Photographers We Love

In my continuing effort to promote the work of those artists I find exceptional I want to introduce you to two exceptional photographers.

Hullihen Williams Moore
Hullihen (Hulli) Williams Moore is a lawyer turned landscape photographer who studied under Ansel Adams. He has been featured on National Public Radio a couple of times, which is where is discovered him. His work is very reminiscent of Ansel and he has published a book entitled Shenandoah: Views of Our National Park. The paperback edition sells for $22.95. If you love this kind of black and white work visit his site here and buy the book. I know I will.

Ron Bigelow
Ron is also a landscape photographer who works in color. His work is gorgeous, but even better he shares tons of tips. I really appreciate artists who educate as well as well as delight us with their work. Check Ron out here.

Another View On Digital Life Spans

Mike Johnston has published an excellent essay here on the life span of digital cameras. Well worth the read before you shell out for that new DSLR from [fill in blank].

Why We Love Digital

Recently, a very well known (and controversial) photographer and commentator published an article about the joys of film. In the article he made a very good case for reverting to film and I almost bought it. Then I picked up my daughter’s Nikon N-75 and gave it a whirl. Based on that experience, here’s why we should love digital.

Cheaper Than Film
Once you have made your upfront investment, ongoing costs are very low. There are no film acquisition and developing costs and printing can be done in the most cost effective manner, at home or at a lab. I was simply unable to find the deals on film described in the article. A 24-exposure roll was still about $10.

Less Hassle Than Film
With digital once you have made your images post-processing is very simple. Slip the card into a reader, download the images and get to work. Film requires at least two trips to a lab or wasting your time at Costco waiting for the processing to be done. Otherwise, you need to mail order the film to a lab on the West Coast. Who wants to wait that long?

Instant Feedback Means Instant Corrections
With film there is no feedback, it’s like taking a shot in the dark. If your technique is less the perfect or if you have misjudged you are out of luck. Most photographic moments are very fleeting and I want every advantage to get a good image. I recently shot pictures of my daughter’s 18th birthday limo ride with 10 of her friends. There is almost no way I could have worked as quickly or got as many keepers with a film camera. The conditions were just too difficult.

Infinite Post-Processing
When you send film to a lab you are going to live with their decisions. Once the film is scanned, the images are “baked”. There is only so much that you can do to alter the image to your taste. Not so if you shoot RAW. You can tailor the images in infinite ways to suit your creative needs.

Better Image Quality
It is true that no digital camera can match the image quality of a 4x5 transparency scanned in on a high quality drum scanner. That said, the majority of us just want to shoot 35mm. In most of the processing scenarios that I have seen, you are throwing away pixels scanning 35mm film. With the exception of the lab in California, a high-resolution scan at Costco (the author’s next favorite lab) will range from 4.5MB to 6 MB. If I would shoot the same image with my Nikon D700 in RAW it would be about 14MB. By using film I have thrown away 8MB of data.

Higher and Cleaner ISOs
Let’s face it, the most popular 35mm film is ISO 400. With my D700 I can get clean images at ISO 1600. Sometimes that’s a huge advantage. In addition, I can change ISOs on the fly. With film you are stuck with what you loaded

The Obsolescence Issue
One of the strongest arguments for film is the current obsolescence of most digital cameras. Manufacturers are constantly enticing us with the latest and greatest every two years or less. That is their job, to make money for their shareholders. Not to succumb to that enticement is our job. Mike Johnston of The Online Photographer is a good example. According to what I can glean, he uses a 6.1 megapixel Konica-Minolta D7 DSLR. That camera dates back to at least 2004. That’s a long time in the digital age. He still uses it because he likes it.

While it is true that my D700 probably won’t last as long as a Leica M3 due to its complex technology, it won’t really be outdated until it fails to deliver image quality that satisfies me. It certainly won’t be outdated next year even though Nikon will want me to believe so. Besides that, who really wants to give up 54 years of technological development? If that were the case we’d still be using daguerreotypes. Leica recently announced the M8.2. This is a clear signal that Leica intends to stick by the M8 for a long time. Let’s face it, we don’t need to upgrade every year or two, we just want to. As an aside, there is an interesting discussion in the comments following this article. There seems to be general agreement about a 3-5 year lifespan, but I wonder with the advent of the D700 and others like it if that will increase.

One solution to the obsolescence issue is a modular design which would allow upgrading of components rather than the entire camera. Earlier this week Red introduced the Scarlet and Epic Digital Stills and Motion Camera (DSMC) systems that are highly modular in nature in may change the photographic landscape. Read about them here and here.

Lost Images Of Hiroshima

If you are a fan of historic photography or just like mysteries don’t miss “Hiroshima: The Lost Photographs” at DesignObserver. I won’t give it away, but it’s a fascinating tale.

Thanks to Mike Johnston, The Online Photographer

Hands On: Leica D-Lux 4 and Canon G10

A week or so ago I got to compare the Leica D-Lux 4 and Canon Powershot G10 courtesy of Russ Olson at National Camera Exchange. I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the latest contenders for DMD. In addition both cameras are relatively new, having been introduced at photokina, and are readily available.

Leica D-Lux 4
The Leica D-Lux 4 is Leica’s version of the Panasonic Lumix LX3. According to most people they are exactly the same and the Leica is not worth the extra money. I did not find that to be the case. D-Lux 4’s are made under the strict supervision of Leica staff. In addition they undergo a much more rigorous testing program. I found the D-Lux 4 to be very Leica-like. I cannot say the same for the Panasonic.
Leica advertises the D-Lux 4 as a “small system camera” and the “son of M8”. Frankly, that’s a bit of a stretch. The D-Lux 4 is a compact digicam with a slightly larger than average 10 megapixel sensor. To Leica’s credit they refused to enter the megapixel race with this camera. At 24-60 mm, the focal length of the Leica Vario-Summicron f/2.0-2.8 lens is perfect. It’s wide and it’s fast. For chimping the D-Lux 4 features a 3" LCD monitor with a resolution of 460,000 pixels.

In terms of size and weight the Leica is truely shirt-pocketable. Without any accessories installed it weighs in at 8.4 ounces. That said the camera is very well built and feels very solid. Its controls are simple, elegant and easy to use. For some the size of the D-Lux 4 may be its major selling point. For me, however, its compactness is a drawback. To begin with, the D-Lux 4 has no built-viewfinder. A hot-shoe mounted viewfinder is available, but it is quite expensive and defeats the purpose of having a compact camera. The small size also makes handling the camera challenging for those of us used to a DSLR. There is a hand-grip available which might alleviate this a bit.
Insofar as image quality is concerned, I found the D-Lux 4 to be very comparable to a lower end DSLR.
Canon Powershot G10
Canon’s latest entry in the DMD derby is the G10. In my opinion it’s the best compact digicam that I have ever handled and very close to something that I might buy. The G10 features a 14.7 megapixel sensor, the largest in any compact. When I heard that, I was concerned that packing all those pixels into such a small sensor might result in poorer image quality due to smaller photo-sites. Much to my surprise and delight that has not been the case. At lower ISOs the image quality is outstanding as documented here.

With the G10 Canon has chosen to go wider at the wide end and the new model features a 28-140 mm f/2.8-f/4.5 zoom. Although not as fast and wide as the D-Lux 4, it is certainly adequate. The G10 also features an optical viewfinder (!) and dedicated ISO and exposure compensation dials. It is large and heavier than the D-Lux 4, but is still pants pocketable. That said, you aren’t likely to forget you have it.

Although some might consider the G10’s size and weight to be a drawback, I loved it. It feels hefty, substantial and well made. The improved hand grip makes a huge difference in ease of handling. Previously, I had purchased and returned a G9 because to found it too small.

While framing with the optical viewfinder is akin to staring down a tunnel, it is serviceable and better than no viewfinder at all. The G10’s LCD screen is exactly like the D-Lux and dominates the rear. The G10’s buttons and dials are all well placed and easy to use. The dedicated exposure compensation dial is a real stroke of genius as is the ISO dial. Exposure compensation can be done almost instantaneously without having to drill down through a bunch of menus. Finally, the G10 comes out of the box ready to go with very few accessories required. Real value if you ask me. All in all the G10 is a joy to use and most reviewers agree with me.
Conclusions

As usual, better known reviewers than I have jumped all over these new cameras. I suggest that if you want more you read Thom Hogan’s shoot-out here. If I was forced to I would have no problem plunking down $500 for the G10. The D-Lux 4 is a bit to small and under featured for me, but keep an eye on Leica. Would I buy any compact at this stage? No. Frankly, I am certain that there are some cameras on the horizon that may be the real DMD, not just pretenders.

Impressions Of Light

William Neill is a landscape photographer who lives and works near Yosemite in California. Although his images have been both published and exhibited widely, I was unfamiliar with his work. He has recently both published a new book and started writing for The Luminous Landscape. His work is, in a word, breathtaking and he is in the process of redefining landscape photography. I strongly recommend that you visit his website here as soon as possible to see what modern landscape photography is all about. While you are there, be certain to pick up a copy of his new book Impressions of Light. It’s the best $15 you’ll ever spend and it will open your eyes to new ways of seeing. It’s also a template for photographers who want to publish, but have limited budgets Finally, swing by The Luminous Landscape and read his article about the book here. You will be both awed and humbled.

UPDATE: Okay, now I DO feel really stupid. Upon further investigation I come to find that Mr. Neill is the well known author of the “On Landscape” column in Outdoor Photographer, a publication that I have subscribed to for many years. Sheeeesh, I just failed to make the connection. In any event, everything I said still stands.

North Shore: A Minnesota Photo Safari Portfolio No. 3

Vent, Superior National Forest, October 2008
Nikon D700 with 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 @ ISO 400
1/125 sec at f/7 at 50mm

Porch, Superior National Forest, October 2008
Nikon D700 with 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 @ ISO 400
1/125 sec at f/7 at 28mm

Window, Superior National Forest, October 2008
Nikon D700 with 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 @ ISO 400
1/500 sec at f/14 at 35mm

Log Cabin, Superior National Forest, October 2008
Nikon D700 with 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 @ ISO 400
1/320 sec at f/11 at 38mm

One benefit to hiking back to one of the local maple syrup makers are the ancient outbuildings. Above are some examples.

Film: Please Release Me

Every time I decide that I am done using, reading about or even thinking about film someone comes along and lures me back with a siren song. This time it’s Ken Rockwell with his new article “Why We Love Film”. Here we go again.