Red Skies at Night

January 25, 2012

Rise and Fall of the media empires (or, the great democratization of art)

Filed under: business, music, noted, photography, reviews, video, web — Eric Jeschke @ 10:30 pm

I’ll give a shot at embedding a video that I ran across in my wanderings online. It’s a feature film–one hour and 21 minutes, to be precise–that is a highly enjoyable exploration of the new digital realm that we find ourselves in. It broaches the interesting questions that arise when all the old media edifices are tumbling down because of the technological advances of our time. When everyone can make a film, a record, or “fine art” photography for a few hundreds of dollars at most and distribute it online, what is the outcome? A great democratization of media or a drowning in a deluge of mediocre works?

Personally I think it is somewhere in between. I tend to fall on the side that says this is a great thing, because I love being creative and seeing these barriers to entry fall away. And lord knows that even before the internet arrived to everyman, the media companies were already starting to crumble under their own ineptitude, avarice and greed. I’m not sorry to see most of them go and get replaced by something hopefully with a more even playing field. But I also worry about a society that has only a few regional newspapers–a bulwark of democracy, and where (like my town) the only bookstores left are used bookstores.

Interesting times we are in, and only with hindsight will it become clearer.

January 21, 2012

Testing Portrait Primes

Filed under: reviews, products, photography, lenses — Tags: , , , — Eric Jeschke @ 7:14 pm

Untitled

Key: R20120121-142844

Regular readers will know that a short time ago I purchased some old Konica Hexanon manual focus (MF) lenses off of ebay to use with my u4/3′s kit as portrait primes. I’d been meaning to do a little further testing of these lenses and seeing how they compare to my PanaLeica native prime (AF) lens.  Today I had all three lenses handy and shot some comparison images in a pretty non-scientific test. Mostly I just want to get a general feel for the characteristics of each.  I won’t bore you with a lot of uninteresting test shots, but if you are interested you can check out this Flickr set.  I shot some other sets as well, but this set I feel mostly illustrates my findings, below.

So, straight to the summary–comparing the Konica Hexanon 40mm (f1.8) and 50mm (f1.4) with the PanaLeica 45mm Elmarit (f2.8):

Both the 40mm and the 50mm Hexanons exhibit quite a bit of softness and halation at the widest apertures on u4/3.  This disappears rapidly as you stop down.  By modern lens standards this would be considered quite a defect, but for formal portraiture it can also be considered a feature or even an asset, if you don’t want a clinically sharp image or to have to resort to blurring in postprocessing, which almost always looks worse.  The 50mm is still a tad soft at f2.0, but does not exhibit nearly so much halation at that f-stop compared to wide open at f1.4 (mind you, I’m not testing with a lens hood, which would improve things somewhat).  This might be the perfect aperture on this lens for flattering portraiture. This lens features 1/2 aperture detents, so one would have the option of shooting at five different settings between f1.4 and f2.8 for soft and hazy to to sharp and contrasty and still take in a lot of light and providing a pleasing background blur.  The 50mm is almost as sharp at f2.0 as the 40mm is at f2.8 and definitely exceeds the 40mm at f2.8.  The 40mm gets a lot of attention on the forums, but I think it is mainly because it is smaller and lighter (and cheaper).  It definitely is a decent performer, but the 50mm is on a different level, at least from what I can tell by my two samples.  It is about the same size (with adapter) as the 45mm native lens, but considerably heavier.

The 50mm vs. the 45mm native lens is an interesting comparison.  Now this is comparing a 50 year old lens with a 5 year old one, so bear that in mind reading the following comments.  Bear also in mind that the 50 MF can be had for about 1/6th the price of the 45 or less!  The 45mm has all the benefits of the electronic interface, of course, meaning that you get full automated aperture control (if you want it).  I’m usually shooting in aperture-priority mode myself, so that’s not such a big issue.  With the 45 the aperture is shown in the viewfinder, and you can see the number with the camera to your eye; with the 50 I sometimes find myself looking down and fiddling to see what aperture I’m working at.  More importantly, with the 45 I can simply twist the focus ring and automatically the view enlarges for manual focusing; with the 50 I have to make two button presses to engage the enlarged view (this is a little better on the GH2, which only requires one button press, but still not as handy as just grabbing and twisting the focus ring).  Of course the 45mm works with AF as well, which is a big win for impatient subjects.  However, I find that when I am doing formal portraiture (as compared to candids), that I almost always prefer to be in MF mode (with the camera on the tripod and a remote cable release attached)–set the focus and exposure–and then just concentrate on minor framing adjustments (with ball head movements) and engaging with, and directing, my subject.  In that sense it is very liberating to have “locked down” those two variables, and for this the MF only aspect of the lens is almost a non-issue.

Ergonomics aside, to my eye the 50mm is just a wee bit sharper than the 45mm at f2.8, but this is an excellent showing for the 45, because that is its maximum aperture, compared to a stop plus down for for the 50.  By f4.0 they are neck and neck.  The 50 being just a little longer focal length and a little faster will be able to blur the background just a little more, but I would say the main interesting aspect of the 50 is the option of opening up where the softness and halation effects kick in.  This lens will likely be a niche lens for portraiture and still life uses, while the native 45 will be used for macro, candids and as a general short telephoto, where the sharpness, AF and light weight are appreciated.  I didn’t yet test the color characteristics of the lenses, this will require controlled lighting and a few test shots of my color chart, but informally I see a little less saturation in the blues and greens, and a slightly warmer overall feel to the image in the 50.

There is also the new Olympus 45mm f1.8 which is a very good lens and reasonably priced, by all accounts.  I don’t have access to one, but if I can borrow one at some point I’d love to compare it as well.  It does have a wider maximum aperture (f1.8 vs. 2.8), but also lacks the macro focusing capabilities of the Elmarit and would lack image stabilization on my Panasonic camera.  The latter is very useful when hand-holding.

November 25, 2011

Lens Testing

Filed under: cameras, lenses, olympus ep1, panasonic gh1, photography, process, reviews, small cameras — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , — Eric Jeschke @ 12:55 am

Size comparison: PL 45mm f1.8 Elmarit vs. Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.4 w/adapter

Key: R20111125-001905

The Konica Hexanon AR to micro 4/3rds adapter has come in. I promised that I would have some more to say about the ebay-acquired Hexanon 40mmf1.8 and the 50mmf1.4 and how they worked mounted on my micro 4/3rds kit.  I would love to start out this rolling review with a portrait image, but alas, I have not had the time to set that up yet; only brief time to play with the lenses in the late evening. I used my new little DIY mini-studio to do some simple lens testing against my only benchmark: the Panasonic Leica 45mm f2.8 Elmarit. I thought this would be a rather dull exercise, since I’m more of a “let’s just get out there and shoot and see how this thing works” kind of guy, but it turned out to be pretty interesting after all: not only did I learn something about my new (old) lenses, but I learned a lot about my old (new) lens as well!

Aperture vs. Stabilization

In my first “playing around” shots with the new 50mm f1.4, handheld and in low light, I could see that, as expected, I gained two stops over the Elmarit. What I had forgotten about was image stabilization. Testing side by side with the Elmarit, it seemed that the two stops were roughly negated when the in-lens stabilization of the Elmarit was enabled. Now of course we know that stabilization is not as useful as two stops of aperture when your subject is moving, but for still subjects this is an interesting trade-off. At least on a Panasonic camera. All other things being equal (which they are not, as you will see in a bit here) one would arguably go with the Elmarit to get the AF, electronic aperture control and other benefits of the electronic lens connection. It was at this point I had an “a-ha” moment and went and fetched my sometimes maligned Olympus ep1 body, which has in-body stabilization. The results confirmed the common wisdom that for MF lenses the in-body stabilization route is a win, as the image was slightly sharper in the details. On the downside, I found the lack of viewfinder or articulating LCD as well as the slightly more fiddly focus magnification on the Olympus to make using the MF lens not as smooth an experience as on the gh1. There are some interesting questions about the ergonomics of MF lenses on these sorts of bodies wrapped up in this, and I will likely return to this topic in a future post after I’ve had time to explore the lenses a bit more on both bodies and set up some more reliable tests.

Size, Weight and Miscellanea

The legacy lenses are solid. There is more glass in there than you need to cover the image circle needed for a 4/3 sensor.  That’s usually a good thing because it means you are getting more of the sweet center part of the glass where the lens performance is best.   The carrying balance on the gh1 is thrown significantly to the front with these old lenses mounted, especially the 50, and so a bit tighter grip on the camera is required if shooting hand-held.  Due to the weight, focal lengths (all 2X on u4/3) and the nature of the magnified focus assist (the magnified image gets pretty jiggly hand-held), I expect to be using these lenses mostly on a tripod.  Indeed, once I had the camera mounted on the tripod, articulated the LCD, attached the remote release cord, switched to MF, and either M or A mode, I felt almost as though I were operating a 4×5 view camera, sans hood.  The experience was very relaxed and pleasurable, and uniquely suited to portraiture, landscape, still life, etc.

Size-wise it is a different story.  The MF lenses are not as small as the smallest native pancakes for this format, but they compared quite respectably to the Elmarit.  As you can see, even with the adapter attached the length is comparable.  However, due to the weight and other issues mentioned above, the bottom line is that I don’t expect to be carrying these MF lenses around for most of my regular photo excursions.  They may see heavy use in my new studio type “constructed image” experiments however.  It strikes me that they might be exceptionally good for video work as well, and very possibly preferable to the AF lenses.

The fit and finish on the Konica lenses is very good.  Solid metal and glass, with distance scale in metric and english units, depth of field markings, hyperfocal distance marks, etc.  The 50mm is in pristine shape and clicks snugly into the adapter and then the adapter into the body.  For these mid-range primes I think I’m going to get a dedicated adapter for each one.  The adapters are cheap enough at $20 apiece and it’s a bit of a hassle trying to get a grip on something that doesn’t twist on the lens in order to extricate it out of the adapter–I’m a little worried that I’ll break something in the lens doing that too many times.  This is especially a potential issue for the 40mm, because it is already a pancake design in 35mm terms (with tiny rings and no space in-between) and unlike the 50mm arrived only in “good” condition: focusing and aperture rings are smooth, and no visible marks or defects in the glass, but there is a little play in the rings that is not present in the 50mm.  It’s caveat emptor on ebay of course, and all things considered I think I did all right this time around.

The 50mm has half-stops on the aperture settings, and the minimum aperture is f16. The 40mm has only full stop detents, and goes to f22.  Close focus on both lenses is 0.45m.  The Elmarit, by contrast, has 1/3 stop aperture increments (this is most likely a body issue, since it is all electronic control) and is a macro lens as well, with a close focus of 0.15m.  Unfortunately there are no markings at all on the Elmarit lens and you only get some rudimentary information via the viewfinder or LCD.

Shooting Technique

The u4/3 adapter has no electrical or mechanical contacts whatsoever, so there is no automatic aperture control.  This means you either stop down and focus and set exposure at the desired aperture, or focus wide open and then stop down to set the exposure and take the shot.  This is actually more of a pain than the manual focusing itself, but not such a big deal if you are working slowly and methodically on a tripod.  I found that in “A” mode the camera quite happily set the shutter speed and iso for me to match the chosen aperture.  To focus, there is a button press sequence on either camera body to open up a magnified view of the image. Using this magnified view it is possible to achieve quite accurate focus, although, as I mentioned already, this works best with the camera mounted on a tripod. Once focus is achieved, a shutter button press on the GH1 or another zoom button press on the EP1 will return to shooting mode. I can see how a “focus peaking” feature would be very helpful in focusing these sorts of lenses (possibly even without having to go to magnified mode) and we can only hope that Panasonic and Olympus will see the wisdom of adding that capability to future micro 4/3rds cameras, like the Sony’s and Fuji’s have now.

Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.4 at f2.8

Key: R20111123-223520-konica50mmf2_8

Image Quality and Bokeh

I can’t really proclaim anything after only a quick set of test shots and resulting analysis. It’s going to take a lot more experience with these before the full character of these lenses is revealed.  That said, I found the initial results food for thought.  My set up, as you can see from browsing the sample images here, was three bottles separated by a few inches front to back in my mini-studio, lit from the sides and shot head-on.  For accurate comparison I manually focused all the lenses on the middle bottle label (on the middle letters of the word “vermouth”).  I shot from the same distance, and didn’t change focus after focusing at the smallest aperture available.  I realize that focus can change a bit stopping down, but I just wanted to get an initial sense of how the lenses performed focusing wide open and then stopping down. The camera was set to iso 200 and “A” mode, which changed the shutter speed accordingly.  The camera was mounted on a tripod and lens stabilization was disabled on the Elmarit for the test.

Here are my general notes on the images after studying them for a bit on the monitor:

  • Both the 50 and the 40 are pretty soft wide open.  The 40 seems just a little softer and with less contrast at 1.8 than the 50 at 1.4. I would describe the image made by either lens at those apertures as “dreamy”. There is a specular glow or haze of scattered light through out the image, at least on u4/3.  This might be an interesting effect for a portrait or a still life, but I wouldn’t expect to use it at this aperture too often.
  • With the 50 stopped down to f2.0 the image has improved a lot with much improved contrast and minimal “glow”, although the image is still just a tad soft.  I’m guessing this is the ideal aperture for a portrait on this lens. By f2.8 (2 stops down) the 50 is in excellent form–contrast and sharpness are great, at least in the center of the frame.  The 40 is improved to almost the same degree at f2.8 and both lenses track pretty well from there down to the lower apertures.  What is really interesting to me here is the PL 45mm–wide open it is almost the equal of both the 40 and 50 at f2.8!  I’d almost go so far as to say that sharpness is a toss-up here, although to my eye contrast is a little better with the MF lenses at this aperture.  This is outstanding performance wide open, and helps explain the price of the lens.
  • Color is a very subjective phenomenon.  To my eye, the Hexanons produce a slightly more saturated color.  You can notice this especially in the color of the reds on the label of the out of focus wine bottle front, although it is also visible to some degree in the greens on the vermouth bottle.  Some of what I am seeing may in fact be due to subtle micro contrast differences.
  • The character of the bokeh is slightly different between the lenses, but I can’t say anything bad about any of them.  If anything I would rank the bokeh just slightly more harsh on the 50, and a close tie between the 40 and 45.  For all, perfectly acceptable at normal viewing magnifications. Obviously there is more blur at f1.4 and f1.8 than at f2.8, so the MF lenses have that advantage in portraiture, although the difference isn’t large.

All in all I’m very pleased with the new (old) lenses. IQ-wise they appear to compare very favorably with the Leica Elmarit lens at a fraction of the price. Of course the trade off is working speed. For on the move grab-n-go style shooting I don’t think too many people are going to be happy with these on their u4/3 camera, but for more contemplative photography: portraiture, still life, abstracts, macro, landscape, etc. they are more than capable and are an excellent value right now from ebay and used camera stores. I’m looking forward to using mine. I’ll try to note the shots taken with it (for a while at least) on the blog.

October 16, 2011

Testing, 1, 2, 3, Testing, …

Filed under: photography, printing, products, reviews — Tags: , — Eric Jeschke @ 11:01 pm

Folio Test Prints

Key: R20111016-211829-levels

I spent my Saturday of this weekend doing test prints for a new folio I am making of the Occupy Seattle set. For this folio I am looking at all possible ways to print it: do it myself (again) or outsource it. As you can see from the photograph, I made a lot of test prints on a bunch of different papers (I picked up a couple fine-art paper sample packs in Seattle). Here are the ones I tested with:

From Hahnemuhle:

  • Fine Art Pearl, 285 gsm
  • Photo Rag, 308 gsm
  • Photo Rag Satin, 310 gsm
  • Photo Rag Baryta, 315 gsm
  • Photo Rag Pearl, 320 gsm
  • Fine Art Baryta, 325 gsm
  • Baryta FB, 350 gsm
  • Bamboo, 290 gsm

Misc other:

  • Ilford Galerie Fibre Gloss Silk (Baryta), 310 gsm
  • Epson Enhanced Matte, 192 gsm
  • Office Max Professional Matte, 220 gsm

I also made a couple of comparison prints with glossy and semigloss papers for comparison.  Finally, just to see how it would look if I outsourced it on the cheap, I stopped by Office Max and had them print on three samples that looked vaguely like they might be ok.  Those turned out to be junk compared to the good papers, and you can see how they compare (they are the three in the lower right)–no comparison on the dmax.  The cheap Epson and Office Max matte papers that I tried printing on myself looked better, but were still no match for the Hahnemuhle or Ilford papers.

Cost-wise, it is looking like the following:

If I outsource it to my fine-art printer (a woman who runs a gallery/print shop and does excellent work), she is going to print it from a roll and then cut it into sheets.  She prints almost exclusively the Hahnemuhle papers, but she has only about half of the ones I tested.  This would end up being my most expensive option, but might look the best.   To my eye her printer is very subtly better than mine by a tiny bit–perhaps just a little less bronzing on some papers if you look at them at an acute angle.  But then again the examples I had her do looked a bit curled (cut from a roll) even though we had put them in a heat press for a bit to flatten them out.  This would be the most expensive option.

I could print it myself on my printer.  My printer does a very nice job, for the most part.  But I usually use it to print one-off exhibition prints, if they are not too large.  It has the advantage that I can feed standard cut sheets via the straight-thru path and this makes them come out nice and flat.  However, I’ve noticed that if I crank a whole folio through it that sometimes I’ll get a small ink smudge here or there in the middle of the run that contaminates the margin on a few sheets.  Not a big deal if framing, but a hassle for a folio.  On the whole this option is moderately priced–fine-art 8.5×11 sheets are around $1 in bulk plus a few cents for ink.  For a folio of 24 pages I might be looking at around a $25 cost.

Ideally what I’d really like is to find someone who could print it for a reasonable margin over what I am paying.  For example, if I could find someone who could print it on one of the fine-art papers for around $50 plus shipping, I would go for it.  From what I’ve seen online I don’t think there is such a place.  If you know of one, let me know!

Of all the papers, I think my favorite so far is Ilford Galerie Gold Fibre Silk.  It is stiff without being too thick or heavy, has excellent blacks, just a hint of texture and it is slightly warm (probably no OBAs).  This is really a killer paper.

The Hahnemuhle Baryta FB is a close second.  It’s as good on the blacks, but is just slightly too thick and stiff at 350 gsm.  The surface texture is also more visible and the surface shows a bit more sheen when held at an angle.  It’s also more bright white, if you are into that.

Photo Rag is a classic.  The blacks are not as good as on the Baryta papers, but it is pure rag, baby–the feel in the hand is gorgeous.  Also, there is no bronzing or sheen at ANY angle.  It’s like a matte paper but with much better dmax and a less distressed surface.  It is also a warm white, which I happen to like.  If you like a bit of gloss, the Photo Rag Satin is a good alternative–same basic look as Photo Rag, but with a bit more stiffness and a fine surface sheen.

I think for this folio it is going to come down to either the Ilford GFGS or the Photo Rag, depending on whether I want a slightly more classic darkroom look or an art-print look, respectively.

What a choice of papers we having for printing these days.  It’s wonderful!

July 5, 2011

The Elliott Erwitt Show and Thoughts on Humor in Photography

Filed under: articles, exhibits, inspiration, photographers, photography, photos, reviews — Tags: , , — Eric Jeschke @ 10:26 pm

Street Performers, NYC

Key: R20110630-112204-crop

I recently had a chance to visit New York City. I’m not certain, but I think the last time I was in NYC for any length of time was in the late 1980′s. I had heard various things about NYC being “cleaned up” in the last couple of decades, but nevertheless I was struck by the remarkable change the city had undergone. In short, it felt like a different city. The trains were clean and efficient; it felt reasonably safe to walk around at night (although I was only in Manhattan and Brooklyn) and I was only once approached by a panhandler. In my previous visit I felt like I was forever walking a phalanx of beggars. Perhaps my visit was a bit charmed, but it really felt like a different place.

The food and the sights and the street scenes were all classically NYC interesting, but the main thing that I want to write about today was a trip to the International Center for Photography to see the Elliott Erwitt exhibit, which runs until sometime in August. I was interested in seeing the show from the moment I read about it, and when I realized that we would be in the area I put it on my “must do” list for the NYC visit.

The show is a retrospective of Erwitt’s life’s work (he was born in 1928) and features a self-curated selection of large prints, several books, and other miscellanea. The 100 B&W prints are printed in various sizes. With the current trend towards huge prints, many of them are unfortunately printed much too large–I can only guess at the sizes of these, but some of them must border on 40 to 50 inches on a side. In my opinion, these larger prints suffered badly in some cases from huge, blotchy grain that distracted from the subject matter even viewed at respectable distances for prints of this size. I am guessing he was mostly a Leica 35mm shooter, and a 35mm frame can only be blown up so large before it begins falling apart. The smaller prints (15-30 inches/side) fared much better, retaining gorgeous tonalities and transitions, and allowing the viewer to move in closer for a more intimate encounter with the subject matter.

The exhibit showed off the Magnum photographer’s incredible photographic versatility and featured examples of street, documentary, photojournalist and portrait work. A few of the photographs are iconic: portraits of Marilyn Monroe, close-ups from the volatile Kruschev-Nixon meetings, humorous dog-human juxtapositions–I recognized many that I wouldn’t have put a name to beforehand. My favorites were the street and documentary prints, which often illustrated Erwitt’s sense of humor. This quote from the exhibit sums those up nicely:

“Above all, Erwitt is noted for his offbeat sense of humor, a rarity in photography. Throughout his work, Erwitt combines gentle whimsy with ironic observation of everyday life. Often his works involve visual puns that make the viewer look twice; such clever comedy requires that every picture be organized with great elegance and precision.”

Perhaps these resonated with me the most because they are precisely closest to what I would say is my own style, which I have described to others for a while now as often humorous or whimsical in nature (although not always so subtle). I can only agree that humor is a rarity in “serious” photography (no pun intended); it must be done with “elegance and precision” in order to keep the viewer from immediately dismissing it into the genre of the snapshot and vernacular. I don’t know all the reasons for this, but it is the same in any branch of art: most art is serious, and the goal of many artists is to make you think, make you angry, make you uncomfortable–anything but to make you smile or laugh. Yet humor and laughter are staples of our human emotions as well; why shouldn’t art evoke them? It’s taken me many years of photography to begin to see my own style emerge, and I feel like that is something I’m finally beginning to get a handle on. While Erwitt’s style is different, he’s one of the few very successful photographers in which I can see an affinity for humor, and it’s refreshing and strangely familiar to see it.

Despite some minor flaws in the presentation, all in all I feel the Erwitt retrospective is a very interesting and worthwhile show. If you will be in the NYC area before the end of the summer, I highly recommend stopping by the ICP on 6th ave midtown and checking it out.

May 14, 2011

The Obihai Obi 100: A Mini Review

Filed under: life, products, reviews — Tags: , , — Eric Jeschke @ 4:02 pm

The OBI 100

Key: R20110511-075934

Normally this blog is about creative stuff. But every once in a while I have to share something from my geeky side (what’s that you say? I do that all the time? Nooooooo!!!) What can I say: I don’t have the energy to maintain two blogs.

Meet the Obihai Obi 100. This small device, about the size of a deck of cards, connects your POTS-type analog phone to an ethernet connection for making and receiving calls via the Internet. There are two software “slots” for service providers, and you have your choice of Google Voice or any standard SIP-based VOIP. I’ve been using it with a standard SIP connection and the call quality is great. The device is very easy to set up, especially if you choose to configure it via Obihai’s web site: by typing in a DTMF sequence the device “phones home” and then you can configure everything very simply. There is also a local web server built into the device if you prefer, although that is a lot more verbose.

Like a lot of folks with a multi-mobile family plan, we’ve been without a land line for quite some time. Sometimes I really missed having a “home phone” with a separate device and a separate number. This device allows us to have a home phone super cheaply.  I dug out of storage an old cordless phone, which I am using it with.  Now if my mobile is charging, or a guest wants to make a call, or my kids have absconded with my mobile, I don’t want to use cell minutes for a long call…whatever the reason, it’s nice to have another phone around that let’s you make a clear call. And with Google Voice you can make calls anywhere within the US for free (at least through 2011)!

The best thing is that I paid a whopping $43 US for this device with free shipping from Amazon. If it sounds interesting, check it out: OBi100 VoIP Telephone Adapter and Voice Service Bridge. Recommended.

Older Posts »

Theme: Shocking Blue Green. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.