Thursday, December 23, 2010

The Entry Level Shooter Part 2

Just who am I talking to, on this subject.

Well I suppose I am mostly talking to people sort of like ME: relatively experienced, relatively well informed, anxious-to-learn, enthusiastic photographers who occasionally earn money from their shoots who really CARE about the quality of the images that they produce. I am NOT talking to full time professionals who use their equipment for long periods every day. I am NOT talking to people making their first tentative steps into photography or who will occasionally use their cameras to shoot family barbecues, children's concerts and annual holidays.

Big, tough, fast, expensive cameras have their place. As I have said so often in the past, if you expect your gear to give reliable service during long, frequent, intensive periods of use, you had better purchase equipment designed to do that. Such gear costs a lot of money to buy or lease but if you are shooting commercially most days, you should have the available funds to justify the expense.

Small, convenient, pocketable cameras, designed to be used a dozen times a year under mostly ideal conditions, have their place as well. Why have a heavy, expensive, complicated, inconvenient camera? Most pocketable compact cameras give results well suited to their owners' expectations. Why use anything else?

Of course if compact camera users suddenly "get the bug", they start to become members of MY group and so I am talking to THEM as well. First off let me say to such people that ... well ... I am sorry about your illness (for that is what it is). Secondly let me say welcome to the wonderful world of SEEING anew and expressing what you see. Thirdly let me say that you are going to need a suitable tool - one which will give you the control and flexibility that you will need. Question is ... which one?

At the present state of the art, it seems certain that you will need either an SLR or one of those newly emerging SLR-like classes of camera, offering large sensors, responsive operation and interchangeable lenses. It ALSO seems certain that there is NO single brand of camera manufacturer that has all of the answers - no single brand that is unambiguously the best. Given a specified price point, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony and a good number of OTHER manufacturers are quite capable of supplying you with a tool which will enable you to see and capture perfectly sound image files.

To my mind, the REAL question is what that specified price point should BE - and at last we arrive at the focus of these articles. Manufacturers and retailers WANT us to spend as much as possible. Like the automobile industry, higher spec (and higher PRICE) models of camera equipment always carry the highest potential profit margins. There's much more money to be made from making and selling (say) ten $5000 cameras than (say) a hundred $500 cameras. The trick is to make us enthusiasts believe that we are missing out on fundamental capabilities by NOT purchasing the high spec gear ... and make no mistake - the industry's marketing psychologists works very hard to do just that.

Strategy one. Refer to "Entry Level" equipment. "What? I am not ENTRY LEVEL I am an experienced photographer. I can't be seen using ENTRY LEVEL equipment. People will think I am some kind of beginner. My reputation will be ruined. I shall have to buy more expensive equipment"

Strategy two. Refer to "Semi professional" or "Professional" equipment. "Yeah. I am an experienced photographer. Obviously unless I have the best equipment, my soaring talent will be constrained. I simply have to HAVE professional equipment.

And so it goes on.

I have always been a follower of certain web-based photographic forums. Each week you see the same questions being asked and the same newly consecrated gurus drawing upon their MONTHS of experience to provide the same misinformation.

Question: "I am new to serious photography. Should I buy the el cheapo model SLR or one of the more expensive models"

Answer: "You'll soon outgrow the cheaper model. If you want serious images you'll need to pay the serious money"

I have long since stopped buying into this sort of discussion. I think I must be some sort of secret masochist. I keep being drawn to read these threads. I can find no sensible reason for it. The point I am making is this. Not only does the industry work hard to UPSELL us enthusiasts. For a variety of extraneous reasons, photography enthusiast PEERS work hard at it too. I fully understand why so many people finish up paying too much for their gear, buy gear that often doesn't suit them, buy gear that causes their interest to wane, pay too much to replace it four or five years later and KEEP doing so ad infinitum. CRAAAAAAZY!

Okay. Statement time. I know some people are NOT going to like this. Some people are going to be resentful. Some people are going to call me names. But any thoughtful research, any purposeful examination of the facts and any worthwhile dollop of actual experience may enable the reader to arrive at these same conclusions.

Attention folks. Draw near. Here is the statement. Next time I shall give you my reasons for making it and try to explain why so many people will take issue with it. Ahem.

Most enthusiast photographers would be better off buying "entry level" equipment. I, and most people like me are really "entry level" equipment users, whether we like the sound of it or not.

After 45 years of photography - film and digital - I confess that I am really "an entry level shooter" ... and so (I suspect) are YOU.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

The Entry Level Shooter Part 1

PROLOGUE

This is the first of a series of posts addressing the ongoing battle that most of us serious shutterbugs have with the marketing psychologists at the big brand camera manufacturers. It's a battle which most of us regularly lose.

It doesn't have to be this way, you know. We can all fight back and win if we take up the challenge with cold hard logic.

THE REAL ARTICLE STARTS HERE FOLKS

Once upon a time we bought a film SLR to last us for maybe 10-15 years or so. The basic principle of good SLR design had been pretty much established in the late 1960s and didn't really change much (except for nibbling at the edges) until digital models started to appear about 9 years ago.

The top of the line Minolta SRT101 cost me about $300 back in 1967. It had through the lens Cadmium Sulphide sensor metering, an accurate single point microprism style manual focus screen, bayonet lens mount, damped mirror action, depth of field preview and sturdy metal construction built to "take it". It had a small replaceable battery which had to be changed every 18 months or so and that was pretty much THAT.

One could change the shutter speed via a little dial on the top of the camera, the metering sensitivity could be changed via a collar under the shutter speed dial, the aperture could be changed on the lens barrel and a big fat easy grip ring gave us nice precision for accurate and fast manual focus. You changed the exposure settings until a little needle hit the mark in your viewfibder and you were ready to fly.

There was very little reason to update the camera. It gave no trouble and the later models such as the SRT101b or SRT100 or the SRT303 were basically the same camera. Newer models offered maybe a maximum shutter speed of (say) 1/2000th second instead of 1/1000th second, there might have been a split/prism style focussing point instead of the microprism one and the body styling may have changed minutely ... but they were basically the same. Cameras were kind of like cars. The models changed superficially every year or two so that people had a reason to buy a new one and be SEEN using/driving "the latest" If you looked after the old model however, you might not LOOK quite so cool but the film and the fuel were consumed the same way producing the same pictures and covering the same distances turning basically the same steering wheels and pushing basically the same shutter release buttons.

Even film, re-assuringly, stayed the same for year after year. If new, faster, more colourful, finer grained (whatever) versions of old favourites came along you loaded up the new roll and were immediately operating with the latest and greatest. It didn't matter one whit how old the camera was. My picture quality with "the new Kodachrome 64" was just as up-to-date with my OLD camera as Fred Nerk's roll of Kodachrome 64 was with his brand new one.

Somehow millions of photographers went around with these basic tools, capturing memorable (occasionally legendary) images on film. Incredibly we did it without such essentials as "live view" or "auto ISO" or "face recognition" (imagine having to get by without FR - gasp!) "51 auto focus points" or the ability to shoot "8 fps" etc etc etc

Now, of course, things are somewhat different. Apparently every few years they change the nature of light, the physical parameters of exposure vary from what they used to be somehow and the way that photographic subjects behave goes through some dramatic transformation. Hence we simply MUST have the very latest camera model to work with or we just won't be able to produce good images any more. Indeed each new camera model comes with a host of new gimmi ... er ... features, without which (we are breathlessly informed) photography as we know it becomes quite inconceivable.

Of course it could be argued that we are now dealing with "digital" systems which unlike "film" are an immature technology. Naturally every year or so massive new technical strides are made which will mean huge improvements to the capabilities of new camera models. Right? If one ISN'T using the latest and greatest, one's pictures really won't be any good. tch tch

I am not sure that things are QUITE like that but certainly more so than they used to be. Most assuredly it is in the perceived interests of camera manufactures, retail stores, photographic magazines, technical journalists and enthusiast bloggers that we potential puchasers THINK that this is true - else life as they know it might surely end.

Certainly the following things seem to be true:

1. No digital camera will continue to give service and provide state-of-the-art performance over many many years in the way that traditional film models once did.
2. Digital cameras are infinitely more complex and vulnerable than traditional film models. Alas, after five years or so we can expect that our oft used toys may start to give trouble. We can ALSO expect that camera manufacturers (whose only REAL interest is in flogging the latest model) will start to "lose" the original parts with which one might expect one's old camera to be repaired. At the very least, rare parts will soon get sufficiently expensive for repair to seem uneconomical.
3. While there AREN"T staggering revolutions in camera performance, with each new model, after five years or so, the latest cameras may WELL be expected to offer tangible improvements for the discerning enthusiast and worthwhile profit earning efficiencies for the professional.

Whichever way you look at it, we live in an age when serious photographers can expect to HAVE to purchase new cameras on a regular basis.

Question: How much disposable cash does one have to have and/or how much money does photography have to be earning you before it becomes a good idea to buy truly expensive equipment and for you to replace it with similar kit each time the need arises?

Answer: HEAPS

Another Question: For what you (yes YOU) do with cameras, how much difference will it really make to your pictures if you spend up big on expensive gear - as opposed to (say) the universally despised "entry level" gear?

Answer: Let's BEGIN to discuss it in detail .... next time.

Friday, October 22, 2010

But then again ...


Last time I railed against the zealot newbie photographers who have discovered prime lenses and taken to implying that zoom users should not be taken seriously in photography. These people really DO exist - I assure you. I was perusing some correspondence on a web forum from members of the "prime mafia" only this morning.

You'll recall I made the point that it didn't matter how sharp and clean the images produced with prime lenses were if the time and effort required to frame up a picture meant that the original inspiration had walked away. I also referred to the large apertures of fast prime lenses which made fast shutter speeds possible in low light. I suggested that this factor was not as important as once it might have been in the days of slow film emulsions because the latest DSLR bodies can produce usefully clean images at sensitivities of ISO 6400 or more.

In suggesting that "primes were past their prime" was I saying that there is no longer a place for prime lenses today? No. What I DID say was that I virtually never use prime lenses MYSELF anymore (for what that's worth of course). Being "past their prime" means to me that the period during which prime lenses were the glass of automatic choice now lies in the past. Back then, film was slow and zooms were pretty dreadful. Primes were truly in their prime.

In the 35mm film days EVERYBODY used 50mm prime lenses most of the time. I know I did. When the first DSLRs came along, the sensors were "APS-C" or "DX" size which was a somewhat cropped version of a 35mm frame. Consequently all of our beloved 50mm lenses became less generally useful because they became (in effect) short telephoto lenses. To make matters worse, some of them didn't always autofocus properly on the newest bodies. Manual focus was also less viable with digital bodies because they had removed our great film era focussing screens. So we pretty much all started using a generation of much improved ZOOM lenses and learned to make do.

Today, for most purposes, particularly photojournalism, sports coverage, general purpose vacationing, weddings & events shooting, birding, real estate, landscape and most on-location commercial shooting it is hard to go past zooms as the most readily suitable glass.

It has only been relatively recently that modern, fully autofocussing "normal" and "short telephoto prime lenses have again become available in any variety. I am the first to agree that for high quality studio set-ups, especially fine macro work and portraiture, prime lenses are a desirable choice and perhaps, once again, THE choice.

In my own case the arrival of the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX lens brings with it potential new horizons. It is a genuinely "normal" lens for the DX format. These days I run a couple of Nikon D80 (DX format) bodies with which I do occasional paying jobs - weddings among them. As sturdy, reliable and useful as the D80 is for now & then professional turns, it has always struggled (along with most bodies of its generation) to produce truly clean images at high ISO. When the powers that be prevent me from using flash during a wedding ceremony or when I am trying to cover (say) a choral festival in performance, I am usually left to get by as best I can with 1600 ISO under available light at a maximum f4. I have frequently had to manage with 1/30 second shutter speeds which is hardly ideal to say the least.

I could buy one of those super sensitive new bodies like the Nikon D3s of course but that's a lot of money and it may never really earn its keep.

Hopefully the 35mm f1.8 prime might give me a fraction more than two extra stops on my existing bodies. All other things being equal, my 1/30 second shutter speeds becomes a rather more viable 1/120 second. Of course I WILL have to perform gymnastics to get into good framing locations (I ain't as spry as I used to be, mate) given that the 35mm is only a normal lens. It IS very cheap however and a genuine bargain by all accounts. If I don't use it all that much I will have not wasted my investment. Now the 85mm f1.4 would be fantastic to cover theatrical events but it costs a lot of money too. I dunno.

Aaaanyway. Let me modify my assertions from last time. Are prime lenses past their prime? By definition, I have to say YES. Are primes dead and buried? Most certainly NOT!

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Primes ARE Past their Prime




Back in the good old days we bought our film SLR cameras packaged with nice sensible 50mm prime lenses. I bought several such camera and lens combinations back in the 60s and 70s. They all functioned pretty darn well too.

The 50mm focal length approximated the natural field of view that our unassisted eyes enjoyed. They usually offered handsomely fast maximum apertures like f1.8 or even f1.4 which enabled us to make the best use of our slow 64 ASA colour transparency film or 125 ASA monochrome negative film. We could still take nice sharp pictures when the clouds came over or when the sun was low in the sky. I used to feel sorry for my father who had to struggle by in bleak conditions with an f3.5 fixed lens on his old German rangefinder. Those nice wide hunks of glass also gave us pleasantly bright viewfinders which enabled us to focus (manually of course) accurately and quickly using those infallible old split image focus collars.

Moreover those good old lenses were (and still ARE) razor sharp from edge to edge. Being small, they were light, which enabled the camera weight to sit well-balanced, back in our hands. Holding the camera steady was a relative breeze. They were tough too. After all there was almost nothing to go wrong in them and the barrels were constructed from good old fashioned METAL.

If we wanted to capture something a long way away, we could screw out (yes, SCREW out) or otherwise disconnect our 50mm lenses and mount a nice long 135mm or pehaps a brute-like 200mm telephoto prime. For cramming in the family on Christmas day we could mount our nice new 35mm or (if we really wanted to show off) our 28mm wide angle prime. If we wanted to get fancy for portrait sessions, we could always swap over to a 90mm prime etc.

Occasionally one would spy a photographer struggling with big cumbersome new-fangled lenses called (what DID we call them?) ... oh yeah. ZOOM LENSES. The things were a handful, our viewfinders became unworkably dim and the maximum apertures (in combination with our slow old emulsions) disallowed photography in all but the most favourable lighting conditions. Zoom ranges were so narrow that we STILL needed to swap glass to cover any decent range of circumstances. Worst of all, they performed appallingly. At some focal lengths they could be positively blurry, edge sharpness was always a joke and one had to overlook the ever present geometric distortions. Tch tch tch! Experienced camera jockeys just KNEW that zooms would never catch on.

Yes Sir. They were the GOOD old days. It is simply amazing how selective our memories can be. Don't you reckon?

Back in those good old days, getting around with our 50mm primes, we couldn't always frame up a picture when we saw it. We really DID need the time of Methuselah, the experience and skill of a Cartier Bresson and the athleticism of an Olympic gymnast to always be in position for the picture WHEN it happened. Pictures didn't wait around until we got where we needed to be. The sun went behind the cloud, the cute little dog stopped looking in our direction and wandered off, the silhouetted man, standing in the focus point of the backlit narrow passage, walked around the corner removing all interest.

When we fidgeted around to change lenses, we took even longer than we did by running into position. Either way we missed the shot. Time and again we frustratingly MISSED THE SHOT. Worse still, we stopped trying. We saw the shot, remembered we were using a prime lens and walked on ... looking for something that providence would be kind enough to conveniently dump into our laps.

Then times changed. Zoom lenses got better .... a GREAT DEAL better. For all practical intents and purposes, today, a half way decent 18-200mm zoom can do a pretty reasonable job of substituting for a whole BAG of tolerably competent primes. With any luck at all, if we SEE a picture, we can GET the picture - within seconds. Okay, the edges of the prime may be a fraction sharper but if using the prime would have caused us to miss the picture altogether, what does it matter?

Yes, but what about the zoom's lousy maximum apertures?

Thing is, we don't operate with 64 ASA film anymore. Most modern DSLRs can deliver a lovely clean image at 400 ... 800 ... even 1600 ISO. The very latest cameras are optimistic enough to offer us 25,000 ISO or more. As far as the ability to operate in dull light is concerned, who needs f1.8?

"Ahhhhhh!" you say. "The big prime maximum aperture will give us lots of nice out-of-focus background. You can't do that with your f4 max aperture - can you?"

I realise of course that modern users of zooms don't get as much exercise as prime lens users do. That doesn't mean that we can't muster the strength to run the zoom out to telephoto, take a few paces backwards, dial up a highish shutter speed and frame the original subject. Hey presto - an out-of-focus background.

For some reason, there's a breed of newbies out on the internet forums who have convinced themselves that like REAL men who don't eat quiche, REAL photographers don't use zooms. What is more they are often rude to "obviously ill informed" correspondents who suggest alternatives. I see them now, in my mind's eye - hurtling about helter skelter and/or staggering under the weight of HUGE gadget bags crammed with primes, missing pictures by the truckload, eternally juggling glass.

Unfortunately no one seems to have told these characters that few people use film anymore. Think about it. Change a lens on a film camera and dust gets on the film. It winds on and out of the way with the very next shot. With a digital sensor, the muck may stay in place on the sensor (AND our pictures) until we finally get round to cleaning it.

Try this! Want a 50mm lens? Set your zoom to 50mm. You then HAVE a 50mm lens. See a picture that needs a 135mm lens to frame it properly? Set your zoom to 135mm and you have one in an instant. No drama, no losing the shot, no dropping expensive glass on the ground, no frustration, no lugging gadget bags. Personally I don't normally use ANY primes these days. How about you?

About a year ago I asked: "Could Primes be Past their Prime?" Now I think I know the answer. Primes ARE past their prime.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Photography as an Artform (part 2)








It is possible to buy prints presumably made from original Henri Cartier Bresson negatives (or from one of a limited number of authorised copies) - for prices ranging between $14,000 and $18,000. For that money, they come in a 16x20 format and (presumably) are produced on the finest quality paper with a certificate of authenticity. I also hope that the prints include the Cartier Bresson negative edge to verify that the image has not been cropped - a trademark of Cartier Bresson's original prints ... but let's assume that will also be the case and move on.

It must be acknowledged that, were one to find a photographic print made by Cartier Bresson's own hand (and there can't be very many - he hated darkrooms), one would pay a pretty impressive figure indeed. About ten years ago, or so, an early print, from one of the well known Pictorialists sold at Sothebys for $2.8 million. There IS an established market for photograhic prints and original negatives - of this there can be little doubt. If you can get your hands on an original negative or a print made by a famous photographer, it seems that you may have something of great value. If there were never many prints produced, the price goes up. If the print was made by someone else after the master died, the price goes down etc

The encouraging thing in all of this is that the market seems to have decided that fine photographs can INDEED be considered art .... but has it? Are people buying art or are they buying rare antiques? Whether photography is an artform or not, great iconic photographs have made their mark. They can be famous and historically significant. Certainly they constitute evidence that famous people and places ever existed and that famous incidents actually took place.

Certainly, prints and negatives can easily be copied and the number of prints in circulation of a famous image can rarely be satisfactorily established. For these reasons (among others) a photograph can never aspire to the value of a picture produced by a highly regarded painter. Once the authenticity of a painting is established, it has to be conceded that it is a one-off and can never be legitimately copied. If you own the Laughing Cavalier you OWN it. No-one else can do so unless you SELL it.

If you own an original print by Berenice Abbott you DO own it .... yes ... but so might many other people - as do a whole lot of people who hold identical prints made from the negative (or a copy) by other people - or indeed many people holding NEAR identical prints made by digital means whose origins will NEVER be known. However difficult it may be to satisfactorily establish the provenance of a painting, with photographs it becomes a nightmare.

In the case of digital photography the nightmare becomes simply impossible. Within hours of it being captured, a given digital image file could well have been backed-up or copied hundreds of times and distributed widely on disk, by email transmission or by download from websites. What is more, the extent of an image's actual distribution can never be verified. The original photographer can have no way of knowing him/herself.

However artistically meritorious a painting may be, its ultimate value derives from its documented authenticity and its inherent rarity. However artistically meritorious a photographic image may be, it seems that it will never reach the values of more traditional artforms because it will always be impossible to establish exclusivity of ownership. To make matters worse, the documentary veracity (and value) of photographs produced by digital means can ALSO be questioned, given the ease with which images can be edited.

Over recent years I have sometimes been surprised to see fine arts photographers (and other types of photographers as well) still using large format "old fashioned" photographic film and view cameras. Then it struck me. If you have an original negative (most especially a large format negative) you have some means of CONTROLLING an image's distribution and directing its provenance. You have some means by which your work can accrue and maintain value.

The future of digital photography - so far as its claims to art are concerned - seems doubtful. The universal measure of artistic value (how many dollars does it cost to buy?) seems denied to it.

It cannot be denied, however that we live in the age of change. With so many potential dollars riding on the issue, it would not surprise me in the least to find that someone rescues the potential value of digital imagery by some hitherto unknown technical means. Stay tuned.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Photography as an Artform (part 1)


I explore pictures on pbase.com most days. Every time, I find maybe a half dozen images that, by any measure, constitute fine art. I see pictures that stir me, excite me, fill me with hope or despair - make me think, educate me and bring forth fresh spiritual insights. Over the years I have found hundreds of pictures that would not look out of place on the walls of the National Gallery of Australia.

If such pictures, which frequently have something genuinely fresh to say, are not legitimate art, what are they?

Alas, in the main, such images are here today, gone tomorrow, locked away on private hard drives, largely denied to the world. Oh I imagine that certain rights to some of these images are occasionally sold for various commercial purposes but few (if any) receive the final recognition or value that they otherwise might deserve.

Recently I visited the afore-mentioned National Gallery for an exhibition of French Post Impressionist works. There were famous paintings by Monet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, Cezanne, Lautrec and all the usual suspects. I recognised dozens of works which I had seen reproduced countless times in magazines, books, journals, posters etc. There they were, right before me, in all their original greatness - no doubt valued at many millions of dollars and fawned over by crowded galleries of adoring fans.

The thing that puzzled me the most was how little I felt moved by the occasion. Here I was, looking at some of the most famous artworks in the history of western humanity and I was almost .. well ... bored. I hear cries of "Philistine" in the background and perhaps that is exactly what I am - someone unable to appreciate fine art when it is displayed in front of him, but I wonder whether it is just a little too simplistic to divide the world into the artistically enlightened and the vacant eyed swine dimly beholding the strawberries strewn before them.

Why is a great art work "great" in the first place? Is it because it is simply one of the finest manifestations of the human spirit ever conceived or is there more to it than that? When it comes down to the universal measure of great art (i.e. how many dollars are required to purchase it) I would suggest that you can boil the whole thing down to a couple of points. My apologies if I sound a little cynical.

1. Is the artist dead? If so, he/she'll never produce any more. The work is irreplaceable and rare. The market is cornered.
2. Does some respected group of intellects SAY it is great. I want to be associated with the intellects. If they say it's great I am obliged to agree.
3. Does the work represent some breakthough in style? Is it an influential work which led others to copy it? It has historic uniqueness and inherent rarity.
4. How much money did a work by the same artist realise at the last Sothebys auction? If some one just paid $10 million for one, the picture on the wall soars in prestige.

Now before I am bodily exiled upon the barren wastes, let me say that I am not trying to suggest that French Post Impressionists works or those belonging to any OTHER well thought-of artistic movement are fraudulent and without real value. I am simply saying that the DEGREE of their perceived value has been distorted and overblown by factors which have little to do with their intrinsic merit. Artistic works so often become "great" because they achieve fame which feeds on itself, because they receive the high opinion of those "who are supposed to know such things" and because of the high monetary value which the free market chooses to place upon such items.

I stood in the galleries, examining works by some of the relatively less known artists and was able to find pictures that I could not recall having seen before. My mind was therefore uncorrupted by fame, notoriety or winning auction bids. In many cases I was hard pressed to find anything about these works which stirred me, excited me or brought me fresh insights. One of my biblical ancestors may WELL have been killed by David's stone but I could not readily distinguish between the merit of these valued images and the sort of thing I routinely find on pbase.

Why is it unlikely that wonderful digital photographs will ever receive the esteem they may deserve? I shall try to address this question next time.