Love the camera. Love the lens. Hated the combination today. Not my most productive afternoon. By a long shot.

 

I was going to walk this afternoon with a photographer friend who can be difficult with which to schedule.  Everything has a contingency attached. And last minutes schedule changes are rampant. When I didn't hear from him I decided not to waste a perfectly good afternoon sitting around the studio. Instead I decided it would be fun to grab a camera that had been recently neglected and pair it up with a completely counter-intuitive lens. I'd walk around and get a different perspective from that delivered by wide angle and normal lenses. I was so sure the world of visual delights would just open up for me and that I'd come home with a basket of keepers. 

It didn't work out that way. I should preface all this by saying that even though the skies were clear and the temperature a nice 60° we had some pretty powerful wind gusts all day long. The "breezes" whipped up a lot of dust and pollen but it also had the effect of chilling me down when I walked on the shaded side of the streets. But of course you want to walk on the shady sides of the streets so you can see the way the sun strikes the buildings on the sunny side of the street. 

I selected a camera that has worked admirably for me in the past; the Leica CL. And I paired it with one of my sharpest and best performing lenses; the Sigma 65mm f2.0. I should have realized early on that the equivalent focal length (comparing APS-C to full frame) was 98.5mm. Very tight for urban street photography. Too tight. Which limited me to grabbing detail shots instead. 

The picture taking process was frustrating and, of course, as I walked through the familiar streets every shot looked like it would be best captured by something like a 24mm lens, or even a 20mm. But not a veritable telephoto. The silver lining to the day was getting out and walking three plus miles in nice (but windy) weather. That, and coffee.

The only lesson I learned today was that I really like using the Leica CL camera body and that the files from the camera are sharp and detailed even though it's a smaller format than the one in the bigger Leica cameras I have mostly been using lately. I love the way the CL feels in my hands and the exposure metering in the camera is right on the money. It's rare that I do an entire walk without having to mess with exposure compensation.  But I didn't need to tweak even one frame. 

In retrospect what I should have done is bring along the CL coupled with the 16mm f1.4 Sigma and then, since I was wearing a jacket with big pockets, dropped the 56mm f1.4 Sigma into a pocket and brought it along as well. If I had been working on a job I would have put each lens on its own CL and balanced the load over my two shoulders. Another lesson learned...

An alternative solution would have been to bring the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 zoom along instead. But there is always next time. 

Coffee at Mañana Coffee, a brief stop into the West Chelsea Contemporary Art Gallery on Sixth, a romp through the REI store (my favorite pants are back in stock) and then back home. Not a completely lost afternoon but what I really got done would have fit onto a Post-It note if you wrote it all down with big letters. 

Here's some photos from the afternoon. Be nice....

Swim practice this morning was fun. The wind made little wavelets in the pool. The wind made our exit from the pool exciting and enervating. 

What does the brain trust here know about vitamin K2 M7? If you have information to share that would be great. Seems promising for heart and bone loss issues. It's pretty new research but I've read some promising studies. Chime in if you know stuff. 

Thanks, Kirk

Vintage-y 50mm lenses. More personality per $$$. Now available for just about any mirrorless camera.

Author with 50mm Canon FD on a Leica SL.

I'm guessing that most photographers of a certain age; people who started actively photographing in the 1970s and 1980s get pulled in two opposite directions by lenses from across the time gap from then to now. 

On one hand they loved the all metal, built-like-tanks, hand-calibrated lenses of "the old days." A testament to the quality of lenses from this period is the fact that so many of them are still fully functional and surprisingly good. And have a dedicated following of artists. In fact, I have a few cinematographer friends who work with $30K and $40K video cameras, using Zeiss and Leica cine lenses for their client-driven work but who have sought out and assembled complete system of older, manual focus lenses to use on their own projects. Lenses with which to make art instead of commerce. 

Primarily the cine folk are drawn to two brands when shopping for vintage lenses to adapt. The popular options are the Canon FD lenses from the 1970s and 1980s. And, among the Canon stuff the most popular seems to be the Canon 50mm f1.4 FD SSC (Super Spectra Coated) lens. It's not razor sharp wide open but it's sharp enough. Especially for 4K video and probably 6K as well. According to Canon lore masters (presumptive but not credentialed) the SSC version was the first iteration of the lens made in the FD mount. Canon kept to the same optical formula for later models but made cosmetic changes and dropped the SSC designation from the front ring. For all intents and purposes the SSC and non-SSC 50mm f1.4 FD lenses are optically identical. Both versions use the same coating...

But that doesn't stop people from making emotional assumptions about the various models and their magical powers....

There are a handful of other Canon FD lenses that are also well regarded and avidly collected. The 35mm with a concave front element goes for low four figures in US dollars. Later 85mm f1.2 lenses attract lofty prices as well. Most of the f2.0 and f1.4 lenses are eagerly snatched up by people making movies as well as people who are looking for "character" in their lenses instead of antiseptic perfection. 

Another brand that seems perennially popular with people looking to adapt legacy lenses to their still cameras and movie-making machines is Contax Y/C mount, Zeiss branded lenses. In that family there are a whole slew of lenses that attract the cognoscenti. These include but are not limited to: The 25mm, 50mm f1.7, the 50mm f1.4 and the 85mm f1.4. There are some that were always in short supply such as the 85mm f1.2 as well. These Contax/Zeiss lenses were made in both Germany and Japan (under license with Kyocera) and because of the consumer distortion field of Germanic craft fable the German versions command top dollar --- but are identical to their Japanese siblings. 

In the early to mid-2000s Zeiss marketed a line of manual focusing lenses which had electronic connections for either Canon or Nikon DSLR cameras; in their respective lens mounts. In that line were updated versions of some of the same lens line-up Contax enjoyed. These were marketed directly by Zeiss and included nice 18mm, 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135mm lenses. I tested almost all of these lenses on a Nikon D800e and a Nikon D810. I owned and used the 35mm f2.0 (they also had an f1.4), the 50mm f1.4 and the huge, heavy 85mm f1.4. Each of them was very good but....

They all had pretty bad focus shift as one stopped down and this was a time before live view. I could never get reliably sharp focus with the 85mm. Not at all. I got rid of it quickly. Sad because it would probably be a wonderful addition to a mirrorless outfit now. The 35 and 50mm lenses, by dint of their more generous depth of field (and the fact that I used them mostly at medium apertures) and their ability to be used with hyperfocal settings --- in a pinch, induced me to keep them around for a good while. I believe but am not sure that all of these lenses were made under license by the Japanese company, Cosina. 

Another source of almost affordable and fun 50mm lenses is the Leica R system. Again, fully manual focusing and, with adapters for various mirrorless cameras, completely blind to electronic information from an attached camera. The best of the bunch for legacy bargain hunters is the 50mm Summicron in all of its guises. The coatings on the last batch ( designated as 3 cam or "R only" ) are supposed to have the most sophisticated lens coatings. But most of these later Leica R lenses, in very good to excellent condition are quickly rising in price. A really nice one in mint condition will be in the $800-$1,000 ballpark. And it won't out perform the Zeiss or Canon 50mm lenses by much. A bit sharper wide open and maybe a bit more accurate colors. But no huge and obvious differences. 

I mentioned early on that photographers of a certain age tend to be pulled in two directions when it comes to lenses. On one hand we grew up with, and had the DNA of the earlier lenses and their "looks" fixed into our brains. What some see as character we understand to be the lens's personality. The "look" is neither good nor bad but a completely subjective attraction to a style we grew up with. On the other hand the modern lenses from Leica, Nikon, Canon and a few others are now computed to have no real faults which translates into "no real character." 

We love them because when we shoot test charts or stare profoundly into the corners of our frames we see far fewer technical issues which helps us to believe that we have become better photographers. We love these tools that provide an almost strict transparency because anything that affects the image robs us of making up objective measures of the quality we're getting from our ridiculously expensive cameras and lenses. We have drunk gallons of the Kool-Aid and believe that our goal should be flawless frames of visual content. Something we could argue about forever. 

Where do I come down on 50mm lenses? Well, first off I have to mention that the 50mm focal length on a Leica 24-90mm zoom lens is sharper, has better contrast and better overall technical quality in the frame center, edges and corners than any of the lenses I've mentioned above. Does that mean I haul the big zoom around all the time when what I really want is a personable 50mm lens? Absolutely not. 

When I first bought into the L mount system I bought Panasonic's 50mm f1.4 Pro-S lens. According to Leica review expert, Sean Reid, it's a lens that goes toe-to-toe with the Leica 50mm SL series f1.4 Summilux for absolute image quality. And is close...very close... to the performance of the 50mm f2.0 SL Summicron. Which itself might be the best lens designed for consumer cameras in the 21st century.

But after a few months I had reality driven into my head like a railroad spike. Perfection can be boring. Superb-ness can be wearing. The lens was so heavy and bulky it was a joke to use for my favorite photographic activity; walking around on the street taking photographs. And the kicker: at f2.8 (maybe) and f4.0 (for sure) I couldn't distinguish a quality difference between the big, fast lens and the Panasonic 50mm f1.8 lens that was delivered about a year after the original system launch. The 50mm f1.8 is solidly in the "near perfect" camp as long as you are not comparing the two 50mm lenses at their individual fastest aperture. At the most used apertures? A toss up. Perhaps limited by the operator's chops.

I bought the 50mm f1.8 and sold the bigger, faster, heavier, ponderous S-Pro lens. I haven't had even a second of doubt or remorse because it became obvious that a lens that's so big it's uncomfortable to use is never going to get used --- which obviates any claim to perfect performance it might have. Everything, EVERYTHING is a compromise and a 50mm lens almost the size of a 70-200mm fast zoom is, for me, a bad compromise. 

As of today I have one 50mm lens that's my "transparent, high delivery, near perfect" model. It's the Panasonic 50mm f1.8 I mentioned just above. It's my option for a "modern" look. And it does the job well while being light and agile, a joy to carry around on a work camera. Another option is the previously mentioned Leica zoom. Again, an ungainly compromise.

But I have a big assortment of "character-driven" 50mm lenses from the recent and not so recent past. And even with this group it's fairly hard to distill down my preferences to only one candidate. 

I have two different Canon 50mm lenses. Both are FD vintage. The 50mm f1.4 is sharper at all the wider apertures and is my preference for limited depth of field shooting in the Canon camp. The 50mm f1.8 shows its provenance as the "entry level" 50mm for the old FD system which means subjects shot with the lens wide open will show less contrast and more vignetting as well as less sharpness in the center and even less sharpness in the corners. 

I've got a couple of the Sigma 45mm f2.8 lenses (each came bundled with some camera or another) because they seem to straddle the two camps between personality and transparency. And they are small and nicely designed.... Perhaps a good compromise for some photographers.

Then there's the 40mm Voigtlander Nokton I bought to play around with in Vancouver. While it's a current product I think it falls completely in the old school/personality camp as it is both sharp and contrasty but also not without a handful of flaws (vignetting, corner sharpness, odd focus shifts, etc.). 

Somewhere in the equipment cabinet is a wonderful, old, old lens that I think is the gentleman of the ancient 50mm lenses. That would be a pre-AI, Nikon 50mm f1.4. It's a lens that does things in gradual steps. It's not plagued by huge vignetting even wide open. It's sharp across the frame; more evenly or consistently than even some of the newer "character" lenses and while it sharpens up nicely as it is stopped down it always maintains a mellowness that I am not accurately able to describe well. It's tactile and robust in a mid-1960s sort of way. Feels like it will just go on forever. Like a large block V-8. The only knock against it is that it doesn't bowl one over with an immediate impression of high sharpness. Likely computed more for resolution --- of the time.  More like watching a movie than watching football on a 4K TV. 

There are a few other 50s in the drawer but for the most part they are specialty lenses, like macros. 

One lens that I sold back when working with DSLR cameras, and pulling my hair out over focus shifts and back focusing with MF lenses, was the Zeiss branded 50mm f1.4 Planar. It was a really sweet lens and a bit of a chameleon. Wide open the center was sharp while the sides and corners of the frame were (to copy many other reviewers) "dreamy." By f2.0 it was starting to behave and by f4.0 it was sharp and snappy. At f5.6 and f8.0 it became more like one of the perfect and transparent modern 50s. I liked its Jekyll and Hyde personality. I also liked that it was 20 to 30 years more modern that my earlier lenses and had fewer operational foibles. 

I recently saw one at a camera retailer website that was in near perfect condition and included the original caps and the metal lens hood. The price was low so I bought it with the intention of putting it into rotation with the menagerie of existing legacy and modern 50s. No other focal length seems to affect my acquisition gland quite as strongly. Don't know why other than habit and habituation early on. I'm so wedded to the angle of view and love to look at black and white images done well with that focal length. 

Any of the lenses I've mentioned are satisfying but I seem to be constantly curious as to what a specific lens will do for my photography. And it's the cheaper part of the hobby side. Lenses we strongly desired when we were poor and working hard have now become, for us, an affordable luxury. Not a drag on our lifestyles. 

Paying a couple hundred bucks for a pristine, Zeiss, fast prime sure beats the hell out of scrimping and saving for a $5500 Leica SL 50. Especially so when you take size, weight and handling into consideration--- along with impoverishing one's self....

The new to me Zeiss (in a Nikon or ZF mount) 50mm will arrive in the next week or so. I can hardly wait. 

And this is what I usually end up doing in the first few months of the year. Playing with lenses while the clients begin to rouse themselves from their dormancy. 

So. Just about any old 50mm lens from Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax or Olympus can be easily attached to any Sony mirrorless, L mount or Nikon Z mount camera with cheap and widely available adapters. Later lenses with AF can be adapted with "smart adapters" which allow some AF functionality but it seems weird to go down that road. One either wants the look and feel of the ancient glass or one wants/needs full AF and AE integration best provided by current lenses in each system. 

Since most mirrorless cameras meter attached lenses at their taking aperture you don't have to worry much about focus shift unless you make the mistake of opening up the lens to its widest aperture, focusing there and then stopping down to shoot. You may be saved by the increased depth of field but maybe not. 

If you are used to edge to edge, wide open sharpness with Otus lenses, or other highly corrected lenses like the Sigma 40mm f1.4 you'll need to recalibrate your expectations and figure out how to best leverage the look of lenses that aren't so well endowed. At least where wide open sharpness and contrast are concerned. Maybe my approach of integrating these older lenses into my process speaks more to my interest in portraits, people and street scenes that don't depend on rigorous sharpness above all else for effect. Your mileage will no doubt vary.

Another thing to keep in mind is that lens coatings have improved, and improved some more over time. Light sources just outside the frame that wouldn't affect a modern prime even for a second might give the older lenses more issues/options/artistic opportunities. Where possible I always try to use a lens hood when working old school. Any glancing light you can keep off the surface of the lens buys you increased contrast and color saturation. On the flip side you can use flare as a visual resource, a la J.J. Abrams, director of the recent Star Trek movie in which nearly every scene showcased creative flaring --- on purpose. For effect. 

when buying older lenses make sure you have a generous return agreement. The usual culprit with older lenses that have not be well stored is fogging of the elements inside the lens caused by fungus. This is especially true with lenses that lived in very humid climates. Once hit by fungus the only way to really make a lens usable again is to have it repaired by a technician who can disassemble the lens and clean each element. 

I tried once to DIY a lens with a fungus problem and ended up taking the resulting parts to a repair person, in a plastic bag. It was not an economical solution for lens acquisition. 

Today's dream? That the 50mm Zeiss ZF lens will be "the one." I'll put it on the front of a Leica SL and then travel the world making sharp, insightful black and white photographs that will emulate the look of my favorite Life Magazine photographers from the 1950s but with much more detail and resolution. I'll print up a couple hundred of the images as really big (40 x 60 inch ) prints and have a massive gallery show that will eventually be so consequential to the fine art community that the curator of the MOMA will fly to Austin to cajole me into sending the show along to his museum. 

Leica will have crews of film makers follow me around as I pretend to shoot the same way I did when making the images and YouTube will be plastered with short videos of me making prophetic statements about photography. (I'll put tape over the Zeiss logo on the lens.....just in case.....because, you know...branding). 

Eventually we'll be asked by Taschen to do a huge book that costs thousands of dollars per copy and I'll die rich and thoroughly satisfied. 

Or maybe the lens will come and I'll just have some garden variety fun shooting it around town and on scattered vacations to normal places.  That could be fun too. 

A lot riding on that used lens.... (not).

 

Someone emailed to find out "why I never use that expensive Leica zoom lens???" and to also ask if they could see some samples. I'm nothing if not accommodating....

 

the last photo of today's walk. Just a few yards from where I was almost run over by 

a young driver who decided that people in cross walks were fair game....

the walk today was unusual for many reasons. It's not often I grab a big, fat, heavy, ponderous zoom lens and use it for making photographs on a casual and relaxing walk. But today I went out with the mighty Leica 24-90mm lens attached to the front of a nearly as heavy Leica SL camera body. Why? Masochistic Imaging Day in Austin. 

The day was also unusual in that I was accosted by a hostile street person for the first time in at least a year. To be very clear I was not photographing at the time and certainly not aiming my shoulder mounted camera at anyone. He demanded to see my credentials giving me the right to be out with a camera. He was clearly disturbed and looking for trouble. I think he quickly surmised from my expression and stance that I would have no hesitation in using the four or five pounds worth of camera and lens to beat him into submission and he relented. I guess I have practiced my "game face" well over the years. But you do get a hit of adrenaline whenever you are accosted by anyone who is hostile and carrying a large stick.... I let it all go by the time I was a half a block away and I'm proud I deescalated my own reaction to the event so quickly. 

The walk was unusual as well in that I've walked the route I took through downtown hundreds of times but this is the first time that someone has willfully driven their car through a crosswalk and almost hit me. I had to lurch backwards to miss their passenger side door and rear fender. That event took a bit longer for me to recover my composure. How I longed to come across the car at the next stop light... But to what effect? 

But the day was also unusual in that it was bright and warm. Winter bright which makes photographs of things sparkle. The light comes from a different direction and some things seem to take on a different personality when the angles change. 

I shot this set of images with the equipment I listed above. Everything was shot in Manual Exposure but I did let the lens do the heavy lifting of hitting focus. It's certainly a package to carry around but for a couple hours it didn't seem that bad. Much better than almost getting run over...

So, here we are my emailing friend. An assortment of images at an assortment of focal lengths and apertures. Mostly taken at the two opposite ends of the zoom ring and mostly at f5.6 and f8. But I think it gives a good idea of what the lens is all about. Bright, sharp, detailed. A lens like this should deliver something if you are willing to carry it around. But I guess we all need to keep working on building muscle mass as we get older....this combo will definitely help with your strength training.

A good cup of coffee really goes a long way to calming one's nerves...

click on the images to make them bigger. Your reward? Bigger photographs.

Addendum: I use the 24-90mm on nearly every paying job. It just doesn't always get to do the fun stuff...

Thoughts about photography while camping out at my Subaru dealer.

 

My dearest actor friend, Jaston Williams, in character for a one person play about

small town Texas. He's brilliant!

Yeah. It's Monday morning and I'm docked at a desk in the "quiet room" at my Subaru dealership. One of the perks of buying a Subaru is the free service during the first 24,000 miles. Every six months I get a notice telling me that it's time to get that routine service done. I've given up trying to make appointments since they seem more difficult for the dealership to figure out and honor than just showing up early in the morning and throwing myself to the mercies of the express lane. Today the service techs will rotate the tires, change the synthetic oil, top up the necessary fluids and do a multi-point inspection of the car. In the meantime I'll grab a latté from their barista and type on my laptop. Should be in and out in an hour. Two at the most.

First random thought. Wouldn't it be great if camera makers and their dealers offered a six month, free check up on new cameras that they sell? You splash out for a Nikon D850 or a Sony Alpha One, etc. and, after six months of continuous use you bring it back to the dealer and let them hook it up to a diagnostic machine and make sure everything is functioning just as it should be. They would also clean the sensor, clear all the optical glass surfaces and give the body a sprucing up as well. An added touch would be the dealer updating camera and same brand lens to the latest firmware versions. Once your camera is checked and cleaned, primed and primped a service rep would join you in the well appointed waiting area to see if you had any questions about the camera which you'd like answered. Maybe you're hazy about how to reprogram a function button. Maybe you need a quick course on the difference between video settings. Whatever. You leave the dealer with renewed confidence in your expensive camera purchase and warm, fuzzy feelings about the firm you are doing business with. They ingratiate themselves with a spendy customer. Win-win. 

I know it's a day dream scenario but we could all at least hope for a return to some level of customer service; don't you think?

Second random thought. Funny how minds change. A year ago I thought of the Leica Q2 as a one trick pony. And I couldn't really imagine having a wide angle camera as a primary photographer's camera. A 28mm fixed lens? Crazy! I read reviews wherein writers extolled the flexibility of the "cropping" feature of the camera and immediately and repeatedly thought to myself, "gimmick." But at some odd time last week, while looking at files I'd made during an afternoon adventure with the Q2 I found myself appreciating the images I took, in a new way. 

I've slowly but progressively been expanding my appreciation of wider angles of view and it was fun to see novel new (to me) ways of approaching subjects and how much the camera facilitates that way of seeing, but I also uncovered a number of images where I'd shot with the 35mm frame lines or the 50mm frame lines and was equally happy with the overall quality of the cropped images and also how quick and easy it was to hit one button to crop and to see those old, familiar frame lines in the finder showing me my final compositions. 

Some of my first cameras were rangefinder cameras which had bright line finders. Being able to see variations of angle of view is great fun. But being able to see what is just outside the chosen frame and being able, in the moment, to decide to shift the camera in one direction or the other to include or exclude stuff was something I missed in SLR cameras even though I didn't realize just how much I missed it at the time. Having a view outside the frame opens up more options for better composition. You see more of the potential in a frame.  I know a few other EVF cameras have enabled a "sports view" which is basically the same thing. 

It's interesting to me that we lived with the ability to view outside the frame lines for decades in the film era, with our rangefinder cameras, and we are just now getting that feature back. Another positive point for EVFs!

I knew I'd be happy with the 35mm frame lines in the Q2. I knew they would be big enough in the finder to be easy to use. I also knew that 30 megapixels of resolution would be just fine for anything I'd use the images for. But I was leery about the smaller size of the 50mm frame lines. But really, I didn't need to be. They are fine. Easy to work with. And the high res of the EVF is a helpful adjunct. I'm coming to consider the Q2 as a zoom camera with a nice range of wide to normal lenses than the more limited view I had of the camera before I started using it.  I'll definitely use it for travel unless I have specific needs that the camera doesn't cover. The only gap I can see is, of course, at the long end of the cropping ability of the lens. Is the implementation of the 75mm frame line a legitimate feature or just window dressing to appease wide-angle-reticient, old school photographers like me to consider the camera a full fledged working tool?

Third random thought. I was remembering an avenue of conversation I was having with my friend, James over coffee last Saturday morning. It was about "archiving" photographic work. I've read too much recently from older photographers (people my age...) about the necessity of archiving all of their work and preserving it for future generations. Now, if these comments were coming from Richard Avedon or even Annie Leibovitz I'd get it. There is a value in their work that is tied not just to the style and execution of their images but also because they had access to celebrities, politicians and others who shaped and changed our moment in history. Our times. And they reached out with gusto and leveraged that access to make remarkable images. But most of us aren't working at that level and the images we're making aren't necessarily much more than the result of a fun pursuit in the moment. 

Both James and I have had to distill the households of deceased parents down from endless to manageable. And we both became aware that what constituted "treasures" for one generation were mostly a burden for successive generations. The classic case being a collection of china/place settings which my grandmother passed down to my mother. The plates and dishes were mostly used on a few special occasions but had no real relevance to me or my siblings. We each grew up, married and bought the place settings we wanted to have in our daily lives. Even when we host dinner parties we no longer hew to the old traditions of using endless china for each course of a meal. And who would want to hand wash all of the plates and dishes from a big dinner party anyway?

When my parents passed away the task of disbursing their collections of domestic "treasures" fell to me. The truth of the matter? No one wanted to accept the burden, both physical and psychological, of all those pieces of china. No one thought the old patterns or design touches from the 1920s and 1930s were particularly charming. And the inventory was out of step with current lifestyles and homes. We no longer have the seemingly endless storage capacity that past generations of our family worked with. No basement in which to store boxes of unused things. 

I offered the collection to my sister. She declined. I offered them to my brother and he was adamant that he didn't have the space for even one more box. As the executor I felt obliged to "save" them and now have a boxed, unopened since I packed it up three or four years ago, nesting on a storage shelf somewhere. I'm adamant about finding a home for it all before I drop dead and plates and dishes and serving utensils move on to become a burden for my own son. Who has even less interest in the crockery of old.

I feel that for most people, myself included, that we have an overweening appraisal of our own photographic work but in fact it's much like our parents' regard for those older dishes. Those dishes have memories attached to them that were hard-wired to the original owners but those very specific memories are not transferrable in a meaningful way from generation to generation. 

I love about 100 of my photos. A portion of them are loved by me because they are of the people I love. And of one perfect dog. Most of them are photographs I've taken over the years exploring other countries. A few of them are portraits of which I didn't have extended feelings for the subject over time but just loved the look of the photographs. But that bond with the photographs of portrait subjects I met and photographed once is hardly transferrable to anyone else. The photo and I are bonded. But that doesn't mean the photo has relevance or value to anyone else. No matter how much they adore me in this moment. 

I think it's ego and fear of our own mortality that pushes us to believe we need to pass on our collection of non-family photographs to another generation. Exceptions apply. But they are very few. If you have a series of images that is specific to a field of knowledge and the value is less dependent on your personal bond with the photographs and more dependent on their value to a field or culture (say images of an indigenous culture that has declined or disappeared so that your images are vital to understanding and appreciating that culture) then you have a case for creating an archive and sharing it. 

But if the images are the sort that I find myself endlessly taking: street scenes, beautiful strangers, strange strangers, and  the work photographs of products and people whose purpose in being photographed will quickly fade, then your impetus to create a carefully indexed archive is probably fueled more by the idea of personal, individual loss than any sort of favor to your descendants and heirs. 

Carpe Diem is basic to my current philosophy of my own photography. I photograph to see how things look when I've interpreted them through a lens and camera. It's a pleasurable activity for me but I have no delusion that anyone 100 years from now will sit in a classroom and drone on and on about some aspect of that work. I understand that we can only live in the "now". I understand that the work adds value to my life right now and my goal isn't to provide some repository for future family members to ponder over and reminisce about  a life that, like almost all of us, is pleasant but not out of the ordinary. In fact, I'll say it out loud. I'm average. I've worked inside the safety rails. I've mirrored the middle class tastes of the culture I grew up in. I have no incredible insight that will vanish from the earth if not scrupulously protected and preserved. The small samples of the photos they'll want will be of fellow family members. And only for a generation or two. If that.

If my work has any value to other photographers it's as a current institution of continuity. My work is the muddy bricks under the pavement on which the next generation rolls over right now and either wants to incorporate or move away from. We'll all be relegated to the vagaries of the memory of  those closest to us who survive us. In several generations memories about us will be preserved only as well as the databases and written record allow. To put a higher value on my work strikes me as more of a burden to my artistic process than anything else. The idea of an archive being "necessary" distracts me from the pleasure of just photographing for myself.

In the same vein, I watched a video last week about a German photographer who has been shooting in the street shooting realm for thirty or more years. He was being interviewed and was asked about his routine of post processing. He responded that he resented any time spent NOT out shooting. He tried to make the cataloging and sharing process as quick and painless as possible because he honestly understands that, for him (and for me) it's the process of being out in the world taking photographs that is the enjoyable, satisfying and happy part of being a photographer. Sure, we both share our work and that's part of the happiness. But speaking for myself I want to share while I'm here and can read or see the feedback and the feelings that my work might generate. Once I'm gone none of this will matter to me. 

You can't take it with you. Why would you want to burden the next generation with the hot desire to preserve something that no longer matters after you are gone? Seems like the ego trying to desperately cling to relevance in spite of its own mortality. 

And then my car was ready. So I thanked my service advisor, once again appreciated having relatively new car that gets free service, tossed my latté cup into the trash can and got in my car. On the way home I went over my day's schedule and finding it to be a blank slate started planning a walk with a camera that would mostly (or entirely) only benefit me. The day most likely won't deliver stellar images that will be included in some future edition of Jansson's "History of Art" book but I'll look, and think, and absorb the energy that flows around me and take photographs so I can see how my reality looks hours removed from its playful capture. And I'll find interesting things to look at. 

And that's all I've got today. Cars. Photographs. Coffee. Life. Health and Love. A calm day to enjoy a pleasurable hobby. Free time to walk through the world.

Why would I demand more?

The scary thing about the future is that it's so hard to predict....

As Marcus Aurelius or George Washington famously wrote on Twitter: "Photographs are just tiny transient paintings. It's the experience itself in which all value lies."

Interesting stuff that happens downtown and also a portrait.

 

This is Cory. He works for a private security company. I was walking east on 6th St. when I saw him. He was standing in a square of "caution" tape and cones and I couldn't understand why he was there. Or why the tape was there. Or the caution cones. When I got closer I realized that there was a gaping hole in the window right behind him.  The glass was shattered. When I got in front of him I stopped and asked him, "What happened?"

He told me that someone tried throwing an electric scooter (Satan's Personal Transport and Favorite Tool for the Disruption of Downtown Pedestrian Traffic on Sidewalks) through the window just for the fun of it. His job was to stand guard until someone could come to the location and secure the window with plywood.  He spent most of his time looking at stuff on his phone and trying to look "serious." 

Of course I asked him if I could make a quick portrait of him and, like most people, he said, "Of course." I shot three frames and thanked him very much. 

Why three frames? Well, his expression didn't change but I tried with each frame to better position him against the lights in the background. I think this was the best frame. 

I walked on and photographed some more stuff but the last image in this series was my "keeper" for the day. 

Shot with a Leica SL (first gen.) and the Sigma 70mm Macro Art Series lens. Exposure metrics not recorded... but it was a dreary, late afternoon with the last light of the day blocked by thick clouds. And I'm pretty sure I was at f4.0. Seemed right to me in the moment.

Later I gave up photographing entirely and drank a cappuccino at Mañana Coffee. Funny. I had coffee with my friend and sometimes collaborator James there this morning. Full circle I guess. 

If I use Instagram as research for black and white portraiture today I sure am seeing a lot of images that would have been in style in the 1990s. The 30 year style circle....

 

Michelle. Early 1990s. Film.

No matter how much photography changes I am fascinated that with new tech, new cameras and new post processing tools when I look at examples of portraiture from all over the world I keep finding an endless variety of portraits that circle around three main parameters. Those would be: 1. The increasing use of black and white. 2. Medium-to-long lenses used to lightly compress the perspective. 3. Wider apertures to drop backgrounds well out of focus. Sub-trends have to do with poses, compositions (mostly head and shoulders) and expressions (calm and quiet). 

There is one more trend but it's been front and center almost since the beginning of photography. Perennial.  That would be the subjects; usually beautiful, young women with gorgeous eyes. 

I love this two light approach to portraiture (above). It's one big light from one side and one small grid spot to illuminate the background for a tight area of separation. 

I can switch from camera to camera and lens to lens (if they are all around the same angle of view...) and if I hew to the essentials list above I can make portraits that I really like. 

Off to swim practice. Tossing my "travel kit" in the car. It's a tiny Domke bag with the Sigma fp, an extra battery, and the 24,45 and 90m Sigma Contempo lenses. All slow. All good. What more do we need?