On Making or Taking a Photo.

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

The Makers.

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

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

The Takers.

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

Gold and Green Kyoto Japan. OMD 17 f1.8

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

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

Which is best?

Which are you (or a bit of both)?

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

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

On Olympus Lenses Part 2

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

Olympus 17mm f1.8: The Unlikely Friend.

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

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

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

Shibuya Japan  OMD 17mm f1.8

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

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

Skate Park  Launceston Tasmania. OMD 25mm f1.8

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

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

Panasonic 20mm f1.7

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

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

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

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

On Olympus Lenses Part 1

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

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

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

Olympus 75mm f1.8: The Scalpel.

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

"Coffee Shop Ride" 75 f1.8

Olympus 75-300: The Over Achiever.

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

Perth Zoo 75-300 (300)

Olympus 45mm f1.8: The Little Gem. 

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

"Morning Moves" Tokyo 45 f1.8

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

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

Back Garden Sample 60mm F2.8 macro

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

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

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

Classic Car Show Fuji 60mm f2.4

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

Hope this helps.

Next up we look at the shorter lenses.

On Lens Reviews

First up a little photo "philosorant"!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guess what? 

That edge is you, not your gear.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, getting back on track.

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

"Everyday" Shibuya Japan. OMD 17 f1.8

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

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

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

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

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

I actually learned more about the cameras than the lenses.

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

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

"Cherry lips" Hiroshima Japan OMD 75-300 

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

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

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

Morocco  (Peta Frost) Canon Ixus

So, the point of my ramblings?

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

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

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

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

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

On Micro Four Thirds

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

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

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

To start with, some background.

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

Working in a camera shop does not help!

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

Does this stop me?

No.

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

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

 More than once.

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

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

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

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

Now... Fuji or Olympus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Frost web" Tasmania.  Fuji XE1 60mm Macro

Lightroom to the rescue!

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

"Bel Air time"  Fuji XE1 60mm macro

"Bel Air time alternative" OMD 75 f1.8

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

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

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

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

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