crucial to the site's survival as Fabio Riccardi and Michael Tapes were before it, because we're more stable now in general, but it was still very meaningful support.
Pretzels and insects TOP is in no danger of going away. But—I don't know if you've noticed—the world has changed greatly since 2005 when we started out. Amazon back then was a money-loser whose future viability was being debated; now it's the blob that snacks on bricks'n'mortar stores like a fat guy snarfing pretzels, and threatens to swallow whole industries (run, book publishing!). It and B&H Photo are what keep us alive***. My big worry is that Amazon has so little competition that one day it might simply decide it doesn't need online affiliates directing business its way any more. I mean, Google is afraid of Amazon. You can imagine how a near-microscopic insect like me feels. Along with this, think of how many more sites are competing for your attention these days. Some of which, I have to admit, are really good. Everybody and his brother wants to make money on the Internet these days. I was fortunate to get in when I did. 2005 looks sleepy by comparison.
Consequently, our efforts now are to diversify. All of which is just going slowly, very slowly. Slowly. Let me reiterate: slo-o-o-owly. I spend a lot of time now on our book publishing plans; I'm still struggling against a strong headwind in the effort to increase the physical size of my office (the key to so much else), grinding away at the problem...slowly. And we're revamping our print sales in good ways (I'll have some very significant news along those lines come September, when I'll announce all our plans until approximately February 2014).
And in this big mix, I just have zero complaint about you. At the same time, if I could make a modest and humble request, it would be this: don't be afraid to be pro-active. We're a little site, suviving well so far in a great big scary jungle. We need our friends. If you resent online ads, please don't; please click on that new ad every now and then and see what's on offer behind it. It will do TOP good and help keep it alive. (I will add that I worked with B&H to attract the companies that I felt were legitimately of the most interest to our readers in general; Sony's and Fuji's efforts in the cameramaking field are probably closest to enthusiasts' hearts these days, wouldn't you say? Who else is making so many tasty morsels like the RX1 and the X-Pro1?) (And see, those links made sense there, didn't they? I do too want to make money!)
This is the job of my life, one of the two best jobs I've ever had. I know it must inevitably go away, although I have no idea yet what will kill it. (I'm kind of curious, to be truthful.) But if it goes away tomorrow I'll have fond memories and a feeling of appreciation for TOP for the rest of my life.
And for the record, I never think of TOP's readership as a great big faceless mass of thousands of people. I think of it one person at a time. It's never "them" with me; it's "you." The individual person out there reading this site is someone for whom I just have great respect, a shared interest, and a matter-of-fact background-level feeling, day-in, day-out, of thankfulness. I'm very privileged to have an audience on today's Web. Vous êtes très aimable.
Mike
*I subsequently learned the actual Tip Jar was not even working, which is why today's post is so late going up. And spending two and a half hours on that caused me to miss The Milwaukee Masterpiece, where I had hoped to do some shooting with the D800. So no shooting for me today. A perfect microcosm of my working life! The link in the right-hand sidebar is now very temporarily called "Donate," and I will work on reinstating the traditional "Tip Jar" later this week.
**And I learned another of life's lessons: a handshake deal with
the King is as good as gold, but only with the King whose hand you shook. When the old King is beheaded
and a new King sports the crown, the new King might well look at you and say—with impeccable logic—"But I never shook your hand." We continue to wish all the people at Ricoh and at the former Pentax all the best.
***I took a page from Jay Leno's book. Jay lives on his performing and personal appearance income and puts all the money he earns from television in the bank (that's got to be quite a big bank account by now). My family lives on Amazon affiliate fees and puts any income from everything else in the bank. Hey, when you're self-employed you have to make your own retirement plan.
"Open Mike" is TOP's editorial page, when Ed. gets to vent. It appears on Sundays.
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.
Just an aside FYI, lest I be suspected of censorship: In moderating the comments for the contest pictures, my standard (as always) was to publish substantive criticism—i.e., that gave specifics—but not general condemnation. For example (I'm making this up): the comment "None of these are any good" would not be published.
On this basis I declined to publish one comment and edited two others. I also didn't publish one comment that denigrated one of the legitimate professions shown in one of the photographs.
That was it.
—Mike the Mod.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
MarkR: "I wouldn't even think this would be an issue. Your site, your blog, your rules. I am oft suprised that you let through as much as you do."
Bruno Menilli: "Not having had the opportunity to see those posts, it appears that we are all allowed our own opinions and to have freedom of speech—just so long as they agree with yours?
"If that is correct surely it's not right."
Mike replies: No, that's not correct. I will (and do) publish conflicting and contrary opinions. I will not post belittling or insulting ones, however. I just try to look at it from the perspective of the person being talked about, and think, if it were me, would I feel affronted or disrespected? Is it likely to provoke a defensive response? If so, it doesn't go. If the person is insulting me, why, then, my editorial evaluation is just that much easier to make, because in that case I know how I feel.
Think of TOP's Comments section as being like a magazine's or a newspaper's "Letters to the Editor" column: presented for the benefit of all readers and always subject to selection and editing.
"A New Zealand teenager dives for money left in a hat some thirty feet below a high point of the Te Papa Tongarewa museum on the Wellington waterfront, 2011."
Photo by Olaf Dreyer
"On a recent tour of the harbor in Hamburg I saw these guys on their way to touch up the paint on a crane. It was a day with a great combination of warm weather and majestic clouds."
Photo by Nigel Robinson
"My two-year-old son was fascinated by these good gentlemen—and their colleague and especially their digger—and watched them for hours, daily, until they stopped for the evening (as late as 9:30 p.m.). The guys replaced a water main. They don't use safety equipment; I don't know why, but it seems so be a European phenomenon. I think they were from Usti nad Labem, a town from the north of the Czech Republic and one with high unemployment and a high Roma (gypsy) population. I took this photo in Prague from a 5th floor balcony. It took six days for a crew of 15 to dig a trench, replace the pipe and re-seal the road."
Photo by David Bostedo
"This was taken Memorial Day weekend, 2011, at Arlington National Cemetery, Tomb of the Unknowns. The honor guard here has been watching over the tomb 24 hours a day, seven days a week since 1937. They pace the mat like clockwork, including a choreographed turn that involves heel clicking, part of which is shown here. This is a soldier, dedicated to his job and country, on a normal day's work for him, and a unique experience for everyone else."
Photo by Mark Gregg
"Taken in 1968 during summer break from college and during two weeks off from work, I headed to the east coast with visions of becoming a photographer. From my initial destination in Maine I worked my way south eventually passing through Troy, New York. Walking the streets of that city I came upon his gentleman, a janitor at the Christian Science Building. I asked him to pose and present me with a serious look. I was pleased with the result. This is one of my favorite photos. As to becoming a 'pro,' I just retired as a commercial shooter and still enjoy doing personal work."
Photo by Jed Wormhoudt
"While waiting for a welder to tack together a piece that was on the client shot list I saw this old mill and immediately saw the image. One light, two captures, done—a lucky day."
Photo by John Doherty Prendergast
"So much of our commerce is vastly distributed. Though we are more materially connected more so than in any other age, this comes at the cost of a disconnect between ourselves and the origin of our goods. This economy is facilitated through the vast and solitary transportation networks. On the Internet we are like this truck driver, "alone together," and this is what I try to covey. Cheerful light colors contrast with the abject isolation this work must be."
Photo by Jachin Mandeno
"Here we see a terminally ill minister (left) and a church elder discussing with church members the future of the church: what will happen when the minister is deceased? The minister was shorn by chemotherapy; and the elder shaved his head in solidarity. This photo was made in 2010."
Photo by Duilio A. Martins
"This was taken last year in the center of Sao Paulo, Brazil. She is a street cleaner. They go about literally sweeping the streets in Sao Paulo. Two things caught my attention: although she is a street cleaner she took the time to put a bracelet and some earrings on. And second, she just seems so oblivious to the very busy life going on around her in one of the biggest cities in South America."
Photo by Brian Thomas
"Men and women work at different tasks on the beach in front of a fishing village in Orissa, India. In the background fishermen bring the catch in from their boat. (Next, to learn what their labors have earned, they will huddle around a net full of fish that they have dropped onto the wet sand. Then they will watch an impromptu auction between two or three buyers.) In the foreground a fisherman's wife moves the fish from an earlier sale to a metal bowl that she will balance on the roll of cloth on her head and carry about a half mile to the village ice house. From there the fish will be shipped towards dinner plates as far off as Mumbai and Delhi."
• • •
This concludes the semifinalists. Next, the judge and I, together, after considering all your comments, will pick six finalists and talk about why we like the pictures.
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
[For a change, I'm not featuring any comments in these posts, to avoid possibly "steering" the discussion of these pictures. To see what readers have had to say, please click on the "Comments" link below. —Ed.]
Here are some more of the semifinalists chosen by our guest Judge. —Ed.
-
Photo by David Haynes
"Welding parts as part of the build of an industrial shredder, 2010. These 'mega shredders' fragment everyday items—like cars—into scrap that is shipped for recycling—often then used in the build of new domestic items—like more cars."
Photo by Sergio Bartelsman
"Fishermen at sunrise off the coast in northern Colombia, 2008. They live in a very small seaside town called Verrugas, which means 'warts,' in the Gulf of Morrosquillo. This place was known in the past as a departure point for high speed boats taking narcotics to the U.S. over the horizon across the Caribbean. Now it is a forgotten and peaceful place."
Photo by Larry Monczka
"'Walk this way.' This image was made in 1994 in New York City. I was wandering up a side street towards Fifth Avenue while the streets were closed for a parade. When I came across this cop giving directions to an old lady, I grabbed a quick shot. The body language of the officer and the woman tells the story at a glance."
Photo by Avery Ragan
"'Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.' When the golden spike driven in to connect the continent by rail, train crews were well known and admired. These days, train crews are almost invisible to the average person going about their daily business and the fact that their work has a major impact on our quality of life is either ignored, or, more likely, not even thought about...by those everyday average people."
Photo by Russell Waddell
"I am not a professional photographer (blatantly obvious) but took time off from a conference in Vienna to photograph the architecture of this fascinating city. Made this shot of reflections of old building in windows of a modern building and captured myself at work."
Photo by Carl Wilson
"Stony, Don, Barry, and Victor. Linemen are 'the salt of the earth.' Dedicated, hard workin', and reliable, with a little mischief thrown in to keep things interestin'."
Photo by Robert Munoz
"In a confluence of the sublime and the quotidian, two window washers ply their trade rappelling from a crane down the face of a jewel of modern architecture, I.M. Pei's glass pyramid in the main courtyard of Louvre Museum in Paris. November, 2012."
Photo by Ian Hillenbrand
"I took this photograph at a recent game between the Oakland Athletics and Cincinnati Reds. As the home Reds took the field between innings, I was intrigued by the police officer who confidently guarded the field, shielding the players from the any overly zealous spectators, who sit anonymously, out-of-focus in the foreground. His serious attitude interceded between the fans and the players nonchalantly taking their spots on the field."
Photo by Ricardo Silva Cordeiro
"At 'Feira da Ladra,' a famous Portuguese flea market, an old vendor shows how his ancient merchandise is still functional by taking a nap in one of his chairs."
Photo by Dave Levingston
"Turkey Man. I took this photo around 1974 when I was a photojournalism student at Ohio University. I spent a day documenting the life of a turkey farmer as a project for class. The subject was delivering feed to his charges who were destined to soon be included in frozen TV dinners. I used Tri-X in a Leica M2 with a Canon 35mm ƒ/2 lens."
Photo by Patrick Dodds
"This was taken earlier this year and shows actor Vincent Manna preparing for a theatrical production of a new work, Wimp. In the background can be seen the director and the stylist. This shot was taken very early on in the rehearsals process but using the actual venue, a disused church in Peckham, South London."
• • •
As before, your comments welcome! (Do be kind...the photographers are "in the room" so to speak.)
Mike (Thanks to the Judge)
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
[For a change, I'm not featuring any comments in these posts, to
avoid possibly "steering" the discussion of these pictures. To see
what readers have had to say, please click on the "Comments" link below.
—Ed.]
Here's the first group of photos chosen by our celebrity mystery judge (who is real—this is not misdirection from the trickster Ed.). We're keeping the identities of the photographers under wraps during the commenting. Please don't comment on your own photo or acknowledge it.
Unfortunately, I had to disqualify several of the Judge's picks because they weren't accompanied with a description. It was one of the entry requirements after all. —Ed.
-
Photo by Jonathan Gewirtz
"A friend of mine runs a traditional auto repair shop. My visits there are a delight as I get to chat with my friend and his dad, check out the machinery (they are always working on some interesting vehicle) and discover new photographic opportunities. This pic is from 2009."
Photo by Jim Simmons
"Funeral Home Guys. Manhattan, summer of 1975, my first experience in the Mecca for street photographers. Days and nights stalking the streets, subways, tourist haunts and parks, snapping photos of virtually everything. Intense immersion—shooting, developing, contact printing, rinse-and-repeat every day. Most images were in the styles of my street photo heroes of the time, but this picture of parking lot attendants stood out from the rest, mostly for being less chaotic and for using distance to make the image what it is."
Photo by Chad Sellers
"When our daughters said they wanted their room painted pink, we told them they'd have to help with the work. Leah, our three year-old, took the assignment seriously. Her technique may have left a bit to be desired, but her attitude more than made up for it."
Photo by Sherrie Larimore
"Seattle, 2012. I came across this salon scene during a busy Friday evening neighborhood art walk. These two seemed oblivious to the activity on the sidewalk and completely engrossed in the impending haircut."
Photo by Mike Leinhauser
"Taken in the original Bankers Life building in Des Moines, Iowa, in 1977. Doing a yearly tear-down and maintenance routine on an old ammonia compressor that had been converted to R-12 freon.
"Really hated this job, especially 'punching' the two evaporators and condensers seen in the upper left of the photo with a long rod with a brush on the end of it. The man in photo, co-worker Mike Wagner, is checking bearings.
"Photo taken with a Pentax H1a and Kodak Panatomic-X rated E.I. 64 developed in Rodinal. The main lighting was a four-foot, four-tube fluorescent fixture mounted on a two-wheel hand cart."
Photo by Peter Brian Schafer
"I've been working on a photography project for the past year on prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, specifically Sosua on the north coast. I learned about Sosua through an ethnography of the women who come there, their motivations and hopes and dreams, by Denise Brennan. What was striking about the story Brennan told was that she didn't characterize the women as victims. Of course, choices are limited in the DR for women to make a decent living, but she describes women with agency, with plans, and with a purpose. When I went there, as I got to know the women, three in particular, I learned this to be true. I also learned that they are, like you or me, disarmingly ordinary. This is Dahiana."
Photo by Timo Lindman
"Outside a downtown construction site: denizens of a lot-line graffiti mural mark time, looking on uneasily at the progress of the adjacent lot's foundation work."
Photo by William Baker
"This was taken last summer in the International District of Seattle, on a lunchtime photo walk. There's a great little Vietnamese deli around the corner from where I work, and when walking past I saw a great opportunity to capture the girl making sandwiches (banh mi) and intermingle the reflection from the street behind me. This was taken with an Olympus OM-D using an old Canon FD 50mm ƒ/1.8 adapted lens."
Photo by Koen Lageveen
"Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam, June 2013. People tend to be pretty vocal about advertisements. I get that, especially when you have a flight to catch at 4 a.m. Then again, it's just people doing their job. I hope this lady had fun. Looks like it."
Photo by Serge Millois
"I am French and the photo I joined here has been taken in 2003. That is a scrap cutting operation in a steel mill in Italy (I am working in the steel mill industry)."
• • •
Your comments are solicited and welcome. —Ed.
Mike (Thanks to the Judge)
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
[For a change, I'm not featuring any comments in these posts, to
avoid possibly "steering" the discussion of these pictures. To see
what readers have had to say, please click on the "Comments" link below.
—Ed.]
The Loading, Main Market, Old Quarter, Hanoi, Viet Nam. Photo by Francis Harrison.
Quote o' the Day:
Without [photographers], our society doesn't have a face. Because of
this law, we run the risk of losing our memory. [...] Just to think that Cartier-Bresson or Josef Koudelka
would have been prevented from doing their work is unbearable.
—Aurélie Filippetti, France’s new minister of culture, promising she would look into revoking France's notorious Article 9, which severely limits photographing individuals in public.
Quoted in Polka magazine (the word apparently means "hammer" in French), and repeated on the New York Times Lens Blog, where I found it thanks to reader "cb."
Mike (Thanks to Francis and cb)
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Rob Smith: "Literally just picked up a Bessa R2, a Zeiss 35mm ƒ/2 lens, and some B&W film. Today is my first day of shooting film properly, can't wait to get developing and printing too. Bye bye digital, for at least a year. And thanks for the inspiration Mike, it's not a Leica but I'm still going to learn so much."
[A late addendum to last week's column—there are now links in the Featured Comments to the two photos by Kathy Li that I referred to, so you can see what I was talking about. —Ctein]
Some photographic subjects need to be periodically revisited, to inform newcomers, to stamp out persistent misconceptions, and simply to reach the folks who somehow managed not to read my deathless prose (ahem) the first time around.
Depth of field is one of those, as some recent questions I got from readers reminded me. Mike and I beat that topic thoroughly to death, or so you'd think, several years ago, in "Depth-of-Field Hell" and its Sequel. Of course, these are among the undead topics of the photographic world, and even shoving silver halide stakes through their hearts isn't enough to put them down permanently.
Now here's the thing. Depth of field isn't a theoretical concern; it's a supremely practical and pragmatic one. Theoretically, there is no such thing as depth of field—the lens image is sharp at one and only one distance from the subject. Well, okay, for real-world lenses, which can't take light down to an infinitesimal point of sharpness, there's actually a very, very thin range of distances. But you get the idea.
Depth of field assumes you can tolerate some blur in a photograph. Emphasis on you. The standard equations all make assumptions about what a standard viewer and viewing situation is: an 8x10-inch print viewed at normal close distances. For a viewer of normal sensibilities, the acceptable blur is in the range of four line-pairs per millimeter (4 lp/mm) in the print. Some of us print bigger, some smaller. Some of us press our noses against prints and others don't. Some of us are just plain fussier about fine detail. Failure to understand this variation is part of what drives some people crazy about depth of field.
The other practical concern is that it's all about how much total blur you can tolerate, not just how much blur comes from the lens being out of focus. There's blur caused by the lens being out of focus and that caused by the lens itself, and what you see is the combination of the two.
A mediocre lens, for example, one which is barely sharp enough to be acceptable to you, is going to have negligible depth of field. That's because you're already at the limit of the amount of blur you're willing to tolerate; adding in much more from the parts of the scene that are out of the plane of best focus is going to push beyond your pain tolerance. A sharper lens provides more depth of field.
The same thing can happen if you stop down too far, and macro photographers run into this all the time. The standard assumptions work out to around 30–35 lp/mm in 35mm film or a full frame sensor. Sparing you the math, once you've stopped down to a real aperture of ƒ/32 you've run out of depth of field: stopping down any further causes diffraction blur to increase so much that your total depth of field goes down. In fact, stopping down beyond ƒ/22 doesn't gain you much; diffraction is already important enough that you've got 90% of the maximum amount of depth of field you can get.
Now back to that matter of print sizes and tolerances. Some of the folks engaging in medium format digital photography are convinced that they're getting less depth of field than they did with film photography. Mostly, that's not true—it's a little bit true, because the digital sensors are modestly smaller than the film formats were, but this is not majorly visible. The larger problem is that the folks who are likely to indulge in that sort of equipment are also likely to be pixel peepers. Who can blame them! If they weren't that fussy about image quality and sharpness, they'd buy something cheaper. So, what happens when you pixel peep a medium format image?
Well, for a start, you're typically talking about 6 micron pixels, which works out to a real physical resolution of 50–60 lp/mm from the sensor. Now the thing is, for medium format film the standard assumptions about depth of field worked out to 15–20 lp/mm on film. If you're aiming for pixel-level sharpness from that medium format camera, you're talking about a tolerance for blur that is only one third of that assumed for film. That means much, much shallower depth of field, not because there's anything strange about digital but because you're working to much tighter standards.
Okay, you may already understand this, and you only view the file at 50% size on the screen, just to avoid dwelling too much on the minutia. Well, if you're talking about, oh, say, a 35-megapixel sensor and a normal resolution monitor, that's still a lot like looking at a 20x24" print. Which is a hell of a lot bigger than the canonical 8x10. Problem is, for previewing on screen, you can't really take it much smaller than that because screen resolutions aren't all that high. You really have to print out the photograph to get an idea of just how sharp it looks on paper.
When you do that, most of the imagined differences between digital and film depth of field disappear. As we often say about photography...It's all in how you look at things.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Gordon Lewis: "Oh no! Not depth-of-field again! Lock the doors. Cover your children's
eyes and ears. Pray that the violence and bloodshed will be brief."
Ed. replies:
Mark Johnson: "Ctein, that may have been the best article I've read of yours. Detailed, yet concise, with your normal sprinkling of humor. Well done. (BTW, thanks for turning me onto the wider world of tea. It has been a pleasure trying some of the teas you mentioned in articles past.)"
...Is International Street Photographers Day. (Henri Cartier-Bresson's birthday, August 22nd. He would have been 105.)
Henri Cartier-Bresson, Coronation of King George VI, London, 1937
Plan to take your camera down to the street sometime during the day!
Mike (Thanks to Jan Kwarnmark)
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.
Mike replies: Congratulations on your inclusion Herman. I remember that shot of yours.
Bear.: "Take your camera down to the street. But don't shoot into open windows!"
Gill: "you might be interested in this selection of street photography, from
the 1870s...I stumbled across these photographs from the London School
of Economics Digital Library and thought they are an absolutely
fascinating historical insight. The LSE even has a PDF of the book in
which they are published available for download."
Photograph by John Thomson
Mike replies: Thanks Gill. A famous and historically significant book. Maybe for those who don't get out with their cameras tomorrow—not everyone is a street photographer or even wants to try—an online stroll through Thomson would be a good alternative way to celebrate the day.
Mike replies: Yes, but funnily enough, my response to that Lens piece was that photographing angry people objecting to having their picture taken in France would be a good idea for a project. Of course, you might need to wear a nose guard (my brother actually got punched in the nose in France once).
Jeffrey Friedl's Blog details a potentially heartbreaking bug in Adobe Lightroom 5 that could conceivably cause you to unintentionally delete master copies of your files—maybe without even realizing it. The "Silent Killer" Bug.
"Bug" is such a small, innocent word. In the auto industry, there are recalls, and there are recalls. One might be because one corner of a floor mat starts to fray on a very small number of cars. Another might be because copious numbers of the affected vehicles are spontaneously erupting in three-story-tall James-Bond-movie fireballs if you tap the wrong place with a ball-peen hammer.
Okay, I'm exaggerating. But thus with bugs: it's a range. My conception of photography is that there is an awful lot of dross and only a little gold—so the rare "hits" you get amongst all the "almosts" become precious; a lot of not-quites go into one genuine success. This bug strikes us as at least shading into the catastrophic end of the range—anything that can end up in the accidental loss of one of those rare, precious, and needed files is very bad behavior on the part of processing software indeed. BEWARE!!!
At least it's not as bad as the 2000 Multidata Systems International bug at the National Cancer Institute in Panama City, Panama, which caused software to miscalculate radiation dosages for patients undergoing radiation therapy. That bug resulted in eight deaths and severe radiation overdoses to at least 20 other patients—and led to the doctors, who were contractually bound to double-check the dosage calculations manually, being indicted for murder.
So, okay—could be worse. But still. Tell your friends.
Mike (Thanks to Michael Tapes)
UPDATEwednesday a.m.: We heard from the Product Manager of the Adobe Lightroom Team, Sharad Mangalick, who says, "We're well aware of this particular issue and are assessing potential options, but I just want to point out a workaround: When viewing images in the Publish Service panel within the Library Module, ensure that you are selecting images using the Filmstrip. This will ensure that the correct images are selected."
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.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.) Featured Comments from:
Kenneth Tanaka: "This is unquestionably a potentially hazardous bug that Jeffrey was well
justified in calling out last June. It needs to be fixed before the
next official release.
That said, it certainly does not merit the blanket condemnation of LR.
I've always used the Export facility to send images online, and never
the newer more push-button Publish facility, and have never encountered a
problem."
Mike replies: I was assuming that LR users (of whom I am not one) would care to read the entire piece at the link, and was perhaps remiss in not pointing out that it continues over four pages, through several "Continued here..." links at the bottom of each page. The last update is dated August 2nd concludes that the bug is not fixed in LR 5.2 as even he originally reported.
I absolutely don't agree that this is not very serious. Maybe for you software ninjas it is not, but for ordinary schmoes like me who struggle with software and its Byzantine complexity, the idea of being innocently led into doing something serious to your own archive while a) not meaning to and b) not being aware of it after it's done is the kind of thing I live in horror of. I did it once in 2003, and the memory still stings.
The fact that it lurks in an out-of-the-way corner of the program and is seldom encountered makes it worse, not better, because it increases the chance of accident whereas a front-and-center bug would be better publicized and more widely understood. Serious indeed.
ADDENDUM from Kenneth Tanaka: "It is noteworthy that Adobe lists this as a 'top issue' onits Adobe Labs developmental site. So it has their attention."
daniel francisco valdez: "I was bit by this bug...when I deleted a virtual copy, the original file
was also deleted from my hard drive! Luckily I had exported a 16-bit
TIFF and I had the original unformatted SD card. I downloaded and installed
his plugin so I feel confident deleting files again. Coincidentally, I
have been using his Export to Zenfolio plugin since day one and have
been supremely satisfied with it and with his update schedule."
Michel: "Back up! It might make an interesting article to cover backup strategies for hobby photographers. Just a thought."
Bojidar replies to Michel: "I've written such an article here. I would be very happy if Mike republishes it and if people help me extend the article and turn it into an active Internet reference.
"Same thing with the article 'Best Practices' for photographers about image security while on the road, available here."
(U.S.) (although they're not calling it a pre-order), and copies can be ordered 
went through this same long and very uncertain interval between the first and second editions, and was scarce as hens teeth and got very expensive as the limited supply got fought over—and now it's still available new and has been easy as 1-2-3 to get for several years now. 
