And here's the problem with blogging about photography. Or one of many problems these days...

 Comment from a VSL reader:

"The problem with looking at your photos on your website is that I cannot really tell what camera you are using and you seem to have quite a few at this point. I mean there is no wow factor in what is captured. Nothing to distinquish what you take with this new Leica versus what you take with your other options. It just doesnt stand out. Is it more fun for you with the new toy? I am sure that it is. Does it make a difference in what you share with the viewer? Not at all. Is there something “magical” with the Leica files? Nope. Nice photos but they could be captured by any of your cameras. That is what is maybe sad about todays photo world. Where is the “wow” factor? Where is the OMG i could never have gotten that photo with X camera I needed Y camera to capture that?"   -John

Hmmm. 

Let's dive in. 

There seems to be an idea that the Visual Science Blog should be akin to a big, cutting edge portfolio of amazing images. That the images I post are on their way to inhabiting a rarefied collection of material that is unrivaled. And that each image I take is taken with the expectation that you (the reader/visitor) will be bowled over by it. And that you'll see profoundly different and  glorious images from each new camera I try.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the images I take in the service of the written word here at VSL are meant to be illustrations in support of the words and not the other way around. Some show how well a wide angle lens works and, if appropriate, also shows some of the  faults such as a high degree of vignetting in the corner of frames, or a lowered sharpness on an image's edges. Many images here are, in a sense, "diary" images that show only the flow for me of a warm day with no specific special effects. No shocking attributes.

John comments that he has a problem on my blog (not on my website!) discerning which camera I am using (at the time) and suggests that I have quite a few cameras. Perhaps believing that I am rotating through a huge inventory of cameras and lenses and not labeling the ones I am using in each post. 

At last count I have fewer cameras than at any other time in my career in photography. Eight cameras in all. Several are duplicates because of my belief that pros should only go on location if they bring redundant equipment. Hence two Leica CLs, two Leica SLs. 

I think John is suggesting that there should be a discernible/demonstrable difference in the look of files between most cameras. He is unable, it seems, to distinguish between images I post from one camera from another. Or from one lens to another.

I get it. The web sucks for any sort of comparative analysis between  images. While I can plainly see a demonstrable difference in sharpness, fine detail and contrast when I used the Leica M240 with a very well corrected 50mm APO lens yesterday I had the advantage of viewing the results on a 27 inch, calibrated, 5K monitor at the file's native resolution. I can still see the higher definition in the images on the blog site but some of that might be down to a placebo effect of having seen the detail in the studio post production context.

Back in the days when there were photography magazines printed on web presses on decent, but not exceptional paper, and run through line screens,  or color separation processes, camera and lens reviewers often prefaced or ended a review containing images with an exhortation to consider the "words" of the review as the standard for appreciating a lens. Knowing that line screen, web printing and mediocre paper stock would have the effect of homogenizing out the differences one might see on a custom print on Cibachrome or some other medium. "Evaluate" they said, "Based on what I write, not on the photos."

I agree with the basic premise of John's observations. He asks, "Is there something "magical" with, for example, the Leica files? Nope. Nice photos but they could be captured by any of your cameras." And I've written discussing this exact point many, many times. If you take a 16 bit file that has a long edge of 6000 pixels (24 megapixels), taken in an uncompressed raw format and you drop the files down to 8 bits, drop the resolution to 3200 pixels on the long edge and compress it into a Jpeg file --- which is further compressed by software resident at the host/provider--- you are looking at two very, very different quality levels of image. From the same photograph.

If you are looking for awesome imaging on a blog site you might be over-estimating what is possible. But if you read the text you'll find that the articles aren't nearly as often about the sheer image quality of the illustrations, They are about the handling of a camera, the overall look of the technical aspects of a file as illustrated by included content, but highly supported by, and inferior to, the word-based descriptions they decorate. 

I am not a profoundly innovative and cutting edge image maker. I think we can all agree on that. But that was never my point with this blog. My point has always been to discuss how cameras impact or influence how I work and how much I enjoy working with ergonomically suitable tools. It's about the experiences of photography and not the subjective quality of the final output. 

While I have a vast knowledge, and even more vast level of experience, with the technical and mechanical processes of photography as well as it's history, and have been schooled by some remarkably talented photographers, I am sad to tell you that none of that translates into talent or ultimate performance. Unfortunately creative genius does not seem to be contagious. 

I can tell you how I would light a job or which lens I might use to shoot a job but if you are looking for a virtuoso performance of perfect, artistic photography I'd have to direct you elsewhere. That's not on sale here. And rarely on display.

John seems to be looking for the "Wow!" factor of photography. Mistaking this blog about the experience of living as a photographer for something more "special" and captivating. But I would posit that I've seen very, very few blogs, websites, or YouTube videos in which the photography in those media are anywhere near as compelling as seeing finished prints, finished print advertising or even full resolution images displayed across large, high bit-depth monitors. Expectations that viewing an image on a cell phone screen or laptop screen and being able to perceive detailed differences between photographs from different  contemporary cameras is almost laughable. 

If I did this blog for financial gain or even as an advertising vehicle to clients I might try to figure out a way to display each image at its full resolution and  color depth. But I would be thwarted at every turn by viewers looking at the work on uncalibrated monitors, tiny, worn out screens, little cellphones, etc. When I send material to the three or four favorite creative directors I work with I know that they are seeing the work as it was intended. Their companies have spent tens of thousands of dollars on supporting the workspaces on which these professionals assess and evaluate images. I can never expect that from such a diverse audience as the disparate group who come here. 

I've posted images from three or four different cameras and a handful of different lenses over the past few weeks. Looking back I can discern differences that have to do with tonality and color. In some situations I can see differences in fine acuity. But the vast mediocritizing filter that is the web tends to minimize most differences. 

But I would also attack this perceived problem of being unable to differentiate between cameras on this blog site in a different way. While all the cameras I own have visual differences between them, and even more so when it comes to lenses, I have developed over the past 40+ years specific ways of seeing and photographing that culminate in having a shooting style. A way I like images to look. Irrespective of subject matter. Since I have a certain degree of technical mastery it's not that hard to create files which preserve the look or style I want by adjusting the camera, the lens, the color balance, the tonality and other parameters to mimic that look. It's subconscious at the is point. I bring the imaging mix and the gear is just a conduit for it. 

There is a quote from Thorsten Overgaard, a Danish photographer, that I quite like. It's this: 

"I think it is not so much about what the camera can do, but what you can do with the camera." 

I believe that you could hand a really good photographer just about any current camera on the market and within a week or two; maybe less, they would be making images that look just like their "style." The differences between camera models and brands would be almost insignificant. The look and feel of their point of view, and their technical preferences, would shine through the brand differences.

Last week I wrote about my experiences photographing behind the scenes at a video shoot which was combined with a photography shoot. With photos created for a variety of media. Print and digital. My intention in writing that blog was not to "showcase" the differences between the four cameras I used but to flesh out how the shoot progressed, to show how it was lit, to show how different focal lengths worked in the service of the content. While each camera has its own color profile that was unimportant. I created a custom WB balance across all four cameras so they they would look the same. We call that "continuity" and it's important in the craft of commercial photo work. I'm certain that the video crew all worked to the same kind of WB settings across all six of their cameras as well. 

If I left each camera set to automatically white balance all the scenes I'm sure we'd all be able to see differences between the files from camera to camera. But that would fly in the face of what's needed for advertising work and campaigns. 

If you've come here for specific and in-depth camera or lens reviews you've probably come to the wrong place. I disregard so much that others find important in trying to navigate through the ever changing jungle of camera choices. I don't need or value floppy screens or C-AF, or back button focus, or super fast frame rates, or the "ultimate" in autofocus technology. Or even "film" looks. When it comes to lenses I'm not going to dwell on the desire of ultimate sharpness in the far corners and how the lens feels in my hands is at least as important to me as its maximum aperture. 

When I write about this stuff I write about how I use it or how I value it. I don't do test charts or MTF curves. That's not my job. I don't want that to be my job. 

The commenter, John, asks some legitimate questions. When I started this blog the differences between many cameras; most cameras, was much wider. There were huge differences in color, dynamic range and especially noise at mid and higher ISOs. We could spend a lot of time writing about and reading about these differences between cameras because those things were, at the time, much more impactful. Now that's been flattened out. Even differences in focusing are quickly become minimal.

But that doesn't mean there aren't other equally important things we can still evaluate. Like how a camera feels in one's hands, how useable are certain camera menus?, how does the shutter sound?, how enjoyable is the camera to use?. How comfortable is the gear to actually take out and walk with and work with for hours and hours at a time. And I think that's where this blog comes in. But those discernible differences of today aren't necessarily about the overall impact of the files as they are about haptics and happiness. 

I can probably make a Sony file, a Leica file and a Nikon file all look the same. Add in a really good lens like the Voigtlander 50 APO (which I think is available across all three brands) and I can make them match perhaps even better. The Leica and Nikon images will probably be slightly sharper in the finest details than the Sony with that lens because of the softening effect of the thicker filter stack in the Sony but it's not really anything you'd be able to see on the web. No, I'm pretty sure we could equalize the look across all three brands. And that's a point the commenter seems to have made. There is so little image stream technology differential that it's more or less a moot point. 

If all the imaging can be equivalent then all that leaves for the poor writer to ruminate over is whether or not we enjoy the process of working with a specific model or brand. How well it conforms to our ideas of what a camera should feel like. Or as Thorsten Overgaard says, "...what you can do with the camera."  And that's what I try to explain when I write. But photographic examples of feelings are much different than test charts. And so the images fail while the words have dominance. 

I've tried to explain what I attempt to do in writing and illustrating the blog. The pictures allow you as the reader to follow along. To see how, in the course of a leisurely day I am drawn to one subject or another, one composition or another. Not every image resonates with every viewer. They can't. 

So much of what I shoot commercially is embargoed by clients for the run of their campaigns. It's rare we can share that. But that doesn't mean that I want to come home from a complex shoot and then step into my studio and work hard at setting up example shots to boost some product or another. I've got other things on my mind. 

I thought I was pretty clear in my several articles about my very recent Leica M acquisition that my reasons for buying the camera were one measure of nostalgia for a type of camera I used extensively for most of my film career, spanning about 20 years. Another measure is of my pleasure with using rangefinder focusing, and a final measure of the pleasure is in owning a superbly made product that's so aligned to my chosen occupation and avocation. Almost symbolic. I never suggested that the lenses were all perfect and excellent or that the look of the files from a decade old sensor would spank the latest technology. These are expectations that readers add in spite of my many disclaimers. 

But if no one reads the texts and no one understands that the images I post are, in effect, a diary of a life spent shooting for fun and not museum collectors, it begs the question: If all cameras are good and none have the advantage of "Wow!" factor anymore, does it make any sense at all to continue writing and illustrating this blog. If, after 5600 blog posts the work can be so fundamentally misunderstood is it worth continuing or has the value of recent content been demoted by technical progress?

One of my peers in the photo blog space is struggling with a version of the same dilemma. Is there anything left to write about photography? Are there any readers left to read it? Unlike my peer I have never expected to earn a living pounding this stuff out. I did it for my own pleasure and the additional benefit of having met and interacted with so many smart, fun people. Some in person and the rest via our shared presence here. 

As yet another birthday fast approaches it takes the wind out of my sails to understand that the intention of the blog can be so misunderstood. 

Here's the TL:DR (should have started out with this...): All full frame and bigger cameras currently available are much better than the resolution of the web can show us. My photo life is a journey, not a gallery of greatest hits. Appreciation of cameras now should center around how much or how little you enjoy the process of using one brand over another and not on technical specifications. Life is short. Do stuff you like. 

A favorite quote from another favorite photographer: "As photographers we are only as good as the opportunities we create."  -Kristian Dowling.

I can't remember the source but I do remember reading something that really got me thinking recently. The presenter was talking about HCB's greatest hits. Henri Cartier-Bresson believed that his greatest and most profound work was in taking images of earth shattering events, politics, conflict and the like. In retrospect his aimless wanderings (with no agenda) walking with pleasure through city streets and capturing every day life are the images that have become his lasting legacy. Not the ones he expected but the ones unexpected and, perhaps at the time, even to him a bit boring. 

And in a career spanning decades he created only a few hundred images that have stood the test of time as great photographic art. We don't get masterpieces every time we step outside our homes but we get no masterpieces if we don't step outside with a camera and the intention of looking. That's what we should be writing about. 

I'll be taking some time off after today to ponder all of this more deeply. As I approach 68 years of age I don't have time to waste here if it's to be misunderstood at it's most basic level. 

Thanks for reading. And commenting.