Photography 3.0
02/05/09 21:34 Filed in: Personal
Around 2003 the notion of Web 2.0 was introduced. It designated a series of new trends around permanent connectivity where individuals and information can be accessible everywhere and at any time. Wi-Fi at every location, iPhones and Blackberries, hotspots, web 2.0 applications in mobile phones. With Facebook and Youtube and FlickR you can share images (still and video) in real time every moment of the day and where ever you are. Collective intelligence and continuous partial attention became the norm. People spent less time focusing on a single act or person, but were constantly scanning all gadgets and information channels (email, phones, twitter) in fear of missing anything.
The fact that persons want to be engaged simultaneously in many information channels and can record and share every aspect of their own lives asks for multi-purpose and multi-function tools. The mobile phone is a good example: it functions as a phone, an email client, a camera, a video, an internet browser, even as a simple computer, a navigation tool you: name it.
The era of single purpose devices or tools is ending: a car is no longer a vehicle for transporting people, but a life style experience in movement, more like a mobile home or office or preferably both.
Cameras are following the same trends. To fit into the culture of permanent communication and sharing of images and experiences at all times, they need to shrink in size and offer all kinds of functions that span the whole gamut of visual communication options.
Camera-phones and compact cameras are selling by tens of millions and the newest generation of cameras offer still photography and video recording at a high level of quality. The new Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 point In this direction but are still too big and clumsy to be all time companions. No one now wants to hang a camera around the neck as it will hamper social activities. The whole concept of dedicating time to a single activity like taking pictures in the classical tradition of photography is becoming obsolete. The new Lumix GH1 is pointing in the right direction. It is easy to use, very compact, can create all kinds of images (still and moving), has sound recording and so on. It also delivers good quality imagery.
The trend then favors ever more compact cameras with an ever widening range of features for all kinds of images that can be shared real time to everybody without the need for post processing outside the camera.
Current DSLRs have in fact not changed in shape and functions since 1985. The Canon 1D and the Nikon D3 share most features and body shape with the classical film loading auto-all camera. like the Canon EOS 1 and the Nikon F5. In fact all DSLRs (like Pentax, Sony, Canon, Nikon) have functions and body shapes that are now at least thirty years old. Medium format cameras are no different: a digital Hasselblad is almost identical to an antique film loading Hasselblad in every respect except the technology of image capture.
This type of cameras is functionally at the end of the life cycle. A bigger sensor and even higher pixel density and more speed are possible, but will not enhance the inherent capabilities of these cameras. Evolutionary they are dinosaurs: they will presumably not disappear: their habitat is shielding them from extinction, but they are stuck in a dead corner of the photographic universe.
The changing environment of photography 3.0 (as noted at the beginning of this article) will favor new species like the Lumix GH1 and others. Photography will change too, but that is the basic idea of evolution.
Presumably we will see a Nikon D4 and even D5 and a Canon 1D MK IV and maybe a 0D, but the hegemony of the single lens reflex in its current state of the art is over.
One might object to this analysis by referring to the current group of professionals, all using the heavy and big DSLRs and the digital backs.
Remember then that the evolution of photography has always been initiated by innovations in amateur cameras. The original Leica was laughed at by professionals as a toy because of its small negatives, the Konica Autoreflex, the first with autoexposure was ridiculed by the professionals, the AF modules, like the Visitronic were dismissed as unprofessional. Even the first digital systems by Sony were not appreciated as a serious tools for the professional photographer.
On average it takes ten years for the professional to adapt to the trends in the consumer domain.
Let us wait and see with what cameras the professional is taking pictures in 2020!
The fact that persons want to be engaged simultaneously in many information channels and can record and share every aspect of their own lives asks for multi-purpose and multi-function tools. The mobile phone is a good example: it functions as a phone, an email client, a camera, a video, an internet browser, even as a simple computer, a navigation tool you: name it.
The era of single purpose devices or tools is ending: a car is no longer a vehicle for transporting people, but a life style experience in movement, more like a mobile home or office or preferably both.
Cameras are following the same trends. To fit into the culture of permanent communication and sharing of images and experiences at all times, they need to shrink in size and offer all kinds of functions that span the whole gamut of visual communication options.
Camera-phones and compact cameras are selling by tens of millions and the newest generation of cameras offer still photography and video recording at a high level of quality. The new Canon 500D and Nikon D5000 point In this direction but are still too big and clumsy to be all time companions. No one now wants to hang a camera around the neck as it will hamper social activities. The whole concept of dedicating time to a single activity like taking pictures in the classical tradition of photography is becoming obsolete. The new Lumix GH1 is pointing in the right direction. It is easy to use, very compact, can create all kinds of images (still and moving), has sound recording and so on. It also delivers good quality imagery.
The trend then favors ever more compact cameras with an ever widening range of features for all kinds of images that can be shared real time to everybody without the need for post processing outside the camera.
Current DSLRs have in fact not changed in shape and functions since 1985. The Canon 1D and the Nikon D3 share most features and body shape with the classical film loading auto-all camera. like the Canon EOS 1 and the Nikon F5. In fact all DSLRs (like Pentax, Sony, Canon, Nikon) have functions and body shapes that are now at least thirty years old. Medium format cameras are no different: a digital Hasselblad is almost identical to an antique film loading Hasselblad in every respect except the technology of image capture.
This type of cameras is functionally at the end of the life cycle. A bigger sensor and even higher pixel density and more speed are possible, but will not enhance the inherent capabilities of these cameras. Evolutionary they are dinosaurs: they will presumably not disappear: their habitat is shielding them from extinction, but they are stuck in a dead corner of the photographic universe.
The changing environment of photography 3.0 (as noted at the beginning of this article) will favor new species like the Lumix GH1 and others. Photography will change too, but that is the basic idea of evolution.
Presumably we will see a Nikon D4 and even D5 and a Canon 1D MK IV and maybe a 0D, but the hegemony of the single lens reflex in its current state of the art is over.
One might object to this analysis by referring to the current group of professionals, all using the heavy and big DSLRs and the digital backs.
Remember then that the evolution of photography has always been initiated by innovations in amateur cameras. The original Leica was laughed at by professionals as a toy because of its small negatives, the Konica Autoreflex, the first with autoexposure was ridiculed by the professionals, the AF modules, like the Visitronic were dismissed as unprofessional. Even the first digital systems by Sony were not appreciated as a serious tools for the professional photographer.
On average it takes ten years for the professional to adapt to the trends in the consumer domain.
Let us wait and see with what cameras the professional is taking pictures in 2020!
|
Lists galore
24/04/09 21:15
It is impossible to miss the existence of lists: top ten fashion models, top twenty mistakes, top hundred movies, top ten cameras, you think of any object and there is certainly a list that refers to this product.
Almost every list is based on the personal views of the list designers. As valuable as this may be, here is a certain element of whimsicality about these lists. It would be more interesting to find a more objective benchmark. let us try this one: the Zeitgeist.
A good question might be to ask what product does represent best the Zeitgeist of the period. The answers would make a really interesting list of some historical importance.
Let me stick out my neck.
The Leica III series is the first camera that represents the Zeitgeist: not only HCB used one, it was the preferred camera for artists in the thirties when Bauhaus formalism met French surrealism. The Leica III was the best tool for the representation of these artistic goals.
The Leica M3 would be my second entry: it did represent the best tool for documentary photography and reportage photography.
The Nikon F would be next one: it is the icon for the fashion photography of the sixties and the reportage photography in Vietnam.
The next one would be the Canon EOS 3, the camera that initiated the transition from mechanical to pre-digital: specs of the camera became more important that the result: the dawn of the electronics dominance in photography.
The current camera would be the NIkon D5000: this is the camera that defines current trends in photography or what is left of the art and science of photography.
Almost every list is based on the personal views of the list designers. As valuable as this may be, here is a certain element of whimsicality about these lists. It would be more interesting to find a more objective benchmark. let us try this one: the Zeitgeist.
A good question might be to ask what product does represent best the Zeitgeist of the period. The answers would make a really interesting list of some historical importance.
Let me stick out my neck.
The Leica III series is the first camera that represents the Zeitgeist: not only HCB used one, it was the preferred camera for artists in the thirties when Bauhaus formalism met French surrealism. The Leica III was the best tool for the representation of these artistic goals.
The Leica M3 would be my second entry: it did represent the best tool for documentary photography and reportage photography.
The Nikon F would be next one: it is the icon for the fashion photography of the sixties and the reportage photography in Vietnam.
The next one would be the Canon EOS 3, the camera that initiated the transition from mechanical to pre-digital: specs of the camera became more important that the result: the dawn of the electronics dominance in photography.
The current camera would be the NIkon D5000: this is the camera that defines current trends in photography or what is left of the art and science of photography.
Progress
20/04/09 21:48
This weekend I finished testing the new NX 50 ASPH. This is a lens that needs some reflection to be put in the right perspective.
In a totally different domain, I also finalised my tests of the Prescytol EF. I used the recommended partial stand agitation and the results look extremely good. The flyer of the Photographers Formulary inc. is extremely positive, but I have a few reservations here. No doubt that this developer is an important addition to the chemical darkroom. I am standardising on TMax 100, this film I know very well.
And I have a long history of comparative data with this film.
Stand development is a technique with strong adherents and equally strong disbelievers. In the BJP an article appeared long ago where Rodinal in 1:300 and stand development was promoted as the best for Technical Pan. Jukka Vatanen has a site devoted to this kind of development. Worth a look and a consideration.
Bad news is that my professional shop (one of the biggest in Amsterdam) has now stopped selling film because of low demand. Professionals do not use film anymore. Artists may continue to use it. And some die-hards like myself.
I put the Tmax film in my MP with Summilux-M 1.4/50 ASPH. To get to the essence of photography this combo is superb.
Development with the Heiland TAS developer is a piece of cake: within half an hour I have four films on the drying rack. Less pictures (you are restricted to 36 negatives per film) might be helpful in producing better pictures. Uncle Anselm (as Mike Johhston refers to him) is right!
In the digital realm I am overwhelmed with inkjet baryta papers: Epson, Hahnemeuhle. Innova, Ilford, you name it and they have baryta papers.
Baryta in the chemical darkroom implied superior shadow reproduction, but is it very difficult to get fine separations in the zones 1 to 3 in the digital printing.
Sometimes you wonder why everybody so speedily discarded the chemical darkroom.
There is not that much difference in darkroom expertise and Raw development expertise. I am not claiming that one needs 10.000 hours to become a master in whatever craft you wish to embark upon. But I am surprised about the short time period that some reviewers deem enough to dare to conclude their studies and state results. In the past products were on the market for decades and one could spend years to get acquainted with a combination of products. Now the life span is a few months and within this short timeframe one has to make a statement.
I really doubt whether one can a good insight in a product in the short time available.
The beauty of the chemical darkroom is the slow speed of introduction of new products and the longer time frame one gets to study the characteristics.
I have always the feeling that I have too less time to get to the true soul of a product.
Even a film like TMax 100 has still secrets fro me.
In a totally different domain, I also finalised my tests of the Prescytol EF. I used the recommended partial stand agitation and the results look extremely good. The flyer of the Photographers Formulary inc. is extremely positive, but I have a few reservations here. No doubt that this developer is an important addition to the chemical darkroom. I am standardising on TMax 100, this film I know very well.
And I have a long history of comparative data with this film.
Stand development is a technique with strong adherents and equally strong disbelievers. In the BJP an article appeared long ago where Rodinal in 1:300 and stand development was promoted as the best for Technical Pan. Jukka Vatanen has a site devoted to this kind of development. Worth a look and a consideration.
Bad news is that my professional shop (one of the biggest in Amsterdam) has now stopped selling film because of low demand. Professionals do not use film anymore. Artists may continue to use it. And some die-hards like myself.
I put the Tmax film in my MP with Summilux-M 1.4/50 ASPH. To get to the essence of photography this combo is superb.
Development with the Heiland TAS developer is a piece of cake: within half an hour I have four films on the drying rack. Less pictures (you are restricted to 36 negatives per film) might be helpful in producing better pictures. Uncle Anselm (as Mike Johhston refers to him) is right!
In the digital realm I am overwhelmed with inkjet baryta papers: Epson, Hahnemeuhle. Innova, Ilford, you name it and they have baryta papers.
Baryta in the chemical darkroom implied superior shadow reproduction, but is it very difficult to get fine separations in the zones 1 to 3 in the digital printing.
Sometimes you wonder why everybody so speedily discarded the chemical darkroom.
There is not that much difference in darkroom expertise and Raw development expertise. I am not claiming that one needs 10.000 hours to become a master in whatever craft you wish to embark upon. But I am surprised about the short time period that some reviewers deem enough to dare to conclude their studies and state results. In the past products were on the market for decades and one could spend years to get acquainted with a combination of products. Now the life span is a few months and within this short timeframe one has to make a statement.
I really doubt whether one can a good insight in a product in the short time available.
The beauty of the chemical darkroom is the slow speed of introduction of new products and the longer time frame one gets to study the characteristics.
I have always the feeling that I have too less time to get to the true soul of a product.
Even a film like TMax 100 has still secrets fro me.
Newspeak?
20/04/09 21:10 Filed in: Personal
The Coupled Ramgefinder Camera is becoing a rare beast. Only the Leica M and the Zeiss Ikon ZM are regularly available. The Epson RD-1 in some version might be or might be not in production. Anyway you need not all fingers of one hand to count the CRF cameras. The ZM is a beautiful design, but flawed in its execution and production. Mike Johnston seems to love it (the ZM is the only filmloading camera on his top ten camera list), but presumably because he now dislikes the Leica culture. As an eloquent wordsmith Mike has hardly a peer and he knows how to convey the message.
One would expect that the Leica company should use as much knowledge and eloquence to promote their core products and the M certainly is at the core of the product scuderia of the Leica company. A long time ago, Japanese designer of the Canon RF camera hoped to once have as much wisdom about photography as was available to the Leitz designers.
The CRF is being in danger of being squeezed between EVIL and DSLR and there is really a need to set the record straight and show what the virtues and advantages are of the M line and its range of lenses.
The obvious place to look at is the Leica internet site. This is the window of Leica to the world and it is also the showcase of Leica how they see their own products and what they want to say to the world and persuade persons to buy into their culture and philosophy.
If Leica does not know how to express the advantages of the Leica M system, who else would do it?
On the Leica website there is a listing of the M lenses and a short comment about every lens. This should tell you what a lens does and what are the advantages in using one. I came across this jewel of incomprehension: it is about the Summarit 2.5/75mm.
Performance giving a new level of flexibility? Concentration on essential elements is an alternative for more serious photographers? A useful lens speed that opens up composition options?
In what world I am? You do not have to keep up with the Jones of this age, but Leica would be well advised to take a look at sites of the main camera companies to understand that their website is putting off prospective users in stead of attracting users.
The website is the front door and the signpost to the culture that the company wants to express.
The previous website was not good, but the current one is awful. And many users will associate the quality and content of the website with the quality of the products.
For a company that designs and manufactures the best 35mm lenses in the world, the description of the lenses on the website is a catastrophe.
One would expect that the Leica company should use as much knowledge and eloquence to promote their core products and the M certainly is at the core of the product scuderia of the Leica company. A long time ago, Japanese designer of the Canon RF camera hoped to once have as much wisdom about photography as was available to the Leitz designers.
The CRF is being in danger of being squeezed between EVIL and DSLR and there is really a need to set the record straight and show what the virtues and advantages are of the M line and its range of lenses.
The obvious place to look at is the Leica internet site. This is the window of Leica to the world and it is also the showcase of Leica how they see their own products and what they want to say to the world and persuade persons to buy into their culture and philosophy.
If Leica does not know how to express the advantages of the Leica M system, who else would do it?
On the Leica website there is a listing of the M lenses and a short comment about every lens. This should tell you what a lens does and what are the advantages in using one. I came across this jewel of incomprehension: it is about the Summarit 2.5/75mm.
The LEICA SUMMARIT-M 1:2.5/75 mm is a new "short telephoto" lens that is significantly smaller and lighter than Summicron lenses with the same focal length, but still offers the image quality that is the hallmark of Leica M lenses. Combined with the 35 mm Summarit-M, it makes up an ideal shooting outfit with a useful lens speed that opens up fascinating composition options for Leica M photographers.The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use. Its exceptionally compact design and performance bring a new level of flexibility to rangefinder photography. Our concentration on the essential elements, including the features, is now an alternative for more serious photographers. All new Summarit-M lenses are supplied with metal covers and velour pouches, while high quality lens hoods are available as accessories.
Performance giving a new level of flexibility? Concentration on essential elements is an alternative for more serious photographers? A useful lens speed that opens up composition options?
In what world I am? You do not have to keep up with the Jones of this age, but Leica would be well advised to take a look at sites of the main camera companies to understand that their website is putting off prospective users in stead of attracting users.
The website is the front door and the signpost to the culture that the company wants to express.
The previous website was not good, but the current one is awful. And many users will associate the quality and content of the website with the quality of the products.
For a company that designs and manufactures the best 35mm lenses in the world, the description of the lenses on the website is a catastrophe.
Want it!?
05/04/09 20:34 Filed in: Personal
The standard response to a new product has been: I want it!. Be it a Canon 5D II, a Canon 1 Ds Mk III, a Nikon D3X or D700 or D3 or you name it: as soon as the specs are out, the blogoshere and the interactive forums (or should it be fora?) start buzzing with expressions of buying lust. And the companies are feeding this lust by introducing every six months new products with more features. It does not matter that most of these features offer no added value for most photographic goals. The introduction of Live View and HD Movie capability might be interpreted as turning points in the culture and state of modern photography, They are not indispensable as are most of the more than 60 separate features that are now standard on most cameras. Do we need sixty features to master?
When using the new DSX film/developer combination I only needed a handful of parameters to master and could use equipment that in some cases is more than 20 years old. It functions optimally and I can use these new films in my fifty years old M3. Put a new lens in front of the M3, load it with modern film and you can get state of the art imagery, better than what you get with a costly DSLR that is obsolete in two years time.
I do want to give the impression that old is better, but I would ask for some reflections on the unrestrained buying pattern that has emerged in the last decade.
It is evident that the current crisis will fundamentally alter the way consumers will shop and look at new products. Saving more, buying less and even try to limit your spending habit to what you really need will be tomorrows pattern. Less reliance on brand names and more value for money would be another trend for the near future.
Leica made an interesting statement some time ago, when they noted that an investment in the M8 would be a long term affair. The camera was modular in its software and components and both could be gradually upgraded to stay in tune with current developments.
The introduction of the M8.2 and the possibility of replacing many parts of the M8 to get an M8.1 or even an M8.15 put this philosophy into practice. At least so it seems. But in fact the company created a state of confusion, by simultaneously dropping the price of the M8, and adding a hefty price tag for the replacements, but later reduced the prices to a more manageable level.
What could have been a forward looking and innovative concept, became a matter of confusion.
The matter is indeed complicated and a clear strategy is difficult to create and implement.
In the film-loading past. Leica could sell the same bodies over a longer period of time, leaving it to emulsion makers to improve the quality of the capture technology and selling lenses to an expanding group of users. The bodies kept their value and could be used for decades.
Now in the digital age, you cannot rely on a strategy to design and manufacture a camera body for a decade and just add new lenses to expand the market. Most buyers know that a product will be upgraded and become cheaper over a short period of time. At least this is the common knowledge.
In the new culture of restrained consumerism and less buying power, this philosophy may be loosing its appeal.
I am very happy with the performance of the TMax 100 film now on the market for two decades. And I am sure I will be satisfied with this performance for the next ten years. The same is true for the M8 sensor. The seven micron pixel size and the ten million pixels produce beautiful imagery and will do so over the next ten years.
We can be certain that in 2019 the world of digital capture will be totally different form today and presumably we have sensors that can handle 30+ million pixels and we have software that can manipulate these pixels with ease. But The M8 will still deliver the same performance as today and that will be enough. Just as Tri-X film was good thirty years ago and is good now.
Perhaps it is time to change the rule that more is better with the rule that enough is enough. Perhaps we change focus from specifications to meaningful results.
The car industry is showing the way by in fact introducing smaller cars that are more fuel efficient, and where the focus on performance has been redirected to lifestyle, culture and design.
Aa another example we may refer to the upcoming new version of the Operating System of the Mac computer: not more performance and more features, but more user convenience and more reliability.
Would it be a pipe dream to have a Leica M that is totally reliable under all conditions and over a life time, that is a marvel of user oriented functional design, and is so expert in its operation that you can connect it directly to the printer and get the results you had imagined during that elusive decisive moment of pressing the shutter release.
With the M5, Leica tried to break out of the mould in which the M development had been pressed for decades. That was a very brave act. The fact that it did not work, should not be the argument not to try it again.
When using the new DSX film/developer combination I only needed a handful of parameters to master and could use equipment that in some cases is more than 20 years old. It functions optimally and I can use these new films in my fifty years old M3. Put a new lens in front of the M3, load it with modern film and you can get state of the art imagery, better than what you get with a costly DSLR that is obsolete in two years time.
I do want to give the impression that old is better, but I would ask for some reflections on the unrestrained buying pattern that has emerged in the last decade.
It is evident that the current crisis will fundamentally alter the way consumers will shop and look at new products. Saving more, buying less and even try to limit your spending habit to what you really need will be tomorrows pattern. Less reliance on brand names and more value for money would be another trend for the near future.
Leica made an interesting statement some time ago, when they noted that an investment in the M8 would be a long term affair. The camera was modular in its software and components and both could be gradually upgraded to stay in tune with current developments.
The introduction of the M8.2 and the possibility of replacing many parts of the M8 to get an M8.1 or even an M8.15 put this philosophy into practice. At least so it seems. But in fact the company created a state of confusion, by simultaneously dropping the price of the M8, and adding a hefty price tag for the replacements, but later reduced the prices to a more manageable level.
What could have been a forward looking and innovative concept, became a matter of confusion.
The matter is indeed complicated and a clear strategy is difficult to create and implement.
In the film-loading past. Leica could sell the same bodies over a longer period of time, leaving it to emulsion makers to improve the quality of the capture technology and selling lenses to an expanding group of users. The bodies kept their value and could be used for decades.
Now in the digital age, you cannot rely on a strategy to design and manufacture a camera body for a decade and just add new lenses to expand the market. Most buyers know that a product will be upgraded and become cheaper over a short period of time. At least this is the common knowledge.
In the new culture of restrained consumerism and less buying power, this philosophy may be loosing its appeal.
I am very happy with the performance of the TMax 100 film now on the market for two decades. And I am sure I will be satisfied with this performance for the next ten years. The same is true for the M8 sensor. The seven micron pixel size and the ten million pixels produce beautiful imagery and will do so over the next ten years.
We can be certain that in 2019 the world of digital capture will be totally different form today and presumably we have sensors that can handle 30+ million pixels and we have software that can manipulate these pixels with ease. But The M8 will still deliver the same performance as today and that will be enough. Just as Tri-X film was good thirty years ago and is good now.
Perhaps it is time to change the rule that more is better with the rule that enough is enough. Perhaps we change focus from specifications to meaningful results.
The car industry is showing the way by in fact introducing smaller cars that are more fuel efficient, and where the focus on performance has been redirected to lifestyle, culture and design.
Aa another example we may refer to the upcoming new version of the Operating System of the Mac computer: not more performance and more features, but more user convenience and more reliability.
Would it be a pipe dream to have a Leica M that is totally reliable under all conditions and over a life time, that is a marvel of user oriented functional design, and is so expert in its operation that you can connect it directly to the printer and get the results you had imagined during that elusive decisive moment of pressing the shutter release.
With the M5, Leica tried to break out of the mould in which the M development had been pressed for decades. That was a very brave act. The fact that it did not work, should not be the argument not to try it again.
A new definition for photography
23/03/09 22:08 Filed in: photographic culture
A new proposal for the definition of photography
The new e-book readers, like the Kindle, will for the first time in history, separate the reading experience from the printed page. In the past, reading was directly coupled to the availability of the printed pages and the printed book. From now on, reading a text can be done from a screen where the text is digitally projected on a screen.
Books will loose part of their use, but will continue to be printed as objects of design and art. Reading a text can be done more easily with an e-book reader, but the physical pleasure of leafing through a well printed book will be lost.
When discussing photography, classical or actual, digitally captured or chemically preserved, the focus has always been on the technique of capturing and the available instruments. Perhaps it makes sense to change the focus: a painting is only then a true painting when there is a canvas and a brush and paint. It does not matter who or what operates the brush: a human or a robot. The final result is a physical object: a canvas covered with paint that is deposited on the surface by a brush.
The inventors of photography were focused on the final result, the print or the Daguerrotype. A negative was just an intermediate step to get the final result. As Ansel Adams noted, the negative is the base, but the print is what counts.
But there was more: the technical base of photography was the proportional response of chemical matter to the intensity of light. And the whole process of development and printing was focused on preserving tonal values and tonal range.
The negative was not always perfect and some changes in tonality were accepted: dodging and burning, matching the characteristic curve of the negative to the gradient of the print emulsion. The whole process of photography was dedicated to get a range of tonal values into the physical print that resembled to a large degree the tonal distribution of the original scene.
In fact the only changes allowed (or possible) in the chemical process were changes in tonal value and range/contrast.
Let us now try to define the true photographic process: the process reproduces the tonal values and range of the recorded scene/subject and produces a physical print with a comparable range and factual distribution of tonal values as are seen in the original scene. The claim that the distribution of tonal values in the print should be identical to the original distribution in the scene rules out any manipulation of the image other that a change in tonal values.
This definition is independent from the technical process: a digital camera and a digital print do qualify as a true photograph if the restriction to tonal changes is accepted and the final result is a physical print that cannot be manipulated.
To be concrete: A picture with an M8 and developed with a certain program and printed with the Epson 3800 on Hahnemühle baryta paper is equal to a picture by an M7 loaded with TMax100 and printed on Ilford baryta paper with the Heiland Splitgrade system.
In both cases there is a very restricted range of changes in tonal values and tonal range/contrast.
In the digital procedure we must be sure that the program only allows tonality changes and contrast changes based on matching characteristic curves and that the final result is a physical print. programs like RAW Developer in the Apple environment and Capture One would qualify as ‘chemical’ developers as they only offer a restricted range of manipulations closely related to the traditional darkroom process. And we must ensure that the in-camera processing is limited to tonal preservation. The Leica M8 in Raw modus would qualify, the Olympus E-30 would not, nor the Canon 5 D II: their software is too sophisticated!
A true photograph then is a physical print where the tonal values and contrast range are recorded as available in the scene and the subsequent processing is restricted to dodging, burning, toning and curve matching between negative and positive.
What we need in the digital realm are post processing programs with less options and manipulative capabilities than are offered currently by Photoshop and clones.
In the past this approach of direct recording and un-manipulated representing of the scene was referred to as straight photography. We could re-invent this approach and define true photography in this philosophy. Any departure would be called image manipulation or digital photography.
The new e-book readers, like the Kindle, will for the first time in history, separate the reading experience from the printed page. In the past, reading was directly coupled to the availability of the printed pages and the printed book. From now on, reading a text can be done from a screen where the text is digitally projected on a screen.
Books will loose part of their use, but will continue to be printed as objects of design and art. Reading a text can be done more easily with an e-book reader, but the physical pleasure of leafing through a well printed book will be lost.
When discussing photography, classical or actual, digitally captured or chemically preserved, the focus has always been on the technique of capturing and the available instruments. Perhaps it makes sense to change the focus: a painting is only then a true painting when there is a canvas and a brush and paint. It does not matter who or what operates the brush: a human or a robot. The final result is a physical object: a canvas covered with paint that is deposited on the surface by a brush.
The inventors of photography were focused on the final result, the print or the Daguerrotype. A negative was just an intermediate step to get the final result. As Ansel Adams noted, the negative is the base, but the print is what counts.
But there was more: the technical base of photography was the proportional response of chemical matter to the intensity of light. And the whole process of development and printing was focused on preserving tonal values and tonal range.
The negative was not always perfect and some changes in tonality were accepted: dodging and burning, matching the characteristic curve of the negative to the gradient of the print emulsion. The whole process of photography was dedicated to get a range of tonal values into the physical print that resembled to a large degree the tonal distribution of the original scene.
In fact the only changes allowed (or possible) in the chemical process were changes in tonal value and range/contrast.
Let us now try to define the true photographic process: the process reproduces the tonal values and range of the recorded scene/subject and produces a physical print with a comparable range and factual distribution of tonal values as are seen in the original scene. The claim that the distribution of tonal values in the print should be identical to the original distribution in the scene rules out any manipulation of the image other that a change in tonal values.
This definition is independent from the technical process: a digital camera and a digital print do qualify as a true photograph if the restriction to tonal changes is accepted and the final result is a physical print that cannot be manipulated.
To be concrete: A picture with an M8 and developed with a certain program and printed with the Epson 3800 on Hahnemühle baryta paper is equal to a picture by an M7 loaded with TMax100 and printed on Ilford baryta paper with the Heiland Splitgrade system.
In both cases there is a very restricted range of changes in tonal values and tonal range/contrast.
In the digital procedure we must be sure that the program only allows tonality changes and contrast changes based on matching characteristic curves and that the final result is a physical print. programs like RAW Developer in the Apple environment and Capture One would qualify as ‘chemical’ developers as they only offer a restricted range of manipulations closely related to the traditional darkroom process. And we must ensure that the in-camera processing is limited to tonal preservation. The Leica M8 in Raw modus would qualify, the Olympus E-30 would not, nor the Canon 5 D II: their software is too sophisticated!
A true photograph then is a physical print where the tonal values and contrast range are recorded as available in the scene and the subsequent processing is restricted to dodging, burning, toning and curve matching between negative and positive.
What we need in the digital realm are post processing programs with less options and manipulative capabilities than are offered currently by Photoshop and clones.
In the past this approach of direct recording and un-manipulated representing of the scene was referred to as straight photography. We could re-invent this approach and define true photography in this philosophy. Any departure would be called image manipulation or digital photography.
The great disruption
08/03/09 17:44 Filed in: Personal
2008 is a true watershed year. The economy came to a halt and money disappeared in unbelievable amounts. Most experts assure us that this is a temporary disruption in our never-ending quest for more products, more change, more growth. They are wrong. We will have to settle for a lower level of prosperity and our habit of throwing away any product we do not want and buy a new one is definitely over.
If you look at the current explosion of digital cameras that are now on sale and the incessant mantra of magazines and web discussion groups for even more features and more power and more sensor sizes and amounts of pixels that demand more powerful computers with more potent programs and larger printers, we have to ask ourselves: is this the way to create great photography and preserve the wealth of nature? Do we really have to buy a new camera every two years?
In the golden era of mechanical cameras, you bought the camera you wanted and needed and used the camera for a decade or even longer. Some world famous photographers used their camera for twenty and more years. When the camera broke, they did something extremely unusual these days: they had it repaired!
The growth model we have developed in the last twenty years is unsustainable and the consumer attitudes that we had to adopt to accommodate ourselves to this culture are a thing of the past.
Perhaps we hold on to our Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mr II and Canon G10 and Leica M8 for a longer period, stop with photoshopping our image files, print on A4 as a maximum size and even, my goodness, pick up our M7 and M6 and start using film in stead of buying more new cameras.
I am certainly not pleading for a buyer strike. In the old days, you bought an M3 or a Nikon F or Canon F1 for a lifetime of use, not for two years because then a new model will be announced and that is of course must be bought too.
I am pleading for a sensible approach of product selection: buy whet you really need for the foreseeable future and stick with this.Such an attitude will imply that less products are being sold and prices will go up.
In reality we have no choice: we cannot continue to act as if growth is the only option in life.
Perhaps we need to rediscover the art of balance and relaxation.
If you look at the current explosion of digital cameras that are now on sale and the incessant mantra of magazines and web discussion groups for even more features and more power and more sensor sizes and amounts of pixels that demand more powerful computers with more potent programs and larger printers, we have to ask ourselves: is this the way to create great photography and preserve the wealth of nature? Do we really have to buy a new camera every two years?
In the golden era of mechanical cameras, you bought the camera you wanted and needed and used the camera for a decade or even longer. Some world famous photographers used their camera for twenty and more years. When the camera broke, they did something extremely unusual these days: they had it repaired!
The growth model we have developed in the last twenty years is unsustainable and the consumer attitudes that we had to adopt to accommodate ourselves to this culture are a thing of the past.
Perhaps we hold on to our Nikon D3x and Canon 5D Mr II and Canon G10 and Leica M8 for a longer period, stop with photoshopping our image files, print on A4 as a maximum size and even, my goodness, pick up our M7 and M6 and start using film in stead of buying more new cameras.
I am certainly not pleading for a buyer strike. In the old days, you bought an M3 or a Nikon F or Canon F1 for a lifetime of use, not for two years because then a new model will be announced and that is of course must be bought too.
I am pleading for a sensible approach of product selection: buy whet you really need for the foreseeable future and stick with this.Such an attitude will imply that less products are being sold and prices will go up.
In reality we have no choice: we cannot continue to act as if growth is the only option in life.
Perhaps we need to rediscover the art of balance and relaxation.
New challenges
07/03/09 19:56 Filed in: Personal
The current crisis, financial, economic and personal, will affect our lives for the next five years and it will take at least a decade before the world will be in a state of progress again. And we should settle for a lower level of prosperity than we are accustomed to. For many years we believed with the bankers of this world that we could generate something out of nothing. It is now clear that we cannot! European car manufactures can produce 18 million cars, but there is a market for 12 million. Which company will reduce its production? Saab seems sure to fail, as will many others. It is predicted that only four truck manufacturers will survive this crisis.
Basically we should applaud the current mess. A few steps back in demand and expectations will help the world as a whole to find a new road to harmony and humanity.
Rollei closed doors recently and I am sure more photographic companies will have to shut down. Pentax is an obvious candidate,and even Olympus is not immune.
In the car industry we see a major restructuring in the direction of small cars, electrical engines, and large scale capacity.
In the photographic industry we can discern the same trend: only a very large volume of products can offset the massive investments needed to keep up with the competition.
Saab is a good example: it sells only a 100.000 cars a year and has two product lines. Investment for a new model cannot be generated from the sales of the company and with two products the number of consumers that feel attracted to the marque is too small. The marque has cult status, but in todays world that is not enough to survive.
Leica is more like Saab and not like Volkswagen with millions of cars sold and a product range from Fox to Bentley and from sportscar Porsche to truck Scania and MAN. Can Leica survive?
There is a significant shift from the Leica core values to current photographic values.
Leica equals optical excellence, but this value has no longer a premium tag as software compensates increasingly and effectively the optical defects.
Leica equals mechanical excellence, but in modern manufacture precision is replaced by statistical analysis of distribution of defects.Automated machines can do better than humans but need vast sums of money.
Leica equals simplicity and a reduction of choices, but modern trends favor a multitude of options and choices.
Leica is a low volume high quality long product cycle manufacturer, but the future is for high volume high quality producers with short product cycles.
The new CEO of Leica, Rudolf Spiller worked for a long period for Zeiss in its photogrammetry and areal reconnaissance division. The business model for these products is different from the presumably very harsh competition in the digital photographic world in the near future. For the moment Leica is a most difficult position as the recent financial figures do indicate:
The Leica branded Panasonic products do not attract enough customers who want to pay a hefty price tag for a minimum of advantages.
The S2 camera is for Leica more an Formula 1 exercise (a Leistungs träger) and will presumably generate more excitement than profits.
The M community waits for the M9 and when this will be announced it will generate a disproportionate amount of interest and discussions, but will not send the buyers in droves to the shop. Stripped from emotion and nostalgia, it is and will be a niche product. I will buy the M9 as a blind date, but I am an aberration I have to confess.
The main focus of current and future buyers in the high-end photographic market is fixed on only one thing: a dslr with a 35mm sized sensor and lots of features and a huge system of lenses and accessories. This is the terrain where the announced R10 will have to do battle. If the Leica company wants to survive, the R10 will be the lifeline. That puts a lot of pressure on the design team.
If the R10 is just a product comparable to the main dslr competition, it will loose on momentum if not on excellence. The Sony 900 will not succeed versus the Nikon D3x and the Canon models.
If the R10 is just different, it will share the fate of the R8/9, a product that was just different but lacked charisma.
It is not enough to have a very well designed product with a brilliant concept like the Olympus E1 and E3: this is not what the buyers want!
Leica has not the best track record for fathoming the deep wishes of its customers. The new SX and Nx lenses for the M are admirable products, but we may legitimately ask if this is what the mainstream M user is looking for.
Challenging times indeed for the mew CEO.
Basically we should applaud the current mess. A few steps back in demand and expectations will help the world as a whole to find a new road to harmony and humanity.
Rollei closed doors recently and I am sure more photographic companies will have to shut down. Pentax is an obvious candidate,and even Olympus is not immune.
In the car industry we see a major restructuring in the direction of small cars, electrical engines, and large scale capacity.
In the photographic industry we can discern the same trend: only a very large volume of products can offset the massive investments needed to keep up with the competition.
Saab is a good example: it sells only a 100.000 cars a year and has two product lines. Investment for a new model cannot be generated from the sales of the company and with two products the number of consumers that feel attracted to the marque is too small. The marque has cult status, but in todays world that is not enough to survive.
Leica is more like Saab and not like Volkswagen with millions of cars sold and a product range from Fox to Bentley and from sportscar Porsche to truck Scania and MAN. Can Leica survive?
There is a significant shift from the Leica core values to current photographic values.
Leica equals optical excellence, but this value has no longer a premium tag as software compensates increasingly and effectively the optical defects.
Leica equals mechanical excellence, but in modern manufacture precision is replaced by statistical analysis of distribution of defects.Automated machines can do better than humans but need vast sums of money.
Leica equals simplicity and a reduction of choices, but modern trends favor a multitude of options and choices.
Leica is a low volume high quality long product cycle manufacturer, but the future is for high volume high quality producers with short product cycles.
The new CEO of Leica, Rudolf Spiller worked for a long period for Zeiss in its photogrammetry and areal reconnaissance division. The business model for these products is different from the presumably very harsh competition in the digital photographic world in the near future. For the moment Leica is a most difficult position as the recent financial figures do indicate:
The Leica branded Panasonic products do not attract enough customers who want to pay a hefty price tag for a minimum of advantages.
The S2 camera is for Leica more an Formula 1 exercise (a Leistungs träger) and will presumably generate more excitement than profits.
The M community waits for the M9 and when this will be announced it will generate a disproportionate amount of interest and discussions, but will not send the buyers in droves to the shop. Stripped from emotion and nostalgia, it is and will be a niche product. I will buy the M9 as a blind date, but I am an aberration I have to confess.
The main focus of current and future buyers in the high-end photographic market is fixed on only one thing: a dslr with a 35mm sized sensor and lots of features and a huge system of lenses and accessories. This is the terrain where the announced R10 will have to do battle. If the Leica company wants to survive, the R10 will be the lifeline. That puts a lot of pressure on the design team.
If the R10 is just a product comparable to the main dslr competition, it will loose on momentum if not on excellence. The Sony 900 will not succeed versus the Nikon D3x and the Canon models.
If the R10 is just different, it will share the fate of the R8/9, a product that was just different but lacked charisma.
It is not enough to have a very well designed product with a brilliant concept like the Olympus E1 and E3: this is not what the buyers want!
Leica has not the best track record for fathoming the deep wishes of its customers. The new SX and Nx lenses for the M are admirable products, but we may legitimately ask if this is what the mainstream M user is looking for.
Challenging times indeed for the mew CEO.
Pianissimo versus fortissimo
07/03/09 15:03 Filed in: photographic culture
The discussion which medium is best silver halide or silicon) occasionally pops up here and there on the internet and the press.
To give a useable answer to this question one meeds to become pore precise about what is being compared. The lens in a mobile phone has a much higher quality than a lens used on a classical 4x5 inch camera. There is no doubt which imaging chain produces the best result when an A4 print is used as final arbiter.
In most discussions the format that is implicitly targeted is the one used in the camera bodies that have picked up the heritage of the 35mm precision miniature camera. Here we find formats form APS to 135, or roughly from half frame to full frame on 35mm film.
My tests indicate that the best film/developer combinations can deliver resolution values from 100 lp/mm to 150 lp/mm, 60 to 80 being the minimum on average. This value is higher than can be found in current d-slrs where the lowpass filter will cut off all frequencies above 60 to 70 lp/mm.
The superiority of film in the reproduction of fine detail with smooth gradation is still unchallenged.
But to see fine details in subtle undulating luminance differences is not easy and requires patience. It is the same with paintings: you have to look and you have to open your mind to the art work.
Digital signal processing is optimized to enhance the edge gradients in the visually critical 10 to 30 lp/mm. Here the digital camera work flow is at its best and here the eye is easily triggered and biologically adapted to. The sharpness impression of a digitally produced image is much higher than what film can do, unless you are using a large format camera with a direct positive copy.
It is simply fortissimo against pianissimo. Digital is aggressive where film is subtle.
You do not use film because you get better results, whatever 'better' is in this context.
You use film because you like the result and the process and yes, on 35mm format film you can get higher resolution and precise definition of fine detail.
Digital capture gives you the easiest way to get attention with your picture because the mage is made up in such a way that the eye is triggered to give attention without effort.
Digital imagery implies effortless picture taking and effortless viewing.
Film is much more demanding, in taking the picture, making the print and viewing the result.
That is why digital is successful and film is a niche.
To give a useable answer to this question one meeds to become pore precise about what is being compared. The lens in a mobile phone has a much higher quality than a lens used on a classical 4x5 inch camera. There is no doubt which imaging chain produces the best result when an A4 print is used as final arbiter.
In most discussions the format that is implicitly targeted is the one used in the camera bodies that have picked up the heritage of the 35mm precision miniature camera. Here we find formats form APS to 135, or roughly from half frame to full frame on 35mm film.
My tests indicate that the best film/developer combinations can deliver resolution values from 100 lp/mm to 150 lp/mm, 60 to 80 being the minimum on average. This value is higher than can be found in current d-slrs where the lowpass filter will cut off all frequencies above 60 to 70 lp/mm.
The superiority of film in the reproduction of fine detail with smooth gradation is still unchallenged.
But to see fine details in subtle undulating luminance differences is not easy and requires patience. It is the same with paintings: you have to look and you have to open your mind to the art work.
Digital signal processing is optimized to enhance the edge gradients in the visually critical 10 to 30 lp/mm. Here the digital camera work flow is at its best and here the eye is easily triggered and biologically adapted to. The sharpness impression of a digitally produced image is much higher than what film can do, unless you are using a large format camera with a direct positive copy.
It is simply fortissimo against pianissimo. Digital is aggressive where film is subtle.
You do not use film because you get better results, whatever 'better' is in this context.
You use film because you like the result and the process and yes, on 35mm format film you can get higher resolution and precise definition of fine detail.
Digital capture gives you the easiest way to get attention with your picture because the mage is made up in such a way that the eye is triggered to give attention without effort.
Digital imagery implies effortless picture taking and effortless viewing.
Film is much more demanding, in taking the picture, making the print and viewing the result.
That is why digital is successful and film is a niche.
Turntables
25/02/09 22:05
Recently I visited an audio store and was amazed at the number of turntables that were on display. On my question about the demand for classical turntables the shop-owner told me that the demand was quite high and he added that I should buy one too as I would be amazed at the quality of the sound.
I was reminded of this incident now that I am also finishing my tests on the new Schain developers and films. Since I announced the fact that I am busy with tests with chemicals and emulsions I get a lot of emails with proposals to test all kinds of developers. I cannot do this (too less time), but I am amazed about the response on the film tests.
A new developer I will analyze is the Prescysol EF, a tanning developer by the Photographers' Formulary. The description sounds well, but the precautions are intimidating. Let us see what will come out of it. The Heiland developer kit is tuned for the job.
I was reminded of this incident now that I am also finishing my tests on the new Schain developers and films. Since I announced the fact that I am busy with tests with chemicals and emulsions I get a lot of emails with proposals to test all kinds of developers. I cannot do this (too less time), but I am amazed about the response on the film tests.
A new developer I will analyze is the Prescysol EF, a tanning developer by the Photographers' Formulary. The description sounds well, but the precautions are intimidating. Let us see what will come out of it. The Heiland developer kit is tuned for the job.
leica lenses galore
25/02/09 21:34
I am currently completing the report on the new Leica Super-Elmar-M 18mm lens. A quick count will tell you that over a period of just 15 months the Leica optical design team introduced nine new Leica M lenses ( four Summarit, two Summilux, two Elmar and one Noctilux). Most of these new lenses set the standard for the lens type.
In addition a few lenses for the new S-system were announced and are currently in test. And there must be new lenses for the announced R10 in the pipeline.
For a relatively small team as the Leica design team this is a major feat. Remember that in a full year more new M lenses have been announced than in the previous decade. As remarked many of these lenses offer stunning performance. The design of a high quality lens nowadays is no longer the laborious undertaking it was in the past. Still every lens has its own unique fingerprint as the comparison of the SX21 and SX24 show. The computer is not the boss! The designer has the final word and it is his or her insight how to set the parameters of the program and define the merit function for the lens.
The number and quality of the new lenses may be an engineering accomplishment of the highest order, from a commercial view the situation is different. Most lenses are situated in the short focal length class and a certain overcrowding may be visible. If we set the unique TE 16-18-21 out of scope for the moment, the M lens scuderia consists of one 18mm, two 21 mm, three 24 mm, two 28mm, three 35mm, four 50mm, two 75mm, three 90mm and one 135mm. That is twenty-one lenses. A Japanese zoom lens can cover this bandwidth with one single lens. The Leica lens line is very finely tuned to the different tasks that the lenses have to accomplish, but one should realize that the cost od buying a lens is quite high. It is unlikely that you will buy every lens is a certain class of focal length. Buying a SX 24 will imply that you will not buy the Elmar or Elmarit versions. Too many Leica lenses are chasing the same customers.
In addition a few lenses for the new S-system were announced and are currently in test. And there must be new lenses for the announced R10 in the pipeline.
For a relatively small team as the Leica design team this is a major feat. Remember that in a full year more new M lenses have been announced than in the previous decade. As remarked many of these lenses offer stunning performance. The design of a high quality lens nowadays is no longer the laborious undertaking it was in the past. Still every lens has its own unique fingerprint as the comparison of the SX21 and SX24 show. The computer is not the boss! The designer has the final word and it is his or her insight how to set the parameters of the program and define the merit function for the lens.
The number and quality of the new lenses may be an engineering accomplishment of the highest order, from a commercial view the situation is different. Most lenses are situated in the short focal length class and a certain overcrowding may be visible. If we set the unique TE 16-18-21 out of scope for the moment, the M lens scuderia consists of one 18mm, two 21 mm, three 24 mm, two 28mm, three 35mm, four 50mm, two 75mm, three 90mm and one 135mm. That is twenty-one lenses. A Japanese zoom lens can cover this bandwidth with one single lens. The Leica lens line is very finely tuned to the different tasks that the lenses have to accomplish, but one should realize that the cost od buying a lens is quite high. It is unlikely that you will buy every lens is a certain class of focal length. Buying a SX 24 will imply that you will not buy the Elmar or Elmarit versions. Too many Leica lenses are chasing the same customers.
Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135mm
15/02/09 21:49 Filed in: Products
Since the introduction of the M8 and M8.2. Leica discourages the use of the Apo-Telyt-M 1:3.4/135mm. That is a pity. This lens delivers outstandingly good imagery and a very pleasant perspective. The low magnification of the M8 and M8.2 is cited as the reason for not being able to use the 135mm lens. This is true and tests with the Apo-Telyt on the M8 and M8.2 delivered very disappointing results, even when using the 1.25 magnifier. Now I also have the 1.4 magnifier and I put both on the camera. This is possible and then you get a magnification of 1.85. Contrast of the finder patch drops, but is still quite good. Testing the lens now on a Siemens star target delivered very good results wide open at 3.4 up to the Nyquist limit. (65 lp/mm).
There is a caveat however: the infinity setting is often not OK, but for closer distances it may work quite well.
Results may vary with any lens/camera combo, but it is certainly worth trying.
There is a caveat however: the infinity setting is often not OK, but for closer distances it may work quite well.
Results may vary with any lens/camera combo, but it is certainly worth trying.
Progress
15/02/09 19:18 Filed in: photographic culture
The best method to expand your intellectual horizon and to progress in your thinking is to read books and articles that do not support your vested interests and contradict your current thinking and opinions. Most people do not wish to indulge themselves in this exercise and the internet forums are the best example where you can find persons defending their cast-iron views. I did read a very recently published book by Fred Ritchin, After Photography, who claims that the digital revolution in photography can only be appreciated and implemented after abandoning the classical notions of conventional film based photography. This approach is defined as post-photography, in analogy with post-modernism. I did suggest a similar idea a few years ago and was not taken seriously by most photographers who erroneously assume that digital photography is conventional photography with other means in analogy to the famous words by von Clausewitz who noted that politics is a continuation of war by other means.
Conventional (classical) photography is film based photography, like it or not. Recently I visited a well-known Dutch photographer, Rutger ten Broeke who stills works exclusively with film, he has a huge darkroom with 5 enlargers, from small negatives to 8x10 inch. His view is quite sensible. He knows how to work with chemicals, the results are what he expects and what customers want. So why change. His recipe: developer D76 and FOMA printing paper. Compare this with the interminable options that are facing the digital worker. The true craftsman is only interested in the results not in the tools, but tools are needed to create the results. The simpler the tools, the more attention you can give to the result.
My first results with the new Spur DSX32-64 developer and Copex microfilm are very promising. The useable sensitivity of the film is EI 50, where you get excellent densities over a range of ten stops. The curve looks quite normal and brings a good CI value. This is a much improved result compared with previous attempts to introduce the Gevaert Copex film into pictorial photography. I would prefer ISO32 as exposure index, but that is a matter of taste.
Resolution is outstandingly good with 140 lp/mm, twice what you get with the M8 and the current crop of digital top SLR cameras.
A full report is in the making, but the results show that film has a deep potential compared to digital. But you need patience and a sense of craftsmanship to appreciate the results.
Current research shows that people in this period of recession and crisis want a combination of quality and classical values. The Leica film loading cameras are prime examples of this combination and the new DSX technique delivers astonishing good results.If you are interested in classical vales, read Sir Kenneth Clarke's, The Nude, (1956). You will learn more from this book than from attending the internet forums for a year.
Conventional (classical) photography is film based photography, like it or not. Recently I visited a well-known Dutch photographer, Rutger ten Broeke who stills works exclusively with film, he has a huge darkroom with 5 enlargers, from small negatives to 8x10 inch. His view is quite sensible. He knows how to work with chemicals, the results are what he expects and what customers want. So why change. His recipe: developer D76 and FOMA printing paper. Compare this with the interminable options that are facing the digital worker. The true craftsman is only interested in the results not in the tools, but tools are needed to create the results. The simpler the tools, the more attention you can give to the result.
My first results with the new Spur DSX32-64 developer and Copex microfilm are very promising. The useable sensitivity of the film is EI 50, where you get excellent densities over a range of ten stops. The curve looks quite normal and brings a good CI value. This is a much improved result compared with previous attempts to introduce the Gevaert Copex film into pictorial photography. I would prefer ISO32 as exposure index, but that is a matter of taste.
Resolution is outstandingly good with 140 lp/mm, twice what you get with the M8 and the current crop of digital top SLR cameras.
A full report is in the making, but the results show that film has a deep potential compared to digital. But you need patience and a sense of craftsmanship to appreciate the results.
Current research shows that people in this period of recession and crisis want a combination of quality and classical values. The Leica film loading cameras are prime examples of this combination and the new DSX technique delivers astonishing good results.If you are interested in classical vales, read Sir Kenneth Clarke's, The Nude, (1956). You will learn more from this book than from attending the internet forums for a year.
The case of Märklin
05/02/09 09:44 Filed in: photographic culture
The Märklin company is the premium manufacturer of model trains. The company is in this business for 150 years (anniversary this year!).This week it went into liquidation. There is some hope it will be saved by a motivated investor, who knows the business.
Märklin produces extremely high quality products, has a strong brand name, a long history, and is increasingly dependent on a small group of loyal/fanatical collectors/buyers.
The company produces exclusively for the high end market, employs about 1000 persons and has a turnover of Euro 130 million. The company failed to attract new customers with innovative products and a much lower price. A new owner could save the company, not with another injection of money, but with that peculiar attribute of Herzblut (being engaged with heart and soul).
The similarity to the Leica brand name and company is very close. In today's world a long tradition, a fine brand name and a loyal customer base is not enough.
The Harley-Davidson is a company that is in trouble too. HD catered, like Märklin and Leica for the high end market with expensive products, but has difficulty persuading the market to buy the product. Luckely for HD, it is Warren Buffett who thinks that there is a market for such products as he invested a substantial amount of money into the company. WB would not WB unless the deal would be a bargain for him.
A company and its products have to match the Zeitgeist. A good example now is Apple. A really bad example is General Motors.
Leica did fit the Zeitgeist admirably in the decades 1920 to 1960. Since that period it has drifted out of synch with the Zeitgeist to become a niche player, like Märklin with cult status.
The reports from the industry are becoming quite sombre: Sony and Panasonic reported a drastic drop in camera sales, Canon hinted at a drop in sales and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the camera industry will feel the cold wind and report this state of affairs. The current crop of cameras can produce any kind of picture you want and there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to the newest model.
The fact that the Leica M8 is heavily discounted is a sign of the times.
People are more and more inclined to buy products that simply do the required job. Expensive notebooks are out and simple netbooks are in. Buy just what you need and pay the least amount of money is the current norm.
It is of course bringing water to the sea to note that Leica needs a cheaper and simpler rangefinder model. The great success of the Canon G10 (even in professional circles) is an indication that a compact and relatively simple camera with good quality can support most requirements.
There is a quiet revival of interest in the Hexar RF, a solid quality film loading camera. Just sitting out the crisis and hoping that the world will return to normal is the surest way to fall off the cliff in the next crisis.
Märklin produces extremely high quality products, has a strong brand name, a long history, and is increasingly dependent on a small group of loyal/fanatical collectors/buyers.
The company produces exclusively for the high end market, employs about 1000 persons and has a turnover of Euro 130 million. The company failed to attract new customers with innovative products and a much lower price. A new owner could save the company, not with another injection of money, but with that peculiar attribute of Herzblut (being engaged with heart and soul).
The similarity to the Leica brand name and company is very close. In today's world a long tradition, a fine brand name and a loyal customer base is not enough.
The Harley-Davidson is a company that is in trouble too. HD catered, like Märklin and Leica for the high end market with expensive products, but has difficulty persuading the market to buy the product. Luckely for HD, it is Warren Buffett who thinks that there is a market for such products as he invested a substantial amount of money into the company. WB would not WB unless the deal would be a bargain for him.
A company and its products have to match the Zeitgeist. A good example now is Apple. A really bad example is General Motors.
Leica did fit the Zeitgeist admirably in the decades 1920 to 1960. Since that period it has drifted out of synch with the Zeitgeist to become a niche player, like Märklin with cult status.
The reports from the industry are becoming quite sombre: Sony and Panasonic reported a drastic drop in camera sales, Canon hinted at a drop in sales and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the camera industry will feel the cold wind and report this state of affairs. The current crop of cameras can produce any kind of picture you want and there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to the newest model.
The fact that the Leica M8 is heavily discounted is a sign of the times.
People are more and more inclined to buy products that simply do the required job. Expensive notebooks are out and simple netbooks are in. Buy just what you need and pay the least amount of money is the current norm.
It is of course bringing water to the sea to note that Leica needs a cheaper and simpler rangefinder model. The great success of the Canon G10 (even in professional circles) is an indication that a compact and relatively simple camera with good quality can support most requirements.
There is a quiet revival of interest in the Hexar RF, a solid quality film loading camera. Just sitting out the crisis and hoping that the world will return to normal is the surest way to fall off the cliff in the next crisis.
testing software
28/01/09 20:24 Filed in: Personal
A camera body, certainly a mechanical one with only a few controls for manipulation, takes a few months to a year to test it thoroughly.
A current digital camera with hundreds of combinations would take at least the same amount of time to test. But you will find comments (I would not dare to say that is it is a test in the classical sense) on cameras after a day of handling and some lab checks.
A lens is relatively simple to test, as there are only a handful of characteristics to analyze, but even in this case a really meaningful test would take several months.
A film with several developers would take on average several weeks to test, given the use of a densitometer.
A software program can take any time period from a month to a year to test. Most postprocessing software or developing software as it is sometimes called, are very complex programs with hundreds if not thousands of combinations.
I am very surprised that one sees everywhere reports that make strong assessments about the quality or performance of a software program, like Photoshop or Lightroom or Aperture.
I am working in the world of software and I know that testing a piece of software is a very specialized and disciplined activity. You need test protocols, controlled test cases and a very detailed suite of actions that can be executed several times without introducing new parameters.
I am using the following post processing software:
My personal favorites are Aperture, PWP and Silverfast. Why?
I use only a very small selection of tools in these programs. I load the Raw file, do a minimal of manipulations on the gradation curve and unsharp actions (identical to what you can do in the classical darkroom), convert to BW and export as TIFF. These programs support my workflow very well and produce excellent TIFF files for printing. Here I use the Epson 3800 with several types of Hahnemuehle papers.
The number of steps you have to take and the many options per step are mind boggling.
I have found by trial and error a series of settings that bring me the results I want and am pleased with.
This result however cannot qualify as a test. A true test would imply that you define at first what the results are that you expect and what manipulations can alter the result and how, given all the parameters that can influence the result. Preferably these expected results should be defined in quantifiable units. I am only using a few possible controls and assess the result visually. A report by me about all these programs and the achievements would have very limited value. That is why you will not read on my website about tests of software. A truly valuable test would demand such an amount of preparation and execution that is impossible to dedicate to.
What you can find on all tests in the internet is a very simple comparison of an image file, processed by a program with a set of parameters selected and fixed. What we do not know and that would be the Big Question, is if we can be certain that the selected parameters and options really do represent the best the program can do given the characteristics of the image file. We simply do not!
Are we really sure that the selected options are the optimum and that the sequence of actions is the best solution?
Frankly speaking we do not know!
So-called tests are then simply snapshots of what one operator can do given limited experience with all options and parameters and the interactions involved.
In mountain biking or car racing or even photography the rule holds that an experienced user with moderate equipment can achieve more that an unexperienced user with high end equipment.
The situation with the post-processing software is identical: if you know how a program behaves you can get better results than when you randomly select a few features.
A very basic point may illustrate this: every program has the sharpness control where you have to select radius and amount. But every program gives different results on the same picture.
How do you value this conclusion? Presumably I can get identical results with different settings. Hw do I conduct a test with controlled parameters that expose the true differences.
I would say this is a very hard act to execute.
I have not read any software test ( in the image file processing software) where these aspects are addressed in a satisfying way.
My current conclusion is that all tests of software programs lack the qualification of "test" and are at best informed reports about personal experience and settings. Quite valuable but not good enough to support the selection of a program as good or best.
A current digital camera with hundreds of combinations would take at least the same amount of time to test. But you will find comments (I would not dare to say that is it is a test in the classical sense) on cameras after a day of handling and some lab checks.
A lens is relatively simple to test, as there are only a handful of characteristics to analyze, but even in this case a really meaningful test would take several months.
A film with several developers would take on average several weeks to test, given the use of a densitometer.
A software program can take any time period from a month to a year to test. Most postprocessing software or developing software as it is sometimes called, are very complex programs with hundreds if not thousands of combinations.
I am very surprised that one sees everywhere reports that make strong assessments about the quality or performance of a software program, like Photoshop or Lightroom or Aperture.
I am working in the world of software and I know that testing a piece of software is a very specialized and disciplined activity. You need test protocols, controlled test cases and a very detailed suite of actions that can be executed several times without introducing new parameters.
I am using the following post processing software:
- Picture Window Pro,
- Lightroom
- Bibble
- Photoshop CS2 and ~Elements both with Nik Efex and Sharpener
- Capture One
- Aperture with Nik Efex and Sharpener
- Light Zone
- Silverfast DCpro
- Sylkipix
- some more
My personal favorites are Aperture, PWP and Silverfast. Why?
I use only a very small selection of tools in these programs. I load the Raw file, do a minimal of manipulations on the gradation curve and unsharp actions (identical to what you can do in the classical darkroom), convert to BW and export as TIFF. These programs support my workflow very well and produce excellent TIFF files for printing. Here I use the Epson 3800 with several types of Hahnemuehle papers.
The number of steps you have to take and the many options per step are mind boggling.
I have found by trial and error a series of settings that bring me the results I want and am pleased with.
This result however cannot qualify as a test. A true test would imply that you define at first what the results are that you expect and what manipulations can alter the result and how, given all the parameters that can influence the result. Preferably these expected results should be defined in quantifiable units. I am only using a few possible controls and assess the result visually. A report by me about all these programs and the achievements would have very limited value. That is why you will not read on my website about tests of software. A truly valuable test would demand such an amount of preparation and execution that is impossible to dedicate to.
What you can find on all tests in the internet is a very simple comparison of an image file, processed by a program with a set of parameters selected and fixed. What we do not know and that would be the Big Question, is if we can be certain that the selected parameters and options really do represent the best the program can do given the characteristics of the image file. We simply do not!
Are we really sure that the selected options are the optimum and that the sequence of actions is the best solution?
Frankly speaking we do not know!
So-called tests are then simply snapshots of what one operator can do given limited experience with all options and parameters and the interactions involved.
In mountain biking or car racing or even photography the rule holds that an experienced user with moderate equipment can achieve more that an unexperienced user with high end equipment.
The situation with the post-processing software is identical: if you know how a program behaves you can get better results than when you randomly select a few features.
A very basic point may illustrate this: every program has the sharpness control where you have to select radius and amount. But every program gives different results on the same picture.
How do you value this conclusion? Presumably I can get identical results with different settings. Hw do I conduct a test with controlled parameters that expose the true differences.
I would say this is a very hard act to execute.
I have not read any software test ( in the image file processing software) where these aspects are addressed in a satisfying way.
My current conclusion is that all tests of software programs lack the qualification of "test" and are at best informed reports about personal experience and settings. Quite valuable but not good enough to support the selection of a program as good or best.
Less is enough?
24/01/09 21:36 Filed in: photographic culture
For a long period in time, every modern product seemed to follow Moore's Law:performance doubles, while costs drop. In consumer parlance this meant that every year new products would be set in the market that had more features than the previous generation and this would be sold for the same price. Now with a recession storm blowing in everybody's face, a new tendency emerges: lower the price and get the same features as before. For the so called prosumer and hyper-consumer, his is bad news. For the rest of the world, this is really good news.
Some companies (Leica among them) have always followed the philosophy that the right amount of features is a better and more elegant proposition than cramming in every possible feature into a product. With less features we have to delearn a few things and relearn some old skills.
There are now two types of cameras for the serious user. The well-known distinction between cameras for professionals and for motivated amateurs is more and more becoming a no-brainer: Basically it is aspiration and drive for quality imagery that dictates the choice of a camera. Well-built products not only keep going indefinitely, exhibit more resilience, but also are engineered to a higher degree of accuracy. If you want or need these qualities to get the pictures with the content that you aspire to show to the world, you should be prepared to invest major sums of money.
The two types of cameras I am referring to are cameras that rub out every photographic mistake you make and cameras that help you to become a better photographer. To the first category belong all current high-end dSLRs. The Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3(X) are typical examples. When you have acquainted yourself with the operation of the camera, there is hardly anything that can go wrong and even if you make mistakes, the camera will smooth away your errors.
The second category is sparsely populated with the classical film-loading cameras, like the Leica M7 and MP or the Nikon F6 and the solid-state-array-fitted Leica M8(.2).
If the emerging trend continues, we may see more products that offer less and ask more form the user.
The second part of the Summilux test (21 and 24mm) will be published tomorrow. To analyze the full capabilities of theses lenses I had to use film. Not only for the uncropped viewing angle, but also to get to the bottom of detail definition. The M8 sensor has a resolution limit that does not allow the exploitation of the full potential of modern Leica lenses.
Even the current topcats of DSLR (with 20+ Mp sensors) offer less resolution than modern films developed in current hightech chemistry. Future tests will be conducted on the Spur HRX-3 developer and the very new Spur DSX process for microfilm technology.
I have to admit that working with film is a most enjoyable way of taking pictures. It is a very honest process and here is skill required to get good results. It takes a longer time to get the final result, it is more laborious and you have less options for manipulation.
There is no question that the computer based photography can deliver better imagery and spectacular results with a modicum of user input.
If the current crisis implies a revaluation of craftsmanship, the value of work and less reliance on automated features, we will all benefit.
Some companies (Leica among them) have always followed the philosophy that the right amount of features is a better and more elegant proposition than cramming in every possible feature into a product. With less features we have to delearn a few things and relearn some old skills.
There are now two types of cameras for the serious user. The well-known distinction between cameras for professionals and for motivated amateurs is more and more becoming a no-brainer: Basically it is aspiration and drive for quality imagery that dictates the choice of a camera. Well-built products not only keep going indefinitely, exhibit more resilience, but also are engineered to a higher degree of accuracy. If you want or need these qualities to get the pictures with the content that you aspire to show to the world, you should be prepared to invest major sums of money.
The two types of cameras I am referring to are cameras that rub out every photographic mistake you make and cameras that help you to become a better photographer. To the first category belong all current high-end dSLRs. The Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3(X) are typical examples. When you have acquainted yourself with the operation of the camera, there is hardly anything that can go wrong and even if you make mistakes, the camera will smooth away your errors.
The second category is sparsely populated with the classical film-loading cameras, like the Leica M7 and MP or the Nikon F6 and the solid-state-array-fitted Leica M8(.2).
If the emerging trend continues, we may see more products that offer less and ask more form the user.
The second part of the Summilux test (21 and 24mm) will be published tomorrow. To analyze the full capabilities of theses lenses I had to use film. Not only for the uncropped viewing angle, but also to get to the bottom of detail definition. The M8 sensor has a resolution limit that does not allow the exploitation of the full potential of modern Leica lenses.
Even the current topcats of DSLR (with 20+ Mp sensors) offer less resolution than modern films developed in current hightech chemistry. Future tests will be conducted on the Spur HRX-3 developer and the very new Spur DSX process for microfilm technology.
I have to admit that working with film is a most enjoyable way of taking pictures. It is a very honest process and here is skill required to get good results. It takes a longer time to get the final result, it is more laborious and you have less options for manipulation.
There is no question that the computer based photography can deliver better imagery and spectacular results with a modicum of user input.
If the current crisis implies a revaluation of craftsmanship, the value of work and less reliance on automated features, we will all benefit.