On Finding Balance

Which is more important, photographic technique, the gear used, vision or presentation?

The answer, as with many things in life, is none and all.

Technique is the delicate balance between learning what you (technically) need to know, but applying it in a way that allows you to still express yourself artistically. This is an area that many new photographers struggle with. Their naive and unlimited eye early in their hobby can produce lovely images, partly through chance but mostly because of the freedom to see without worrying about technical issues. These images are the fuel that powers the desire to get better, but with that comes the reality that taking more control requires knowledge, knowledge requires commitment in time and effort and while this is happening, sometimes, the creative urge wanes.

I remember a story I once read about Ansel Adams and his friend Brett Weston, taking the similar photos in the same location. Adams was known for his technical prowess, inventing systems for exposure and work flow that are still relevant even today. He did his usual, well practiced and precise measurements and calculations. Western on the other hand would wave his light meter around (often without a battery in it or with it still in its closed case), in gentle mockery of Adams and then basically guess the exposure, setting the camera with a dramatic flourish. His negatives could be so bad that his sons (photographers themselves), when going through his estate almost destroyed some of his best work as they could see so little detail in these "bullet proof" negatives. Some would say that his work had more empathy and soul than Adams (not an argument I wish to enter), but regardless, his end output was beautiful, even if his process was technically sloppy.

I know in my own work that some times the image you want to delete in the field can be a hidden gem.

OMD 75-300 at about 150 shot from the hip. Sooo close to deleting this one and even weeks later it got little love, but it grew on me.

Gear ties into technique and can sometimes even dictate technical limitations. Getting to know your camera and the strengths of its lenses will benefit you much more than changing constantly to "better" gear. There are many photographers out there who have made a name for themselves with surprisingly basic equipment. Kate Kirkwood was relatively famous before moving on from a basic, entry level, Nikon SLR with kit lens and lets not forget that most of the images that influence our perception of photography were taken on film cameras last century.

The most important thing about your gear is to make sure that its weaknesses do not directly relate to your needs. No point in lugging a big, heavy and noisy full frame SLR with a monster zoom lens around for street photography. It would likely do more harm than good. Equally, there is no point in paying for fast F2.8 zoom lenses if you only want to do landscape work as there is almost always a cheaper and lighter option.

I recently bought a Pen F camera body in denial of my reliable and capable clutch of  OMD mk1's. Did I want more pixels, faster this or that or just a sexy little new camera? No (mostly- it is sexy), but I was drawn to the silent and vibration free electronic shutter and iphone remote release for long lens landscape work. This as vexed me for years (5d mk2 and 200mm F2.8, on a wooden tripod with huge head was my most frustrating fail) and finally the answer is (hopefully) here.

Buy the super camera and the fast lens if it is relevant to what you do, but think about the options. If you decide you want a 70-200 f2.8 ($2500au) for portraits, maybe a 50f1.8 ($200au) or 85 f1.8 ($400au) would actually be a better choice as it will do a better job of that specialist task and is much less in every good way. When asking the internet for the "best" choice, follow this up with "best option to" the champion lens it spits out. Very few people will bag out the monster lens they just purchased for the price of a small car and often there is little need to, but it is usually the case they went straight to the "full noise" top model without checking for a better tool for a specific task.               You can buy a 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 and macro lens and a decent second tier 75-300 for well less than a 70-200 f2.8 and you will have a choice of lighter weight if travelling, faster aperture, closer focussing, longer range and more depth in individual parts (more choice of lens character and more easily replaced) on your side. It can also be nice to not buy the big, often white, complicated and stress inducing top of the line model so when the new "best" lens comes out in a year or two you don't feel gutted. You can also take more pride in your photographic wins as they are more about you and less about the gear. 

Taken as a OOC JPEG with the 75-300 "Budget" lens at 300 f6.7. Sharp enough? Good enough colour?

Vision is the both the easiest and the toughest. The beginning photographer sees everything, photographs everything and keeps everything. Over time they often become more discerning, but can find their more limited scope of interest reduces their output. I have found in myself a lack of motivation sometimes, even though my photographic interests are varied. It is important to keep shooting something, because this often generates interest. Even boring jobs can stimulate creative juices, so keep shooting!

The quality of your vision, being the quality of your photographic "eye" will improve and change over time. It is without doubt the single most important element to your photography because without vision/a vision you will not produce anything of greta importance, but let it come naturally and let it lead. Don't fight it. It is the only thing you bring to the party that is completely yours. 

Presentation is the final part of the equation. Poor output spoils everything that has come before. Whether it is a well presented web site, share site or prints on the wall, the final and most satisfying element to the process is presentation. The best advice here is just DO IT! Get something out there, get feed back and learn. Don't expect everyone to like it, don't expect everyone to be kind. Don't care about this as worrying about what others think is a good way of stunting your growth as a photographer, but learn from feedback when it is well intentioned and knowledgeable.   

Get out there, but leave some of that enormous kit behind.  

On Minimalism

Less is more? Often said and often miss quoted. I would like to put myself forward as a pretty standard hypocritical minimalist.

When packing for a trip I do try to take only what I need, which often requires me to think, pack, re think, re pack and then turn it on its head and start again, but the intention is to take as little as possible.

Why?

Apart from the obvious weight and organisation issues that come with too much equipment, there is the gradual (insert trust issues here) realisation that less is actually more.

1 camera, 2 lenses equal 2 choices. add another 2 lenses and you have 4 choices and probably another camera to save time. Add a flash, a tripod and even more lenses and filters and you have even more choices. The reality is, and I say this in all seriousness, a good image maker can probably get the job done with a randomly selected lens and any camera they are familiar enough with. 

Photography that requires fast thinking and reactions are anathema to an over equipped photographer. Apart from the time taken to think through your options, there is the time needed to change camera or lenses to create the visualised image (that is still only in your head). Many images are fleeting in street, sport, reportage and candid portraiture. There is often not even time to zoom, just point the camera and shoot the composition that presents itself.

OMD with pre focussed 17mm at f5.6. No time to second guess lens choice.

Studio and location shooters have the luxury of creative "hours", but often, even they keep it simple and they have assistants.

Present someone with too many options and they will get confused, lack focus and hesitate. Present them with one choice of tool, but complete freedom in how they use that tool and watch them come up with dozens of clever ways of using that single perspective creatively.

There are many other techniques that can speed up image capture (but all of them come to nothing if you are caught flat footed by indecision). 

1) Leave a good gap between the "perspective" rendered by different lenses. One of the easiest ways to get caught up is to have lenses of slightly different focal lengths, but which render similar perspective to the subject. An 85mm lens and a 135mm lens have slightly different magnifications, but can produce images near enough to the same as to make choosing between them pointless. The 135mm may get you a little closer and the 85mm may include a bit more, but at the end of the day, the real difference is minor. I used to joke that my ideal canon kit was (in full frame values) a 24mm for landscapes, a 35mm for street, a 135mm for portraiture and a 400mm lens for sport and wildlife, but really, that is all I would need. I almost changed some of my olympus lenses for 4 "perfect" primes (Leica 12 and 42.5, Olympus 75 and 300) of effectively the same focal lengths just recently, but size/weight/cost and wife stopped me. Use lenses that give you a clearly wide, semi wide, natural and compressed perspective and avoid more than one in each category. Perspective is more important than magnification when choosing and using lenses lenses.

2) Use pre focussed lenses for street grab shots. That is, focus manually to about 2 metres and disengage the AF, set the aperture to about f5.6 with a wide or semi wide lens. This will allow for point and shoot without focussing. Set the ISO high enough to guarantee 1/125th or faster shutter speeds.

3) carry only as many lenses as you have hands/cameras. My standard method these days is to have a camera on a long strap hanging on my waist, with a 17mm lens pre focussed at about 5 feet at f4-8 and another camera held in my left hand with a longer lens at the ready. the second camera will be used at the eye, so it needs to be responsive, but the strap camera only needs to pointed in the right direction and the shutter fired. If you wish to carry more lenses, make sure to follow the rule above about being a genuine change in perspective, no "filler" focal lengths.

4) Use primes. This one is a matter of taste and to some extent existing habits. My old "light" kit was a 17-40 and 70-200 f4L Canon lens kit and one body (or a full and crop body combo to allow for slight the variation in lens focal lengths). These two lenses and the occasional addition of a fast prime, made me feel pretty bullet proof, but after years of using this or a similar combination, I realised that I often used only one or two focal lengths regularly and was frustrated when the lenses were set to something else and I was unprepared. The 70-200 was almost always on around 135mm or occasionally 200mm on a full frame (often wishing for more) and the 17-40 became a favourite on a crop body at about 17-20 (28-35mm equiv). My own preference for primes comes from being better at composing quickly with a pre determined focal length, rather than the mental "clutter" of composing by zooming, then shooting. If you trust yourself to pre set your focal length and leave it, then I guess you can have the best of both worlds.

EPM2 45mm lens. Not normally ideal for street, but it worked well on the day.

5) Be organised. No lens caps or reversed hoods (I use screw in metal ones for rigidity and never take them off). Lenses on cameras, camera in hand or close to. Have your camera on any time you may come across an image (carry more batteries if you need to) and set your camera correctly for the likely image you will capture. It is better to have a larger camera bag, allowing for quick dumping of one camera or lens in an empty space and equally fast retrieval of a the next bit of gear and remember empty space weighs nothing. If shooting landscapes, put your polariser filter on the lens and leave it there.

6) Don't hesitate. More images gives you more to choose from, more practice and more chance of grabbing the fleeting nano second that can make all of the difference. Timing is still important, but if in doubt, shoot.

7) Only buy and use what you need, but get the best lens you can afford in that class. If you love wildlife photography, but never take landscapes, why buy a wide angle, when the money could get you a better long lens. Too many photographers starting out try to cover the full range of focal lengths, often with multiple overlaps. They will eventually whittle their kit down, but too late to avoid the clutter and cost of doing it the long way round (talking from experience here). 

My own kit?

Street and travel. The "strap" body with the 17mm and the "hand" body with either the 45 or 75mm. Occasionally the 25mm instead of the 17mm. On long trips I may pack a shadow kit as replacements for lost or damaged gear.

Portrait work. One body (a spare in the bag if working) 25, 45 and 75mm (or 40-150 possibly from now on)  just for coverage of smaller or larger groups. I always head toward the longer lens unless it is not possible.

Landscape. Pen F (electronic shutter) with the 12-40 and 40-150 pro lenses. These lenses break one of my cardinal rules of not needing fast zooms for slow work, but their edge to edge sharpness and weather proofing as well as the ability to frame tightly (relevant for the time rich landscape shooter) make them the best choices for an Olympus user.

Stage work. The 40-150 and occasional 75 for very low light. Occasionally the 75-300 that is surprisingly useful if the light is good and maybe a 25mm for whole stage shots.

So, less is more? Yes please. The clean, creative freedom of the uncluttered and organised image maker for me. Never again the bags of gear, packed safely but uselessly away, struggling in the hot sun and cursing my hobby.  

On the benefits of not upgrading.

This post is a lot easier to write now that I do not work in a camera shop. Selling and being around cameras was once my dream job, but I must admit, the ridiculous pricing pressures, the dominance of improvingdigital technology and gimmicks over the importance of the human eye (good "seeing" followed by strong editing and then good presentation) and then the worshipping of these gear improvements rather than user improvement have taken away my satisfaction with the industry and especially the sales side.

For the last 3 years (!) I have used, with some drop ins and drop outs, pretty much the same cameras. Not the same format, or even just the same brand, but the same cameras. The critters used are the Olympus OMD EM5 (the original one).

Are they perfect? Not by a long way. The buttons are "squishy" due to the weatherproof membrane under the outer shell, some of the buttons are in just stupid spots (although the ample customisation of the camera fixes many of these issues) and the the performance, although good is a little laggy in places, but they are more than ample in so many ways that they are worth persevering with.

EM5 mk1 and 75mm 

The benefits with sticking with the same format/brand/model are many. In the film era cameras changed little and less often. the user became so familiar with their camera, they could often change all settings without looking at the camera and the number of buttons, dials and switches were kept to a minimum allowing for fewer mistaken settings. The DF Nikon is an example to me of a camera created by a generation unaware of the expectations and hopes of the previous generations, expectations often rediscovered by the next generation who embrace old film cameras.

To me the camera looks like a thing made by a group of people who are aware of the "ancient" machine it is mimicking, but have only seen a photo of one and are then locked away in room to re invent the wheel.

It is;

Too big (have they never seen an FM2 that also had to accommodate a roll of film?).

Too fiddly (far too many locked off buttons and dials and it feels odd in the hand).

Too light for its size (why so big then so light, from the company that worships stupid heavy=quality?).

Too expensive and looking more so every month (D4 sensor, in a relatively cheap body only goes so far).

The reality is the Fuji XT1 (and the newer Mk2) ate this one's lunch!

When I purchased the EM5's, the mirrorless world was just starting to mature and it showed. the OMD was one of the first breakthrough cameras of its type, heralding a bright future. It offered a vastly improved sensor, faster (by some measures) AF performance than most other cameras and a camera that appealed to the lost generation of film camera owners who just liked the way it looked and felt (the OMD sold consistently and at good prices for over a year and surged again towards the end of its life with some great deals, in that time Canon and Nikon went through 2 full model changes, with sales slow at first and the prices quickly dropping). 

What has changed since? Lots of little things, but if I looked at from a RAW file quality perspective, very little until the GX8/Pen F upped the pixel count. I had until recently the luxury of comparison with any camera you could reasonably imagine and drove myself mad trying to find a more capably kit, but to no avail. The little OMD's always came up with the best balance of camera size/weight, image quality and lens selection. They constantly surprise me with the things they can pull off, that I have come to rely on and these things can bite me big time if I switch to another brand or format for a while. 

I would love the silent shutter, slightly improved viewfinder/stabiliser/AF of the Pen F, but really do not use it. Recently I started a project photographing natural portraits in a school environment. The light was mixed, often poor, the children always moving at least a bit and distances were often longer than ideal. I found myself shooting hand held with a budget 75-300 SLOW telephoto, and at higher ISO settings than desired.

OMD EM5 mk1 75-300 at 300mm F6.7 (wide open) ISO 1600

There were misses, as always, but there were a lot of wins that even surprised me as I processed them. I cannot show you any with the children in them for legal and ethical reasons, but believe me when I say, when stretched to its limits, this little system pulled of images that would have been only recently in the realm of the big cameras and super priced lens. 

EM5 75-300 at about 100mm ISO 800

"Counting every eyelash" used to be a bit of a un official quality gauge. It has now become an expectation from even the most unlikely of situations. As I shot, I knew the limits and believe that that certainty allowed me to get on with the job.

Since then I have photographed two stage productions for the same school, with the 75/75-300 combo and have been amazed by the results.

The problem with upgrades.

Knowing your cameras strengths and weaknesses is key to performing with your gear. How do you milk the best quality out of the cameras and your work flow unless you have experimented in many situations, failed and succeeded at the edge of the reality envelope and come up with the most effective work arounds. If new cameras actually removed problems the world would be a better place, but they only mitigate them by ever decreasing amounts, bringing with them a series of other small differences that have to learned and sometimes avoided.

When shooting Canon, I had a love/hate relationship with the 450D slr. On one hand the camera had a poor screen and low pixel count compared to many new cameras (which felt important at the time) and it felt cheap and plasticky, but the files were nearly bullet proof for their day and the shutter just kept on going. Shooting street in mixed lighting can produce some pretty crappy files, often 2-3 stops out, but the 450 files often gave me a workable image (recently I went into the archives to find an old image use in this blog and hanging on the wall and missed it repeatedly because the original file was so poor!). When I shifted to the newer models, full of hope for vastly better images I was met with poor highlight recovery, bigger files and less "sharp" looking images in much the same body. Only full frame satisfied and the difference was not as much as you would think.

One of the above images was taken with the 450d the other with a 5d mk2.

I suppose what I am trying to get across is; when buying a new camera, be aware that the actual benefits will most likely be less obvious that the perceived benefits. More pixels rarely make any difference (unless you are going from 12mp on a crop frame camera to 36mp on a full frame), are often far to many and create storage and computer processing issues. Faster is sometimes important, but in most modern cameras the difference is not much, i.e. all things that were missed before will not be automatically be captured with a new model. Fuji is the one brand that has really had to work on this and recently have gone ahead, a lot, but they are the only major brand with big issues to fix. 

So, before buying a new camera, maybe you should look at a specialist lens, a superior software programme (Adobe is not always the best) or time spent travelling/taking lessons will make more actual difference to your image quality.

On Beauty and Perfection

The Artistic world has always been aware that technical perfection and beauty are different animals. All art has suffered from and been strengthened by the battle with imperfection.

The woman in the image above evokes a reaction in me to want to know her story. I am interested in her hurried and busy look, her naturalness and vulnerability. I feel close to her. 

If the image was "better" technically, my attention may be drawn to other elements of the image such as clarity of certain details or colour accuracy and focus/background blur. The photographic process may overpower the content. A viewers perception of an image is very much a programmed response and photographers tend to be the most programmed.

I have noticed in myself sometimes a different "viewer", set free by imperfection.

Why do art based courses often promote the use of "toy" cameras like the Holga? It is because they set the user free from the tight limitations of technique forced on them by the technology obsessed camera industry. Perfection comes later, after a clear vision has emerged.

The modern camera is becoming increasingly capable of easy perfection. This is natural of course as the early cameras enticed us with their magic but there was plenty of room for improvement. The drive for better has been relentless until we have reached near perfection, certainly enough for our actual needs.

Some of the latest releases can make a joke of concerns such as correct focus, exposure and timing with features that literally allow you to shoot fast and loose and edit in these factors later, and that does not even count the high res video side that could (will) completely change the street photography and journalistic movements as we know them. There are cameras now that effortlessly shoot images with extremely wide exposure range (HDR) and enormous pixel counts (5Ds, A7r, Pen F). Cameras that allow focus and even capture retrospectively (G7, GX8, Lytro) or to be lifted from video (any 4/8k, large sensor model) and some that shoot so fast and quietly, you would have to point out to someone they were even being photographed (most new mirrorless).

Science fiction until recently, these features barely have time to mature before the next break through emerges. One of the ironies of the modern world is that to give us this easy perfection, cameras are becoming increasingly "fluff" laden and complicated.

True creativity rarely comes from easy perfection. If something becomes too accessible and easy, then it's preciousness is lost. Many of the greatest images of the past are great for the very same reason they are rare and unique. They were hard to take, required maximum skill with some hard earned luck, were the first or best of their kind. They often showed a level of accepted, beautiful imperfection and this became their signature.

Many of my favourite images are, in my head, near to perfection. When I revisit them, imperfections are visible. It's funny how the mind wraps the things we like in a blanket of protection. The work of Sam Abell (National Geographic Society) is a good example of film era excellence. It does not take much to find some grain, or relative softness, but at the time of their taking, they were good enough to meet our perception of "perfect" and still hold up today.

Reactions against easy technology are happening. If you look at the film movement for example. These people are deliberately making their lot harder because they want to be able to say "I used film" as a creative badge of honour. They will site a lot of reasons for their switch back to old processes, but maybe a main one is that they know respect for their work is as secure as that of the past masters, while respect for the digital shooter decreases and is always in flux.

Is skill going to be a victim of technology? Is beautiful imperfection going to have to be deliberately manufactured (VSCO and the like) or will our expectations simply change and accept it's loss. Grain was, for a long time a visual element, expertly used by some, but for digital "noise" there is little tolerance. Is this because we had no patience for it and knew that technology would remove it soon enough or was it the lack of a tactile nature so we could not relate to it. Either way, noise is anathema, grain was creative.

Olympus, faced with slightly higher noise than other, larger sensor cameras chose to make their noise more film like and workable. A similar work around to film era thinking.

The future photographer will be a master editor, story teller and presenter, rather than just a shooter, processor and printer/uploader. The taking side could be like a saturation bombing run and the real skill will be in sorting out the mess (probably an app for that). Most film familiar photographers agree that digital has the potential to make us lazy, taking 10 quick shots instead of one considered one, but maybe the next evolution will be literally what we see, rediscovered after the fact. Complete recall style photography, natural, instinctive and free.

Imagine coming home and plugging in your day to an app that will sort out usable images based on your preferences.

There is always a place for perfection in photography as in any form of art, but there is also a place for "beautiful imperfection" as originality (humanity?) may be reduced without it. In the immediate future how will we create it and in the longer term future will it even matter?

On Rewards and Accolades

I have never been one for competitions, or even competition. I know it is meant to make us stronger, hungrier and more aggressive, but that's just not me. My greatest challenger is me. I think everyone, even if they square up against others for top prize, is actually competing with themselves and their own expectations first, the difference is I have never cared much what others think.

Just a reminder how lucky we are  OMD 45 f1.8

Am I scared of failure, or even success? Not sure....maybe. Am I driven to do better as I define better to be, yes definitely.

Standards are important, accolades are not.

Standards allow you to strive for and attempt to reach a point you feel is the best you can do on your journey to do better. Being happy, but restlessly unsatisfied at the same time is a good thing. If you ask the world's top image makers if they have reached their maximum potential, or if they have stopped learning, most will tell you no.

Accolades are other people telling you have reached their required standard or at least have done the best out of a limited group of offerings, within a limited envelope, in their view. This is someone else applying their expectations or the limited expectations of the task given, to your work, not you.

How often does the best work fall short because it is a bit left of centre of the brief or the expectations of the judges. How many of the greatest images in history would fail to get a mention at the local photo club competition? A couple of years ago HDR images ruled the photo competition world (if I see one more rusty old car with cartoon HDR...), now it's a guarantee of competition failure. 

We all make simple choices every day based on our instincts and experience, but how often do we let others tell us what to think when the stakes are higher? The opinion of others can be constructive, but it can be equally destructive.  I remember when a friend won a photo competition and we all thought we knew which of the submitted images was the winner. When it was another "filler" image used to make up the numbers, it left us all with mixed feelings. Winning was great, but winning with an image that almost did not make the cut was confusing.

How many times do you see a sports person have a really great year, then crash out the year after? Maybe they have lost sight of what got them there in the first place, and when that solid ground crumbles, when the fear of not doing their best is replaced by misplaced confidence, overthinking or bad habits, they have nothing to support them. Often a team is running on that winning feeling, then a couple of setbacks come along and the unbeatable team turns into the easy beats, because they lost sight of the work needed to hold onto top spot.

If something is worth doing it is worth doing well regardless of the reason. 

If you have little confidence in your own images, then use that to drive you to do better, trust that little voice of doubt, but make it a little voice compared to your bigger voice of determination. Other peoples opinions are fine as far as they go, but they are either pumping up your ego or making you to question your work. There is no middle ground here and both are a distraction. Take all criticism with open eyes and the same for accolades, be capable of seeing what others see, but keep a steady path, be true to yourself and move on. The same goes for inspiration. The photos of the greatest photographers help to set a standard in your own head, but that is their standard not yours, be firm in your vision.

If you do not trust your own images, no one will.

The message? Do your work to your standard, set your expectations as high as you can imagine and try to reach them. Anything less is selling yourself short. If you find yourself asking the question "I wonder if this will sell?" or "I wonder if others will like this?", you are already compromising your own standards. If you find yourself asking yourself the question "Is this what I am after, or can I do better?" you are on a better path.

Accolades and sales may come, but only if you stay true to the path that lead you here in the first place.

On Shooters Block

Every one at some point or other suffers from creative block, be it artistic, at work, in the kitchen or just a feeling of inspirational void. It is usually fuelled by your own self doubts and can be quite depressing. It can sometimes be avoided or at least mitigated by a gentle shift in perception and attitude. Here are some of the tricks I have used or good advice that has been given to me that may help.

Change scale.

We are often attuned to a subject or style that may limit our perceptions. Looking "larger" or "smaller" can both increase our compositional tools and give us some stimulus to get out of a rut. Rather than shooting wide angle street scenes, try to pick out defining details or abstracts or go even wider/closer. This also applies to working in weather conditions or lighting that are not your norm or different compositional styles. My own limited landscape work is usually based on semi abstract details, close or distant. I rarely do a standard wide angle landscape shot, but if it occurs to me to try, they are often worth the effort.

"Harajuku promise" taken during a street photography "binge" OMD 25 f1.8

Change style or subject.

Do something that you have never done before. If you usually use a tripod, go free hand and pick a subject that suits. If you are a landscape photographer, try some street (street landscape?) or portrait work. Obviously avoid forms of photography that you are not equipped for and those you are completely disinterested in, but hopefully there is another form, removed enough from your main passion, that is comfortable for you. I guarantee you will learn something from other styles that can be applied to your standard fare or at the very least you will appreciate your usual methods more. A sports shooter may try some long exposure landscape work in their off season and discover a few tricks to expand their sports portfolio. I remember being blown away by a slow motion photo of the Ferrari F1 team pit crew at work many years ago when every other shot on the day was probably taken at 1/1000 of a sec or faster (a dead still car with red and yellow movement streaks coming from the engine and wheels). Another F1 shot, a drivers' cockpit portrait, taken on an medium format camera for a Pentax ad.

Change your work flow.

Turn your usual flow on its head, breaking habits and repetition. Do a series of photos on a theme or specific subject or photograph to populate a story you have written (start a blog!), that is, make the photos the support for, rather than the main act. Make the photos different in style to your usual method, such as grainy black and white or muted, old fashioned colour (but try to avoid gimmicky looks that will fall out of fashion). Create or return to a project of connected images, its a good idea to have one or more of these up your sleeve as they can grow into a major work. An examples is the "Travellers" series. This really only started as "filler" or warm up shots taken while getting from one place to another. Many would not take in colour, so they became mono and film like to better suit their mood (1 of these is actually a film image...guess which). 

"The Discovery" Tokyo subway OMD 17 f1.8

Look Harder/slower.

Slow down, observe and see new possibilities. After travelling I often find home a bit boring, but if I slow down and really look I start to see things on a different level or a different way. Some of the greatest works in photography's long history have come from a very limited geographical area or subject matter, for example the work of Gregory Crewdson, William Eggleston or Michael Wolf.  This often comes with the realisation that in a target rich environment I may have only been skimming the surface of possible compositions and viewpoints! This can also improve your photography, increasing you depth of perception and awareness of more worldly (non photographic) things and your understanding of your subject. Remember that some of the best known photos in history look deceptively simple and often are, but come from a deep understanding of the subject through patience and involvement. When asked, most of the great National Geographic or Magnum photographers will say that the most important part of what they do is along the lines of interaction and understanding, not gear or technique. One trick is to go somewhere without a camera and just look. I bet your shooting finger will itch pretty quickly or, as a less risky option, take just one small card to force good shot selection and a more watchful eye (or use a film camera).

Abstract detail of a chair in a Perth shopping mall. OMD 25 f1.8

Reduce your gear (just for now).

Look at your usual kit and pick out one camera and one lens. Go for a walk and see how many opportunities open up with this limited kit. This is probably how you started and may add some level of comfort and familiarity, lost to a larger range of kit. If you are a minimalist now, borrow or buy something you do not have, but nothing too serious, in fact something a bit silly is good like a "toy" or retro "legacy" lens adapted to your camera or even a novelty camera or an exotic and unfamiliar bit of kit. I have a clutch of old film cameras. Using one allows me several of the above tricks and is a good rest from more serious photography.

Print.

It sounds too easy, but printing previous work can get the creative hunger back. There is something about committing to print that changes the way you see your own work. Personally I find photographing to print far more productive than just shooting with the intent of only posting or storing. Sometimes just looking at your older images will bring something to life.

Read and look.

If you have a library of photo books, now might be the time to browse them. If you do not, the internet may provide or a good magazine (not photo specific necessarily) may help. Looking at the work of others may help you see the simple things that are all around us. My own library "is not going to move with us again" says my wife, as books are my weakness, but they never fail to inspire.

I hope this helps you when the creative river runs dry.

On those throw away remarks that confuse us all.

If you have been around photography for just a little while, you will have heard at least one of those comments that are (to the maker of the statement) cast in concrete and indisputable.

Usually based on the statement makers own loyalty to some brand or process, they often do more harm than their intended good.

Black and white is better than colour

Lets face it, some photos are better in mono and some are better in colour. Few photos are great in both forms, and fewer still are restricted totally from one form or the other. At the time of composing, the photographer will usually have one in mind, so it stands to reason that an image taken to be black and white or colour will be best reproduced that way. There is no doubt that an image changes "shape" when converted from one to other as the depth preceptors and focus triggers change. Colours draw the eye and create mood using colour intensity, temperature and placement where mono relies on tone and texture and can be more two dimensional and intimate. Notice the effect of red shoulder and shoes and the warm yellow road markers as focus indicators, the colder, deeper looking background forming two planes of composition and the effect of soft pink for contrast to the harder colours in the image below, compared to the placement of the less dominant two other women and the glowing tones in the dress and umbrella in the mono image.

Very few photographers are good at both, but I believe no one should shut any doors unless they have given both a try.

Film is better than digital (Nikon is better than Canon etc.).

Who cares. Any photo taken well and with feeling is a winner, from a digital compact, mobile phone, ancient film camera or state of the art camera. Have you ever noticed that any photographer who has the talent to take a good photo does not have to limit themselves to "The one and only" camera or format that works, for them anything will work. For every successful exponent of one format or brand there is an equally successful contradiction (and plenty of us capable of taking rubbish no matter what we are using). Use what you want, it does not matter as long as it works for you and the process gives you satisfaction. If you need validation for any argument, it won't be hard to find.

What is Bokeh and who cares.

Bokeh is a thing, but it's a bit misunderstood, it's as real as lens sharpness and megapixels, but is more subjective and a bit of a support player. There is no way to measure Bokeh, although the Japanese have various names for the Aji or flavour of different blur. Every lens, at every focus distance and aperture combination is different. One persons' smooth and creamy will be another's mushy. I find it frustrating when a reviewer reacts overly to the Bokeh of any lens, especially based on tests, as the viewer of the end image can really be the only judge. 

Bokeh is not just a 300 f2.8 or a 50 f1.4 wide open shooting out of focus night lights! Bokeh is the quantity, quality and form of the transition from the in focus to out of focus zones of a photo. This happens at nearly any aperture on any lens, so telephoto lenses at their widest aperture are an exaggeration of a normal phenomena, but it is present in nearly any photo (indeed, an image fully in sharp focus from front to back is technically difficult). Mike Johnson and John Kennerdell, who between them revealed and coined the term Boke-Aji or "Flavour of blur" * in the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques (a real photo mag), actually cited wide angle lenses at smaller to middle apertures in their articles and focussed more on lens personality than just sheer blur. Getting really close or using long lenses will always give you lots of out of focus blur, but Bokeh is a term for the look of it not just the quantity. The article on The Online Photographer blog called "In defence of depth" is the best I have seen at explaining this.

Getting to know your lenses or learning to recognise what it is you are probably already responding to, is the key. Some lenses can actually look more or less sharp because of their Bokeh rendering (an old Leica trick) and some blur is so "busy" that it can be a distraction to the main point of focus. Some lens Bokeh is so unusual it actually becomes much sought after such as the old Jupiter lenses. Do you have a lens that should be the ultimate portrait lens but leaves you cold, or a zoom that does not have the credentials to impress, but produces images you really like? It's probably the combination of the Bokeh and sharpness rendering of the lens. In the old days, aficionados would state confidently that they could pick lens "X" from lens "Y"  just by looking at otherwise identical photos. The giveaway was in the sharpness rendering or Bokeh. You may never use it intentionally as a creative tool or even care, but it is there, like it or not and can be made as relevant as any other part of photography. 

*Pronunciation is "Bo" as in bone and "ke" as in kettle, the "h" was added to help with correct pronunciation and the Aji dropped.

OMD 45mm at f4. A good example of a Bokeh efficient lens doing what it does well.

Olympus 75-300 lens at about 150mm f5.6. An example of a Bokeh "suspect" lens doing OK.

Street (landscape, sports, portrait etc.) photography should to be done (this) one way.

Do what ever works for you. Look to your mentors for ideas and tips, but never limit yourself just because someone else says there is "only one true way". Most photography evolves from the limitations of equipment, social constraints and fashions, but new rules are made by those who power on regardless of convention and learn to reinvent. If you spend more time trying to do as do or others say, you are not being true to yourself and will never grow.

Mirrorless beats SLR's or SLR's beat mirrorless.

Nope, they are similar but different. SLR cameras are still generally better at tracking focus (for now) and their view finders are clear glass, which some prefer. Mirrorless on the other hand can be quicker, smarter and lighter and can be reinvented to get around some technical limitations (face detection, video and electronic shutters etc.). SLR's have the two biggest names in photography behind them and the tradition and history that entails. Mirrorless are more innovative and interesting, but can be a bit thin in options. Time will only blur the differences more until it matters not at all what you choose, and that time is close.

You need full frame to be a professional.

This one is just crap. Lets look at it logically. The cheapest SLR on the marked today takes a better image than the best pro camera of 5-6 years ago. Each generation of cameras adds more of everything, but few in the industry want to ask, or answer the question "how much is enough?" as this will stunt sales. If you go back to the release of the D3X Nikon a few years ago, people paid $10,000+ for a full frame 24mp camera that did not even have a sensor cleaner! The current base model D3300 can match that camera for pixels, come close in low light performance, cleans it's own sensor and shoots video. Don't even get me started on print requirements! Ok, so while we are here. In a recent test a photographer showed two large (A1?) prints to a number of passers by (remember 95% of the people looking at your work are not photographers, but "passersby"). One was printed at 72 dpi and the other at 300 dpi. (industry standards suggest that if you do not print at 240 dpi+ you will not get gallery quality images). Nobody, not even an actual teacher of photography picked the difference between the two images. Luminous Landscape has a revealing article comparing the 50mp 5DS to the old 8mp 1DS in direct print comparisons, they are not as different as you might think. Ming Thein tried on the other hand to produce a print that held more detail than the human eye could see without assistance. He hired an industrial scale printer to do multiple, micro fine passes over the carefully selected paper to max out the resolution of a D800. He could only manage 11x14" paper before the test ran out of steam. The prints sold for many $100's to cover costs and in his words the whole exercise was pretty pointless, but revealing. Finally Pekka Podka has an interesting article on his blog comparing the OMD to the D800. So, to create gallery quality images at a reasonable size, you need...... a crop sensor camera of about 10-12 mp. We know this because people used to do it and still do.

What makes a pro photographer is actually pretty simple, know your process and HAVE A BACKUP!

More pixels make a better camera.

As above, the evidence says otherwise. Sharpness, light and composition are not controlled by pixels. More pixels technically make a bigger file and that should allow a bigger print, but that is only if the above considerations are met. Colour depth and "lushness" can be improved with more pixels, but so can detail smearing and image "noise". For more resolution to be achieved better technique and lenses are required and remember, resolution is not the same as perceived sharpness.

When a mobile phone has more pixels packed onto its tiny sensor, the pixels get smaller, gather less light, resolve less real detail and produce more noise through pixel failure, but still produce bigger files! The most important feature of a camera is the size of the sensor as this determines the size and density of the pixels and their effectiveness.

There is a reason that full frame sensors are just hitting the 40+ mp mark when phones have been offering this for a while. That reason is marketing. The marketing people control the sales of phones and small digicams and have two weapons; zoom ratio and pixels. These are easy numbers to identify with and the industry has trained us all well to respond to them. Better cameras are controlled by marketing also, but photographers know that balance is far more important, so the marketing/camera design appeals to other needs.

For a serious photographer there is no point in having a small sensor/high pixel/long zoom camera if the thing becomes useless in poor lighting and does not produce the images it promises. Most top of the line pro cameras are full frame with less than 20mp (the flagship 20mp D5 Nikon has just been announced). This is because if you want the very best performance in all other important areas (low light noise/grain control, processing speed, accuracy, image quality), the number of pixels still have to be controlled. So if you put pixels first, what is being compromised?

You need to cover "all the bases".

In the "5 stages of the photographer" the third stage (?) is collecting all the gear you can carry. No one is good at everything. Work out what you are interested in, get good at it and produce work. This will save you a lot of time, money and frustration. I know this because I have been down this road many a time. What you actually need is usually not much, what you think you need is probably more. I carried a macro lens around in my kit bag(s) for years. Switch brand or format, better get that macro. Turns out I hardly ever used them, so "just in case" did not ever really happen. My father in law on the other hand would use a macro or similar more often than not (the man actually likes spiders). Any reasonable close focus lens would do enough for me. I learned that one 6 lenses too late (bit slow, but I get there). By the same token, don't cut out lenses just to go with convention. Many landscapers use longer lenses and sports shooters find a use for wide angles and some dog photographers even use a fish eye lens. If you look in camera bag of most experienced photographers you will usually find only a couple of favourite lenses in preferred focal lengths, often specialist lenses and primes not zooms. They have worked out over time what works for them and that's all they carry. Try a day out with just one non zoom lens, surprise yourself.

Maybe this one is true;

No method, camera brand, opinion, technique or personal vision is better than another unless it pertains to you and your needs only. Be your own mentor, make your own rules.

On New Camera Releases

This morning I awoke to the actual release of the Fuji XPRO-2 and the leaked images of the PEN F Olympus. Working in the industry until recently, I was aware if their existence, but the rumour mill made sure everyone else was pretty close to. Effectively in direct competition as the latest and best from the leading formats of mirrorless or CSC cameras, the next few months will be interesting.

All the buzz is of course about the levels of "better" that the cameras are offering and in respect to the Fuji there was plenty of improvement to be had in every area except image quality. I am still amazed how much Fuji users (my self included) will put up with to get that legendary, if a little over blown, image quality. 

The only important question to answered with the new flagship camera releases is whether the image quality is better. Not just bigger, but better,

A while ago I owned a Canon 450D/1000D combination after getting fed up with the weight of full frame cameras, not to mention the (for me) stress of having too much expensive and expectation tied up in my camera. Weight was also exaggerated by my preference for heavy and fast prime lenses. They were great for the times I actually used cameras seriously, usually for travel and they produced what I expected, clean usable images from flexible and forgiving files. Indeed the 1000D had some of the sharpest files I have ever seen as it apparently had a very mild AA filter. The temptation to upgrade was always there, but borrowing a 5d2 for a car show and comparing the 11x14'" prints put paid to that. Not even a visiting rep from Nikon could tell the difference.

This file had the difficult combination of underexposed foreground and blown out background

Flush with a successful transition, I resolved to stick to the bottom of the line cameras, but use them with the best prime lenses. When the urge to upgrade came, with a lot less guilt as my cameras were well used and the jump was relatively small. I purchased a 550D and expected what I had, but better. Pretty soon the bubble burst. This was my first, but not last, realisation that newer technology, in a field controlled by the constant need to be perceived to improve as fast as possible, is not always better or at least not better in every way.

The 550D's screen was gorgeous, way better that the 450D, the camera was a little faster, better laid out and the files were bigger. Were the files as flexible or "bulletproof"? Were they sharper ? No. They had lovely Canon colour, had some more resolution, with all the problems that entails including to possibility of smeared sharpness (I never really got on top of that satisfactorily) . The noise was smaller as the pixels were smaller, but the 450D and 1000D cleaned up better (It was always a mystery to me that Canon kept the maximum ISO setting on those cameras so low as they did a good job, even by todays standards), the files from the 550D had strange colour response in reds and purples if a little over exposed and pushing the colours went wrong, really wrong, very quickly. There was nothing basically wrong with the camera, but it failed to reach the basic standards I had become accustomed to from older cameras. The temptation now was to return to full frame where I could have more, but without the down sides. "Better the standard V8 than the turbo charged 4 cylinder" I would say. This almost happened, but the OMD EM5 appeared at that time and I took a leap.

OK up to 8x10" prints, but this image is not sharp. Repeated attempts failed, but previous images, with older cameras were achieved without issue. 

This was the first awakening. The second came with my "bowl of allbrands" period. 

Unsure that the Olympus "look" fully satisfied after Canon colour, I got a little bit back into Canon, tried some Fuji and added a little Sony into the mix. This period is the first period of true advancement for mirrorless cameras, The EM5 proved that speed could come with good IQ, the Sony NEX 7 had the highest pixel count on any crop frame sensor by a long way, the Fuji magic was becoming established and with their 18-55 zoom, the cameras finally had acceptable responsiveness. SLR's still ruled in system depth and AF tracking, so I felt I could justify a "camera for every mood/need" kit. 

The NEX 7 in particular showed me that the extra pixels added a lush, largeness to it's image files, but never produced the sharpness or balance that the Olympus or Fuji cameras effortlessly delivered. Great with their 50mm as a portrait option, but nothing else was fully acceptable. The camera was ironically an ideal fit for my multi pronged kit as it provided a look different to the others (sort of soft medium format film), but would have been disappointing to me if it was my only port of call.

Looks good enough this size, but closer inspection shows smeariness and mottled noise, not what an Olympus or Fuji user is used to.

My hope with the two new offerings from my two favourite camera companies is that they give us more, without compromise or at least some more of some things without going backwards in other areas.  Most pleasing is the 20mp sensor in the PEN F as this is already known from the GX8 and looks to be un compromised. 

The message here is "look before you leap". Wait until the test results have come out, but be wary of purely studio tests as these are a long way removed from actual use. Make sure the upgrade does not undo the things you like about the camera you have and balance is maintained*. It does not hurt to wait, the cameras and a better perspective of their place in the world will be here in the near future. If you have money to burn, get a new/better lens. They are a better long term proposition and make more difference. 

* It is for a reason some people stick with their old XPRO-1 over the newer XT-1 or prefer the older EM5 to the newer models. I preferred the handling of the XE1/2 to any other Fuji I tried (The XT had a very stiff exposure comp dial-not my cup of tea) and found the files from the bottom of the line XA1 (different sensor and filter array) less prone to smearing landscape images than it's dearer siblings. The EM5 MK1 cameras are not perfect, but they are like a second skin to me now and that is priceless. The image quality in RAW is nearly identical to the newer cameras if a bit more contrasty.

On the Relativity of Quality

Photography specifically, and Art in general, have always struggled with the tension of "quality" (being the subjective technical quality of the process) vs "A quality" (being the viewers acceptance of the artists attempt at communicating their message).

Photography suffers doubly in this argument due to its heavier reliance on technical needs. Every painter knows their medium, but the technique they develop is very personal, limited only in vision and practice, where the photographer has to effectively "break" regular photography to get outside of the limitations of the process. In many ways these two processes are no different, but in reality the preconceptions of their practitioners are. Photographers are forced to comply to rules that seem more numerous and limiting than a paint palette and brush. Any child can draw, but when handed a complicated camera they are more likely to damage the tool than produce art (or the beginnings of art before even more complicated processing). Conversely, a camera promises much, where the paint palette needs all of its magic extracted from something very basic.

"Magnolia Silk" Canon 1Ds mk2 100mm macro

These technical constraints can overshadow the simple needs of the image, to simply please the viewer. I believe many photographers create their images with other photographers as their "bar" of quality. Indeed many blogs and forums are servicing other camera lovers who should make up a minority of their viewers, not the vast majority.

How different would a photo blog (this one for instance) be if the only audience was the regular person, not the "photo blog surfer/photographer". We all look to the things we are interested in for inspiration and entertainment, but does this cause a closed loop of thinking?

The photo below is a favourite of my family and visitors to our house. A version of it (slightly different composition) hangs on our wall, a privilege few of my photographs get, but it very nearly did not make it past its first viewing as the "technical" quality is quite poor. Hand held Canon SLR almost 10 years old with no stabiliser, poor (by current standards) high ISO capability with a good but not great lens used wide open and heavy cropping conspired to create a shot at the very edge of "OK" and not at all satisfying in processing. The reality though, when I moan to my wife or take positive comments with a half hearted response from well meaning friends is that I diminish the value of the photo. The value is in the simple viewing, no more, no less.

Canon 450D 35mm "L" lens

What would have happened if I could recreate the same conditions with a newer, more capable camera now or even every five years and compare. I would be more satisfied with the processing and close inspection would reveal less in the way of "nasties", but to everyone else, the result would be the same. They would like it or not.

The whole camera industry is hoping that the perpetual motion of upgrades will continue for ever, but the reality is we have in many ways passed the point of need and are now just running on want. Recently I dug up some old Camera & Darkroom mags (90's-2000's- old...really...ouch) and discovered something quite unsettling. The adds for film and camera/lens quality and the articles showing great works of the recent and past masters were not diminished by the aged equipment used or dated print presentation (indeed Camera & Darkroom was a high point in magazine presentation, rarely matched today and no over sharpening to be seen). The only thing that dated the magazine was the liberal use of the word "film". It's a reality that most of the master photographer's retrospective books feature film work.

When I started using digital equipment I knew that the quality was not there in some ways, but it had conveniences that re energised photography for me. At some point from then to now we have forgotten that for much of its history, the content was all important and the means secondary. I am as guilty of that as anyone.

On Being a Landscape Photographer

One of the most universally popular and timeless forms of serious amateur and professional photography is the noble landscape image. I do not confess to being an obsessed landscaper, but have dabbled and assisted other, more focussed photographers (living in Tasmania kind of makes you a landscape photographer by default), so I hope I can impart some limited wisdom on the subject.

Personal visions vary immensely, but landscape work is consistent in what it requires and what it delivers.  

"Pastel Hills" Arrow Town, New Zealand Fuji XE1 18-55 

Gear.

This is the one area of digital photography that can genuinely benefit from more pixels, but only if used carefully. Enlargements tend to be on the bigger side, and lots of small details are the norm. Technique is the key here though. A good tripod and an understanding of the many ways to arrest micro movements during exposure will be of benefit. Terms like "mirror lock", anti shock, self timers or cable releases, tripod collars around long lenses (for better balance) and "weighted" tripods are commonly used terms amongst the initiated.

An important thing to do is look at images taken for landscape competitions such as the "AA" British Landscape Photographer of the Year awards. These are a bit of an eye opener, first for their amazing content and then for the gear used (especially in the kids and compact camera sections). One class winner created a photo using a full frame camera and multiple stitched images. A runner up in the same section, created a similar image from the same place, with the same lens, but with a single capture from a crop frame 10mp camera! Up to A3 size, the difference would be minimal, but bigger sizes would show more detail in the larger file.

The camera does not have to be a monstrous speed machine, on the contrary, size and weight are important also as the destination may be well off the beaten track (weatherproofing is handy though). Full frame cameras are not as important as in other styles as the photographer will usually have plenty of time (to find and take the image), so high pixel counts do not have to be balanced against poorer low light performance (the benefit of a full frame is better high ISO performance). By contrast, smaller sensor cameras have depth of field benefits and can often match their full frame counterparts in file size (24mp is the current overlap). A gentle shutter action can be the difference between a poor scenic camera and a good one. Some consideration should also be given to the new "super" compacts sporting sharp lenses, 20 MP 1" sensors, electronic shutters and tiny body form as they exceed the performance of even recent DSLR cameras.

In a nutshell; small, light, smooth shooting, reliable and mid to high pixels...easy. 

"Past Lillies" Kamakura, Japan OMD 75 f1.8

More good news is that lenses can be selected from a wider range as the landscaper will often "stop down" their lens aperture for good depth of field and sharpest settings, giving all lenses a fighting chance and reducing the differences between "Pro" and middle of the road lenses. Even kit lenses used well will be able to resolve the bulk of detail available on the camera's sensor. Have a look at lens testing sites such as slrgear.com and compare the best premium offerings to the middle of the range zooms at f8-16. There is often a huge difference at extreme apertures and focal lengths, but in the middle apertures the numbers are usually pretty close. In the field much of this does not matter.

So, well researched "middle" grade lenses, not super fast and heavy are ideal. Good examples are the Canon 70-200 f4L (non IS) and 17-40 f4L. Super sharp at most landscape users settings, sub 1kg/$900 au, loosing one maximum F stop to the top lenses (up to twice as heavy and three times as expensive) and no stabiliser (which is useless on a tripod anyway).

Another factor to consider when kitting up with your landscape lenses is your focal length choice. Many assume that a wide angle lens is the staple for most landscapers, but that is often not the case. Some use longer lenses more often than not, looking for details, compression and "order out of chaos" in their images, others use standard or natural perspective lenses and stitch together panoramic photos rather than the usual, distorted perspective, wide angle lens normally used.

"Well Worn" Boat Harbour, Tasmania Fuji XA 1 16-50 kit zoom

As some small proof of the above statements, the above photo was taken with a $599 camera and lens combo (Fuji XA-1 and 16-50 kit lens). It can enlarged to gallery sizes, is sharp edge to edge and shows no other signs of being stretched too far. It is also a 16mp jpeg.

Technique

As stated above, the important thing in landscape photography (all types, but especially landscape) is solid, organised technique. In the days of 35mm film, the photographer was effectively stagnant in possible quality growth as new film and developers, lenses and cameras can along rarely (Fuji Velvia when it was released literally changed landscape photography and dominated it for 20 years; Kodachrome owned the previous era). When they did come, they changed little in real terms. Quality came down to good equipment used with good technique. The expert was organised, pragmatic and focussed (no pun intended). It was often confusing to the newcomer why their photos did not come up to the standard of their idols when they used the same gear (not too hard to achieve then either as choice was more limited). These days we assume the "better camera" was the reason, but the successful photographer knows better. Technique is still king. If this was not the case, we would be seeing a constant increase in visible quality and older photos would not be able to compete. This is not the case. The colour work of Ansel Adams from the 1930's is sublime, bullet proof to technical criticism and he did not even like to shoot colour! Admittedly he used a large format camera, but so could anyone else with equal effort.

Time  

This is the big one and where I personally fall down.

All landscape photographers learn the true importance of time. This comes in a lot of forms from getting up before, or staying out after the sun, trekking to the distant locale and being patient when there or just revisiting the same locale until the magic happens. Often the difference between a good landscape photo and a great one is a couple of minutes, but it can be a couple of hours. Getting back to technique, it's really important to be organised and prepared so you can be ready to get that fleeting moment. There is no point being in the right place at the right time and having to set up your tripod, put the tripod foot on your camera, reverse your hood, take off the cap, change a neglected battery, put on/take off a filter (removing the hood again), find and attach a cable release, change mode and look up.....the light is gone.

Be ready for your next shot after your last. This includes on your way back home. Film shooters often left one "in the can" just in case. Organise your camera bag to be able to place any configuration of lens and camera you may want so as to reduce unwanted fiddle just to fit things in.

I hope this helps.

On Walkers and Watchers.

After the previous post on "Takers and Makers", I got to thinking: street photographers tend to fall into (at least) two broad subcategories. I can only say this with any confidence because I can clearly see one dominant type in my own photos, so it follows there is enough difference in technique to call each out.

Let's have a look at these two curious beasts in their native habitat.

The Walker.

The Walker will stay fluid, moving, looking, not loitering often or at all. These "streetogs" are elusive, reactive in the extreme and usually footsore at the end of a day's shooting. Sometimes resorting to the "spray n' pray" method they may be prolific, but as they gain experience the number of misses decrease and their compositions tighten up. The Walker glances off events, usually using a wide lens (24-35 equiv), which allows them to see a comprehensive scene as it unfolds, grab it and move on to the next. Longer lenses can also be used by some, with increased difficulty. Their favoured technique is zone focus, as accurate auto or manual focus is nearly impossible to do consistently (but, conversely easier with longer lenses). The "clutter" of composition is too great to analyse, compose, focus and capture nearly instantly. Instinct and opportunism are their friends rather than method and thought. The Walker will benefit from an increase in camera power, with higher ISO's and increased quality allowing them a more elastic envelope to work with. Kudos to the past masters working on the fly with ISO 25 film, average lens quality and clunky, nonreactive cameras (we really do not know how lucky we are). The recently discovered Vivian Meier is a good example of the Walker in action. She would spend breaks from her job as a nanny, wandering amongst people on city streets, quietly capturing intimate portraits of the everyday. It is possible she would switch to the Stalker method, as her use of manual focus, a longer than usual focal length and on a medium format camera would have taken some considerable skill, but her works seems to lack the repetition of place and distance of that style.

Sand In My Shoe, Kamakura Japan.  OMD 75 f1.8

The Watcher.

The Watcher is more methodical in their approach. They like a pre set stage for their actors to enter and will often frequent the same locations repeatedly. Watchers have greater control of their light and the backdrop than the Walker, but still rely on the "instant of perfect interaction" to create the image. My favourite exponent of the Watcher style is Jan Meissner from New York. Jan's work is based on setting a beautiful stage (backdrop, light and composition), then waiting for the elements to come together. Some of the images look staged, but they are not, just the result of patience and vision. A bit like the Maker of the previous post, the Watcher has some control of the elements of their image, but not complete control. Watchers may favour longer lenses or zooms to allow them to stand off, study and compose, but as with all street photography, there are no hard and fast rules.

Fish market corner #1 or "Six directions", Tokyo OMD 17 f1.8

Fish market corner #2 or "Everyone is lost but one", Tokyo. OMD 17 f1.8

What do they share?

Both styles are reliant on the decisive moment, interaction, light and composition, but the Watcher is first location aware, where the Walker is subject aware.

There is no right or wrong here. Anything that gets the result you want is ok for street photography, but maybe analysing your own style will help clarify your equipment needs and methodology. Equally, knowing what you don't do now may open up some creative doors.

Happy walking and watching.

On Making or Taking a Photo.

I just watched a programme on Gregory Crewdson's "Under the Roses" project and I found myself thinking about the making/taking argument in photography. My wife found the manufactured process of the images, often with a cast of dozens, totally disengaging, even alienating, removing any pretext of legitimacy. Crewdson's intent is to represent moments in time that are ideas of his ideal representation of memory, history and emotion, but they are not spontaneous, just remembered. I must admit that if forced to choose between taking a photograph or making a photograph, I will always choose the former, but the reality is most of the photographs we look at in our every day lives are made images*. Other photographers are more equitable when looking at images than the general public, giving due credit to and appreciating the efforts of the Takers, but they are in the minority.

The Makers.

Most of the fine arts movement, many press shooters not reliant on immediate action, wedding shots on the whole, commercial work unless derived from an already taken shot, studio and portrait work and street photography relying on direct communication with the subject before the shot are all examples of "made" photographs. Any photo created in concept or literally, prior to the shutter being fired is a made photo. This does not necessarily include post processing, but the intent to heavily modify an image comes from the same thinking. The technical quality of made photographs is completely up to the shooter, ranging from the very best to unique and even difficult processes, but they have time and repeatability. Good examples of Makers are, Crewdson, Rankin, Ellen von Unwerth and most studio or fashion photographers.

Normally I would insert an example photo here, but I have not one "made" photo in my library.

The Takers.

Street photographers from the old school who shoot first and interact later or not at all, landscape and wildlife photographers, slaves to their often fickle or elusive subjects, press photographers intent on capturing the action of sport, war or documentary, rare wedding photographers shooting "fly on the wall" and quiet observers who fall roughly into all of the above categories are the Takers. These forms of imagery rely on watching and being prepared, with the acceptance that a miss is a (great?) "one that got away" story, but a miss none the less. They usually do not have the benefit of the highest technical quality as that limits reactivity too much, rather they capture emotion, genuine interactions and one-off events full of life at the expense of ideal quality (many of the great street shooters' images are technically poor due to the limited choice of film and equipment at the time, but are no less powerful). Takers are limited by the same things photography has always been limited by, that is you can only photograph what is in front of you with limited controls or distortions. Sam Abel, Steve McCurry, William Eggleston, Mario Cuic, James Nachtwey, HCB, Salgado, Kate Kirkwood are examples of "Takers".

Gold and Green Kyoto Japan. OMD 17 f1.8

Post processing has to a certain extent blurred some of the differences, allowing the Taker to reinvent, to an extent, their found image and the Maker has more control after capture of what they cannot control before, but the distinction is in the process. Pre think or react. 

I suppose in essence, the Taker relies on inspiration from their discoveries with the only pre thought part of the process being the intended destination (geographically and artistically) a bit like writing about your experiences after the trip and only planning the basics of the trip before going, where the Maker pre imagines the idea and makes an image to fit, that is they don't travel to discover, but tell the story from their imagination at home with "sets" of what they imagine the destination would look like (or even better than reality).

Which is best?

Which are you (or a bit of both)?

Doesn't really matter, both have their place, but it may help to think on it.

*I am of course ignoring the vast output of on the spot, opportunistic mobile phone users, who do not claim to be photographers or cinematographers, but make up the majority of the Takers simply by being there. 

On Olympus Lenses Part 2

In the previous post I discussed my choice of Olympus longer focal length lenses. Now it's time to look at the shorter focal lengths. 

Olympus 17mm f1.8: The Unlikely Friend.

Let's start with a lens that for a long time sat in the "waiting for something better" category, but has ended up being my go to lens. I would have once thought this highly unlikely due to the focal length (I tend to like slightly longer focal lengths) and my early feelings towards its performance. Liking this lens taught me a lot about myself and lens design philosophy. Reviews tended to fall into two camps. On the one hand are the "number testers" who quickly found much to criticise such as poor sharpness, lots of chromatic aberrations, poor edges etc. They universally praised the build and handling, but were luke warm on the optics. By direct test comparison, the lens falls short of the Panasonic primes, their pro zoom and Olympus's own Pro zooms, but that's not the whole story.

My favourite reviewers are users, not measurers. Ming Thien, Steve Huff and John Kennerdell all heap praise on this lens and their only measure is use. The more I use it, the more I like and trust it.

At one point my first one was sold, but every possible replacement fell short somehow. Panasonic's optically superior (?) 15mm f1.7 Leica back-focussed (placed focus behind the intended point consistently) on both my EM5 mk1's. The 20mm focusses too slow on older EM5's and its manual focus is not pleasant. The 14mm was too slow in maximum aperture for my uses (and a bit "fiddly" small). Buying the 17mm back became a reluctant reality, but I have not looked back. One of the lenses' best features is the elongated Bokeh rendering. I think this is a throw back to an older way of handling shallow depth of field, often a forced reality in the early film era. The lens drifts from focussed to out of focus in a smooth and leisurely way, mostly invisibly. This makes wide open use easier than with a lot of "modern" rendering lenses as your near misses are not dramatic unlike the sharp/soft rendering common in many lenses like the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. It's great for zone focus and lightning fast grab shots both for how its MF/AF work and its rendering. 

Shibuya Japan  OMD 17mm f1.8

Olympus 25mm f1.8: The Very Nifty 50. 

Not much to say here, but yay! Every kit should have a perfect fast 50mm equivalent. My preference is for a 40/60 equiv. combo, but as a "one lens" option the 50mm equivalent is ideal and it sits better between the 17/45 combo. It's a problem solver with few faults. The colour is beautiful, it's really sharp (45mm like), transitions well and is pleasant to use. Their is a little CA wide open on mine, but it went unnoticed for ages and is easily fixed (many review it as CA free, but mine has a little). After owning the Leica 25 f1.4, I can say they are both very good, but different. The Oly is the no nonsense doer, the Leica is the slightly flawed, but occasionally brilliant option (a hard to define "bigger" look maybe). The idea of owning both has been entertained, but if pressed the Olympus is just more reliable in its image making.

Skate Park  Launceston Tasmania. OMD 25mm f1.8

Where is my wide angle? Truth is I do not use one much, so getting one will be simply as a filler, a "just in case lens". The options are:

The Panasonic 20mm f1.7. The first great lens for the system, now in its second form. On Panasonic or the newer Olympus cameras it's ok, but on the older ones the focus sucks and the manual focus ring is not "one finger" operation like the 17mm. By some standards good enough, but not M43. What cannot be denied is its optical performance.

Panasonic 20mm f1.7

12mm f2 Olympus. Almost as expensive as the pro 12-40, this one has always been out there, but my need does not justify the cost.

14mm Panasonic. It is great, cheap, sharp and light, but too close to the 17mm and 2 stops slower. The autofocus is fast, but manual focus is a bit fiddly. I have owned this one before, but sold it when faster lenses came along. The 15mm is even better, but back-focus issues put it out of the running.

The 12-40 Olympus. Probably the best landscape lens option as it excels at edge to edge sharpness through is entire range, but it's heavy (by M43 standards). Nothing to complain about here except size and weight. By the way, they all have a slight rattle when the barrel is extended - it's normal.

The Panasonic 12-35 f2.8. The purple barrelled Panasonic is to my eye sharper in the centre (on par with the 25mm Oly) at the expense of edge sharpness. It's lighter and smaller than the Oly pro lens and the colour looks to be a little softer/lighter. The filter thread is also a handy 58mm. I prefer this one to the Olympus due to its form.

On Olympus Lenses Part 1

This is not going to be a post about the technical pecking order of my chosen camera lenses, nor will it have the test charts or examples blown up to 200% to prove/disprove my thoughts as I have found that these things do not matter and worse, can be misleading. This is just going to be my feelings on the lenses I use and my personal recommendations. If you like my sample photos, I hope you are responding to the images and not the lens performance, but of course the lenses make the images possible.

I'm a bit over the tech heavy reviews of gear, as I have personally found that nothing beats actually using gear to really get a feel of how it works and feels. Tests also tend to overlook the designers intent. Some lenses have a performance envelope specific to their intended application so "blanket" tests can find them out in areas they are not suited for (take for example the 17 and 75mm lenses, very different on the test bench, but harmonious, if different-deliberately, in actual use). Trust me, there is nothing but discontent to be found slavishly visiting lens test sites.

All of the lenses talked about below are Olympus. This is because I have made an effort to stick with them for consistency of colour and a logical spread of focal lengths. Olympus lenses have also proven to be very consistent in lens to lens comparisons. I will talk about other lenses below as well as they arise, without bias and all due credit given.

Olympus 75mm f1.8: The Scalpel.

This one is tough. On one hand this is the most stable and technically proficient lens I own and probably will ever own (at least the equal to the Canon 135 f2, my previous favourite). Like the Canon, though, it often shows less character than other lenses, being "just" perfect. Almost too self-conscious to allow less than faultless performance, it can be unforgiving and its images tend to stand apart from those of other lenses (the focal length exaggerates this also). Images taken with it are not hard to pick in editing as they have a distinct "spotless" look, sometimes making other lenses look a bit shabby. Like the friend that turns up to any event a bit over dressed, the 75mm makes the user very aware of what it does best and it is sometimes a relief to use a "lesser" lens of a gentler and more forgiving nature. I must admit, this one makes me a bit of a pixel peeper. It's just fun to see things so well defined and editing tends to be careful coercion rather than a heavy push.

"Coffee Shop Ride" 75 f1.8

Olympus 75-300: The Over Achiever.

This is one of the best purchases I have made in the Olympus range. So good in fact, that it has been bought, stupidly sold and bought again (doh!). Lens reviews can be tough and this lens has had plenty of mixed ones, but here are the facts: it's sharp, pleasant to use, powerful and great value (I used to carry around a much bigger, more expensive, non stabilised, non zoom Canon to get 600mm equiv.). For a slow lens, the Bokeh is very nice and it's very close in actual field sharpness to the 40-150 F2.8 in the focal lengths they share, except it's twice as long and small enough to be added to a bag with little thought. It just continues to surprise. After using the Canon 400 f5.6L with a Full Frame 16mp 1Dsmk2 for a long time, I really do not see a difference when using the Olympus EM5 and relatively cheap zoom combination. That's a big indication of how far we have come with lens and sensor tech.

Perth Zoo 75-300 (300)

Olympus 45mm f1.8: The Little Gem. 

One of the lenses many say should be your first serious lens purchase (or second after the 20mm Panasonic) for the micro four thirds system. Often found cheap in kits as the third lens, the 45mm f1.8 is a cracker. It's so small that it literally sits in the 75's shadow, but its image quality is striking. It is smooth and "gentle" sharp, that is, it's really sharp without being too blatant and has character. It never calls attention to itself, rather it travels quietly and confidently. It is almost too small to take seriously, but do...really do. 

"Morning Moves" Tokyo 45 f1.8

Olympus 60mm f2.8 macro: The Easy One.

It's no surprise when a macro lens is a good stable and competent performer. They have no excuse as their role is simple: to be of scientific grade sharpness at all focussing distances, relatively fault free and accurate. This often comes at the expense of other, more glamorous or practical features such as maximum aperture, focus speed, size and weight, but macro shooters accept this as par for the course. The 60mm Olympus is one of three lenses I have parted with (75-300 and 17mm) only to come back to as either the best option or in place of the holes created by a "purge" of other brands owned (Fuji, Sony and Canon). I always felt a bit naked without a macro in my bag. Canon's 100mm was a stalwart, but big, heavy and too close to another favourite the 85 f1.8 to be harmonious in the same bag. The Fuji 60mm made a beautiful portrait lens, but focus was poor and the macro feature was really only just. The Olympus is a revelation at less than 200g and so skinny it fits in the sort of spaces only a filter or cleaning cloth usually fit. It doubles as a nice portrait lens when nothing else is at hand with lovely Bokeh and gentle contrast. The Sigma 60mm is known as a bargain in this focal length, but is classed as a close focus portrait lens and not a true macro (a bit like the Fuji).

Back Garden Sample 60mm F2.8 macro

This completes my simple summary of the long lenses I currently use, but others worthy of mention that I have owned (sometimes more than once) are:

The Canon 70-200 F4L. If I were to buy Canon again (should I say each time...), this would be the one. Well respected and forever giving, it is the lightest and most optically reliable "cheap" Canon telephoto. On a crop frame camera, it multiplies out to a handy 100-300 equivalent which would be my preference, but either way it is a no brainer. To be honest, I always found it hard to pick the difference in images from this and the 135 F2L. In a non scientific test, hand holding it at 200mm 1/30 sec and comparing the results with the "IS" version of the same lens, I could achieve 3 out of 5 sharp images with this and only 4 out of 5 with the stabilised lens. The "IS" is almost twice as dear, a little heavier and (maybe) has more breakable moving parts (they rattle when shaken, the other one does not), but it is weather sealed.

The Fuji 60mm macro. Apart from poor AF on an ageing XE1 this lens was really spectacular, reasonably sized and priced.

Classic Car Show Fuji 60mm f2.4

Canon 100 macro, 85 F1.8, 400 f5.6L and 200 f2.8L all found a place in my bag until the "only primes" mentality with big and heavy Canon lenses stealing the fun away. My whole Olympus kit (3 bodies and 7 lenses) weighs about the same as any two primes and a body from Canon.

Hope this helps.

Next up we look at the shorter lenses.

On Lens Reviews

First up a little photo "philosorant"!

One of the most written about subjects in the photo blogosphere is the quality of the humble (or not so humble) camera lens, their short comings, strengths and usefulness. 

A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away (i.e. before the internet), photographers would rely on word of mouth, assumptions, sparse magazine articles or just the limited choice available, when deciding on their lenses. Often their choice of camera brand set them on a limited path, they chose and moved on happily.

Today we get so much information, almost infinite opinions, and we are continually bombarded with hard numbers, indisputable facts or subjective ratings. If we are looking for the answers we want, we will find them, but often there will be a voice of dissent or contradiction, sowing confusion and frustration.

Most of these views are based on facts and can be proven and in their limited sphere to be absolute and true, but to what end? Lenses sporting a Red ring are assumed to be near perfect, some brands can do no wrong and old glass is naff. None of these are strictly true (or completely false).

Ironically the enemy of some modern masterpieces is this very same information stream. Recently a lens test on the monster $4,000 Canon 11-24 "L" stated that the tiny $200, 40mm was sharper. A damaging claim taken out of context.

We all want to be better at what we do, always crave a creative edge and find ways to improve. This is why the internet's almost endless reviews on the things we covet are so alluring. They claim to be able to give us the "juice" on the things we want, a head start or advantage unseen by others.

Guess what? 

That edge is you, not your gear.

No piece of equipment is ever going to be as important as the user. It's been said often, but it's never been truer*. Sure you need the right equipment and the quality should be as good as your budget, shoulder or conscience can bear, but no more is needed and the more you restrict your choices the clearer they become.

Rather than just "what do you use" the question is "how/why do you use it"?

The relevance of a photograph is purely in the eye of the beholder. The viewer could care less about your gear (the guy asking about your gear is into gear, not your photo). They (the rest of humanity, not fellow photographers) have been looking at photos for over one hundred years and non photographic art for a long time before that.

During that time technology has been equipping photo artists with ever better tools, but the viewer does not care. As proof of this, look at older photos, you know, the ones that inspired you to do this in the first place. Look into the making of your top 100 "best pics" of the last and this century. Unless you are limited to only social media for inspiration many of these would be made with film cameras, often older ones and almost always under extreme technical duress. Saul Leiter could shoot handheld colour at ISO 25 at night, under city lights without a stabiliser, with medium format limited depth of field, manual focus at waist level and with no preview or any real idea how well he had taken the shot until after developing, but still pulled it off!

Are these results any less because of their technical shortcomings or are they all the more impressive?

Most artists will pare their tools down to what works. No more, no less. Give Shakespeare 10,000 more words and would his work be more compelling? Would Caravaggio have painted with more passion if he was confused with a dozen more choices of medium or style?

Now, getting back on track.

If you can trust your own eyes, trust that the lens designer has some idea and trust that you may be able to get a great shot with your lens/camera combo even if the person standing next to you has better gear, then your choices and confidence improve greatly.

"Everyday" Shibuya Japan. OMD 17 f1.8

The above photo was taken with a lens that I have allowed myself to be "spooked" into selling due to lacklustre reviews and poor head to head comparisons. I now own it again (Olympus 17mm f1.8) as it was the best option and all of the better ones were found wanting in some crucial way**.

"Poor" bokeh turned out to be excellent out of focus transition, that could look a bit messy in some situations, but in shots like above, allowed (at f1.8!) enough detail in the blurred background to hold interest, giving the photo two defined levels. The lens most often recommended over it (the Panasonic 20mm) has more "modern" bokeh that would have smeared the detail out to a beautifully smooth, but incoherent blur (it also has more practical limitations that the Olympus betters).

Poor or at least not "stellar" sharpness reviews became over time an irrelevance, and a bit of a lie. A bit of sharpening brings out lots of nice detail in a pleasant, non jarring way and the lens is very focus forgiving due to its bokeh rendering (above). It's not "snappy" sharp (well usually not, but it surprises) like its longer siblings, but it is "honest" sharp like film would be and it produces good sharpening for prints.

Maybe it's possible Olympus gave this lens a character and utility that suited its intended use?

In a non scientific, eyeball to print test, it was pitted against the very good 23mm Fuji. The end result of the test came down to the Fuji jpegs vs the Olympus RAW's and the perceived differences in the lenses became a casualty of post processing. In blind testing people preferred one or the other image by colour, tonality or slight compositional difference, but no one picked out one lens as sharper than the other.

I actually learned more about the cameras than the lenses.

My time with a Sony NEX7 was a bit frustrating. The only time everything came together was when I borrowed the 50mm f1.8 for a weekend. The lens was never reviewed as good enough for that high res sensor, but no reviewer touched on the less quantifiable lush and rich looking images it created or how well the camera liked the lens better than the more expensive 35mm I owned. 

Canon's 28mm f1.8 has been well bucketed in forums and reviews, but on a 450D it just sang. Not really sharp enough across the frame for full frame, it hit a lovely balance of bokeh and sharpness, at wider apertures on a crop sensor camera. Its character was similar to the Olympus 17mm, and like the Oly lens, was a pleasure to use. I owned the 35mm "L" at the time, but must admit to liking the 28mm more in real use.

"Cherry lips" Hiroshima Japan OMD 75-300 

Price can also be a bit misleading. Modern lenses are all marvels of engineering, approaching levels that even the best glass of only a few generations ago could not come close to. Some of the best lenses made are "sleepers", not sporting great reputations or amazing specs, but are simple, gentle designs that must be a lens designers Nirvana. It has been often quoted that any lens at f# is as good as any other. Looking at Canon 50mm range, the "L" is the lusted after super lens, but struggles to be any better in sharpness at smaller apertures than the $100 50mm f1.8. You are paying for aperture speed and the look it provides, but don't kid yourself, the cheap lens has already reached the realistic top end of needed resolution at f4-8.

The image above was a speculative grab using a "budget" 75-300, a lens I miss, but I rarely used the more expensive 75mm ("The Scalpel") while I owned it. The slower aperture of the lens allowed a nice amount of blur, covering the slight focus miss. If I had my 75mm on that (gloomy) day I would have probably shot at f2/2.8 and changed the character of the image.

One of my favourite photos, taken by a friend at night with a compact camera, has a strong emotional and nostalgic appeal that makes the tool irrelevant. Indeed I believe the photo would be diminished if it was a little "better" technically.

Morocco  (Peta Frost) Canon Ixus

So, the point of my ramblings?

Use your gear, make your mind up from the images that you take in real situations and don't be too quick to jump ship, just because something said to be better comes along. Also don't hold on to gear just because it is said to be the best if it does not work for you. It may be hard to replace a working combination and equally, sometimes hard to identify a poor one.

If you must look at websites to decide on a lens, look at pictures made with it, the rendering, style or look that the lens gives. All lenses have a personality that shows itself over time***.

*Eric Kim on his blog is an example of the new direction on bloggers, going away from gear reviews and into people reviews, philosophy and technique.

**The Leica 15mm back focussed on my EM5, the 14mm that I have owned before always felt a little "under done" though sharp and fast focussing and the 20mm Panasonic had AF/MF issues. Sigma's 19mm came close, but too slow at f2.8.

*** One of the reasons I don't like to use zooms is their personality is much more complex.

On Micro Four Thirds

Its been a long struggle, for me and everyone that knows me.

My journey with Micro 4/3 format has been interesting to say the least and may be worth sharing with you, from a gear interest perspective and also as a study in photographic philosophy and hypocrisy.

"The Waiter" Harajuku Japan. OMD 25 f1.8

To start with, some background.

I have been interested in photography in one form or another since the 1980's and have always had one recurring theme...dissatisfaction with gear, results or process.

Working in a camera shop does not help!

Selling and buying gear is a normal occurrence in my house. Nothing has lasted for more than a year or so since the film era, and (yes this is the hypocritical bit), I preach what I believe on a daily basis, that any camera is a good camera, or else why do we bother. Do we wait until the perfect camera comes or have we always just gotten on with it?

Does this stop me?

No.

Oh but it gets better. Once gone the unwanted items of equipment are usually missed. Some not, but some very much. Looking at old images is poor therapy.

The countless blogs out there will talk of "GAS" or gear acquisition syndrome or some such, one of the recognised five steps of the photographer (hoarding step 3?), but with some the cycle repeats.

 More than once.

As recently as a year ago I sported four brands, 8 cameras (more or less) and a clutch of lenses! My photographic output was neither more nor less than usual, but my dissatisfaction with my gear went from "lots of choice...great", to "can't carry it all, don't want any of it....grrr".

Something had to give and with this came the realisation that I had been here before.

Canon went pretty easily as it was a flirtation with an old friend, but nothing serious.

Sony went easily as well as my poison took the form of the NEX 7. A camera with plenty of potential, but Sony refused to reveal it. Their desire to hide the cameras secrets behind an atrocious menu is well documented, showing that perversely Japanese trait of over complication for its own sake.

Now... Fuji or Olympus?

Olympus had a great record of faultless service, solid image performance and the lenses I had accumulated were of a high standard, but sometime the images were just "drab".

Being a Fuji Velvia and digital Canon child, rich colour and warmth are pretty well baked in.

Fuji on the other hand has lots of ZAP, POW and WHAM. Like the proverbial super hero though, nothing was simple.

There never seems to be a good solution ergonomically with them. Granted the XE1 I am using is an older model and even with Fuji's great firmware support culture, the camera is much improved from its original form, but the Olympus came out of the gate well and has not faulted. The fuji always had a "disconnect" between me and the process. Also there is the ongoing saga of RAW or JPEG files, processing and the "odd" behaviour of some files.

Problem? Fuji with its trials; getting another camera that will not give me better images than the one I have, but will fix responsiveness issues, or get more responsive lenses (I have the 27 with no aperture ring and 60 with poor AF) to help out the camera?

Or drop Fuji and make the Olympus work better for me.

Make no mistake, the images out of the OMD and later PEN series of cameras is giant killing. I have several times tried to jump ship (camera shop curse), but even a Canon full frame could not blow away the Oly and the RAW file flexibility, accuracy of focus, depth of field benefit* and lenses always tipped the balance. 

I like the Canon deep colour, effortless warmth, smoothness and contrast. Out of the camera, the Olympus lacked much of that, instead offering hard sharpness, neutrality/naturalness, punchy but "thin" colour and a general "realness" that made dull conditions look well.... dull.

In a trip to Japan we suffered poor weather and the Olympus struggled to give me the magic I knew the Fuji would. It is worth noting that the Olympus cameras hardly missed a shot and even the worst mistakes were salvageable.

"Frost web" Tasmania.  Fuji XE1 60mm Macro

Lightroom to the rescue!

It took a little effort, but I got there in the end. Half a dozen lightroom pre sets, some creative thinking and there is all of the Canon warmth and depth, the Fuji sparkle and colour pop.

"Bel Air time"  Fuji XE1 60mm macro

"Bel Air time alternative" OMD 75 f1.8

Although different, the two shots above are both acceptable to me and the truth is I can make both match almost perfectly (the red in the Olympus shot is actually closer to the truth than the Fuji red), but everyone will have their favourite I am sure.

Add to that, the super clarity and sharpness, bullet proof RAW'S and the accuracy of the cameras and it has suddenly become an easy choice. 

I now have for the first time in a long time a "1 bag kit".

There... that wasn't hard was it?

*The M43 format has a slightly smaller sensor than other crop frame formats, giving about one stop more depth of field at the same aperture.