I just had to laugh....

Shot on film. With a Leica R8...

A few years ago I wrote a piece for another person's blog wherein I made an impassioned case for electronic viewfinders. To say I was skewered again and again would be an understatement. At the time the mantric response was, "I'll never give up the glory and majesty of a true optical viewfinder!" 

And yet, I was just visiting said blog when I noticed that commenter after commenter mentioned their desire to have a Sony A7 camera. And many of them gave as one reason.....the electronic viewfinder.

Funny how much time sits in between early adopters and the big hump of the Bell Curve. Are people that resistant to change?

How easy are we willing to make the process of making photographs before we admit how much we've lost?

I was watching a video program from PBS about Richard Avedon a few nights ago and it made me  sad. Not sad for the person (Avedon--who passed away a few years ago) or the people in our industry but sad for just how much good stuff we've (as an industry) been willing to let go of in the thoughtless pursuit of the "free" practice of digital photography. And how complicit we've all been in our own artistic decline. I am as guilty as the rest of you. If you still shoot larger formats than 35mm you are excused from this discussion and from automatic inclusion amongst the collective guilty.

Let me explain what I mean before the fire breathing forum experts go into spiteful overdrive.

Regardless of whether we work in digital or film photography there are certain aesthetic manifestations resulting from the use of different sized imaging sensors, or different film sizes, just as there are obviously different effects that come from using different focal lengths of lenses to achieve the same angles of view across formats. Newer technologies in sensors might yield less noise or higher perceived resolution but all the new advancement(?) comes at the expense of a truly diverse range of tools. And the ones that have mostly gone away are the larger formats. The same formats that made most of the amazing images from the last century. Six by six. Six by seven. Six by nine. True, in camera large format panos. 4x5 inch and bigger.

When discussing different styles of cameras most people aren't well educated enough to get very far beyond counting the number of pixels on a chip. Most don't understand that there are many visual differences between the constitution of different kinds of sensors and most don't understand the very idea of movable (non-parallel camera movements) lens and film planes. But the biggest issue is that we all chose to ignore the obvious visual differences that come from the inter-relationship of sensor size and focal length/angle of view.

We're like happy ants toiling in the tiny garden of m4:3, APS-C and good ole fashion small format 35mm frame sizes. We've completely tossed away medium format, wouldn't know what to do with 4x5 inch sheet film and are probably depressingly unaware that once film could be readily had in 8 by 10 inch sheets---and larger. And we're equally unaware that many, many practitioners of the recently past era didn't use the larger sizes to get more "megapixels" they worked in the larger formats because the larger formats gave the artists different looks. They delivered images that looked unique by format----not just stylistically but fundamentally. Down at the level of physics.  If you could make a snap shot with an 11x14 inch view camera it wouldn't look like a 35mm camera used in the same spot with a lens having the same angle of view. It would look totally different. The much, much longer focal length of the lens (for the same angle of view) used at the same subject to camera distance would have yielded a totally different depth of field in which sharp focus would fall off at a much steeper rate. These were the days of giants in the field of photography. The gear and the people.

The disconnection between micro adjust AF settings and the nature of lens design...

This is a Sigma 50mm f1:1.4 lens with a Sony A mount. It's a great lens but my camera can't reliably focus it and neither can yours. Even if you use a focus align jig and take great pains to calibrate the hell out of it. Is there something wrong with the lens? Nope, I get the same behavior from the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 for the Canon and also the manual focus Carl Zeiss 85mm 1.4 in any of the major brand mounts. So what's the deal?

It's pretty simple really. All these fast lenses have a common attribute called focus shift and the simplest explanation is that the point of correct focus shifts as you stop the lens down. The micro-adjust AF controls in all of cameras are amazingly simple and stupid. They are all made to do one calculation per lens. But if you calibrate for the wide open setting (f1.4) which is the stop you paid all that hard earned money for the lens system's focus point will shift as you stop down. The setting at f2.8 when used on my Sony a99 is three or four points different than the f1.4 stop. In theory you could test and divine a calibration setting for each f-stop but there's no way to load more than one setting into the camera for each lens.

If you were amazingly compulsive you could calibrate all the critical stops and third stops and make a chart. Then when you grab your camera to shoot you can check your f-stop, consult your data and set the correct number of every f-stop. You'd probably only need to do the stops from wide open to about f4 because at that setting depth of field masks the errors. Mirrorless cameras set focus at the shooting aperture for their contrast detection AF so they tend to be much, much more accurate. I wonder if there is a downside to the inclusion of phase detection AF points on a sensor as relates to focusing point accuracy.

The project that was the most fun for me this year.

 My Craftsy Family at work on a horse ranch outside Boulder, Co.

I've done many fun projects this year including a wonderful trip to Berlin for Samsung but the project that I had the absolute most fun with was without a doubt the Family Photojournalism class I taught for Craftsy.com. On one level I was the instructor but on another level I was most certainly a student and, in my time off, a very enchanted Colorado tourist.

It was right at the end of September when it all happened. It was steamy hot in Austin and when the Craftsy producers and I decided on our production dates I was happy to get out of town and head to Denver. We were to produce a 2.5 hour program which at its core is a training program for the person in a typical family to whom the responsibility for taking family photos falls. It's not a class about how to leverage the latest techniques or get the most out of frightfully expensive gear. My counterpart, Josh, was a real world dad who really did want to find out how to take better images of his kids at home, school and on vacation. He showed up with a hand-me-down Nikon D200, a 70-300mm kit lens and an 18-200mm lens that looked like it had been through a war, then a mud fight and finally a trip in the tumble dry setting on a clothes dryer. Instantly vintage.

My instruction of Josh would take place at Red Rocks Park, at his suburban Denver home and at a wonderful horse ranch with a crown of mountain peaks framing the background. We covered exposure, hand holding, tripod use, fill flash and even a bit of Lightroom post processing. And we had a blast following around Josh's wife and two adorable kids.

I was "on camera" for most of the adventure so I really didn't get to shoot much. We were depending on Josh's images to use for almost all of the "B-roll" and he came through like a pro. I stayed busy trying to remember which of three cameras to look at and trying to extemporaneously put together what I needed to say for each segment. (No teleprompter, no formal script and no cue cards!!!).

We worked with a great video crew on the project. Their job was to make me sound good, look good and keep me on track so we had what they needed to do the transitions and be able to piece together a two and a half hour program that made sense, taught the lessons and looked good.  

The lessons for me were all about being on the other side of the camera. I'm used to shooting and directing but being directed and having to remember simple blocking (where to move and when) and deliver spoken content was a totally different experience. Things I took for granted as a photographer seemed really tough when I got put into the role of being "talent."

The biggest lesson is that doing multi-camera work on location requires more crew. In addition to producer/director: Pattie, we had a sound engineer, an editor/digital technician, camera operators, assistants and a make up person. We worked with a lot more gear than I usually do on my "heroic" one person shoots. And with the gear and the complexity of having to simultaneously shoot in multiple angles there is a certain inertia to getting set up and rolling for each shot. The crew used a jib for most of the scenes and that required several people to move it from one location to another. I needed a bit of rehearsal so I understood what we needed to cover, what would show and where I would end up when I stopped talking. 

In most scenes we created some good back and forth with Josh so we had to make sure that we moved as a team and didn't trip over each other.

When you work in the outdoors, especially in public areas, the recording of sound becomes a very complex game requiring much patience and many "do-overs." I might really nail a good line only to have the audio declared "unusable" because of a throaty Harley Davidson motorcycle coming into aural range just near the end of my lines. On another afternoon we seemed to be "sound dodging" a number of private and commercial airplane flights and the attendant roar of engines. 

At one point in the park I waited in the bright sun until car after car went by only to be interrupted by the arrival of trail hikers. But when the silence was on we hit it quickly and got our stuff done. In the down time I got to review the sound to hear just what the sound engineer was going for. With my eyes closed and headphones on I could hear every little chipmunk squeak or candy wrapper rustle you could imagine. It's only by dint of skillful microphone placement and careful timing that we were able to get what we needed. That, and a bucket of patience.

I learned by watching the camera operators the lesson that at least one camera always needs to keep moving. When you are cutting all the footage together being able to cut to moving shots, compressed shots and wide angle "establishing" shots goes a long way toward keeping a program visually interesting.

Another "miracle" of being the "talent" is that you don't have to worry about any of the details that are commonly fretted over when you are also the producer. I never worried about when lunch would arrive...or from where. Never needed to know which cooler had the sparkling water, that just seemed to appear at need. And I never needed to sweat the details of how things looked, a team of professionals was taking care of that for me. When we broke for the day each day I didn't have to load gear into cases, load cases into cars, re-pack for the next day, charge batteries, etc. I could hop into my rental car and head off to my hotel, to a nice restaurant or to one of the good museums in Denver for a bit of site seeing. Where my hands on shooting days generally turn into marathon sessions of both shooting and logistics my talent days ended at a reasonable time and required only a tiny modicum of homework: review the outline for the next day.

I loved being on the other side of the camera but you probably already guessed that I'm a bit of a ham. It's fun to think that I have something of value to share after nearly 30 years in this business/art/craft.

When I flew back home after spending eight days in Denver (we did a shorter production the week before) I was tired and drained but a bit sad. I'd come to enjoy this new, fun work and I was  melancholy to be leaving it behind. When I got back to Austin I noticed that I immediately started incorporating what I'd learned in Colorado into my own projects. I write scripts now with simpler lines and I write scripts so that my talent has lots of natural break points in which to regroup or for me to cut with in edit. We're trying to write shorter scenes so we don't run out of camera movement before we run out of words.... And I'm trying to break my reliance on artificial lighting and learned to manage existing light better. And by that I mean always being mindful of color balance and exposure so that lit footage can be cut together with natural light footage without huge visual discrepancies. 

The two valuable lessons I learned from Pattie, my producer/director on the project were these: An outline that's been thoroughly discussed, picked apart and improved beats a script because it gets the content across in a way that is more genuine and natural. And, that details are important. Where I was standing when we cut and went back to shoot close ups for B-roll, my inflection, my expressions and even my posture were all important cues to continuity and continuity really counts for believable documentary style work. But finally, the thing I learned that is most valuable is that it's important to stay flexible because sometimes, when you are working with really talented people, a different approach or a happy accident can work better than all the careful plans. 

It's amazing and fun to go from "know it all expert" to newbie beginner student all in the same project and all at the same time. What an incredibly fun and immersive way to learn new stuff. 

Our sound engineer tries  to master all of the outdoors to make me sound good.

Dedication. 

If you go to the on of the links above and click through Craftsy also has a free course I did on family portrait stuff. I'll post a direct link a bit later. I'm running out the door to have fun....

Added note: Nearly 20,000 people have signed up for the free course since it went live in November. Happy!

Happy to share that my favorite camera of the year is also the cheapest one I bought all year. The G6.

I was going to write some long, drawn out narrative about choosing one camera from a list of many to make my "camera of the year" until I decided that the camera one chooses as "their" personal camera of the year is a singular and illogical choice based on so many individual factors that there's no way to choose one universal camera for everyone. We can dance around the Sony products or the further distilled Olympus uber camera but in the end it all comes down, for me, to which camera gives me the most pleasure to hold, shoot, play with and drag images out of.  And, which one is the best value for the amount of imaging fun it delivers. This year, for me, it's hands down the Panasonic G6. 

But it's not just the G6....it's the G6 paired with the Leica 25mm Summilux that makes it all work. And I will sheepishly admit that this is the first combo I've bought in a long time where the lens cost more than the camera (complete with a kit lens). But I'm a perennial sucker for a 50mm equivalent on every camera I've ever played with and this lens fits the bill nicely. 

I haven't had as much time to play with the G6 as I would have liked but I can't complain because that means I've been working on jobs for clients, pressing more situationally appropriate cameras into the projects and looking through countless files and video from Sony a99s, Panasonic GH3s and even the old, standard Sony a850. But I've been holding the G6 in reserve as my "personal" camera. The one I want to walk the streets with.

So, what is it about the G6 that speaks to me?

Taking a day off from writing. Just posting a fun picture of my swimmer friend, Amy.

We did this in the studio after swim practice one day.  Camera and lens information not recorded.

Thinking about creativity and re-invention reminded me of an older article. Allow me to re-share...

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-good-stuff-is-in-wiring-dirt-just.html

From: A Christmas Story. Zach Theatre

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-good-stuff-is-in-wiring-dirt-just.html

I am of the belief that becoming an expert in anything is the quickest path to boredom, stagnation and being rolled over by progress. People often take me to task for buying new equipment, changing systems, working with different kinds of light. My take on it is that doing the same crossword puzzle over and over and over again isn't sign that you are smart or agile, it's a sign that you are bat shit crazy. 

I work with different cameras to see if they make me see in a different way. Isn't that what we want? Don't we want to differentiate our points of view?  I use different lights to see how they affect my subject, the way motion is expressed or to create a different mood or environment for my subjects. They are mostly people. Isn't exploration something we pretend to value highly?

The tools we use have an influence on how we put stuff together. That's been true since the dawn of time. It was true when we learned that spearing our dinner with long spears killed it more effectively (and safely) than trying to club it to death in very close quarters. Fellow caveman, UGGG, might have invented a better club but caveman, Bob, moved the game forward with his sharp, pointy stick. Fewer cavemen showed up to the Barbecue injured after Bob's discovery went mainstream...

The important part is your story and your own interesting self. But it's folly to think that new technology has no effect on the continuing commercial enterprise of photography.....

An article that I really enjoyed reading. Not necessarily about photography. But maybe.

Which side? (Samsung Galaxy NX camera. Kit lens)

I read this article (below) on Slate today and the last 30 years of my life seemed to make a lot more sense. I found it interesting but you might not.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/12/creativity_is_rejected_teachers_and_bosses_don_t_value_out_of_the_box_thinking.html

Two cameras that point to the new direction in photographic tools.

Sony RX10.

As camera imaging sensors get denser and denser with pixels the last remaining frontier in current camera design is the exact marriage of the optical system to the sensor. Sony, beginning with their RX1 and continuing with the RX10 has this just exactly right. With fixed lens cameras (cameras where the non removable lens is an integral part of the design and manufacture) the makers have the ability to precisely match everything in the system. According to interviews with Sony the 35mm Zeiss lens incorporated into the RX1 sits very close to the sensor and every RX1 camera is individually calibrated down to less than a micron of error. 

The usual interchangeable system has tolerances that are ten times or more looser. But even beyond the mechanical linkages a fixed lens camera system let's the design team have precise aim points for everything from lens fall off to pixel well rationalization and correction. Instead of designing a system that is a jack of all trades a fixed system is optimized to a much higher level because all variables are known and can be accounted and compensated for. 

To my mind the RX1 (at the high end) and the RX10 (in the average consumer space) go a long way toward inciting a new revolution in camera design. While these two products may not exactly suit your needs I think we'll see more and more products that have a closed loop design aesthetic because it makes engineering sense. I shy away from the RX1 not because of reviews that reference slow AF and not even because of the high price. My objection is to the 35mm angle of view. I think it's too wide for nice portraits and way too short for dramatic vistas. If they were to come out with a version with a fixed, f4 zoom that spanned 28 to 70mm I'd be first in line.  Another alternative (probably not palatable for most camera buyers) would be to create optimized versions in popular single focal lengths. I'd want to see a classic trinity of (the existing) 35mm, 50mm and 85-90mm lenses. But I don't think that's on the horizon. 

But the camera that really caught my attention this year, and is steadily working its way onto my "want to buy!!!" list is the RX10. In part my desire for the camera is driven by its video capabilities but having owned several Sony R1 cameras I understand just how good a well designed lens, coupled intimately to a good sensor, can be. And how convenient it can be in day to day shooting. 

While the sensor in the RX10 is smaller than m4:3 I have to believe that the tight integration (both in design stages and in manufacturing) of the holistic system will allow the camera to compete on par with its bigger sensor rivals and perhaps exceed them in terms of sharpness, due to tighter tolerances.  

The RX10 is one of those cameras that falls outside the current vogue of being able to "customize" your camera with lenses from hither and yon. It is also out of fashion by dint of having a smaller sensor. I'm sure these things will keep traditional photographers somewhat at bay but I'm equally sure that a small subset of photographers will recognize the camera for what it truly is: A powerful, portable multi-media tool kit with great optics and great output. 

My one gripe is the continued use by Sony of the hobbit-sized Nex battery. I would love to have seen Sony use the same battery that's graced the Alpha camera for many generations. There's a lot of screen real estate to power, including a very good EVF. Oh well. That's what aftermarket batteries are for..... And I'll want a batch of them.

I wouldn't be considering this camera if I weren't trying to straddle both video and traditional photography and, if I were solely a videographer I might not consider it either. But for anyone for whom narrative filmmaking has allure and fast moving photography is daily bread I think we've finally got a digital camera that's nearly the perfect all terrain vehicle. 

Beyond the specs and details of the two Sony products I mention I think the time is ripe for other manufacturers to take a step forward and optimize lenses and sensors into more effective and cohesive packages . For a generation or two the products that result may be pricey or feature-limited but I do think it's a rational path forward in the pursuit of ultimate image quality.

In the same vein I would also point to the Leica Vario X. Samples I've seen point to the same kind of inclusive design philosophy. While that camera's marketing and general acceptance is crippled by the apparent slowness of the lens camera cognoscenti who have embraced them have come to find that the lens/sensor combination can produce breathtaking results. 

Whether you are ready to give up lens interchangeability or not these optimized packages are a very interesting story in the world of camera design.