I seem unable to avoid issues like this: photographers all over the Internet speak continually about ‘upgrading’ their cameras, lenses and other gear. Almost never are we given a coherent explanation of why they feel this upgrade compulsion. Frequently, those who inquire have no online images we can view, nor do they tell us what they like to photograph. They also fail to tell us what their current gear isn’t doing for them. In the absence of such information, how can they expect useful advice? Someone who wants to take good pictures of his children’s soccer matches has vastly different needs than someone who wants to shoot close-ups of insects.

There are valid reasons to acquire new gear. If you are photographing birds, a longer and faster tele lens or zoom will give you the capability of producing better images (provided you have the ability to take those shots). A theater or concert shooter may benefit from a camera that gives better results in low light, although noise-reduction software may be almost as effective for a lot less cash outlay. Most of the time, however, it is the photographer who needs upgrading.

Nikon D70 (2004) with 18-70mm ‘kit’ lens. Would the parents be happier
with better ‘IQ’? I think the memories will be the same.

Why the rant then, other than the fact that I like to rant? In the Good Old Days®, when people asked for advice they would write to a magazine or ask the local pro. There was a reasonable chance of getting the right answers. ‘Upgrading’ was not as much of an issue then. Cameras and lenses were simpler, often all-mechanical, and built to last a long time. Today’s DSLRs are a combination of camera and ‘film’ (sensor), and so have a shorter intended lifespan. Add to this the Internet, where no one knows if you are qualified or not, and trouble is inevitable. There has grown up a whole class of online enablers—people who get vast amounts of what SF fans call ‘egoboo’ (ego + boost) from giving sage advice based on inexperience, forum posts and rumors. Do these self-styled experts have portfolios we can see, to judge whether they have experience with the gear they tout? Nope. In some cases, though, they talk a pretty good line. It’s easy to give expert-sounding advice you have cribbed from a book or reputable website without actually addressing the issue at hand.

What’s the harm, you not unreasonably ask? It’s the poor dope’s money after all, not yours. Who gives a flying flap how he spends it? My presumption though, is that the questioner actually wants to take better pictures. He wants to make images, be they only of his cats, like the ones he sees in books or on the websites of experienced photographers. Getting a better camera will not help him. Any DSLR, regardless of age, features or meggypixels, can take professional-quality pictures, even with the oft-maligned kit lenses. It is the eye and brain behind the lens that makes the picture. The poor upgrade seeker would learn a lot more by taking lots of pictures with the gear he has. I bet that in the long run, he would have a lot more fun taking a photo trip with his present equipment than spending the money on the latest ‘upgrade’.

I was downtown looking to get some pastry for my wife. In front of the pastry shop, I met a woman. “Are you a photographer?” she asked. I confessed, and she asked me if I shot a lot of pictures in Pottstown. I allowed as how I sometimes did, but that Pottstown was not really an ideal location. I pointed out that it was Saturday afternoon, and the main street was almost entirely deserted; that shops (including the best restaurants) were shutting down, and that the whole town was the dirtiest place I had ever encountered. She then identified herself as the Mayor!

Madame Mayor

Well, never let it be said that my foot is far from my mouth! I stood by my statements, and she said that there would soon be a new downtown authority that would merge all of the functions of the current warring entities and thus be ‘empowered’ to make the necessary changes. I honestly hope this is so, but I have heard very similar pronouncements in the past. (From, of course, both Democrats and Republicans.)

About now you may be asking, “Why do you live there?” Although I sometimes ask that of myself, the answer is that it was the only place we could afford a Victorian house in good condition. The town is also less crime-ridden than some of the old Southeast PA boroughs.

The Little Gang, 2007

Don’t seem too menacing to me, but what do I know. There is a Philadelphia Magazine writer, Sandy Hingston (pseud?) who describes fleeing a decaying neighborhood in South Philly for the haven of Pottstown, and I have no problem with her conclusion. I confess to missing Doylestown, though, since I no longer go there to work.

So I’m back from Iceland. Bjarni and Thorfinn failed to throw me into a volcano. Pure oversight on their part, I’m sure. I can now testify that it never gets dark there at midsummer. Of course, it never seems to get really light either…

Reykjavik From Across the ‘Pond’ (About 8:30 PM)

Have to say it’s a strange and remarkable place. As far as I can tell, the country is ruled by a monstrous Thing that lives underneath a lake. The lake is right along the Mid-Atlantic Rift, where Europe and North America are moving steadily apart. I believe this is caused by Sarah Palin.

Rocks and Flowers, Thingvellir (Along the Rift)

Iceland has a number of Volcanoes. A large number. Enterprising folks with names like Guthmundr and Kjetil have put the Volcanoes to good use. For example, in order to get hot water in Iceland (something you definitely need), you just hook your house up to any spare fire-mountain that isn’t doing anything. Of course, this means you may get molten magma in your shower, but hey, Icelanders are nothing if not tough.

Malfunctioning Icelandic Plumbing

More to come very soon, including a few serious bits.

I admit to a certain predilection for photographing attractive young women. (Also, rocks, flowers, tombstones…) So sue me, okay? Even I recognize, however, that there is more than that to be seen. I encountered this lady on a lovely afternoon, and asked if I might take her picture. Her reaction was one of bewilderment and laughter. The latter won out, and she let me make two exposures, one of which is here. I expect a variety of reactions to the image, including “Why would you do this?” No question, she has been “too much i’ the sun”. If you consider life as a battle, I suppose this is right; the result is at best unattractive, and at worst deadly. But if life is a journey with no clear destination, only a string of moments like drops on a wire, then she appears to have done well. She is a reflection of all those moments in the clear sunlight, and her smile says that none of those little drops can ever be lost.

I certainly hope I can smile like that in twenty years or so. I hope I can still hold a camera so I can pass these frozen instants along until all of our lives merge into the night sea.

“Those ancient, glittering eyes—are gay.”

–Les Berkley

So yesterday, I posted about my nice new Panasonic DMC-G1. Lovely, capable little camera. Great for traveling and all that. But now Sony has released the NEX. Is everyone going to switch? The debate is raging all over the Internet. Is anyone actually taking pictures? Not that I can tell.

I did take this with the G1 yesterday. Looks fine to me, even at a large size on my monitor. Could the NEX do this? Of course. So could just about any camera out there. Not according to the gearheads, though.

What are gearheads? People who obsess about equipment rather than images. The basic tenet of gearheadism is that if you just have the ‘right’ camera and lens, you will be a better shooter; that the gear makes you a photographer. There are gearhead forums all over, where people discuss reviews, camera brands and testing ad infinitum et ad nauseam. Questions like “What lense (sic) would the pro’s (sic) use?” are asked over and over. It doesn’t help when actual pros answer, “The lens I have on the camera.” or “Whatever’s in the bag.” These responses are simply ignored.

A typical gearhead exchange results when someone is displeased with one or another article of equipment. They make panicked posts to a half-dozen sites, afraid that they have got a ‘bad copy’ of a lens, or a camera with inferior ‘IQ’ (image quality). After receiving a few dozen answers to their posts, they rush out, shoot a series of ‘test images’ of brick walls, then change camera systems. Sad to say, this is not exaggeration. I have seen numerous examples of folks who have their expensive cameras and lenses for a few weeks, then return or sell them to buy into another system.

Of course equipment makes a difference. You can’t shoot bald eagles a hundred yards away with the kit lenses that come with most cameras. You need a long telephoto, period. Similarly, you can’t get ultra-wide-angle perspective with that kit lens; it requires a super-wide zoom or prime lens. The kit lens will make perfectly good portraits though, and you could shoot an outdoor wedding with one. The real point is that the brand of equipment makes little to no difference whatsoever. You could make 20×30 inch prints with all of it, and no one would notice the difference.

Here’s another one I did with the G1 today. Not going to win any prizes, but it’s technically just fine, and I kinda like her smile. Besides, we’ve got to preserve the sad few remaining redheads so posterity will know just how beautiful they were before they became extinct. (Look, I read it on the Internet, okay? It has to be true. They’ll be gone in a few years. Also, President Obama was born in the Bronx.) Gearheads don’t want to know any of this. They don’t even want her phone number for God’s sake. They want to know if I took it with Zeiss Glass. (Expensive optics are never just ‘lenses’. They are glass.)

So now you ask, “What’s wrong with all this? I mean, it’s their money, right?” Of course. The problem is—the Internet. There have always been gearheads; in the Fifties they were called ‘testers’ or ‘Leica people’. (Certain brands have always had a cachet, deserved or not.) They joined camera clubs and waited eagerly for Bennett Sherman’s test results in the late, much-lamented Modern Photography. That was pretty much all they could do back in that benighted age. Now, they can jump on line and tell millions of people that they got a ‘bad copy’ of a lens or teleconverter, and an alarming percentage of readers will believe them. It leads to an almost mass-hysteria, with people jumping ship and frenetically trying to find both the ‘right’ equipment and peer approval.

The harm this does, in my far-from-humble opinion, is that it keeps ‘newbie’ photographers in a perpetual state of anxiety about equipment rather than a perpetual state of excitement about art and craft. So can anyone guess what camera and lens I used for this one? The camera body was a Nikon N80, generally considered a good one, but the lens? Not telling, but it was universally considered to be a junk ‘consumer’ lens. The negative is tack-sharp corner to corner. It’s just not the gear, guys. (Yes there are a few female gearheads, but only about one percent of the total.) Sure, you can make a snide remark like, “You couldn’t have done that with a Kodak disk camera.” I could have done it with my Olympus Stylus Zoom® though. Or my 1956 Kodak Retina. Or any one of thousands of tools.

So do I test my equipment? Of course I do-I go out and take pictures with it. Which I what I am going to do right now. Have a great day. Follow the light.

–Les Berkley (Shortguy)

This is this year’s obligatory equipment post. I was intrigued by the idea of the micro 4/3 camera as soon as I read about it. The G1 belongs to a class of camera unofficially known as EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens). It has most of the advantages of a DSLR, but weighs a whole lot less. You can use it like a ‘real’ camera, by looking through an eyepiece at an electronic version of what the lens is seeing, or like a digital point-and-shoot with a tilting, swiveling LCD screen.

I bought the G1 as a kit from Amazon.com. It includes the camera and its 14-45mm zoom lens. Once I received it, I put it through the usual rigorous test procedure. I took hundreds of pictures of brick walls, my pets, the inside of my office and other critical test subjects.

A Critical Test Subject

I carefully considered all of the many important parameters—the Eye-Q, the CA, the DOF, the AF speed, the ISO noise, and above all, the Bokeh®! I came to the following conclusion. It’s, like, soooooo CUTE! It fits in a tiny little bag, looks much less dorky than most digicams—with the eyepiece viewfinder, you do not appear like a dumb yokel ‘chimping’ at an LCD screen. It takes excellent pictures; I would not hesitate to print at 16×20 or larger. You can work quickly with it, or put it on a nice light tripod for maximum quality. The autofocus, face detection and other helpful features work just fine. (Yes, I use face detection. It’s fast, tracks accurately, and can really make life easier.)

Seriously, folks, this is a great little camera, fully capable of giving professional results, whatever that means. It’s got twelve megapixels, which is plenty for making all but huge prints, and it comes with Silkypix® which is a solid (if quirky) RAW file converter and editor. Only problem at present is the lack of lenses, but the kit lens (14-45mm) that comes with the camera is excellent. I could use a 50mm f1.8 or so, but until Panasonic makes one, I can adapt my Nikon lenses. I’ll have to use manual focus and stop-down metering (like I did in 1966), but I’m tough. I can handle it.

There is a review of the Panasonic G1 here, and an update to cover its replacement, the G2 here. Google will find lots more, but I wouldn’t bother. You can spend weeks deciding between the G1/G2 and its rivals from Olympus, Samsung, etc, and in the end you’ll find out that a new model of each has been announced, causing you to start all over again.

Spring has really arrived. Little cold and windy today, but that doesn’t matter. I’m one year short of six… sist… syx… that age, and the more chronologically abled I become, the more I love youth, rebirth and Spring.

This delectable young thing was sitting with her BFF in front of the ice-cream shop. I asked her to pose, and she readily agreed. Not only was she lovely and full of laughter, she also wanted to be a photographer. We talked, I got a half-dozen shots and her friend got in on the action for one frame. With all the garbage I keep hearing about ‘kids today’, something like this gives me at least a soupcan (sic) of hope for the future. I’m also happy that not everyone has been filled up with media hype about how everyone with a camera is a pedophile on the prowl.

And there are more signs of the new season. Thanks to  abundant rain (and snow) followed by an early spring, the trees and flowers look amazing. This willow stands back from Rte. 663 in New Hanover, and positively glows in the early morning sun.

Geek note: All of these pictures were taken with the Panasonic Lumix DMX G1 (to give it its silly full name), which I can highly recommend as a great walk-around camera. It would be good for hikers, cyclists and others who have to watch the weight of their equipment. In order to get in touch with my inner gearhead, I will blog about this camera in a near-future post. Bet you can’t wait.

Yes, at last, that time of year we all eagerly await—the season when hot blondes emerge from their winter period of hibernation. All right, that’s too much unreconstructed nonsense for a public post.  But even straight women and gay men ought to be able to appreciate feminine beauty, especially when it’s accompanied by brains, style and class. This particular stunner had just finished her High School graduation project in ceramics by making three teapots—one Victorian, one contemporary and one Chinese. She, her mother and I had a long and amusing conversation about politics, old house restoration and food.

Oh, and I absolutely love her dress. Not too many people can ‘do’ horizontal stripes, but she looks just fine. Can’t ask for a better harbinger of Spring.

The next one has a little story to go with her. I’m walking slowly down the street, minding everyone’s business, when I take a glance into the box office of the local art-movie theater. There she is, smiling at me. I ask permission for a picture, and she happily agrees. One problem—she’s behind a thick sheet of glass with all kinds of horrible reflections. Ever resourceful, I twist my camera’s LCD screen down, and stick the lens through the ticket slot. It just goes to show the truth of the adage famously quoted by Ansel Adams in relation to his famous image Moonrise, Hernandez, NM. “Chance favors the prepared mind.”

So today I took my Panasonic G1 and wandered through the streets of town, with no luck whatsoever. I mean, I could not get one person to pose for me. Not even a blonde. It was not good at all. The nasty Yellow Face made all of the architecture and storefronts look like hell—not even worth wasting pixels. I did see this guy yesterday, and he at least was happy to be immoralized immortalized.

Sometimes I get scared when I see a guy like that—will I be that way in twenty years? Of course not: I’ll be carrying a camera under that beard. Looks like Old Possawatomy Brown, doesn’t he?

It’s the Internet, okay? We all understand when we put images, text, whatever out there that people can rip it off. That’s just a fact of life, so if we’re smart, we keep images too small to print or watermarked, and we don’t put copies of our unpublished stories where Zachery Kouwe can find them. Yet, the Bad Guys® keep coming. The latest trick is to steal images from popular sites like Flickr and photo.net and put them on your site. You don’t even have to take credit for them, although lots of folks do. All you have to do is get a contract to host Google® Ads on your pages, and when people come to see the pretty pictures (or read the stories) you stole, you get money every time they click an ad. Clever? Yes. Slimy as hell? You bet.