<|-- removed generator --> The Online Photographer: August 2023

« July 2023 | Main | September 2023 »

August 2023

Saturday, 05 August 2023

Open Mike: The LS3/5a at 48 (OT)

Ed. note: I don't usually work on Saturdays, so this one's a freebie. You pay nothing! Such a deal.  :-)

I've told the story of my departure from the audio hobby several times on TOP, and I'll tell it again, briefly—but at the end of this post, not at the beginning. It makes a bad lede because some readers have heard it before.

I listen to music on a pretty modest desktop system. It dawns as an astounding revelation on desperate alcoholics that the sober lifestyle is actually more satisfying than drinking; it came as a complete surprise to me when, after 45 years of daily coffee drinking—culminating in a period of true connoisseurship when I was roasting exquisite green Kona coffee beans provided by Hawaii grower and TOP reader Phil Rosenberg—I gave up coffee in favor of simple white tea with lemon, and discovered that I like white tea every bit as much as I ever liked coffee. Maybe a little more. Totally unexpected. How could I be satisfied by a simple little desktop stereo system? It beggars belief. Yet I am.

Giving up the chase
The late Dick Schaus, an old friend, did something similar. Dick was the founder and owner of International Audio in Washington, D.C., the first importer of many British hi-fi products into the USA, including Spendor speakers and British Fidelity components, which he and Antony Michaelson agreed to rename Musical Fidelity for the international market. (I seem to recall there was some kind of conflict with the original name is the US, but memory fades). Before he died, Dick "gave up the chase" for bigger and better and settled on a simple, small system based around Spendor LS3/5a mini-monitors and the truly special little Musical Fidelity A1, a small 25-watt-per-channel Class-A integrated amp that originally came out in the early '90s. Amazingly, Musical Fidelity, which is now owned by Heinz Lichtenegger of Pro-ject, has recently introduced an all-new revival of the A1 as a legacy product. It's supposed to ship this month, or early next. I didn't know that until just now. Classy move by Heinz.

Little giant
The 12"-high LS3/5a, a BBC monitor the design of which is traditionally credited to Spencer Hughes (later the founder and owner of Spendor, his wife's name being Dorothy—Spen+Dor, get it?), was introduced in 1975. Produced by many manufacturers from Rogers and KEF in the early days to Stirling Broadcast and various Chinese fabricators more recently, it is the original audiophile mini-monitor and is still revered, especially in Asia. Why? It isn't particularly accurate. But it's great to listen to. And speaking of classic reissues, I just learned there are now versions of the LS3/5a made by both Rogers, the original marque, and none other than...Musical Fidelity! Dick would be smiling. I didn't know about either of those last two until today.

If you buy LS3/5a's, accept them as they are. Don't use them as a building block to a "better" speaker system. Don't add a subwoofer. Don't try to get rid of the mid-bass hump in the frequency response. If you don't like them, get something else. It's foolish to think you can make magic better.

LS35aThe granddaddy of mini-monitors:
what's old is now new again

If I were still playing the game, I'd have mine in walnut with the Rogers nameplate. Ever the connoisseur.

John Atkinson of Stereophile remarked in an old review that it was amazing that the LS3/5a had survived unchanged for 14 years. Well, now they've survived for 48 years. Mostly unchanged—everybody tries to make new ones faithful to the original design. In a small room, with careful setup* and the right kind of music—jazz ensembles, bluegrass, chamber music, folk guitarists, vocalists—magic happens.

Nothing to do with me
The stereo hobby is a generational phenomenon. It got going in earnest when RCA introduced the LP, which stood for long-playing record, in 1948, and took shape as a pastime in the '50s. But it really took off with the Boomers and Generation Jones (my generation) when rock music became such a cultural phenomenon in the 1960s and '70s.

I first got the bug when I was 15 in 1972. I cut lawns all summer and bought a Dual turntable, a Marantz receiver, and KLH speakers, and was hooked. For 30 years I happily spun records and then CDs (my first player was the portable Sony D-5 of 1984) and then records again, obsessed over reviews, and wasted copious percentages of my paltry discretionary income on a never-ending parade of components. I still have enough equipment in the house for at least two complete systems. (I'd love to get rid of it all but I don't know how. A prisoner of sunk costs!)

After 30 years it came to an end. One fine day in about 2005 I caught myself reading an issue of Stereophile (one of the two formerly "underground" journals of high-end audio that are now mainstream magazines, the other being The Absolute Sound) that contained reviews of no fewer than three components that each cost more than $40,000. I suddenly thought, why am I even reading this? What has any of it got to do with me? I couldn't shake that thought. So I decided to give it all up. It was hard at first. Old habits are hard to break. 

Strangely, I'm happier now than when I tried to be an audiophile. Mostly, I guess, because I don't think about it any more. My main speakers today, as I've said before, are a set of AudioEngine A5+ powered computer speakers (now cheaper than ever at $299), augmented by the S8 separate woofer. (I'm still enough of an audiophile that I can't bring myself to call an 8" woofer a "subwoofer"!) I got the A5+ speakers as a promotional freebie maybe twelve years ago, and still listen to them every day. My DAC, which I've loved from the day I got it to today, is available once again: the Halide Design DAC HD. It was discontinued, then resurrected by popular demand. Here's a typical review. Highly recommended for computer speakers or small real-world systems. It renders a lovely smooth midrange and great imaging, and has a relaxed, non-digital quality that's hard to define.

Today I just concentrate on the music, and yet still enjoy the sound; the best of both worlds.

Mike
(Thanks to Hi-Fi Heaven in Green Bay for confirming the existence of the new A1)

*On stands, on the short-side of a not-too-big rectangular room, away from the wall the same exact distance, exactly symmetrical side to side, slightly toed in, grilles on, with the listening position equidistant from each speaker, with nothing between the speakers and hopefully something big, absorbent, and irregular hanging on the sidewalls in the reflection position**. On the good side, people spend tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars on elaborate listening rooms, and you can set up the LS3/5a nicely in a room the size of many bedrooms, as long as it's a rectangular box. You could build such a room easily in many basements.

**Put a lamp exactly where the speakers will be, sit in the listening chair, and have someone position a mirror on the sidewalls until you can see light bulb reflected in the middle of it. That's the side reflection point. Happens on the ceiling, too, if you're feeling ambitious—but in a basement, you can simply leave the joists bare to break up the ceiling reflections!

P.S. Not to waste your time for you, but there is lots to read on the Web about the LS3/5a.

Original contents copyright 2023 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Herman Krieger: "That seems like sound advice."

Charles Rozier: "Some of the prior comments took me back in time. I was the industrial designer of the Apt Holman preamp, the Adcom amps, and various other audio components, long ago and far away."

Mike replies: Wow! That is so cool. Like having a celebrity in my audience. That was a famous preamp back in the late '70s and early '80s, designed by Tom (Tomlinson) Holman, who later became the "T" in Lucasfilm THX. He finished his career as an engineer at Apple. The Apt Holman was expensive for its era, and still measures great today after thorough servicing.

The last time I saw an Apt Holman preamp I was advising a bookstore/café on Dupont Circle about how to upgrade their store sound system. I had them buy unfinished Klipsch Heresy speakers and a few other things, but I recommended they get their old Apt Holman restored, and keep it, which they did. They got a low-key but steady stream of compliments from customers about how good the music sounded in the store (I know because my brother worked there). It's not easy to make a preamp look good, but I loved the way that one looked—all business. You did a good job. Nice that you are here!

Don Seymour: "My audiophile brother-in-law set me up with a pair of Chartwell LS3/5a's and a matching Rogers subwoofer when I was in college in the late '70s. Loved them and enjoyed them for 40-some years. Just sold them on eBay last year for many thousands, and replaced them with the KEF LS50 metas. Totally satisfied with these now. Thanks for the informative post."

Mike Plews: "In 1969 while in the Army on Okinawa I bought a Sansui AU555 integrated amp. Over the years the speakers, tape deck and turntable I also bought all got replaced, but that amp just soldiered on.

A few months back it finally failed, dropping the left side out. I figured 53 years was a pretty good run but wasn't ready to throw in the towel just yet. I took it to Nils Erickson at Rainbow Studio in Omaha. He has an analog recording studio, audio equipment store and a repair shop specializing in vintage gear. His shop is like a stereo hoarders dream. Need a Dynaco or McIntosh amp? Nils is your guy. He said he would take a run at saving my amp.I figured along with any repairs old reliable would need to be recapped.

A month later he called to say it was fixed. He said the bill would be $100 for labor. I asked about parts and he said, 'didn't need any.' Caps were fine. Turns out 53 years of following me around left a load of god knows what inside. A good cleaning and exercising of the pots and it came right back to its old self. So now it is back at work powering 30-year-old B&W speakers. Earlier this year I ripped my CD collection and transferred them to a Surfans F20 player which works great. Vinyl is handled by a wheel of steel with a fresh Ortofon Red cart. It's a nice clean mid-fi setup. I don't regard myself as an audiophile, just a happy listener.

"Gotta say I still love the sound from that old Sansui. They really knew how to build them back in the '60s. Think I'll kick back for an afternoon with Kenny Burrell."

Mike replies: I had an AU-717 for years, which was great as well. Your amp is a cult favorite for sure. If memory serves it uses transformers, like a tube amp (IANAEE*). It was built in a transition period between tubes and solid-state, and sounds like it—it's voiced like a tube amp, with that warm, lush sound that makes spoken-word sound chesty and full. People who love that sound really love it.

By the way, you are Dorian Gray and I am the portrait. Every time I buy a piece of vintage gear it breaks. When that happens, I always figure there must be someone out there somewhere who's having all the luck with old gear that that I'm not having!   :-)

*I am not an electronics engineer.

Posted on Saturday, 05 August 2023 at 01:33 PM in Off-topic posts, Open Mike | | Comments (40)

Friday, 04 August 2023

This Bothers Me

There are a number of important questions about being a photographer that I don’t know the answers to. I suspect this is not because I’m being thick or stupid, which I sometimes am, but because there are no right or wrong answers. In many other cases, I have strong feelings about an issue‚ but I can completely respect photographers who have come to the opposite conclusion (if their work convinces me of their conclusions, that is). That’s because I realize that there is no right and wrong; some things, we each have to decide for ourselves.

Bothered
A number of the common locutions amateur photographers use‚ mainly without thinking‚ bother me. One of them is the phrase "this bothers me."

One of the ways that amateur photographers make their pictures "stronger," one of the basic tricks‚ is to zoom in and crop things out. Zooming in and cropping out (which are different ways of saying, and doing, the same thing) tends to simplify compositions, either by making the viewer’s attention center on one discrete object or else by reducing one aspect of a scene to a design element (pictures often known as "abstractions," another annoying dumb locution). This impulse to zoom in and crop out seems to be so strong for many people that it’s one of the few ways they can think of to talk about a picture. And "this bothers me" is the common shorthand way for an amateur critic to say that the photographer has not zoomed in enough or cropped enough out.

This bothers me

Typically, the bothersome thing is something random or partial that the photographer has allowed to impinge on the edge of the frame. If a bit of a power or telephone line nips the corner of a frame, if a leaf seems attached to the line of the frame edge, if something like a street sign or a half a telephone pole split vertically is allowed to form a border, well, it will "bother" some bourgeois camera operator somewhere.

Personally, I suffer just the opposite prejudice. If the subject of a picture is too cleanly isolated, too efficiently cropped, it makes me feel existentially antsy. I feel it makes me look like a guy who doesn’t know or isn’t willing to acknowledge that the frame excludes a great deal and that the world outside of the frame is a hodgepodge, the picture merely a choice view plucked from the continual visual drone of the mundane, the banal, and the ordinary.

Ugly but honest
In 1979 I went to Ireland alone. I had planned to meet a girl, but she fell in love with an Englishman during her semester abroad‚ and neglected to inform me of that fact until after I’d bought a plane ticket. You know what they say: "oh well."

I listen and observe a lot anyway, but when traveling alone I do it even more. In Ireland I listened to waitresses chatting as I hunched over smoked salmon salad; old men regaling each other with elaborate story-jokes over their pints in pubs; the give-and-take of families of tinkers and beggars by roadsides; the excited chatter of a group of schoolchildren on the deck of a ferry on a field trip to the Aran Islands.

One evening on the beach near Galway I overheard an American couple evaluating their vacation. "The problem I’m having," the woman said at one point, "is that Ireland doesn't look quite enough like pictures of Ireland."

I thought it was amusing that she didn’t phrase that the other way around.

Years later, I went to Steamboat Springs, Colorado. One of the most famous pictures in Steamboat is a poster of two cowboys on horseback in a snowstorm passing in front of a barn. The barn in the famous picture is still there. But without the benefit of the obscuring snowstorm, the mountains behind it are revealed to be pockmarked with houses and condominiums, and, scattered all around the barn almost at random, as if broadcast over the ground by a giant hand, are modern buildings of every description; I remember there being a muffler shop. I took a picture of the famous barn from the road below it, showing all the architectural detritus around it, but the light was dull and it looks so unlike the setting for the poster that it wasn’t even recognizable as the same place.

So what’s better in your opinion—to show something in a way that is beautiful but false, or ugly but honest?

This is one of those things we each have to decide for ourselves.

Mike

© 2002, 2023 by Michael C. Johnston

Ed. note: This was originally published in 2002 on The Luminous-Landscape. I'm surprised at how economical it is; I've become more prolix in my portly years. There are also a few markers of arrogance that took me aback upon first re-reading. "Bourgeois camera operator"?! Ew. I hope I've become more compassionate since then.

Original contents copyright 2023 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Camp: "You may not remember this, but years ago I sent you a photo of the famous San Francisco de Assisi Mission Church in Taos New Mexico, the one painted by Georgia O'Keefe and photographed by Ansel Adams, Paul Strand and lots of other famous photographers. The church is really kind of fascinating for its form, but I stopped across the street and shot it, as it sits in a really very ragged shopping plaza that crowds in quite close to the church, which is also obscured by parked cars, etc. There's a guy here in Santa Fe who runs an interior design store, who has a collection of fifty or so paintings, drawings and photos of the church, and not s single one of them even hints at the overall environment. I still find my photo a little shocking, and also a little amusing."

Mike replies: Oh, I remember very well, and it made a great post.

Robin: "This article seemed familiar, and by the end I realised that it was.  :-)  I came to Ireland in a similar way. The difference being that I stayed. What I have found is that none of the things that make this place 'Ireland' can be captured by a camera. Because it's the atmosphere, the chat, the music, and so on. Visual particulars, when you see them as they are, are often not nearly as photogenic as some photos would have you believe. Which, perhaps, is another way of saying something similar to what you wrote."

Ben: "Whenever you post something like this I’m reminded of Rondal Partridge's image of Half Dome, with the overstuffed parking lot in the foreground. Is this 'worse' than a different image of Yosemite? I’m sure it’s hasn’t sold as many copies as Ansel Adams' view of Half Dome, but that’s a bit of a fraught measure of 'good.' Why do I have to choose? Can’t there be good photographs from both perspectives?"

Mike replies: I think there can be, yes. And here's that picture (in the addendum).

lynnb: "It bothers me that your rural picture with the 9th street pole appears to be a case of scannus interruptus. That's where the computer goes to sleep during the scan and when you wake it up, there's a clear break (vertical division and tonal change) that marks the point where it was awakened from its slumbers. As to cropping and simplification, I remind myself that life is inherently messy, as you unfortunately found out in Ireland. I prefer to think of those edge of frame 'imperfections' as a reminder that there's always a wider context and a bigger story. To quote another saying, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is."

Mike replies: Yes, all my scans with that scanner had the same break! I ended up throwing the darn thing away, but not before it aged me several years. And yes, I agree with you about details on the edges implying the greater chaos of the wider world. I can't look at a studio fashion shot without seeing the rest of the messy set in my mind's eye, with that little island of perfection in the middle of it.

JOHN B GILLOOLY: "Reminds me of a workshop with Jay Maisel at his bank maybe 10–12 years ago. My greatest takeaway from the week was his insistence 'that nothing in the frame is neutral. Everything is either working for you or against you.' That is a great lesson for a photographer to live by. It forces you to ask yourself whether something belongs in the photograph or not. It's not always a matter of cropping or zooming, it's often a matter of moving a few feet, or even inches, one way or the other."

Roman Boiko: "I agree with you Mike, and I would not change the crop or tilt/shift projection of either image. I will just throw it out there that the preference for orthographic structures might by influenced by the physical screen or print size. Standing in front of a big print, the apparent 'keystoning' is lessened and mimics what you see with your eyes in front of a real building. Seen on a small screen with the framing of a monitor bezel and columns of text, etc., it is easier to be much more critical of tilted horizons and distorted structures."

Posted on Friday, 04 August 2023 at 03:41 PM in Past Blasts | | Comments (38)

Thursday, 03 August 2023

Moose's Verticals

Moose, a longtime reader, has kindly and helpfully supplied modified versions of two pictures recently posted here.

Moose prefers corrected verticals, the lack of which bothered him in both pictures. To illustrate his point, he provided pages where you can see the version I posted and his corrected version by hovering your mouse:

First example

Second example

I really don't mind either of his versions. However, I prefer partially corrected verticals, even in view camera work; both of these pictures have received partial correction in my versions. I feel that we expect to see convergence when looking up at a building, for instance, and when it's entirely missing it looks awkward. "Perfectly" corrected keystoning in tall buildings often looks to me like it is keystoned the opposite way, as in this example from Flickr.  Although you may prefer that, to my eye it looks slightly wider at the top than at the bottom, and I don't like that effect. I will most often make corrections in the "Geometry" tab in Photoshop that go part of the way but not all the way to perfect. My goal (as with most corrections) is to make sure the geometry or perspective or rectilinearity or whatever you want to call it doesn't call undue attention to itself—I want it to look natural, but leaving in some camera vision makes sense to me. Like I say, I think Moose's versions are okay, and neither would bother me if I came across them as someone else's work. But I still prefer my versions, in both cases. YM, like Moose's, MV.

Moose's assumptions have led him into a couple of further problems, however. If you look at the first one and go back and forth. Notice how the objects along the bottom of the frame are compacted. The house in particular becomes more squat, and loses its proportions. This might just be a consequence of him having to work from a small published JPEG, and it might be something he could avoid if he had the full file to work with.

However, in the "Mennonite Boys" picture, I had a memory of the scene that made his version look not quite right to me. So on a trip to Watkins Glen a couple of days ago I swung past Dundee to look at the location again. And, sure enough—that telephone pole on the left is not straight in real life! It's tilted. I took a carefully correct picture of it in the daylight, then compared it to a protractor on my computer screen, and I would estimate the tilt to be about 12–13 degrees. So, here, Moose's desire for rectilinearity has led him into literal error! That telephone pole needs to slant in the picture for it to be accurate.

However, note that this is not to say he's wrong, necessarily. If the picture looks best to him that way, then that's the way he would correct it, and he would still be right...for himself. We just differ in our preferences, is all. Neither of us is right or wrong. Straightening a crooked telephone pole is just as much an option as removing a small distraction in post or making any other small editing change in the image. The idea is to make it look right for your definition of "right," whatever that might be.

There's another editing choice in that second picture that's interesting. Another reader said he would crop out the small cluster of lights along the right-hand border. Well, I like that cluster of lights and I wanted it in the frame. But when I did the vertical correction, I lost about half of it—so I grabbed it in Photoshop and restored it to its former place in the frame by moving it over a little. 

One's man's meat, and all that.

One final point. In explaining it to me, Moose justified his preference for straight verticals in terms of what was normal in view camera work. With a view camera, you can correct geometry in-camera. He's right, and, if that goes a ways in explaining how his preferences evolved, it may go some way toward explaining how my preferences evolved too—because I was a 35mm photographer until around 2003 when I got my first digicam. And 35mm photographers have to learn to live with the sometimes wopplejawed geometry the fixed lens captures. If you try to make everything rectilinear, it will just drive you crazy. It's much better just to learn to live with what the camera gives you.

To each his (or her) own.

Big thanks to Moose for providing the illustrations and hence the grist for this discussion!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Allan Graham: "I have to admit that I did the same thing as Moose. As a student, long ago when we still used the pencil and technical pen, I was trained in architectural perspective drawing, in which verticals are never permitted to converge. It's difficult to un-train the brain. And for photography in those days, not being able to afford shift lenses, we resorted to tilting the enlarger base board and using the smallest lens aperture we could get away with."

Mike replies: Ah yes, and some enlargers actually had adjustable lens stages to make that trick easier!

Posted on Thursday, 03 August 2023 at 01:59 PM in Digital Techniques, Photographic aesthetics | | Comments (29)

Wednesday, 02 August 2023

More about That Cheap $4,000 Camera

I'm expecting that not many people will agree with this. And I'm quite uncertain of my "data," which really amounts to just an impression of what was happening a while back. If you take what follows with a chunk of salt, I'll understand. IANAE (I am not an economist).

It seems to me that there was a point a few years ago when it was generally agreed that the cameramakers had decided on a new strategy to counter declining sales: if they were going to sell fewer cameras, then they would demand considerably higher prices for them. The signal example of this (the turning point, in my mind) was the 20-MP Olympus E-M1 Mark II of September 2016, which was priced $600 higher for the body only than the 16-MP original E-M1 of exactly three years earlier. That's more than a 40% price increase, although the new camera sported a higher-resolution sensor and better specs (and when don't they?).

Although we didn't know it at the time, for Olympus this was later revealed to be indicative of a death spiral. It had been bleeding money on the camera division for years, and in 2020 it left the camera market, de-accessioning its camera business to Japan Industrial Partners, which now runs a legacy operation under the name OM Systems.

Of course, companies of all kinds would always like to be paid more for their products. They put a lot of effort into "normalizing" higher prices—as an example, stereo magazines used to review loudspeakers that cost $20,000–$80,000 in order to encourage hobbyists to think it was reasonable to spend $4,000 to $12,000 for speakers. Companies also routinely add features and strive to create a culture in which those features are accepted as "necessary" or obligatory, even though they aren't. Just look at all the crap people think new pickup trucks have to have. Or what a new house has to have. The Smiths want what the Joneses have who wanted what the Smiths had.

The difficulty, as I see it, becomes clear only when you look at it from the enthusiast's perspective. As toys (discretionary enthusiast purchases) become more and more expensive, fewer and fewer people can play in the sandbox. And it's not enough for there to be lower-end models that are technically "good enough" that cost less, because enthusiasts don't want to have to settle for low-end products that have no status and lack features and build quality. It's more satisfying to be able to afford something that you can feel proud to own and that your friends will admire or approve of. That's almost a definition of what it means to be an enthusiast of something. It's got to be fun.

And even if you can afford a $4,000 body once every ten years to use as your main camera, another aspect of enthusiast engagement is that we like to buy multiple cameras. That's also part of the fun. Cold water gets thrown on that when even cheaper compact cameras are getting ransomed out at north of a grand.

Of course, looked at from a certain vantage point, companies are merely being rational. There are two economies in the United States—one for the wealthy, and the other for the rest of us. Wealth inequality is far worse than most people imagine. In 2007, according to Wikipedia, the top 20% of Americans owned 86% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 14%. And it's worse than that now. If you're in the bottom half, God help you—you're worried about real necessities, never mind Nikons. So why shouldn't camera companies concentrate on building products that cater to the top 20%, and ignore everyone else? It only makes sense.

But there's that pesky death spiral to worry about. When it comes to NSCs (non-smartphone cameras—I just made that up), the higher prices go, the fewer people buy; and when fewer people buy, the higher prices have to go....

I'm not saying I have any crystal ball, but I'm instinctively not pleased by the ongoing continuation and extension of the "fewer sales for higher prices" strategy that emerged in 2016, and that the camera companies appear to be doubling down on. Four grand for a second-tier Nikon is pricey enough to have a chilling effect on a pretty big swath of the enthusiast cohort, and I don't care what Sony and Canon are charging; they're charging too much too.

The two-channel audio hobby left me behind in the mid-2000s, after a lifetime, following the exact same strategy the cameramakers are now starting to follow. Don't expect me to be happy about it if I have to watch photography wander off down the same path.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2023 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. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Posted on Wednesday, 02 August 2023 at 09:52 AM in Photo industry | | Comments (53)

« Previous

Portals




Categories

Archives

More...

Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007