The Three Tiers Of Creativity

I feel there are three levels of creative intent or creative necessity depending on how you look at it.

Trade

A trade can be done well, but creativity is not the point of it.Accuracy and consistency are. The trades person is not re-inventing the design (certainly no the wheel), but is aiming to give what is expected. Individually, standards are set, ranging from just enough to call it down to exceeding expectations. The Japanese term ikigai suits the upper end of this where the process is refined and perfected, transcending the process and touching on art, but not quite.

This image is a simple effort to just get the job done. Little is added, nothing abstracted away from literal representation.

Craft

Craft is the next step creatively from trade, where the maker becomes the designer, the modifier and the door is open for evolution. Craft often comes with an expectation of beauty. This is not beauty for beauties sake, but beauty in the craft, taking a trade and improving on its practical, no nonsense requirements. Again ikigai is relevant, probably even more so, but either way, once perfected, another step up in thinking is needed to go further.

Using light, tight framing and a little luck, this image takes a literal image of a building, then pushes past the basic need to represent to transport us into a better, stronger place.

Art

The artisan takes craft or even a trade and intentionally focusses all their efforts on eliciting an emotive response. It does not have to be beautiful or even nice, but it does have to be meaningful. Literal interpretation becomes the enemy, the let down.

Removing any attempt to simply and literally show the subject, this image relies entirely on interpretation. Without scale, colour or context, this image either works or it doesn’t on an emotional level.

From the trade level where an image basically just needs to work, then to craft where the potential for it to be improved upon or at least look better while working, finally to an art form where function means less than the object itself.

So, why this wander down the philosophy of creative process?

I have finally worked out why I cannot commit myself to the paper full time.

This was my preferred shot from a recent shoot. It had the mood of each player caught as I saw them, but in colour it did not work (had to be colour) and my interpretation of the band members was not ideal for the paper. Rolling Stone maybe, but not the local paper.

If it is a trade level job, there is little room for craft, as most processes are set in stone and certainly no art. Ironically the only time art comes into it is when we are doing one of our “behind the lens articles” where we often showcase our own interests, usually totally at odds with the job we are employed to do.

You can do your trade better or worse, but you cannot do it to differently. Maybe a shooter for National Geo or The Sunday Times has the time and resiurces to elevate a trade to a true craft, but in a small provincial news paper, a trade is the limit of our purview.

I have felt from the start that I am not a perfect fit for this work. I can do it, but I more often than not compromise my own preferences and processes. The school and drama productions I have been involved with allowed me work as suits me for the benefit of all, but time, relevance and expectations curtail that at the paper. Always have, always will.

A rare time when the subjects were found and not staged (they were taking a selfie). This is me, but unfortunately, the rest of the images were not as real or relaxed.

Am I being unfair?

It is what it is, or more to the point it is what it has to be. Sport and the odd call-out does allow me to shoot my way, but generally editorial is a place of little interest.

Sometimes the subject brings their interest to you and you can meet them in the middle, but even then, I would love to immerse myself into their environment, not just drop by and grab quick snap.

I know me enough to know that I can adapt to a point, but I have to have an outlet for my methods, both to satisfy my life balance, but also to allow me better control on what I dislike doing. If the editorial stuff is a part time thing, then I can switch hats knowing there is more to life. If it became permanent, I do not like the fit or the look of just that one hat.

People being themselves in their environment always works, but is so very often impossible to achieve.

Could I find an outlet and stay full time? Maybe but to be honest I do not want to. A camera in my hand seven days a week, ten hours a day is not the secret to a creative workflow, especially if most of that time is spent conforming and going through the motions.

Reducing my hours, but retaining as many weekend shifts as possible gives me plenty of sport, arts and time to chase other fields which may be more schools, personal projects, portraiture, travel, but what ever it is, it will not be the same process, rinse and repeat.

A favourite, this is one of those times when the process such as it is, actually succeeds. If I can, I prefer to put people into a natural space and let them be them. It’s easier with kids as their limited attention span, balanced with a natural desire to perform, usually paves the way.

The tools of my trade are also a consideration. I use my own gear in preference and still add to it (S5, EM1x etc), but often I am buying for work of a shape the paper will never want. Also, leaving most of my gear at work seems disheartening, like it is given over and lost to me. I feel disconnected to my processes, my kit and my feeling of ownership.

A vast studio kit and capable video setup is never going to be utilised, my capable sound kit boils down to basically a MKE-400 mic and several cameras and lenses are simply surplus. This is not an exciting prospect. I bought these things to use, not sell off near new, through lack of use.

It cannot be all there is.

What The Eye Is Told To See.

I just watched “Kodachrome” with Ed Harris playing a hybrid of Steve McCurry and David Alan Harvey.

Kodachrome for a long time defined the way we saw the world. This was a world that was much the same as the one around us all, but the Kodachrome interpretation was not and we excepted the films version to define our view of far off places. It was not a lie, or if it was, we all paid into it willingly, but the reality of it is, by choosing your film, any film, we decided how the world would look at the end of the process.

Kodachromes magic was it dominated a time when the world was opening up to us all, where exotic places were becoming a known thing, a Kodachrome interpreted thing. From the 1950’s to the end of the century, national Geographic and other publications gave us a look into worlds only dreampt of.

A digital camera (Pen F) using a lens from the early period of Kodachrome (F mount half frame Olympus 25mm f2.8) giving me a slightly Kodachrome vide.

No choice is irrelevant in photography, art or any other creative pursuit. You pick your interpretive tool and you get the look you expect.

The demise of the K-14 Kodachrome process, or mainstream film for that matter did not mean the end of image capture, it just meant that what we were used to, what we had learned to expect, to love even, was gone.

This was already happening.

From the early 90’s I had drifted towards Fuji Velvia, because as lovely as the gentle warm tones deep reds and contrasting if slightly unnaturally cool tones of Kodachrome were, I required the more vibrant and accurate greens and blues of Velvia for landscape work, at the peril of pink skin tones.

A thoroughly modern shot with a slightly 70’s filmic look.

In the digital era we have lost the tactile reality of film. There is no patient, reliable and relatively timeless memory store hidden in a cupboard or under the bed*. Digital is an illusion unless you print from it, just unrealised bits, while film could be ignored for generations before it got its chance to be revealed.

*K-14 slides are rated at 100 years plus if well stored and well processed black and white prints about the same, but ironically, digital resources will be able to do something with them ongoing. Try opening a 100 year old digital file on an ancient storage system, when we get there.

Holidays Bring Out A Relaxed Me

Working with cameras lately tends to make me feel disinclined to pick one up at home.

Holidays on the other hand, especially a few days in, bring out a whole different me.

This is an out of camera jpeg.

Saw this so I resolved to grab a camera, the Pen F to be precise with the 15mm Leica on it.

No card. Crap! For some reason I had shoot without enabled. Not my habit.

Card protected! Double crap. Check it and it was not, but second time in it behaved.

Battery dying!

Really!

Finally, settings ok, card in, battery holding on and snaps taken.

Another in colour. Love this combo (the girls and camera/lens).

The third of my three lovely girls.

A New Path Or Maybe Paths

I guess I could count my blessings and go with the flow (it is the year of the Rabbit after all). I have full time work with the paper, security and an unlikely passion-career late in my working life. A career I guess I have earned after all these years, but still, lucky.

I am however, deliberately stepping back from full time to re-open old avenues, that in hind sight I should have left ajar and open even more doors.

The school has moved on because I forced them to and no hard feelings, but they have said they will keep me in mind. Never offering more than a supplimentary income, unfortunately supplementary to nothing in my case, it was however a very fulfilling connection, one that I am still mourning.

My situation now though is tenable, which is more than I could say a year ago and more excitingly, I am now more flexible.

Financially the tax man may also be kind. Dropping two days from my week may result in only about a reduction of one days take home pay, so making up the difference, or at least part of it, may not be too hard. A little here, a little there, but most importantly, a lot more variety and creative freedom.

I thought I missed the school at first, but I have realised, I actually miss the variety, which the school was not actually offering anyway. I had ambitions well past their needs, equipment also, so drama, portraiture, self driven projects, video and more commercial work are the focus, not just hitching my ride to a single client.

More of this.

Bare With Me :)

So, a 24mm lens added to my (full frmae) video kit would allow for a wide perspective, bordering on the exaggerated. A look that if employed, I might use better in M43 to express or even the 20-60 zoom, where the softer corners may actually work in its favour if they are an issue at all.

The 24 would force either an adoption of a true wide angle as a main option, possibly used more often than I normally would, and something the zoom would do probably as well, or a forced crop to s35, just to bring it back into the realm of normal/useful and justify the cost. (24+35+50+75)

A 28mm (when it comes) would do the same but less aggressively and rather than duplicate the 50mm in s35, it would add the neutral 40mm. This would be as wide as a normal lens could go. (28+40+50+75)

A 35mm equivalent cropped to roughly C4k. This looks about right for wider and establishing shots.

The 35mm would keep everything fairly straight and visially accurate making the process invisible, but allowing for a 35-50/50-75 range between two lenses with a duplication of the 50mm. This may come in handy for either switching between two focal lengths without changing lenses or for a second camera, kind of like a two end zoom. (35+50+50+75)

Add to these premium modern lenses a clutch of 40-50-ish legacy lenses and I have tools aplenty to explore.

To me, this is the tightest and most exaggerated I would want, taken with a 90mm equivalent on M43. The kit zoom comes very close to this in s35 mode and the 50mm in crop would do it also.

A hypothetical 40mm would probably not add much to the kit that a 35/50 pair do not offer and these both have a slightly stronger effect, but if it was available first, it may have been the “one lens” option.

My thinking is the 35 would actually become my standard full frame lens with the option to crop to 50mm, the 50/75mm for tight compression, super shallow depth option with the zoom for the occasional wide and tight or establishing shot.

If I shoot full frame with a mind to crop to an Anamorphic looking 2+:1 super wide screen, then the 35 would end up being a 40-45ish lens anyway.

In a nutshell, all roads lead to a fairly conservative 35-75 range in various forms, with M43 and the kit zoom as “lungs” to explore other ideas.

The takeaway is only the anount of compression and depth rendering really matter. Coverage is more a matter of camera placement after these considerations ahave been sorted and aperture choice a final creative control.

Next Steps In Video Growth

The S5 is barely through its second battery charge, but I am planning the future.

The main consideration, becasue the camera is several levels better than I have had and that was more than adequate, is to look at lenses.

My main core, assuming the legacy glass bent I am on now becomes a sideline, not a primary consideration, is to add a second prime to the kit.

The zoom is fine, especially for video and adds the wide angle I feel I may need to cover a stage, the most likely application for the S5’s long recording options, but for making short, multi angle productuons (seems a big term for small ambitions), I will stick to primes.

Choices.

Wanting to stick to the Lumix S line because Panasonic has gone to such lengths to get them right, the 24 and 35 are the logical, only choices. They are about the same price, the same size/weight/look/performance, which is the point, so the only consideration is process.

The 24 appeals as a dual 24 and 35 (cropped) option. If I shot wide-cropped full frame in an appempt to get poor mans Anamorphic coverage, then the 24 makes coverage easy, but also pushes the subjects back. Very environmental, epic even, but maybe too much? The cinematographers who used true wides in the past have been edge pushers and angle workers. This option appeals also, but is it too much early on and I do have several M43 options if needed*.

After a little research I am surprised to find how many top tier cinematographers who use a small range or some times even a single lens in their work. Hitchcock for example used almost exclusively a 50mm.

The 35 on the other hand gives me back my 50mm in crop mode if I use some form of “super35” APS-C crop mode. The 35 seems a natural place for me, leaning towards a wide-normal base, with the 50 and the do-all tight lens. It would also be a good standard if I shoot wide or square stills.

Are a 35 and 50mm different enough to warrant both? I feel making films is less about lens choice and more about everything else. In stills photography, you are working the subject, the subject cannot bring much more thna a single split second. A choice of lenses and angles adds variety to a still capture.

In video, the subject moves, interacts etc, so capture is less about lens choice and angle, more about “blocking” the elements in the scene. You really only need to offer the basic angles of normal-wide (uncompressed)/normal (middle compression)/normal-long (compressed) and the 35(50)/50(75) can do that without adding any distortion or blatant opinion to the frame. Again, I can go into extraordinary looks with a G9 covering from 16-600mm using Natural, Cine-D, HLG or VlogL for a close enough colour matching.

A bit of separation and compression, the other side to slightly wide, slightly epic.

Two lenses that would have made this all easier would have been a 40mm, which is the ideal focal length for me. In stills shooting the 40mm is at once the most natural and potentially the most boring focal length, but the first feature is perfect for video and the second mostly irrelevant. The 35/50mm dynamic makes you hit either side of the natural 40mm more specifically, more aggressively, forcing a choice, where the 40mm lets you relax into it. 60mm in APS-C also feels like a more opinionated version of the 50mm. Like the 35/50 straddling the 40, the 40/60 straddles the 50. I guess it is all too close to really matter.

The second lens is the 28mm, which feels more like the right wide to compliment a 50mm and converts to the magical 42mm in APS-C. To me, the 28mm has always been the boring wide, not strong in effect, not epic in coverage or natural enough to be used universally, but again in video, it seems to be the 40mm of wides. Perfectly innocuous. The 50/75mm can then be the tight-flat lens, the 28/42 the work horse, the establishing shot lens.

Realistically, the 35mm with a single step forward or back can be the above lenses and again, it is more about coverage and the right compression for the job. Maybe too wide would be a hard lens to use, bringing obvious deepening of perspective?

The 30mm angle of view, about as wide as you can go without obvious perspective tells. The zoom cropped is a 30mm.

The zoom may be enough, but I am not super impressed by it yet. More testing needed. It was effectively free with the camera, but I would have liked to have been more satified with it. to be honest to shock of a slow lens with twitchy depth of field even at f5.6 was a bit of a shock.

I believe what I say when I espouse the benefits of M43, but even then, FF considerations came as a shock. Having to go to ISO 6400 at 1/50th f5.6 in a “dull” room when ISO 400 at f1.8 in M43 would have been ideal! I will have the f1.8 full frame lens soon, but that comes with the very shallow depth issue :). Most of the complaints about S5 focussing are exaggerated by the shallow depth of full frame. The G9 is in the same place with AF and stabilising, but the smaller sensor blunts the issues.

My testing has been loose and blatantly unfair so far, pixel peeping stills taken hand held with a new camera, so maybe when I stop being the “man who looks for trouble and invariably finds it”, the poor thing will be able to impress me and cover all the true wide angles I need. Me being me I went straight to the far corners wide open at the widest focal length looking for de-centring issues and found consistent but slightly soft results.

I need to take a big dose of “we are not in M43 land anymore Toto” and remember that kit grade lenses, no matter how good, are going to have some “warts” in full frame. It seems nicley sharp in the centre and at less extreme focal lengths, so I need to deal. Video is far more tolerant of imperfections, indeed the trend seems to be to chase them, so come on Rod, embrace it.

Funny thing is, I was a little worried having a full frame back in the house would spoil me for M43, but the opposite has happenned. I have rediscoverred my love the balance M43 gives me for stills. The ability to shoot wide open on my primes without fear of depth of field traps and for video, the forgiving nature of the M43 DOF is a blessing, especially with manual focus.

Have I made a mistake going into full frame? No, because again, it is not about the format as much as the specific camera.

True Vlog, 14 stops of dynamic range, continuos recording with good battery life, no special card needs, USB-C charging/power, video-centric features, supporting lenses, dual formats, but most importantly super clean high ISO performance that frees me to use the camera, lens and aperture as I creatively want, not within forced limits. These features all put it ahead of its rivals at the time. Would a GH6 or even GH5.2 been enough? Sure and part of me wishes the choices were easier, but the S5 was/is the winner right here, right now on a $2000 budget (just!).

*Lacking Vlog, the G9’s can be colour matched close enough for alternate angles and B-roll.

What The Eye Sees

I guess all that matters is what the eye sees.

We talk about resolution, clarity, sharpness, glow, etc, but at the end of the day, the numbers do not count, only what the eyes see matters.

Speaking of eyes, how about this (taken from a heavy crop from a 20mp M43 file as it goes).

The reality is, no amount of detail is enough for some, but most people cannot see a difference unless it is the difference between good enough and not good enough.

Once good enough is reached, it is a long way before you reach something obviously better.

Once you put it out there, all that matters is the impression given. This performer Kate Rigby broke a pick mid set and nobody noticed. Perception is all, details are irrelevant.

4k to 720p, 10 to 50mp. Does it matter at the end of the day if the story told and the process invisible?

The story you say?

I have looked at a lot of fore and against videos, read far too much and even watched I think, every single video on the real differences between 4k and lesser resolutions and what comes out time and again is;

If the footage is well put together, interesting and engaging, no-one cares. Story is all.

If the footage is boring, static and dry, you lose your audience regardless and no amount of technical power will save it.

One reviewer even set out to see if the difference between 4k and 1080p was noticeable to the viewer, but sneakily slotted some 720 and 8k in. No-one would be able to tell without breaking the golden rule, which is “you should always look at any visual media in the way it was intended to be seen”. A bill-board looks good at 100m, a large TV at 5m.

The reality is, most of the movies you have likely watched on a big screen up to now, have likely been shot at 1080 or lower and up-scaled, or often not.

Emotive images come from somewhere other than purely technical spaces.

In other words, do not look too critically, too close or for too long. Very little art was made to be studied on a deeply technical level and most artists are poor straight technicians.

Be awed by the mastery and technique of the artist, but not the technical resolution or fine detail rendering beyond the capabilities of the medium used. Look close enough and even the Mona Lisa becomes mere brush marks!

The very argument that better resolution equals better art nullifies all that has come before.

The fact is, most cinematographers are not looking for pimple rendering detail (or they and the makeup artist may come to blows). The quality of the quality is always more important than the quantity of the quality.

Every time resolution goes up a notch, there is a counter blow towards “character”, which is another name for endearing “imperfections”. As early as the 1920’s black net stockings were stretched across lenses to take the edge off and in the digital era, where surgical perfection is the norm, the retro throw-back movement is gathering steam.

Like I am working towards, I hope you are all in the habit of judging your images by their content, not their technical prowess.

The Draft Is Up!

Hunting down some older glass.

Not obsessed, because then I would get sad about the 300+ lenses I have owned over the years.

So far;

An old Helios 58 f2 44-2 I found on a gifted Praktika in my junk box. It has oil on the blades, but works. This has an M43 mount making it a near useless 120mm equiv, but I may get an L-Mount. Having said that, it is one of the few that breaks the 50mm habit.

A Minolta 45 f2 that appeared in the same box, no camera, no idea what its story is. It looks to be a bit of a favourite for video, so a lucky find. L-mount coming.

A minty late model Pentax PK SMC 50 f1.4, which is newer than the more favoured ones, but very nice. This came from my father-in-laws left overs box last night (never hurts to ask). I think I am leaning away from full blown “retro” lenses, but I am still open to lenses with some character so I have high hopes for this one. L-Mount coming, M43 mount at hand.

A TTArtisan 35 f1.4 on the way (new for $100au). This is L-Mount 50mm equivalent in APS-C only. New-old lenses look fun. If I was buying this for stills, I would likely be sweating on build consistency, but for video, I could hardly care less. It will be what it is.

A lovely colour palette and very well behaved stopped down, the 25 F lens is a go-to. The 43mm filter thread means adapter rings are needed, but when sourced, it is all good.

My F series half frame Olympus 25mm f2.8, which is a favourite and perfect for the M43 cameras. This was saved from a throw out box at the camera shop I worked at and lucky I was to see it. Wide open it has a sharp but hazy look (almost like Cine-D profile), but one stop down it tidies up well. Old school colours and contrast and unique Bokeh with some easily found out of control flare mean it is probably closest to the Helios in performance.

The very cool Bokeh the 25mm displays, and the amazing sharpness and colour for a 50+ year old lens. The background is a black rubber mat with large white flecks.

Some funky flare and CA wide open. It behaves quite predictably, pretty much giving retro lovers all the goods wide open, then cleaning up well stopped down. Interesting little flare “cross” lower right.

Lenses I wish I still had (sob);

Any of my massive FD kit including several “L” zooms, SSC primes (pre-L pro glass) with a call out to the 50 and 100mm Macros, 20mm f2.8, 135 f2, 200 f2.8, 24 f2.8 SSC, 35 f2. I ran FD Canon for over 20 years often grabbing older SSC versions when I could (the 24 f2.8 SSC was da bomb!), owning at one point or other most of their range, even an ancient 135 Flouride.

Any of my extensive OM kit, the 90 and 50 f2 Macros, 21 and 28 f2, 35-70 f3.5 and 180 f2.8 in particular. I only had Olympus for a relatively short time, shedding it when I went into EOS mainly because the OM4ti cameras I had were getting twitchy, but it spoilt me for other brands, hence my happy adoption of M43.

Some favourites from my similarly huge EF range, the 135 f2L (perfect), 28 f1.8, 200 f2.8L (characterful), 70-200 f4L (non-I.S. and both I owned were top performers), any of the macro’s especially the first model 100mm (Bokeh king*), many primes (L or not) like the 85 f1.8, 400 f5.6L and 35 f1.4L mk1, 24 Tilt/shift L, Voightlander 40 f2, 17-40 f4L etc. My revolving door of EOS gear often involving multiple purchases of the same lens was expensive and extensive.

My Bronica 75mm, which was special.

Some Pentax 67 glass, the 90mm in particular.

The odd Nikon lens that passed on through, as well as some Pentax, Minolta and several screw mounts including another mint Helios on a similarly near mint Zenit XP.

And finally, the very, very sweet Contax glass I bought as a set from a friend with the 85 f2.8 and 50 f1.4 as standouts. The 85 in particular made a very good 170mm on M43 and was suitably tiny. It was as sharp as my 75mm Oly which means it was top 5 all time for me and the mount adapter was a perfect fit. At the time there were no MF peaking M43 cameras, so I found it hard to use well, but of all the lenses I have sold, it is the most missed.

*

No time to lament, because I will be aiming for consistently good quality primarily (Lumix S series), leaving the retro look to the young re-discoverers. I have enough to have fun with and may yet find some secret sauce.

The 20-60 is decent (soft edges at the wide end are dissapointing), but I have forgotten how limiting a slow zoom is, even with a dual ISO full frame sensor, so the faster glass will be employed most of the time. The 50mm is pending and the 35 f1.8 is likely or possibly the 24 (also used as a 35 in APS-C), but not much else as the zoom handles wide well enough for video, I am spoilt for M43 choice and use wides sparingly.

*This lens and the EF 35 f2 were actually called out specifically in the first Bokeh article printed in English (Photo Techniques May/June 1997).

Old, Good Glass.

The Pentax 50mm f1.4 is good glass.

It has a genuinely beautiful quality wide open. Sharp on the focus point (hair in front of the eyes), but dreamy all around.

If I punch up the contrast it responds, but I really like the retro-soft-smooth contrast. Stopped down it hardens up nicely.

Something special.

With more contrast.

This acts as a 100mm on M43, but when my L mount adapter comes, I expect this, the Minolta 45, possibly the Helios 58mm, the TTArtisan 35 f1.4 (as an APS-C 50mm) and the Lumix 50mm to offer a range of tools, most being twin focal lengths on full frame or APS-C (S35). The adapted lenses can also be used as 2x crops in M43 format.

Lets Try A Little Harder Folks.

Photography is tough to get your head around technically.

Add in video and it gets even tougher, but it does not help when the already contradictory terminology is confusingly or inaccurately described.

For example.

Apertures are wider (which means small numbers), not smaller, because smaller means a smaller aperture hole (which has a bigger number) and a resulting deeper depth of field rendering*. I have actually had to sit through a lengthy vlog post by a well liked and quite knowledgeable reviewer who constantly said a wide aperture lens had “more of a depth of field” (!?) when he actually meant it could achieve “shallower” depth of field (i.e. less), just to get to a small point of interest.

Occassionally there is an on screen correction, probably after the comments section pulls them up, but just as often, they do it all again in a later video.

Apart from the casual, on-trend use of English, the reviewer was just plain wrong, further confusing the already confusing. Even if he had said depth of field “effect”, he would have made some sense (assuming he meant more Bokeh or shallower), but the quantitive description was at odds with a qualitative get-out-of-jail.

It is hard.

Smaller numbers = wider apertures = less depth of field = more light.

Conversely bigger numbers = smaller apertures = deeper depth of field = less light.

This all makes little sense on the surface, but never the less is correct and unfortuantely Shutter speeds, ISO’s and other elements of the craft get similar treatment. Add all this to the difference in formats and the baked in pre-conceptions that come with them, which also have a couple of hard rules often ignored** and it all just gets brain melting, so it is even more important to be consistent.

This often seems to be more of a video thing, probably because the bulk of the new guard in this field are younger and their photographic grounding is less solid. Some of my favourite vloggers are guilty of this so I am not on a hate crusade, just hoping for a little more professionalism.

I am also accepting of the changing face of English, the largely AWOL “ly” in our current vernacular and the often redundant use of terms like “most unique” (it either is or it isn’t), but lets try to actually learn the right terms with the technical stuff, not just regurgitate the errors of those we follow.

Another bug-bear of mine is format bias, under qualification or even ignorance***. I remember reading the Lonely Planet guide to travel photography a few years ago, horrified to find the writer jumped between full frame and APS-C terms without any qualification. One sentence stated the standard lens was a full frame 24-70 L series (but big for travel I would have thought), the next sentence proposed the EF-S 10-22 as a wide and 55-250 as a long tele, ignoring the fact the latter two would not even fit on a full frame camera and they come from completely different stables of Canons range! It was like the writer cherry picked sentences from Canons Lenswork guide, but had little real idea.

It went on, interchanging formats, terminology and brands with little clarity, even dropping a picture of a medium format film camera in as a landscape option for fun. I wondered at the time how many people got confused, frustrated and even wasted money and time thanks to this tome of mis-information.

This also rears its ugly head when a presenter postulates that anything other than the format they use is useless, ignorant of the benefits or history of any others.

While we are at it;

It is Bo (as in Bone), ke (as in Kettle) not Bow-kerr. The “h” was added in the vain hope it would help with pronunciation. The source is Japanese, the Anglicisation dates back to a magazine article in the mid ‘90’s, so check if you need (not hard). Then send Apple a nasty email for their part in buggering it up.

Again, this one is a term for describing the quality of blurring and focus transition, not a measure of quantity. It applies to all images with any out of focus elements and their transition. More Bokeh is more Blur, but better Bokeh is subjective and everyone has a different take on it, so try not ot get too obsessed with it and be kind people. Nobody is wrong here unless they are, well…. wrong.

Rant over,

pretty photo,

moving on………. .

*I used to explain this one by “think of it as a unit of measurement. Bigger number equals deeper depth, like more inches or more fence posts, which is easier than trying to explain the idea of calibers.

**Such as the rule that the same focal length at the same distance to subject has the same DOF at the same aperture no matter the format, but the angle of view and magnification change.

***Like “full frame” is the standard and one true format, even though it was once a hard to sell compromise format based on necessity from its very beginning (don’t get me started). All formats are “full frame”, unless you accept that the term only applies to one, a bit like saying a V12 SUV is “full car” and all others are “cropped”. Try selling that to a Ferrari owner.

****. I just finished watching a lengthy video on the different focal lengths used by different cinematographers, with 19 of the greatest compared, their movies dissected and their thoughts translated. Even a helpful chart at the end. It only occurred to me half way through that it did not seem right. What they were saying and what I was seeing were two very different things. The wide angles talked about were wide, but not as wide as they should have looked. An entire movie like Alien ressurection shot on a full frame 14mm? Seemed fanciful and impractical, then it dawned on me.

At no time during the video or the written article it was embedded in, did the presenters bother to qualify the format parameters (although a shot of Spielberg draped over a super 35 camera might have given it away). They are, I now assume, talking about super 35mm focal lengths, or basically APS-C crop!

My assumption and probably the assumption made by most viewers in this full frame dominated world would have been full frame lenses on full frame hybrid cameras, because that is what most modern videographers are pushing as normal, especially those of us still learning (I was only reminded super 35 was/is the dominant cinema format when researching Anamorphic lenses and the S5).

The Cohen brothers using a 27mm makes more sense now. It is the s35 equivalent to a FF 40mm! Even Kubrick occassionally using a 9.8mm makes some sense (a FF 14mm).

S5 Quick Thoughts

I have a little (very little) time to look at the S5.

First up, I shot jpeg’s which was my bad, but did the job. This was immediately apparent when I went to process them with the Exposure slider dulling down the files. I have found in C1 the Brightness slider is way better for jpegs.

The jpegs processed well enough, handling some highlight and shadow recovery, which may be better than my M43 jpegs, but not the RAW’s.

It is not as nice in the hand as the G9 or even the EM1’s. It is smaller feeling than the G9, especially in the grip and the bulky kit zoom feels oversized on it. The cage coming (Smallrig) will address this and as a video camera, body only handling is irrelevant.

The general handling is different, mostly fine, just different. Some button changes, a few new and the odd missing button, dial or lever. As a video camera, I find it more than workable, even preferable, but we will see.

The lens looks good, although without checking RAW files It is hard to tell. I am not using it for stills, but if I do, the 20-60 is fine for most tasks and a fast prime or two will fill in the gaps.

Full frame depth of field os a bitch! Oh boy do I miss M43 DOF and how quickly did I forget my first 30 odd years of full frame shooting? Focussing on a flower head I often missed the fly I was aiming at, at f8! Everything seemed as sure footed as M43, but apparently no.

Close focus is interesting. The 60mm end of the lens is pretty ordinary. The 20mm end on the other hand is similar to the Leica 9mm allowing for macro-landscapes.

High ISO performance is predictably next level.

ISO 6400 was very quickly employed lacking a fast bit of glass.

The lens has some distortion and is not super sharp on the edges, wide open at the wide end (nor razor sharp even stopped down), but for video, which will be its sole use, it will be fine.

Basically equal to ISO 400 in M43.

I am satisfied the lens is well enough centred, but may keep looking while my 14 day return option is open.

Overall I am happy that the kit does exactly what I wanted, a dedicated pro-grade hybrid video cam, made to purpose, pnly surplus in the area I have coverred well now.

My initial thoughts are that, and this is not just a m43 fan boy talking, there is a lot less difference than most would expect, except in the two known areas, of very high ISO and video.

The files are very clean throughout the range and the cameras video pedigree is obvious. The thinking is very different to the G9. A dedicated video button, more video features and a bias towards video terminology.

While We Are At It, What About Anamorphic!

Looking into video I guess will always come with an awareness of Anamorphic lenses.

Very brief history. To make fight back against the availability of the TV, the movie industry started to shoot in wide screen on standard 35mm film stock, using horizontal “squeeze” lenses and then projected the footage with matched “de-squeeze” lenses. The result being very wide capture on skin 35mm film (Movies were shot across the film, not length-ways like stills cameras).

Most Anamorphic lenses cost a bomb, often coming in at 100k+ for a set, so they are only hired for films, but lately a few genuinely good options have become available at reasonable prices. Sirui, Laowa and others can be had for around $1000au, and decent modifiers like the Moment option are even cheaper.

They came with a distinctive look and a few unique elements;

Wide screen as in wider than 17:9 C4k.

You can get as wide as a 3:1 ratio even with longer lenses. This means width and reach with compression. A genuinely unique look, but something cropping can do, with a slight quality drop. If you shoot full height full frame then crop in, I guess you get super wide Super 35 .

This kind of thing.

Linear (and other) flare.

It can be used for effect or toned down, but either way, it is a thing. You can also use filters to get blue, gold or even rainbow flare lines. Even a bit of fishing line stretched across the lens will do. Any cheap/old lens, a damaged or grease smeared filter, can all flare and be used more judiciously.

Oval shaped highlights.

Bokeh, but not as you know it. Spherical lenses (normal lenses) generally create round or occasionally “cats eye” or other odd looking Bokeh balls, but Anamorphic lenses almost always create oval ones. This is the easiest way to pick a genuine Anamorphic lens. This and the streak thing above can be achieved with any lens using a bit of oval card and fishing line taped to it. There are even tutorials on line for this.

Distortions and focus draw.

The special something most aficionados are drawn to even more than the above, this is also a lens by lens thing.

As tempting as it is to use the de-squeeze feature on the S5, I think I would be happier to take short-cut pathways for occasional and less permanent application of these effects. The streaking is a love-hate thing, general flaring the same* and distortion and oval Bokeh balls are to me more a sign of an Anamorphic being used than an always desirable outcome.

I can see a raft of experimental lens and filter ideas being explored, but no massive outlay on true Anamorphic lenses.

*I get the current desire to re-explore old flaws for the character they add, but lets face it, they are flaws. Chasing the look is just that, a look, not a fix for bad content, gimmicky process or poor technique. Legacy glass can offer a level of organic rendering, but chasing the worst of the past is the latest in a long line of a passing fads.

Paths Collide

Sometimes my worlds collide.

Cosplay and LARPing are not my chosen expressive pathways, but I still recognise them under the same overall umbrella of pop culture that I subscribe to.

Being an old school table top and pen and paper role player, board and war gamer, I feel like a cultural grand father to these guys, who have taken the baton and run with it.

Scarlet Witch, levitating spell book and all.

Searching for some stories on a quiet Saturday, one of our journalists found two related, but exclusive events, both within minutes of the other.

M’aiq The Liar. Must have been hot in there.

Taspop Cosplay get together at the Gorge Basin and Southern Isles LARP event at the Trevallyn Reserve.

Southern Isles LARP group.

A great and welcoming cadre of passionate people.

Physics And Anatomy

We only get two of the JackJumpers games a year here, but have plenty to write about, so netting as many shots as possible is a priority. The team is also playing against teams our sibling papers cover, so images for all are a plus.

I am still amazed how physical these games are. Even the smaller guys are my size (just sub 6’ and medium build), but even the larger players can jump higher than you would expect, often going unnoticed at normal speed.

A feint and pass.

Not sure where the ball is, but effort expended none the less.

Ballet stars with supporting dancers?

The defender (Will Magnay) does this game in, game out.

Over and over.

Practical Bokeh

I often talk about “practical” depth of field.

To me, this means depth of field that allows you to (1) use DOF obviously and creatively as a tool and (2) retain story telling elements. Basically, not too much, nor too little.

Below are a set of images taken using the widest aperture of f1.8 on an Olympus 45mm at about 2-3 metres from the focus point. This is about f3.4 on a full frame lens in the same circumstances.

I find this lens has interesting Bokeh. It never fails to catch my eye for better or worse, but rarely lets me down. It needs to be said here, Bokeh is a qualitive term for the rendering of out of focus areas of an image, not just a quantitive one.

A snappy foreground with a soft, but not completely lost background.

The story was one of a team talking about the making of a new venture.

Team meaning more than one.

Connections.

Each image has a clear (and razor sharp) point of focus, but also a secondary element. This element needs to be part of the story, but also not a distraction to the main subject on first viewing.

Front and back supporting elements.

The image below is a single subject portrait, lens still wide open, but there are background context elements.

The large wall mural, also taken at f1.8, shows the detail retained by the increased distance.

Less DOF in all these cases would have lost these contextual elements to mush. I like silky smooth Bokeh as much as anyone and occassionally employ it as a useful tool, but it rarely offers more than a single dimension creatively.

A one trick pony, sometimes gorgeous, sometimes a shallow trick, but a one trick pony none the less.

What I am saying is, even if I had a larger sensor and/or wider aperture available, I would rarely use it. The 75mm f1.8 is my Bokeh king. A powerful tool that I use sparingly. The proof will be the 50mm f1.8 Lumix lens coming for the larger sensor S5.

Will I go Bokeh crazy or prove my point?

Why Stick With M43?

I have betrayed my beliefs! I pick up my full frame S5 at the end of the week.

Well, betray is an exaggeration, modify for a specific need maybe.

My commitment to M43 is still very real. I am shooting another JackJumpers game tomorrow night, a national grade basketball game, with no room for error. No fear, no nerves, just anticipation.

Here are the reasons I am sticking with the system.

The math.

No matter how you stack it up, full frame answers always come with a catch. Same reach equals many times the size/weight/price, some lenses are simply not available and many are impractical. No full frame shooter can comfortably carry a full range of lenses covering 16-600 with apertures of f4 or faster in a shoulder bag, simple as that. The M43 trade off is theoretically more high ISO noise and a reduction of the shallow depth of field look, but tobe honest the reduction in performance in both these areas is over stated and M43 (for me) strikes the better balance.

If I had to choose between a occassional and very slight performance penalty or not being able to take the shot, there is no choice. Sometimes I am actually empowered, not hindered.

Examples;

75mm f1.8 is a 150mm f1.8. Not many takers and none are the size of a mini soda can or the price of a run of the mill 75mm.

An early EM5 Mk1 image, showing the quality the system offered in its earliest days. I have an A2 poster print of this and it exceeds the print media in quality.

9mm f1.7 is a 18mm f1.7. Super sharp, super small and light compared to monster full frame equivalents and a very rare wide angle macro.

The power of a f1.7 18mm equiv in a limited environment.

45mm f1.8 that is a 90mm f1.8, that is an over sized thimble. This lens is small enough to fit inside a standard full frame 50mm f1.8. Some M43 lenses are so small, I have taken to placing soft white, table leg foot protector pads to stop me dropping them on each other in my bag. I can also write the focal length on these which helps. Take lens “X” just in case? Why not.

Bokeh enough? Shot wide open, silently and from the hip. Sharp down to individual eye lashes.

300 f4, rated is as one of the best of its type, but one that acts like a full frame 600 f4! No competition and for someone like me not even a consideration. $10,000 plus lenses are specialist tools, cumbersome and too limited in application to be justified. My 300mm can go in my day bag. In my world a full frame 600mm f4 stays in the shop unbought.

Maximum power in a tiny package.

I could continue, but here is the thing. All M43 lenses are good and most replace much dearer/heavier/more expensive full frame equivalents. This means I can buy more, carry more, use them in sensitive locations and for the makers, lens design is easier (which was part of the point).

The end result is a very good 20mp (or more) image from a massive variety of lenses you can afford.

The Cameras.

Pro grade build, built in grip, dual battery and card, near perfect AF, 60 fps, class leading stabilised body with super sharp 20 odd mp sensor? D6, 1Dx etc, all expensive flagship cameras, but three to four times more expensive than the EM1x. Also most lack I.B.I.S, and all lack the build it loss-less 2x tele converter that is M43 unless they sport 40+ mp. High ISO performance? Back to the lenses equation above for a two stop advantage and A-grade ISO 6400+ is no issue with decent processing. There are higher MP cameras, but at huge cost and the pixel density starts to balance things out. Also, you need to ask your self when was the last time someone wanted a massive print off you that would be looked at too close (I have had bill boards printed from cropped M43 images).

ISO 6400 with C1 processing only. In the original file I can read the sponsors logo on the JackJumpers shirt second to back row, left hand side.

Dust cleaning performance, stabilisers, silent shutters etc. Lots of firsts, plenty that still hold true as competitive or class leading. The smaller sensor is easier to stabilise, clean and the silent shutter in the later models is becoming fully useable. My EM1x’s have 400k shutters, but I rarely use the mechanical shutter.

More math.

A depth of field advantage that means I get the very useable DOF of a 2.8 lens at 1.8 and two stops of extra flash strength. Often seen as a disadvantage I would postulate that the DOF of M43 is just about perfect in the professional world. You can shoot wide open without fear that the subject will be a narrow sliver of twitchy sharpness. Ironically, the AF is so accurate it could be workable with that narrow DOF, but does not have to. There is plenty of chance to use shallow depth as the rules still apply, just with longer lenses, but it is not dangerously, impractically shallow.

ISO 6400 wide open at f2.8 holds no fear.

Video.

With Panasonic in the mix, video was always a priority, but now even Olympus is getting it together, with all the above advantages. My kit is genuinely hybrid, mixing and matching as suits.

Two brands. Two brands working towards the same goals, sharing the same lens mount and hot shoe system. There is actually a third brand (Black Magic), but not for stills.

Processing. In an Adobe world M43 is a harder sell, but do yourself a favour and look elsewhere. Capture One, DXO, ON1 etc can all do a better job, and not just with M43. Once I moved the C1, a lot of my qualms disappeared.

So why add a full frame if I am happy?

The one area I cannot beat full frame, the S5 specifically is in super high (dual) ISO performance and dynamic range when shooting video, an area I do not have an equivalent to ON1 No Noise for, although the BMPCC4k and SH6 came close, but with their own issues.

The S5 delivers good enough results to make a difference without me having to go into the above “bad math” equivalents. Delivering fullframe benefits while staying M43 small (smaller than a G9) with very decent, light weight lenses. The 20-60 kit and 24 to 85mm f1.8 lenses are excellent, do the job and keep the whole thing sane. There was simply no better value option that addresses all of my needs. Ironically, one of the other benefits of the system is Super 35 or the crop sensor option for video.

It will not grow beyond this because it does not have to.

If the S5 did not deliver, I would have stuck to M43 offerings with their various considerations, like the GH5.2 (enough really, but not much more than I have), GH6 (price/storage), GH5s (price and stabiliser) or BMPCC4k (stabiliser/size/AF), which would likely have dealt with the problem well enough, but the S5 specifically addressed each with a better balanced and overall cheaper alternative.

This is not really a format thing, more of a specific camera for a soecific need, much like my existing kit of EM1x’s for sport, G9’s as hybrids and EM1.2’s as work horse, day cameras. If there was a genuine M43 alternative in this soecific case I would have gone for it.

Ting......Swoooooosh!

Huge sound for an otherwise quiet game. I would not like to be in the way of one of those drives.

Australian Junior Golf at the Riverside Golf Course, Launceston.

So, what do you do when you have one hour to cover the golf?

One of several with the “T” joining in.

You run around a lot!

Balance and power. Shot was a little cramped, but I made a bad call lens-wise. I could (should) have used the 75-300, which is ideal for this sort of game. Instead I hauled the 300 f4 (used above) and 40-150 f4 in tandem. Too fiddly, too much light gathering and far too much, unnecessary AF speed.

The brief was (1) get locals and (2) get the likely winners.

T-bird? A junior anyway, so all good.

I was also aware I had to look out for snakes, but the number of birds down there was eye opening.

The standard was high enough that the sand traps were generally avoided, so I had to grab my chances.

I always like a chance to shoot a new sport, but to be honest, I think a lifetime of Golf photography would have to come with a healthy dose of love for the game.

Trying for something new.

Nice way to spent part of a day though.

The Cinematographer As Street Photographer As Cinematographer

Learning about cinematography has armed me with a better vernacular to understand and explain my street photography.

Terms like “blocking”, Mise-en-scene and storyboarding have allowed me to see that both share much in common, so much, that I feel it is possible to hone one skill set with equal benefit to the other.

A frozen action conveys a single mood, but would the cinematographer agree with this representation?

Mise-en-scene is literaly “setting the scene”. Cinematographers do this on two levels. They first identify the place, time and potential atmosphere, then “dress it” for the period or feel of the production. From here they apply many technical elements like lens features, filtering, angle and camera movements, then they introduce the final elements, the players.

The street photographer does much the same, just working with what they get and attempting to “sum-up” the scene with a single capture.

Not a cinematic shape (open gate?), but the other “true” shape, the square. A square movie? Interesting thought.

Blocking is the placement of the players and their props to convey (1) their place in the story, (2) their importance in the scene and (3) the subsequent flow of said scene. This is done with light, physical placement, movement, focus and sound, using camera angle and other elements for stronger effects, but the core of it all is Mise-en-scene and blocking.

Central placement makes the main, stronger character obvious, but the scene holds other elements. In a street scene we have the luxury of exploration, but the cinematographer needs to make these elements attract the viewer in the right order and at the right time or they are lost, fleeting moments.

I have always had a lean towards the magnificent elegance of the wider scene complimented with more intimate, tighter shots of individuals, which in many ways sums up my street photography.

Street photographers can only identify the scene, be patient and snap at the right time. The scene is played out in front of their eyes and then in the heads of their viewers.

What happenned, who is doing what and why?

Reservoir Dogs, Osaka style.

Luck, efficiency and patience play equal parts, but street shooters do have the advantage of only needing a single frame to tell the story.

Possibly the end of a walk through scene, the blue witches-hat gives us a visual anchor that replaces the womans blue dress as the highlight colour using the 60-30-10% colour rule, (60% primary grey-white, 30% supporting beige and 10% contrast or highlight blue).

Street photography is like cinematography, but without the control. The idea is to convey an idea of a place and/or people, using only what is on offer, making that work as able.

If cinematigraphy is the controlled flow of a moving scene, street photography is the momentary arrest of the same. Both are powerful, but potentially have very different results. Street photography conveys the story through careful inclusion and omission, cinematography does not have that luxury. A stills shooter on a movie set could very well tell a contradictory story to the cinematographer with a few well chosen images.

Setting the scene for either requires an authenticity, one that comes naturally with street shooting, because the shooter has only recognised, not “set” the scene.

The cinematographer sets natural spaces based on a falsehood, that then have to look natural.

Light, movement and placement. This could easily be a scene in a movie, but as a street shot it has added authenticity.

Cinematography and street photography are therefore often identical except for the pre-amble.

The Cinematographer recognises the potential of a found location, then manufactures an environment.

The street photographer recognises the potential of the found space and times their capture.

Same result, different amount of exerted control.

One of my favourites with a fleeting glance of the three element rule. Cinematically, this one would transition well to any of the three subjects, but this specific moment would likely be lost.

For me, the golden rule of street photography is the “three element” rule. I like to include, when I can, three active elements in a frame. This is not always possible or even relevant, but if I can, I do.

A simple composition, lacking the three element rule.

Probably better a little squarer, but I cannot find the original file, this is better blocked for street with three elements and could be used cinematically to transfer our attention from one, to another, to another subject, following the inward and outward movement of specific players.

I guess the lot of the street photographer is as challenging as the cinematographer, just different.

The beauty of the two learned in tandem is the lessons from one do indeed help the other.

The street photographer side of me is always looking for that “cinematic” frame and I guess I always have been without knowing it (drawing on my memory bank of old photos and I now realise old movies).

My newly dicoverred cinematographer side is now looking to create effectively a moving street image.

Bit O' Mono

More from the concert the other night, this time with a little classic touch.

Our journo Duncan reflected in the glasses.

Cool tatt.

So Why A S5 Mk1 On The Third Of January?

I hope I am not the only one and that my choice makes sense to a few of you, but here is the thing. On the day before the highly anticipated Panasonic S5 Mk2 was launched, I bought a Mk1.

Here are my reasons, sound or not.

• Extended video dynamic range, which is an area that can always be improved. This is nlikely to change with the new model.

• Higher ISO performance, including for stills. Not a must and something I have always managed, but why not? Again, unlikely to change.

• Continuous recording, which is the thing that started this journey. Same.

• Battery life, to support that continuous recording. Etc.

• Inproved base video quality out of the gate, which means 10-bit, 4k/1080, 4:2:0/4:2:2 and easily achieved without needing extreme measures. Unknown, but this is enough.

• Value (third pricey thing I have bought for photography since November), with a lens it came in at $2000au, making it the best value hybrid full frame on the market, if it’s capabilities suit. Undoubtedly cheaper.

• Stabilising. It is class leading for a full frame. Unknown, but unlikely to be vastly improved.

• LOG profile. I use Natural or Standard for some stuff, Cine-D occasionally, but true LOG is a must ongoing. This is all I need. The S5 has full LOG, the GH5 and upgraded G9’s only the light version. Al. can go out to a device, but the S5 has a small HDMI connector, which may be upgraded as the majority do not like it.

• Some semblance of consistency with my current work flow, especially if I am mixing formats. Same.

Looking at it realistically, the Mk1 is lauded as nearly the perfect semi-pro or pro hybrid except for mixed feelings on the AF, so a day does not change that drastically. The Mk2 may be the perfect pro-am tool, but second best is fine and I doubt I will trust AF for my needs (not a vlogger).

What is missing?

The new phase detect AF, which would be nice, but to be honest, there are work arounds for the DFD system and other options.

AF was not a driving priority of the camera purchase. I have come to terms with my demons here with other similar cameras (G9) and other options (EM1’s). I am not a vlogger, do not use AF for creative work and the DFD focussing of the G9’s has proven to be fine for things I need it for. My next lens was very nearly a MF 7Artisans 35 T1.5, so really, AF is a sideline for me for video.

The reality is you need to learn to manually focus.

The bigger reality is this;

I may never buy another MFT camera or lens………… .

Loosing sight of what I have believed for a while now?

I am not dropping the system, in fact I am anticipating a reassuring period of FF/MFT comparisons, but I have plenty, too much maybe*. Full frame gives me a new upgrade path if it is relevant, but there is no rush.

No, eyes still on the ball.

I guess my next camera will be a S5 Mk2 (maybe next year), then maybe a longer lens to round out the kit, or maybe not. The 50mm f1.8 S is next, a Smallrig mini matt box lite also, then I will see what the year brings.

I can even see a time where the Mk1 and the kit 20-60 are used in my day kit, replacing a G9 just for the better low light performance, with the Oly and telephoto combination.

Still hard to argue with a handy sized, AF responsive, pro-grade 840mm.

Sound is sorted, so is camera/lens/filtering and work flow. I just need practice and clients to produce for.

*The luxury of a pro grade daily work kit, specialist sports kit, studio outfit and dedicated video kit with a little put aside for personal projects and backup.