Adventures In Flash Photography (or building a flash kit-quickly)

Flash photography seems to me to be both an ancient art and a new found challenge.

After years of shooting with (for) available light, with rare and occasional contact with studio or flash bound world, I have now come fully around to the necessities of artificial, read; controllable, light.

The journey has been fast and furious to say the least.

The school I work for recently held it’s yr 11-12 ball. We are extremely lucky where I live (a giant island), having no current cases of COVID-19, but as the rest of the world is finding, it takes two weeks to know if you have it and longer to know you are rid of it, so social distancing, cleanliness and testing are still important.

Organising events at the moment, requires careful interpretation of the social distancing rules, so gaining clarity on what would be allowed on the night seemed pretty fluid. Where the ball was held needed to wait until the very night to tell us their expectations.

What would happen in a normal year?

Arrivals (red caret stuff), static portrait, from formal groups to loose friendship groups and some silly stuff, then dancing and mingling shots.

Static “studio style” portrait shots.

Action shots, mingling, dancing etc.

Prep.

I had a YongNuo 560 III and IV and their cordless commander for a while, but had little desire to use them. My out of date understanding of manual flash made it all too hard in my head (as I understood it). I should have read up more.

I added to this kit a second 560 IV, a Godox TTL 685 to deepen and “smarten” up the base kit and a couple of light weight stands, with circular diffuser soft boxes and flash attachment clamps. I felt like I was on the way for small stuff like single subject portraits, but what about larger groups, especially if social distancing makes a small group as wide as a big group?

After a bit of research a couple of shoot-through umbrellas were added. White shoot-throughs are wide coverage area problem solvers. They lack fine control, but that is for later. Right now I need good, soft and even coverage and the consensus is umbrellas are the way to go.

Testing some ideas the night before left me seriously wondering if I was out of my depth. The reality of it all started to sink in. Thirty years of no flash habits having to make way for thirty days of crash learning with little realistic, up to date field experience?

Neil Van Neikirk and Joe McNally amongst so many others are a treasure trove of ideas in a very sharing community, but the reality is, nothing is certain when using flash (their words). There is no sure fire formula for getting it right every time. You just have to get in the ball park, then play around until you have something workable, play some more for something better and take notes.

The day in question.

After the night before, I turned up resigned to the fact that fate and luck would have a large hand in proceedings. My first job was to try out the studio kit and get it right. I played around for a half hour with some passers by as impromptu models and was far from happy with my results. Theoretically, I was fine, but it just would not come together. My two hour safety net shortened too quickly then was bought short when my contact for the school told me the first students were arriving (45 minutes early). This bought me to my second unfinished task, getting the EM1 and Godex sorted out for the arrivals at the front door!

I high tailed it out front, camera, flash and (hair-brained idea) modifier (a cheap Gary Fong knock off) attached. First shot, out of focus and poorly lit. Crap. I ditched the modifier.

Luckily the couple were the senior prefects who took up station behind me to greet arrivals. I told them I needed another shot later, so disaster avoided. Next couple, better. Next better again. With TTL the the trick is to balance the ambient and flash exposure using the exposure comp controls for both devices. I had painstakingly set this up on the camera using the 1-2 level arrangement, but in my haste I just fell back on exposure comp for ambient light on the camera and TTL +/-0 on the flash.

TTL is good and quick and rarely falls outside of a workable range, but you need to remember, the camera is exposing for ambient light, filling with the flash, so the ratio of ambient and fill is crucial, but you also have to compensate for subject. The smartness of the devices can be your undoing. Dark subjects need minus ex comp with both camera and flash!

End result. All arrivals secured, some post to fix the ratios as the sun set and strong down lighting in the entrance dominated and a grudging respect for the EM1 and Godox combo.

Ok, sorted. Secure in the knowledge that the students would be settling in, ordering dinner and listening to speeches, I wandered back to my makeshift studio (stuck in a corner of the room due to restrictions prohibiting anyone leaving the room), determined to somehow set up a workable arrangement.

Remember the old “KISS or keep it simple stupid”? Well I went with a tricky three light set-up straight out of the box!

The primary light (A) was a 560 IV level with me on my left at full height (6.5 foot), sporting an umbrella. Solid choice. Testing had produced even and strong light at 1/32 power! Awesome. Lots of light from little power. Good for batteries and flash heat.

The secondary light (B), another 560 IV, started out to my right, level with my subject’s, cutting across as fill at about -2 stops power. This lasted a few shots and ended up on my level right, lower than “A”, still as fill but more evenly powered.

The third light (C, a 560 III), designed to be a hair or rim light with the added task of warming up the salmon beige wall I had as a backdrop, started to go to sleep quickly The Mk III’s are apparently prone to that (over heating?) , which is why I went with more IV’s as well as them being smarter. Luckily I had two IV’s or things may have gone a bit pear shaped.

6-700 odd portrait images, some dance floor shots (manual flash flagged and bounced off the ceiling at 1/8 strength) and we were done. In a whirlwind three hours, I barely stopped.

Lessons learned.

1) Start with a basic, workable plan and modify it better.

2) Pack more batteries (24 photo grade ones only just made it).

3) Have backups (another 560 IV since added and some modifier options).

4) Appreciate the little EM10 that did the bulk of the work. The thing ran hot, but did not miss one shot in very dim conditions.

5) Go to these things with a feeling of exploration and anticipation, not dread.

6) Use manual (camera and flash). The reality is, I find manual is actually easier to control and more consistent than TTL. More on this later.

Token pretty photo, no flash used.

Tooling Around In The Garden With My New Crush (or get a grip)

The EM10 mk2’s I picked up early in the year on run-out are now my core work cameras.

In this role, they felt a little….puny.

I tried two grips.

The Olympus one, which was a little hard to track down, and the generic (comes under many names-mines unmarked) for about 1/3 the price.

The generic came first.

First thing you notice about this one is it comes in three parts (but the Allen key supplied only fits some of the screws). The handle, base plate and side plates are all separate. I originally took off the side plate, but put it back later as it adds some utility and interest factor to the camera.

In hand, it feels solid and secure. I exclusively used this camera over the last two weeks because it felt better than the base camera.

This week the original grip arrived.

Hmmmm…sexy.

The black camera deserved a rest after “attending the ball”, taking 700+ images with my fledgeling flash kit. The thing was hot to touch after, but did not miss a shot.

The grip supported kit clearly offers better Bokeh!

Paths For The Future

Looking at what to do next gear wise, I have narrowed down the contenders to five. Two M43 options and , Fuji and two Canon options.

What I am after is not a great deal;

More depth, especially with sport grade af,

More reach, or at least a better long lens option,

Possibly a wide option.

More pixels? not really unless there is a free bonus nature to them (see below)

Cropped from a 20mp image file, taken with a mid range zoom.

Each option has it’s benefits and cautions, so lets look at the maths.

Olympus ($5000au).

The EM1 mk3 and 100-400 Olympus combination offers more reach (800mm equiv), more depth (400k shutter and better af) with some more features. It is also fully compatible with my existing kit.

Pro’s; Everything fits, everything is familiar, longevity with Olympus is secured for a while longer.

Con’s; Throwing more money into a possibly dead system path.

Panasonic ($5000au).

This offers me a same-but-different camera in the G9 with some areas of clear superiority over my EM1 mk2 and some areas where it is a little weaker. I feel the G9 is a slightly better camera than the EM1 mk2, but slightly weaker than the EM1 mk3. One of the benefits, their DFD focussing, which nails some situations, does have a couple of caveats. The first is a reliance on Panasonic lenses, the second is a “wobble” effect through the view finder when focusing.

The lenses are the 100-400 Leica which has suffered some mixed reviews, but is on the whole near enough to the Olympus lens and half a stop faster through most of the range. The second lens that just squeezes into the budget is the Leica 8-18.

Pro’s; More M43, but a different feature set, more reach, more width, future proofing.

Con’s; exactly my needs addressed, nothing more, only about a stop of overall benefit in low light.

Canon RF ($7-9000au).

Canon is suddenly kicking some serious goals and clearly starting the shift to mirrorless , not just as a perceived forced transition, but as a real embracing the benefits first route.

The R6 offers no more pixels than my current cameras, but it does offer up to three stops more realistically useable, ISO range. The af looks top notch and the dynamic range is wider than my M43 cameras.

Match this with their 100-500 lens, which looks to be magnificent and you have a combo that is not necessarily capable of better maximum quality, but really has the potential of being a “more often” quality image maker.

The lens logic is interesting. Loosing 300mm equivalent reach, the lens acts like (in M43 terms) an f2-4.5 lens in equivalent depth of field thanks to the sensor size and power.

Add to this either the 24-105 L or even the 24-240 zoom (plenty good enough for small print and facebook) and there is a full kit, but at $10,000 or so.

Pro’s; best in class overall performance from a 20mp sensor, future proofing and depth

Con’s; cost, two systems and possible over kill.

Canon EOS ($4500 +if a standard lens is added)

A 90D and 100-400 L II are a solid, high performance sports rig. Addressing the specifics of above, this combo adds the SLR advantages of much better battery endurance (2000 odd shots), good reach (640mm) and depth (200k shutter fires), with cropping (30+mp) in a fit to purpose camera and lens kit. The lens also transitions into RF well, only being beaten by the 100-500, which is $1000 dearer.

The 90D gets mixed reviews with OVF af performance (DPreview canned it openly), but great reviews for live view performance. I know however, that the camera offers high af customisation, which is almost never taken into account in reviews.

Pro’s; Good value, good future pathway, more pixels (if needed), SLR benefits.

Con’s; An SLR (!), iffy top tier sports af, no more M43 depth.

Fuji ($5000).

The XT4 is like the G9, same, but different. The long lens is strong, the semi free standard is a cut above and if a 14mm were added, would make a full kit.

The plasticky tele is annoying, but optically strong, the camera offers a genuine 1-2 stop ISO benefit, more pixels and the jpeg work flow is tempting. The ability to have my M43 kit intact, complimented by a full Fuji kit is really tempting. All other options either add little in the way of image options, or they are not complete in their own right.

For some reason, running this with M43 feels right, as I have done this before in the early days of mirrorless.

Pro’s; A sensor that acts like a Full frame, but with a cropping benefits, glassy images, jpeg work flow, great glass.

Con’s; Not really any except the plastic lens barrel and the need for a grip to balance the camera/lens.

Ready for the Black Friday through Christmas sales, where I end up may surprise even me.

Sufficiency and the Future

Waiting for a class to arrive for a class portrait, I went exploring in the grounds at the school I work for.

Easily enough taken with an EM10 mk2 and 12-40 lens.

The image above is a crop from below.

Outside of “fear” distance with a 40mm lens.

This got me considering, once again, what our realistic level of sufficiency is and why we constantly question it, especially considering my immediate future.

I have pushed the M43 system pretty hard over the last few months. Indoor sports with medium grade lighting, Drama (both performance and portraits), long range field sports, on the fly portraiture, events and images suitable for enlargements, and it has always come up trumps.

I intend to increase the depth of my kit, or rather as quantity is not the issue*, increase it’s depth in pro specs.

The options for about $5000 au. are;

A Panasonic G9, that would compliment my EM1 Mk2 with a same-but-different dynamic. The G9 is in many ways a better camera than the EM1 mkII, or at least offers a solid “plan B” for most situations. This would likely be matched with the 50-200 or 100-400 Leica lenses (the G9 and this lens come in at $500au less than the EM1 mk2 and Oly lens and $1300 cheaper than the MK3 and lens and is 1/2 a stop faster) with possibly the 8-18 as a true wide option. My migration path would still be within M43, but with two feature sets and cross-over into a “living” system.

A Fuji XT4, 100-400 and superior kit 18-55. Again, a similar camera to the EM1, but with better low light performance, a stellar long lens and very neat “kit” lens. If a 14mm was added, this would be a working kit in it’s own right. Obviously there would be no cross compatibility, but I could shift either way in the future.

Another EM1 (mk2 or 3) and the new 100-400 Olympus. This is a commitment to a brand with a possibly limited life-span, but 400k shutter actuations on the EM1 mk3 is double most other options and the Oly 100-400 is best in class. This would likely see me out with Olympus, offering full kit compatibility, or at least get me through until I can justify a full shift to a more affordable FF brand (everything at the moment seems to be getting dearer).

Cheap option, get my 40-150 back, with an EM1 2-3, saving $1-2k, but lacking a long option.

A seemingly odd shift to a Canon 90D SLR and long lens (200 f2.8, 70-200 F4 non IS cheap options or 100-400 IS II), giving me a best value option for sports, better battery life and a logical upgrade path to Canon FF mirrorless when the prices become reasonable (or maybe even not). This is where I lament selling my 400 f5.6, 200, 70-200 and 135 L’s, but oh well. A 90D and 70-200 F4L or 200 f2.8 comes in at $2500, surely making it the best value with a 300mm F2.8/4 lens equivalent.

Sony. Too dear, messy and video centric.

Nikon. Great cameras but expensive or iffy low grade tele lenses, when compared to Canon’s mass of excellent budget “L” options. A D500 would be nice, but what affordable lens options would keep it’s Af tracking edge intact?

*I have lots of depth with 2 EM10 mkII’s doing low stress daily work stuff, 3 EM5 mk1’s in my flash kit, an EM1 mkII reserved as my sports camera, The Pen F, one EM5 and Pen mini for personal use. The shortage is in tracking af capable cameras.

Sport And Where To Go Next

Being a school photographer has to be just about the best place to exercise all of your (my) photographic muscles. The subjects are diverse, interesting the situations even more diverse.

Indoor production? No problem. In situ portrait, or classroom interactions , again no issue. My kit sports a set of useful primes and a great standard zoom, so no technical issues.

My favourite subject, mainly because it is a license to have fun with little pressure, is sport.

Ironically, that is where I am weakest gear wise. A logical at the time selling off of my 40-150 f2.8 and later my 12-100 f4 has reduced me to shooting sports outdoors with the 75-300 and 40-150 “kit” level lenses.

Now I love these lenses. Tied for best bang for the buck in the system, especially for cost/size/weight, they have both proven themselves over and over as more than capable for casual shooting, but when you have to get the shot, they look a little thin on paper (and I dread the day I am standing next to “that” photographer with a huge white lens monster!).

Last Wednesday, I had my first serious outing with field and indoor sports.

Indoor Netball was fine, although I swear it is the toughest sport to shoot with its fast pace, stop-start dynamic and usually poor indoor light. I spent too long there (had 1 1/2 hours to cover four sports) as I did not feel I had hit my rhythm, but after 25 minutes, I surprised myself and came out with 20 odd “local newspaper” grade shots using the 75mm f1.8 and 12-40 f2.8. This combo is hard to better. Early fears that the older 75mm may not have the newest focussing “legs” I had the pleasure to experience with the 40-150 pro, have been pretty much put to bed and the 12-40 is sure footed and useful, if a little short sometimes.

Hurrying down the hill to the multi field Football and Soccer grounds I was gifted with strong winter sunlight…… for about five minutes.

A crop 50% from the 75-300 at F8 and 190mm, ISO 800 with the EM1 mk2 (original firmware). This was a sequence of about 5 images ending in a solid collision.

I cannot share many images as I do not wish to show the faces of the kids from the school I work for (in the yellow), but just lets say, I was (again) surprised by the accuracy, speed and sharpness of the EM1 and 75-300 combo in reasonable light. The grounds are down low, so they loose the sun early, but while it lasted, it was good.

In a nutshell, if I used my skills and anticipated the action, followed the subject and fired at the right time, the camera made sure I got the shot 75 percent of the time or better and usually managed 100% in sequences.

Another tight drop. This was a sequence of 10 images, all sharp (same stats as above), but the best three, where contact was made images had the student’s faces in. Shame about the messy background, but I found if a I stood in one spot, I could cover three grounds at once, taking what I could get. The benefit of a 400-600mm lens equivalent.

Then came the acid test.

Massive black storm clouds descended over the grounds, stealing what little light there was (about three stops). The maths got nasty. ISO 1600 (my realistic quality limit), lens wide open (about f5.6 in the 200mm zoom position, equal to 400mm on a full frame-it is a hair sharper at f8) and 1/250 to 1/500 maximum shutter speed. Many of the images came out a little dark with the camera set to manual, as the light was occasionally dropping even more. I was not too hopeful.

All I can say is, if that is your kit and situation, don’t worry too much. A little noise reduction to taste, some contrast boosting, lightening where needed, maybe a little localised clarity and you will be fine. Again, local newspaper, back page sports images, even with a little (or a lot of) cropping.

Would I like to upgrade lens?

Yes I would, if nothing else than for weather sealing (which eventually cut my day short).

The (budget limited) options are:

Buy back my 40-150 from the friend I sold it to for about $1000au. Benefit, +2 stops at 300mm FF eq., sharper (better micro contrast), better AF and weather sealing.

Buy the new 100-400 Oly ($2300). Benefit, sharper, better AF, longer range, but no aperture speed/ISO benefit.

The Panasonic 100-400 ($2000au). Benefit, as above, possible not as much in AF, but it is slightly faster at shorter focal lengths.

The Panasonic 50-200 ($2000au). Benefit, longer than the Oly 40-150, but a little slower at the long end. A stop faster and all-round better than the 75-300 at 200mm (400mm equiv) except any real AF performance boost is uncertain with Pana lenses on Oly bodies.

Buy a Canon 80D on clearance with the excellent 200 f2.8L ($2000-2500au). Benefit, +1 ISO and +2 aperture stop boost at 300mm FF equiv. and a sports dedicated 100K + shutter fires. This would also provide a good option for an “R” series switch later or another cheap SLR. Splitting the kits does not bother me as their roles would be quite specific. Olympus for most stuff including some sport, Canon just for sports. The non zoom is a little limiting, but I know from experience that the 300mm f2.8 “hole”* is the problem, not covering a wider range. It also works well with a good teleconverter.

Buy a 6d Mk2 and 75-300 or the 200mm above ($3000au). Benefit, +3 ISO stops, with the same 300mm lens dynamic at 5.6 or +5 (!) stops with f2.8 200mm and FF camera, but lots of cropping. The AF system in the 6D is the same as the 80D, except more centralised as the AF coverage is crop frame.

Nikon would be in the race except they do not offer a range of good value semi-premium tele lenses.

Option B is to just keep going as is and see what the Christmas sales cough up.

*This hole is the mid-wing field sport, or far end of the court, indoor range that is so often the ideal distance to shoot these sports at and my weak area.

The (re)Invention of Flashman

Flash.

For some a great problem solver, equaliser and creative gateway, for some, too much trouble to do well and far to easy to do badly.

Once a regular user of flash (early film TTL), I stepped away from it naturally when I started to shoot more landscapes and more when I switched to digital.

I need it now. I probably don’t need it really need for my normal shooting “style”, but I want it to be mastered so I can control my environment better. The reality is, photography is light dependent (quantity and quality), and when the subject’s situation is fixed, you have to be flexible.

I am turning to two masters for info and inspiration; Neil Van Neikerk through his books and at neilvn.com and Joe McNally, mostly through one book, “The Hotshoe Diaries”. Both of these guys generously offer all the instruction you need, both technically and creatively.

This is enough. More opinions and things start to get confusing, any less and I become a mirror of just one mentor. I would like to think I am just “brushing up”, but the reality is I have ignored flash for over a decade, so realistically I am starting from scratch technically and I am well rusty aesthetically.

The big learning curve for me is the way flash now works compared to my long memory of past techniques. I have been falling back on old thinking, which turns out to be well out of date.

TTL with digital pre-flash and manual, just using output fractions rather than the old “GN divided by distance = aperture” stuff is sooo much easier.

Gear.

I have a couple of excellent, manual only Yongnuo YN560 III and IV units and the TX off camera controller for a few years, but have not up till now been interested in using them and I have now added a Godox TTL 685. Straight out of the box, the Godox gave me predictable results. The very first image I took, of the news paper, was given a tiny -1.7 TTL blip, producing about what I had hoped. Daisy’s second image shows reduced strength in the black stripes and slightly softer light at about -.7 (if only she would hold still). Magic!

The YN’s will be used on light weight light stands with Neewer 16” circular soft boxes (2x set on Amazon for au $45), giving me a neat little portable studio, the Godox will be used for TTL bounce flash with the $2 “black foamie thing”*, possibly with a large Neewer reflector on a stand in lieu of a handy wall.

This latter is for speed as manual fill on the fly is indeed possible, but needs some time put in to perfect.

I also have a pair of tiny Oly flash units I can always carry for direct outdoor, gentle fill or possibly to trigger the Godox in slave mode.

The “Black Foamie Thing” allows you to flag or block stray flash light, giving you maximum control of light direction. The images above (thank you my long suffering wife), were taken indoors, using a wall as a giant soft box, with the light looking directional and natural (a little post was added). The second image shows the base exposure at -2 ev without flash. Too easy. I forgot to take the image that makes this necessary, the brightened non-flash image with a blown out background.

I will of course fall back on a reflector and natural light as often as possible, but I fully intent to get this mastered. The motto going forward is “keep it simple stupid”, using less first, more if needed only.

*Neil Van Neikerks “Black Foamie Thing”, https://neilvn.com/tangents/about/black-foamie-thing/ is a revelation that, in his own words “lets you throw out the over priced Tupperware” commonly used for flash modification.

I will also experiment with a white foamie thing to reflect light in when the ceilings are too high.

Haiku #89 Kimono Life

Journey's End

We (my wife and I) have been to Japan seven times over the last five years or so.

There was little planning involved. It starting as a need to use a ticket credit for me from a cancelled trip after the Tsunami, with my semi reluctant wife for company, then an urgent need to return, driven as much by her as me, then a couple of opportunistic impulse trips, then a a few later ones that had a feeling of consolidating re-visits and deeper exploration.

We grow as we go. Repetition allows refinement, new vistas broaden our own.

My photographic journey has been one of evolution within a consistent technical envelope. Before each trip, I stress about lens and camera combinations, leave home never happy I have the perfect combo, but I am never disappointed when I get there. The lesson is; what ever, where ever, will work on some level.

The only consistent factor has been Olympus cameras and lenses. The travel kit is always kept comfortable (I have little tolerance for heavy bags, cumbersome rigs or in the field confusion).

The last set-up was sparse in the extreme (for me). An EM1 mk2, 12-40 and 40-150 (kit version).

My first trip was a pair of EM5 mk1’s (and a spare in my case), a 17, 45, 75-300. Regardless of the set-up, the results are always similar. The reason is of course, that regardless of my gear, I shoot the same subjects in the same or a similar way, because that is my “style” and what I chose is never far from that thinking. It seems I adapt to my gear rather than the other way around.

My processing on the other hand has evolved a great deal.

Early on, I seemed to be looking for almost an “anti-Canon” look, in response to what I perceived to be an anti-Canon or Canon curing colour foundation from the OMD sensor.

An image from the first trip, early eyes and early processing. The colour is dulled, the look heavy and dark and the angle, a very self conscious shot from behind the subject. The trip took place during a moody, wet spring, which did also affect my perceptions, so on the whole, this was me.

As I evolved with the cameras, I found that I could extract nearly any look or “feel” from the sensor, much more than I could from the Canon, Sony or Fuji sensors I had been co-using before committing to Olympus only.

A few trips later, more self confident and of the sensor in the camera, I pushed harder, enjoying the warmth and depth of the files.

COVID-19 has forced a pause on the world. This pause has allowed me to take stock and consolidate my ideas and images from the seven trips, with plans to top them off with a book ( called “Japan 7” or “Japan #of days” maybe).

We will return as soon as we can, but that will likely be next year at the earliest and I will be a ways down my journey by then, so the evolution will continue.

Who knows.

Full Frame Jitters (As Usual).

This one is familiar to many smaller format users and I know before I start what the outcome will be, but for your and my benefit, here is the thought process. This post should really be titled “Being a Content M43 User part 2”, but I am not going to put that much thought into it.

I am contracted to a school.

Their standards are high and their catalogue of previous work is deep.

I know from my previous work that I can match what I have seen, but the nagging little voice in the back of my brain pan keeps saying “do you think you will need full frame?”.

Image Size.

I already have a large image sample, taken with an old OMD and a slightly better than kit lens (75-300), using “snap shot” technique (at best), that has been enlarged to a 3x4 foot wide sign, after some cropping. That is the size reality addressed. I know that 16-20mp is enough to max out most printing formats, especially if logical viewing distances are factored in. Full frame would increase the maximum possible enlarge-ability of the file, but not by much and should not be necessary. The reality is, photographers have been doing billboards with less for years.

Light gathering and image noise.

This one is tricky. From a purely technical perspective, there is little need for a larger format all things being equal.

Firstly there is the critical mass of the math. If an image needs to be taken, the light available will be (in non artistic or astronomical fields), good enough to see by, so good enough to photograph within a reality envelope I can reach.

Then there is the image making format math. The depth of field to reach to light gathering balance M43 gives me is usually a good balancing point for full frame.

Let me explain.

First the foundation to the argument;

F1.8 in M43 has about the same depth of field as F2.8 in full frame at the same effective magnification.

If we accept that 2.8 is the pro’s “working” and often widest available aperture, using a full frame standard or workhorse tele zoom, as it offers good low light performance and enough realistic depth of field to be in the comfort zone of soft backgrounds and sharp subjects, then M43 matches it with cheap, light primes at F1.8 at two ISO settings lower. Sure, the full frame user can pop on a 135 f1.8, but at what cost and bulk and then you still have the issue of very shallow depth of field that is often not practical (it is more practical at longer distances, but the magnification falls away, forcing cropping…). I have owned a Canon 135 f2 and very rarely used it at f2, but my 75mm f1.8 (150mm f2.8 equiv.) is used at f1.8 regularly.

Shot wide open at f1.8 on my 75mm. Any longer (an actual 150mm) or with a wider aperture and the focal point would be pretty twitchy. Thinner depth of field is often only useful for exaggerated Bokeh effect, not practical subject coverage.

This is the important bit. At the above outlined safe maximum working aperture, an M43 camera can use ISO 800 when a full frame is using ISO 3200. Have a look at the noise in the EM1 mk2 RAW file at ISO 800 compared to the Z6 Nikon at ISO 3200 on DPreview. They are nearly identical. The difference is even less if you look at the “print” image sample.

The reality is, for most critical work I will need some lighting control, not high ISO performance. The times this will not be the case are performance images (already done) and winter sport photography, that will never have unrealistic quality or big enlargement needs.

Glass.

Then we come to the lens issue, which is where M43 started for me.

Note; M43 lenses have a 2x cropping factor.

To get the best full frame glass from Nikon, Sony and Canon costs big dollars for big glass and unfortunately, many of the affordable Canon and Nikon offerings are still designed for SLR’s, making the thought of spending big bucks on them even less enticing. Even if I did go that way (within budget), the cropping needed to match the M43 lenses I have (600mm equiv) would take much of the full frame quality edge away. (Canon is releasing an affordable 100-500 zoom soon and some new cameras, but how much and how soon?)

The powerful end of the M43 lens range is very approachable. I switched to M43 when I realised that my favourite Canon glass* was matched or bettered by their tiny equivalents in M43.

The future of Olympus aside, I have plenty of good options at hand now (35-150 equiv at F1.8) and available, covering the core of the professional’s pro zoom range.

This process is irrelevant and tiring, but when your livelihood and reputation are at stake, all options need to be looked at. The reality is, bigger format potentially create better quality, but quality needed and potential quality are often not the same. Cropping to make up for focal length shortages, using smaller apertures and higher ISO settings than desirable for depth of field reasons and choosing not to buy or carry every option due to price or weight are all valid points of consideration, not excuses.

*35L = 20 Pana, 135L = 75mm Oly, 400L f5.6 = 75-300 Oly and 85 f1.8 = 45m Oly.

The Future

Ok. So what do you do when your brand, the one you have committed to decides to sell off it’s camera division to another company with a mixed reputation for brand integrity and development?

1. Cut and run (as I suspect many will).

2. Look at your stocks of gear* and if you think it wise, just sit and watch, planning to not plan.

3. Do as #2, but transition where needed.

4. Trust that Olympus or more likely Panasonic will support the format long enough to see me through (5 years?). Add a couple of lenses and a top end (?) body or two and just keep going.

Looking at option number 1.

I have too strong a connection with my Oly gear to just up sticks and leave. My fast primes are just too good to easily (and cheaply enough) replace and my zooms, such as they are, are good enough for the tasks they are set (at this point). Also, realistically, in this market, with this news, the gear I have has little value.

Number 2.

This is perhaps the wise route, except that I would like to expand my sports capabilities (see below) and that means either adding more m43 or looking at good options.

Option 3.

Maybe this is the logical one as I have plenty to do most of what I want*. Upgrading my sports/workhorse core would start the transition, then I can just take my time for the rest.

Option 4.

The last is the most tempting. I am aware that m43 is and always will be seen as a non or at best semi professional player, but I also know that, that is for the most part crap-ola in a can.

Nobody I have shown any of my work to has ever criticised it on a technical level and nor should they. These cameras may be behind some of the top, current models in some respects (many measures are irrelevant in the real world and some work in M43’s favour), but we are talking about the handful of current cameras that have an edge. The reality is, more has been done with less in the past**. The last time I had any technical feed-back (three days ago regarding some low light school performance images), it was highly positive, without the commenters being aware I used “little and ancient” EM5 mk1 cameras.

I cannot show the school images, but here is a new discovery that should enlarge to half door size. I love the “quality” of these images.

It really is a case of “the photographer not the camera” these days, as no one makes a bad camera, format or lens. There is just enough difference between the various models and brands to split them for comparison and many of these measures as I said above, are pretty much irrelevant in the real world***.

To top that off, I can get what I need and want from these cameras, and have no guarantees that I will not shift sideways or even backwards if I switch (techniques that work can be fickle). Anyone else make a razor sharp 150 f1.8 equivalent I can afford?

Sports are the only real area of concern. The 75-300 punches above it’s weight up to 200 (e 400)mm and is occasionally brilliant at longer focal lengths, but it is light dependant. Summer cricket should be ok, winter football is more flexible for shorter focal lengths and as for indoors, the 12-40 and 75 have done the trick. The 40-150 Pro or maybe a Fuji XT# and 100-400 as part of the transition? I would even, if it was the smart move, get an SLR kit again just for sports. No sport at the moment anyway, so no rush.

All of this highlights something I was becoming aware of before I left the shop. It is hard to buy gear at the moment, especially if you are wanting top end results from a start of nothing. It is equally hard to buy badly in a general sense, but the crystal ball of the future is dim enough to make long term planning pointless.

Fuji seems to have a strong base and commitment and they have a unique take on the dynamic of APS-C and Medium format.

Nikon and Canon are the waking giants, finally taking on Sony in mirrorless.

Panasonic is clearly targeting FF Sony as well, as they should being their traditional video opponent, but their M43 may pay the price (logically, M43 makes an ideal second format, as long as sales stay strong enough). I am hoping that Panasonic’s foray into full frame will take the pressure off their M43 offering, something Olympus lacked as an option.

There is every likelihood that I will get a G9 or EM1 mk3 in the future and maybe a better long lens (100-400 Leica). Even if I flog them, my needs will likely be met.

*A gear stocktake revealed about 500,000 to 1 million potential shutter fires left (not counting “free” electronic ones), spread over 9 bodies with some near new flashes and plenty of well looked after lenses. Quality aside, I have tons of quantity.

**My OMD EM5’s produce images at least equal to my old 5D mk2’s and blow away D700 Nikons without many of the negatives, such as size and lens inconsistency. These were the industry backbone for close to 10 years.

***There is a reason we are on a fast track for more measurable quality. It is because we can now more easily measure quality.

Possibilities

I recently picked up a contract as a school photographer. This goes against the grain of the current market, COVID, economic and social trends, so I am fully aware how lucky I am.

To add to this lucky streak, I was asked to do some sport and performance photography during my “trial” week, so I had a chance to fully exercise my skills and gear.

The great thing about this type of work is variety. The tough part is variety. I have let my gear run down a little, selling the 12-100 Pro recently and the 40-150 Pro last year, so it was with a little trepidation, that I pressed my “budget” 75-300 into service as a sports lens, in winter, in the early morning.

What I learned.

The 75-300 on an EM1 mk2 (original firmware) was fully capable of capturing crisp and contrasty images in most light, of running high school age subjects and acquired perfect tracking lock 90% of the time. The other 10% came down to AF confusion, usually locking on to the background when two subjects split the AF area or mistakes on my part.

In poor light/weather, which was unfortunately the case on the first two days, I had to resort to shorter focal lengths with the zoom or my much faster 75mm prime, to get an acceptable combination of ISO (3200 max ) and shutter speed (1/250th min). Performance was still good, but everything was stretched.

It also managed a high hit rate with some recumbent cycles at good speed in reasonably close confines, although the bulk of the better images came from the 12-40, due to distance.

The 75mm f1.8 was also a good performer, although I did not use it wide open on moving subjects as I have always been a little suspicious of it’s AF. This lens often missed focus or hunted on earlier cameras, when the cheaper 75-300 did not. I did however, get some surprising results with indoor basketball with this camera and lens combo (razor sharp at f2.5, crops from portrait orientation below), so maybe the Em1 gets enough out of it.

At this point I have been successful shooting indoor sports with either an EM5 mk1 and 40-150 Pro or EM1 and 75mm, but I would love to try the 40-150 and Em1 combo as it is considered the best on offer from Olympus.

I also need to pull my finger out and do the all too painful firmware updates for the cameras and lenses. I wish they were as easy as the Fuji ones.

Overall I am impressed by the 75 and 75-300’s performance with the EM1 and expect them to jump again noticeably when I update.

*

The news of Olympus selling their camera division, has generated some discussion and at first I felt equal, but controlled amounts of disappointment, betrayal and frustration. The reality is, nothing is for ever, especially in the camera world. Change may be good, or not, but either way I have cameras aplenty*, lenses in equal abundance and Panasonic as an option. There are also millions of Olympus cameras in the world and I am sure stocks of original Olympus gear will be hanging around for a while at least.

The most likely path is to add a G9 and 50-200 or 40-150 for action and as a general work horse, then an 8-18 for rare wide angle use (if needed). The G9 has the same or slightly better AF tracking (lens dependant) and more AF configurations than the Olympus EM1 mk2 and better video, with otherwise the same features. It is wise to match new Pana lenses and cameras to get the most out of their DFD focussing system.

Would I change brands?

Fuji is likely and ready to jump right into. I like their high ISO and jpeg performance and their lenses are stellar. Earlier issues with focus, processing and handling are gone to the point where they are market leaders. I have dabbled with the idea of switching in the past, but have stuck with what worked. Lie the Panasonic plan, I would add just a work-horse sports kit (40-150 or 100-400 zoom and 18-55 or 10-24), then replace other bits as needed.

Nikon and Canon less so as I really do not need full frame and their crop frame options are minimal, but if pushed I could start to transition as needed. DSLR’s for sports are an option, but I really do not want to drop money into a “dead-end” gear trail.

Sony? No, not for me. Again, their best offerings are full frame and I am not a fan of their colour, menus and their lenses are still a bit of a mixed bag.

*Tons of portrait grade cameras and lenses, with the EM1 as my workhorse for sport etc. I could probably use my Olympus stocks for portrait and studio style work for 5 or more hard years work, so only the EM1 would need replacing after all of the sports work it would be doing.

Haiku #88 Winter Eyes Open

A little visual Haiku taken while scouting out a job.

Surprise Packet

While doing a little, much overdue Gallery maintenance, stumbled across this little series of images from Japan.

Two things stand out.

Firstly, they are spider images, not my usual thing of late and secondly, they were taken with the 40-150 kit lens (with only a little cropping).

Again that lens surprises!

And for those arachnophobes out there, yes they are big, about the span of an Australian Huntsman, but thankfully far less active.

To me, this is further proof, that for my needs as an occasional and casual close-up shooter, a true macro lens is not required.

Four Portrait Lenses And Four Styles

Portrait photography has a very long history. From the very earliest days of image capture, people and their immediate environment have been the main subject matter.

Technique has change a little over time, from the first “person and environment” record keeping shots, through still life, street capture, boudoir, and journalism, style has changed a great deal, but technique only a little. The adoption of the 50mm lens as the standard is an indication of our draw to portraiture. The true “standard” or truly neutral lens is closer to 40mm (FF), but 50mm is better for traditional portrait images.

The basic principals are;

The subject(s), sharply in focus, posing or not as required and the their surrounds either in focus (deeper depth of field) to give context, or blurred out (shallow depth of field) to remove all other distractions.

This is a gross over simplification of course. There are plenty who break these rules, but they work as a starting point.

Lets have a look at four lenses I use regularly for portraiture and street photography.

The Environment lens, the Olympus 17mm f1.8.

I love this lens. It is not my first stop for portraiture because it needs to be employed differently and is at the extreme end of my personal portraiture style. Including the environment and to a certain extent needing some action to fill the space, is ideal for candid street imaging, but in confined spaces, with larger groups or simply to expand the viewers awareness of the subject, it can be useful.

The strength of a wider lens is your ability to use placement and depth to either dilute or to reinforce the main subject’s importance. This is especially useful when the place is actually more or as important as the person.

Actually taken with a 40mm on a full frame (much the same dynamic), this shows the importance of the surrounding environment to some subjects.

The 17mm has a “hard” or micro-contrasty look, that is not ideal for general portraiture, but is designed to purpose. Olympus have made a lens that has ideal properties for street imaging. The out of focus elements blend seamlessly with the sharper parts, so unlike any portrait “hero” lens, this one actually promotes environment inclusion. I have no issue using this lens wide open at night.

The best application for a lens like this is multi layered primary subjects. You can emphasise one primary subject, but also include other, less obvious ones. You can tell story in layers.

The geometry of the space and the light were the primary drivers for this image. A tighter composition would have emphasised one or two people, but lost the feel of the overall image and spoilt the balance.

The first of the true portrait lenses, the 25mm f1.8.

Actually, it turns out this lens is closer to a 45mm lens on a full frame, not a true 50mm, it took a while to gel with me, but is now a faithful friend. I think my 25mm is a little unpredictable. Maybe it has an optical issue that only comes up occasionally (mildly de-centred, or better up close than at longer distances etc.), or maybe not. Either way, it seems to fit well now that I am used to it. The reality is, a lens is as good as the best image it has taken.

I think copy variation is a thing with most brands, but has two sides. I think it is genuinely hard to find a real dud lens, but relatively easy to get a different feel from one copy of a lens to another. Maybe I am just being a little too sensitive to something that is just in my head, but I have noticed the phenomenon with myself, friends and customers. One person’s “the one” lens can be another’s “so-so” optic.

This focal length is the ideal “two elements working together” portrait lens. Using it’s deeper natural depth of field allows for creative use of Bokeh and that Bokeh is good. It can be hard to get the sharp to soft balance right and this lens helps rather than hinders that process. M43 has a reputation for not offering enough blurring, but I disagree. Massive blurring is easy to achieve technically and looks great for a few images, but wears thin after a while. Creative blurring, that is using the blur as an element of balance rather than just blowing it away in to mush is far more beneficial, if a little more challenging.

“Thomas and Friend”. This one could have been taken either way, with the TV sharp and Thomas (true) softer.

This is an easy to use focal length, but lacks the strong focus drop off, slight compression and tighter cropping of more traditional portrait lenses, so it can feel a bit of a portrait light weight after extended use. I often start with this one, getting tighter as I work.

Also good for longer range street shooting. It has the ability to include, but also to control depth of field better or just differently to the 17mm. The Bokeh effect is more pronounced than the 17mm and the close focus better, so the two are a useful, quite different pairing.

Ground zero for portraiture, the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

By far my most used portrait (and probably general use) prime lens, the 45mm is a star. It has a magical feel at about f2 to 2.8 making it a good light gatherer when used at it’s best. I have two at the moment (three until recently), and do get a different mojo from each. They are all good, just some are a smidgeon better.

So small and discreet, this little gem rarely gets noticed (or taken seriously).

Apparently, this and the 25m are nearly identical in design, but the results (of mine) are quite different. The 25mm is less forgiving of it’s errors (like the 12-40), the 45 rarely makes them.

Another easy candid. The working distance is ideal for this type of grab.

This is one of those lenses that allows you to think in terms of Bokeh. It seems to help create it’s own compositions. This was taken sitting on a bed in a Tokyo Hotel room and the image just jumped out at me.

For official portrait jobs, this is the first lens picked. It is the core of the idea, guiding me to change (longer or shorter) as needed. I really like how it reminds me to include some context.

Super sharp detail is not always the models friend. This lens can offer high detail, but in a friendly manner, pleasing to the eye.

Not everything is perfect however. The closest focus distance could be better (making the 12-40 or 25mm handy to include) and the edges are a hair behind the closer focussing 42.5 Panasonic if you are a top-tier landscaper, but it is possibly superior in the centre for portraiture. I love it.

The one big trick pony, the Olympus 75mm f1.8.

When maximum compression and blurring are needed or if working distances are restrictive, the big gun is produced. The 75mm (150mm in full, frame terms) is an odd focal length. In truth I would have preferred Olympus made a far more useful 100mm f2, but that was not to be.

This thing is near perfect optically. There is occasionally the slightest bit of purple C.A. wide open, which is easily fixed. It also has a strong flattening effect, more even than the focal length would indicate. This seems to be the modern phenomenon of highly corrected glass losing some of it’s three-dimensionality.

Regardless of it’s very few and quite mild negatives, it has a role to play. Blurring is actually stronger than the 45f1.2 Pro, compression is handy and the “pop” of the images is indisputable. I can zoom through my catalogue and spot images made with this lens easily as I go. They are just “perfect”. Compared to the 45mm, the 75 has less character and perhaps less “generosity”. It is soo reliable in it’s rendering, but can be over used easily.

A quick grab in near darkness. The tightness of the focal length forces either perfect or more creative compositions, often compositions unseen by my eye until I look through the lens.

Big by M43 standards, it is smaller than a Canon 85 f1.8, and half the size of it’s nearest rival optically (that I have seen) the Canon 135 f2L. It’s performance against the Canon was the tipping point for me going fully m43. It not only had similar quality, but similar optical characteristics. The 45mm was more like my 200mm f2.8L, rich, smooth and character filled, the 75 and 135’s were just reliably perfect.

Tokyo Fish Markets are a tight space and you have to be quick, but there is enough room (just) for the candid reach of the 75mm.

A good working distance and ideal separation.

Sublimely sharp, every stitch on this Kimono can be seen in detail.

The lens has good focus. It is spot on accurate, which is vital for it’s speed and length and quick enough, although it could be slightly faster for indoor sports, where it would shine.

The working distance can be a terrific boon for candid street.

Looking at my image bank, there is a clear pattern. I use the 17mm and 45mm lenses almost exclusively for travel, street and general work (unless I take zooms), and the 75, 25mm lenses are ear-marked to fill specific roles. The 75mm tends to be left behind and a tele zoom used unless low light or portraiture are the job, the 25mm is the “walk out the door with only one lens” option or tends to be the last packed.

These are not my only choices, as I have a clutch of zooms that are seeing more use, but they are my primary “people” lenses.

The 40-150 kit os a surprise. It has many good to excellent qualities and will be the extra lens packed when in doubt. The slower speed does not lend itself to smooth background work, but the it’s fast AF and small size make it a contender for street.

My 75-300 is just a great bargain lens. Would I like it to be faster, better built, brighter? No. That would unbalance the bargain that it is. This lens renders beautiful images and can hold it’s own against the 75mm and 40-150 pro lenses in their own back yard, then offers a lot more reach in a compact package.

The 12-40 Pro. This is similar in rendering to the 25mm, rich and “glowacious”, but shares it’s Bokeh characteristic of being unkind to slight focus errors. If used for portraits, I would employ the eye detect function with this one.

Unlike the 17mm that tends to disguise focus plane differences, the 12-40 (and 25) tend to exaggerate them.

Moving Away From "Hard" Sharp

I recently sold my 12-100 f4 Pro. It was my most expensive lens and my least used.

I struggled with selling it on a few levels, as I had little really to complain about.

• It was super sharp through the range.

• It had tremendous range (which was why I bought it as a landscape all-in-one).

• It had very good close focus at a decent working distance.

but,

• It was big and heavy, especially for M43. I am very acclimatised to the M43 dynamic now and when one lens weighs more than any other camera and lens combined, it is a struggle to include it. As intended, as a landscape fix it was a decent compromise, but that was all too seldom. The 12-40 just fits my hand and bags better.

• I respected it’s “hard” sharpness and micro contrast, but preferred the nicer images made by the 12-40 or primes. This is much the same thing I found with my 40-150 Pro compared to the 75-300. The Pro lens was superior in every way, but I just like the images the 75-300 put out enough, for half the weight, one third the price and twice the reach.

• I find the 12-40 easier to use for abstract macro work. Shorter macro lenses generally are, but the added working range of longer macro lenses is better for insect stalking.

• I much prefer the bokeh from my primes, the 12-40 or even the 75-300. The jittery Bokeh that all of my hard-sharp Oly lenses have had was a little unpredictable. Sometimes I could not get it to disappoint even when I was trying to find fault, then there it was. It seemed to especially dislike sunlit winter trees in the middle distance. Both 40-150’s also have this quality, likely due to superior micro contrast.

• I find an f2.8 or faster aperture more creatively exciting, especially in M43.

• The 12-40 feels like a premium hobbyists lens. The 12-100 is over-kill for me right now.

Minor things I know, but in an under used kit with too many options, it felt unbalancing and wasteful.

The 12-40. Just pleasing to the eye.

This leaves me with a kit that has two lenses left in the “hard” sharp-high micro contrast category (17mm and 40-150 kit), one in the “perfectly balanced” class (75mm) and the rest in the bolder, smoother “simple” sharp camp (25, 45 and 75-300).

An image that would benefit little from more micro detail. 75-300 at 300, 50% crop.

Below a close-up comparison between the 12-100 and 75-300. In super fine detail, the 12-100 wins by a mile, but they are equal in perceived edge sharpness (any contrast differences are easily fixed). The finer detail has it’s place, but rarely adds to a print in any way except to occasionally make an image look less smooth. The 12-40 and 75-300 are harmonious, lush and gentle lenses. Lenses that do not get in the way of your images. Some of the “sharper” tools are less forgiving.

*

I usually get a feel for a lens pretty quickly and the cost to like equation is pretty unpredictable.

I bought the 12-100 as the perfect “best technique” landscape lens, which on paper it was, but it never really took.

The 40-150 kit lens on the other hand was a freebie in a cheap three lens set that I bought for the other two lenses, but it has become an unlikely go-everywhere lens with the 12-40*.

Shot straight into the sun with the 40-150 kit. Never fails to surprise, although I have never had a lens so flimsy I am already assuming it will be replaced in a year or two.

My 17mm lens was a compromise purchase at a time when M43 offered several lenses in it’s class with equal strengths and weaknesses. Chosen over the 20mm Panasonic for it’s better handling and focus and the Leica 15mm as a slightly cheaper lens and one that was already “in the hand”, it has proven to be one of my favourites and perfectly suited to it’s intended task (street).

The 12-40 was purchased hurriedly on special the day before a family holiday as a catch-all standard in response to the size of the 12-100 and over fussiness of primes for casual shooting. It is my first choice for most things now.

More than enough macro for a standard lens even if the depth of field is soo shallow you can hardly see a point of focus.

*Something I am aware of is my natural suspicion of top tier lenses and my adoration of little lenses that punch above their weight.

A Deeper Problem Explored

I have lost my photo mojo.

I can talk for hours about probable causes, but I wont. I will just try to get to bottom of my feelings as quickly as possible.

1) Still photography has lost it’s audience.

Short attention spans, the need for immediate gratification and a whole generation of viewers who see little value in a still image, have created a picture eating monster with a bottomless digestive system. It is sad that the very best image you take over a long career will likely garner mere seconds of appreciation to most viewers. Truly powerful and relevant images and bodies of work are still capable of holding a viewers attention, but even their power is measured in days, not years.

Things change and I get that, which is the point of this post I guess, but some change dilutes the importance of important things. Gone are the days of the seminal book, published after years of work and bought/collected/handed around for years after. Book projects these days are an indulgence, and an expensive one at that. The TV and movie industry is going through the same thing at the moment. Huge sums of money, time and mountains of talent resulting in one or two days of binging from the viewer.

2) Video is dominating professional work.

This is something I have seen first hand. If you are intending to be a pro photographer these days, with very few exceptions, you had best get into video or lower your expectations of success. In a business driven by client expectations, video is now the norm. Not every client will use it, or even know what to do with it, but they will go with the hybrid guy over the purist. Why not have both options?

This domination will change the perspective of photographer and viewer. Ironically, I think many of the better videographers and photographers share much in common, but the media they use forces this perspective change. Without the ability to freeze an image, it’s timelessness and every day access wanes.

I have images on my wall that have been there for years and will probably be there for years more. As I pass them each day, they occasionally catch my eye and effect me in some way. The efforts of the greatest film makers are fleeting. My collection of movies is large, but each will be viewed maybe two to three time more before they are forgotten and each scene in it’s entirety only has the power of a single still image in my memory*.

3) It is easy to do, even if it is still as hard (or harder) to do better.

Modern cameras, digital format and mirrorless cameras are making photography as easy as it should be. It has been, and has hidden behind, a veil of technical secrecy for most of it’s life, but now the major challenge facing the budding photographer is not how to, but how to how to find out how to on ever more difficult cameras.

Teaching photography these days is a dual pronged dynamic of teaching photographic technique up from nothing while teaching the application of it by pairing down ever more complicated devices. No wonder phones are so popular.

More users, better cameras, more free time, access and inspiration equals a raising of the base, which rarely raises the peak. This puts more pressure on the elite end to show something that stands out from the crowd, which is good as long as it is appreciated. The industry plays on this need by offering more pixels, accuracy, speed and complication/options in the expectation that your fear of missing out, of being left behind as one of the pack, will stimulate a new purchase. It usually works.

4) Most of the big “firsts” have been done.

Many great photographers of the past had the advantage of technical mastery, less common opportunity and the chance to be first in their selected field. To be first to go somewhere, first to see something, first to master a technical hurdle, first to capture the unlikely was the basis of a good start. Little is left to be done and the kudos for achieving a new first is less satisfying. All the lost tribes, all of the natural events, all of the extreme places and events have been done, often multiple times and in innumerable ways.

In my relatively short photographic life, an image like this has gone from a feat of technical and situational success, to a simple hand held snap shot with minimal processing and even less meaning. The days of Michael Kenna being the one true master of the moody mono image are over.

It seems that to see something new and thought provoking, we need to look to ourselves and delve the shallower but all too abundant depths of social disturbance, decay and conflict. Once, to be a war photographer meant something. We felt one good image could make a difference. Now it is just more news on top of more news, with little reward for personal danger or effort.

*

So what is left (for me). The realisation that photography will now only ever be an exercise in self satisfaction has been sobering. It has always been this way, but now it will only ever be this way. Drowning in oceans of competition, my only refuge is the harbour of the self accepting hobbyist. My audience is family, friends and the odd blog visitor.

This is all fine, as it will likely make me a lot happier and frees me up to do only what I want and how I want it.

Travel well.

*I think that our memories of scenes in movies are generally taken in as single captures. If I think about an emotive scene from a favourite movie, I do not think of the perfection of each frame in the movement of the scene, but the “still frames” my mind has created along with the story line and possibly accompanying music. Many of my favourite images have the same effect, but my comprehension of them is deeper, because I can dwell. This has the added dimension of story creation from a static point. Rathe r than pushing aside multiple blades of grass to see one that best defines a scene in my imagination, a still image is a seed.

Touchy Shutter Magic

The shutter on the EM1 is very light. I often take “travellers”. Sometimes they are ok in their own right.

Limited Opportunity

Like most of us are finding, getting out of the house is tricky. Walking the dogs is our best excuse. Carrying a camera, I am happy to say, has become a habit of desire, not just a habit.

EM1 mk2 40-150 (kit)

Comparisons

Which do you like?

Both have equal merit to my eye.

I like the openness of the mono image, but the colour adds context and interest. I often use the term “mystery” when describing colour images. I feel that a sense of mystery is only possible in colour as black and white lays things too bare.

This comes back again to emotion and perception. In the colour image, I am drawn to the depth of the shadows and illusiveness of the fountain spray within deep green shadows.

The mono image opens up the image, removing the increased tension between light/dark and colour/mood.

When processing, I feel obliged to reveal more in mono. In colour I often choose to hide detail, using negative space more aggressively. Slight changes in colour can do a lot to add interest, while black and white images equalise textures and tones, forcing re-prioritising.

Do you see the flattening effect the mono process has given the image in comparison to the more 3D effect of the colour one.