It's always anxiety provoking when there is a ripple in the force. In this case a camera that has become unresponsive and is in need of warranty repair. The camera is now winging its way to Panasonic where I am certain that they'll figure out what ails it and remedy its ills.
The main reason this camera failure bothered me is because I've been making a distinction between the cameras I use for business and the cameras I use for my personal work and the way it falls out around here is that the S1Rs; the high resolution cameras, are the ones I've designated for "me" stuff while the S1 cameras are earmarked for "client" stuff.
I came to this dichotomy somewhat logically as the S1 cameras have more efficient files sizes for work, better high ISO performance, and are much less expensive. Cost matters in some sense because it makes it psychologically easier to replace a camera that's been damaged and destroyed. Buying an additional body at $2400 is nowhere near as painful as shelling out $3600+ for a body which has, as its only advantage, more resolution.
All things considered I've been very happy with the Lumix S1 cameras and I've been pounding "work" exposures through both bodies with reckless abandon. One of the S1 cameras has over 30,000 actuations on it and the other is nosing it at about 25,000. It's a fair amount of shooting when one considered that I've only owned the cameras since September and October.
On the other hand, the S1R cameras each have less than 3,000 exposures on each since they aren't as agile for the kind of paid work I do. They tend to (individually) accompany me on walks, and spend much of their lives set up like mini-(old school) Hasselblads: Cropped to a square format, used with prime lenses, nestled in at ISO 100, and generally used in the raw format. This makes the S1Rs perfect artsy portrait cameras for me and, in that case, the failure of one is a bit of a sting.
So far I love almost everything about the S1Rs except the tendency to not roll off highlights as gracefully as film did. I don't mind the two card slots being set up for different cards. There's nothing about the AF or the operational speed of the camera I don't like. It just seems perfectly suited for me.
I guess I should change my mindset and just consider using the hell out of my cameras until they drop dead in my hands and then, with total unflappability, just grab the next new one from my dealer when the need arises.
I'm hopeful I'll see the sidelined S1R back in a week or so. If it takes longer than that I'll be ready to make someone's life at Panasonic more interesting.
On to a different topic: The biographical fallacy. Apparently, there is a Japanese photographer; a street shooter, who was the subject of a promotional video for Fuji's new LeicaReplicaX100 camera. You can see the video and reaction to the video here: https://www.dpreview.com/news/6165309898/fujifilm-pulls-controversial-x100v-promo-video-due-to-the-featured-photographer-method
He's a youngish, frenetic photographer who seems to be blending the worst of Bruce Glidden and Garry Winogrand's street shooting techniques. He invades people's space, sticks cameras in the faces of people who, at least in the video, are surprised and unhappy with the attention. The video probably explains why he loves the latest Fuji camera but the thing that I came away with was that the majority of the 700+ comments attached to the article were highly critical of the artist because of his on camera behavior and then, by extension, critical of his work.
I wonder, if they had seen the work by itself, in a gallery instead of in a video showing how the work was accomplished, if the same commenters would be raving about how glorious and dynamic the work is. This, to some extent, is the danger of the current penchant for deep dives into the working methods of photographers/artists/musicians via "behind the scenes" videos.
My first question is this: since the artist was being filmed by a video crew who followed him through the streets as he worked through the course of one day, did the presence of the crew subconsciously motivate him to over sell his real street presence? Did he ramp up his risk taking for the sake of the observers with video cameras? Did he exaggerate his methods for promotional value in the moment?
And since video productions tend to be distillations of hours of footage, squeezed down to five or seven minutes of action, did the producers bypass moments where the photography was more consensual, less predatory, calmer, happier and then concentrate on the more provocative moments in order to add some friction, controversy and click-bait-ability to their final video?
My real issue is with all the people who, while living in the land of the free and the home of the (supposed) brave, are so quick to question the photographer's very right to be on the street shooting his work.
Many years ago, in an Art History class, we often discussed what is called "the biographical fallacy" where an audience judges an artist's work not by analyzing and commenting on the work itself (the work in a vacuum, so to speak) and instead blends together judgements about the work based on their knowledge of the artist, including his/her sexuality, religion, political preferences, aberrant personality, body odor and any number of other attributes specific to that artist.
In the contemporary artistic landscape we seem to have too much information. Too much third party observation of our modern artists. They are dissected (and in some situations it's self inflicted) and examined in visceral little snapshots that are inevitably taken out of context. Especially so if the snapshot of time and action is created in the service of selling a product instead of focusing on the photographer's work. If we had video of Robert Frost farting at a podium during a reading would that have to diminish the value of his poems?
It's widely acknowledged that Caravaggio was an incredible painter whose work moved the art of painting forward to a great degree. He is the poster artist for chiaroscuro. His work hangs in prestigious museums, is the subject of many books and, to this day, influences visual artists across media. We inspect and dissect his work because it's the correct way to understand the art. Removed from the influences which the behavior or identity of the creator might handicap our brains. Might make us like or dislike the work by the connection to aspects of the artist we don't like.
In all accounts I've read Caravaggio was a dick. A wacky and troublesome artist who had to flee from one of his patrons after leaping over a tennis net, in a rage about losing a match to the son of the patron, and stabbing the scion of the patron in the heart with a knife --- killing him right on the court. He ran from the location of the homocide to the docks at the edge of the city and caught the next boat out with only the clothes on his back.
With that new knowledge do we then discount the powerful influence Caravaggio's paintings have had on his peers, and future artists for centuries since? I don't think so.
A tell all biography about Richard Avedon outs him as having been gay. Does this cancel his tremendous and wonderful influence, spanning or that 60 years, on photographers, fashion and art in the 20th century? Many of us now would not construe his sexuality as a negative in any case.
Be careful in judging art work in our times by using as a measure the person's immediate popularity or foibles. Good work is good work. Not everyone can be Mr. Rodgers but that doesn't cancel the good work that they have done, or its influence on us, our future artists, and culture in general.
It's Friday. A good day for a walk. Everybody have fun!
16 comments:
There is a classical essay on this subject - George Orwell's
Benefit of Clergy: Some Notes on Salvador Dali.
If I were reading your blog and worked for the Panasonic Corporation of North America, or had your blog pointed out to me, I would have immediately sent you a new S1R body, a prepaid courier return for the failed camera and an apology.
TMJ, From your keyboard to Panasonic's screens!!! My local store would have made it happen if it had been the unit they sold me. I asked at B&H but was given a very polite, "no." Ah well.
That is the same S1R you got for 50% off in the B&H open box deal, right?
Well maybe something was wrong with them, and this is the price to pay for the low price. At least you got an extended 3 year warranty on it.
I agree on yor second point. People now generally don't judge images in a vacuum, but with some knowledge. That's why crap can sell with excellent paragraphs describing something about it or the process.
Some artists may be jerks, but they aren't necessarily jerks about the way they create their work. Caravaggio stabbing the son of a patron is certainly worse than a guy sticking a camera in people's faces, but on the other hand, you can argue that the stabbing is separate from Caravaggio's painting, whereas the photographer's behavior is apparently an integral part of his artistic method.
Whether the photographer's work would be judged differently by people who only saw the end result and didn't know how it was made is an interesting question, but I'm not sure how we should interpret the answer, if we had one. Is the end result all that matters? Or should we think less of the work, and the artist, if we disapprove of how it was created? I'm not sure that question has a simple answer.
We don't know, as you note, whether the photographer was exaggerating his method because he was being filmed. But to suggest that he doesn't normally behave like that is speculative. We know that's what he did at that moment, so we judge his method according to the evidence available. If that's not how he wants us to think he works, maybe he shouldn't have acted like that in a promotional video.
Kirk,
May I suggest what we see here is the blossoming of seeds planted at least as far back as the sixties. The earlier street photographers attempted to be invisible in their recording everyday life. Some succeeded rather well, others not so well.
What we are seeing more often now is a different approach. The seeds were planted in Hollywood, where in films, photography became some sort of dance between the photographer and the subject. This has blossomed with the completely narcissistic life led by our young folks, where a photographer can scream out "Look at me!!!" while plying their trade.
I hope not to take this discussion off on an unpleasant tangent, but recent studies have shown the same bias in politics. The biographical fallacy extends itself into politics by virtue of the fact that people are now voting more and more based on what social stance the candidate takes on issues such as LGBTQ and the environment etc rather than determining and voting based on the skill set of said candidate. So a candidate might be an economic genius with a peace prize but if they were not aligned with the voters views on social issues they would not vote for them. Instead they would vote for a high school dropout with a very well curated social platform. In the US you can combine biographical fallacy with tribal affinity.
Eric
I'd like to know why Caravaggio brought a knife to a tennis match. Further, I'd like to know how 1600's Caravaggio was playing a game invented in 1873....hmmm?
On the one hand, I am inclined to agree with your assessment that the work should stand on its own. And up to a large degree, I do. But I find it hard to always separate the artist from the art: i.e. what about the "art" of a Bill Cosby, Gary Glitter or Harvey Weinstein? Can their art ever again be judged strictly on its merits?
The Fuji photographer was slightly obnoxious, not criminal, so it is easier to separate his actions from his work, but I think that for each of us there is a point on the spectrum of personal behaviors beyond which we can no longer separate our judgment of the art from what we know about the artist. But I also think the greater the temporal gap between us and the artist, the easier it is to overlook the person and judge the work on its own merits.
Anyways, good luck getting the camera repaired!
Ken
Biographic problem child - Wagner
Tennis - played indoors - starts in the 16th century.
Geoff Webster, tennis was actually invented by the Italians in the early 15th century but they kept it secret for a very long time because of the shame involved when their artists and musicians kept killing their patrons in fits of rage...
Don't know where you got your version of tennis history but in the El Paso Historic Museum of Racket Sports they have a collection of primitive tennis rackets that trace their roots all the way back to the Incans. They played the game with the livers of their enemies but most of the rules we play by were also observed by them.
If politicians can make up facts for their audiences then so can I...
Here's what Wikipedia says,
Contents
1 History
Jeu de paume in the 17th century
Historians believe that the game's ancient origin lay in 12th century northern France, where a ball was struck with the palm of the hand.[2] Louis X of France was a keen player of jeu de paume ("game of the palm"), which evolved into real tennis, and became notable as the first person to construct indoor tennis courts in the modern style. Louis was unhappy with playing tennis outdoors and accordingly had indoor, enclosed courts made in Paris "around the end of the 13th century".[3] In due course this design spread across royal palaces all over Europe.[3] In June 1316 at Vincennes, Val-de-Marne and following a particularly exhausting game, Louis drank a large quantity of cooled wine and subsequently died of either pneumonia or pleurisy, although there was also suspicion of poisoning.[4] Because of the contemporary accounts of his death, Louis X is history's first tennis player known by name.[4] Another of the early enthusiasts of the game was King Charles V of France, who had a court set up at the Louvre Palace.[5]
It was not until the 16th century that rackets came into use and the game began to be called "tennis", from the French term tenez, which can be translated as "hold!", "receive!" or "take!", an interjection used as a call from the server to his opponent.[6] It was popular in England and France, although the game was only played indoors where the ball could be hit off the wall. Henry VIII of England was a big fan of this game, which is now known as real tennis.[7] During the 18th and early 19th centuries, as real tennis declined, new racket sports emerged in England.[8]
So there.
I also wondered about the influence of the video-making on Suzuki-san's behaviour in making his street photography. You make a good point about the video editing maybe for excitement and engagement.
"The Biographical Fallacy". I didn't know it had a name. Good name.
In Melbourne last month, John McEnroe and Martina Navratilova campaigned to get Margaret Court's name removed from the second court at Melbourne Park, because she has negative views about lesbianism. Is that a case of biographical fallacy? Her tennis achievements are unparalleled, and of another era, as are her social opinions. 50 years later, should she be deleted for having 50-year-ago opinions?
Good luck on the camera repair.
I recently sent a 10-year old lens to <***> for CLA. The returned lens had significantly degraded image quality compared to the IQ prior to servicing. The service rep agreed that images were soft and the lens was sent back for a second service. It was returned even worse than before. After some back and forth, <***> agreed to service it a third time. I'm still waiting on the outcome of that repair.
I hope you have a better experience.
Note: I have chosen to not name the company since they still have a chance to get it right.
DavidB
I don't think the photographer in the video quite reached the level of personal, space invading obnoxious that Bruce Gilden did. He did though land some nice shots with that style.
A lot of really good topics here that could go in several directions, would like to see Mike Johnston weigh in on his site. My first takeaway when I read this story (maybe on petapixel or some other photo news source) was that the photographer gets punished (dropped as ambassador) by Fuji due to backlash against a video that Fuji put on their site to promote said photographers use of the new X100V. Seems that Fuji is using him as the scapegoat for their poor decision. I don't particularly care for his method either, but some of the images are compelling. Fuji buckled to social media pressure as opposed to having some small bit of backbone for supporting art. Certainly their are details to which we might not be aware, but for the moment, I'm feeling a loss of respect for Fuji.
WEll, hush my beak! Thanks for clearing up tennis for me!
But still....that knife!!
Post a Comment