Are Bayer Pattern Color Photo Conversions to Black and White Really Unsharp? Really?

 

Store Window in San Angelo, Texas. 

When the world seems to be going to hell in a tote bag B. and I tend to retreat into nostalgia. It's better on the psyche than watching falling markets ratchet down minute by minute and it takes our minds off the reality that straightening out last week's destruction of the U.S. (and world) economy is going to take some time. Maybe a lot of time. We're choosing to spend that time catching up on projects we meant to do anyway. 

One project that we're both focused on is going through my library of thousands of color food images to find some good stuff to redecorate our dining room and our kitchen with. Graphic close-ups of fresh produce. Photos of people shopping the markets. And still life images of stacks of interesting dish ware and utensils. To facilitate the process I converted raw files into Jpegs and made easily accessible galleries on Smugmug of markets in Austin, Vancouver, Montreal and San Antonio. We were surprised that shooting regularly over a couple of decades can add up to a prodigious number of good candidates for room decoration. For everyday usable art. 

But as I was digging into various folders and Lightroom folders I came across a neglected vacation folder. It was a trip from Austin to San Angelo to Roswell, NM, to Santa Fe and back again. It was an odd time. We weren't flying then because of Covid, and our responsibilities to aging parents, so we took a road trip instead. Going by car slowed down the process and that was fine with B. and me. We'd gotten into the modern vacation paradigm of flying off to some place trendy, staying a week and then flying back home. It's a totally different sensibility when one drives. You see the mileage. You register the wide open spaces and you connect, I think, much better with your travel. Just seeing the difference in gas station designs can be a thin. Diners in some small towns you'll venture through are like museum pieces. And it can be so interesting to see what's just around the next corner. 

When I found the folder for the 2021 vacation I decided to take a brief look and see if I still liked any of the photographs. There were no food images taken on the trip so I was taking a detour from the task at hand. It was surprising how not looking at a group of photographs for four years could allow you to see what you shot with fresh eyes. With a different perspective. Looking at vacation photos in the days and weeks after your return home prejudices the assessment. You're still busy thinking how you could have done things differently with your camera. Which lens you should have used. And there is also the urge to process selected images in a way that may not seem right when you look at the images years later. 

There are a lot of color images in the 2021 vacation folder but there are some in there that I played with at the time by converting them from color raw files to monochrome (or, black and white) images. And I liked the results I was getting from simple conversions in PhotoShop and Lightroom. 

But every so often I'll read something on the web that describes dedicated monochrome camera images as much sharper and much more detailed than files which start life as color images in cameras with Bayer Pattern filters. I don't know if my eyes are just faulty or someone else's perspective is colored by their gear investments and their need to be contrarian to the usual processes but I find myself a bit baffled. 

Now, I may not be the sharpest "lens" in the camera bag of photography but I have had an extensive, forty plus year history of printing black and white negatives from every format from Minox 16mm to 8x10 Verichome Pan, and everything in between. But the more important point, I guess, is that I've printed thousands and thousands of prints, in various sizes, over those same years. I have also spent time, as a faculty member at UT's College of Fine Arts taking students to see world famous prints at the Humanities Research Center on campus. Even though I am, of course, prejudiced in my beliefs in my ability to assess the quality of photographic images, I do believe I've spent a lot more time, hands on, than most people. And I wanted to bring that perspective to bear as I tried to understand the difference between what I was reading and what I was actually seeing. How sharpness differences manifested in the "real world." 

One point that I think is vital to understand is the role that sensor resolution plays when making comparisons. While the Bayer Filter sitting across the sensor on full color cameras soaks up the equivalent of one stop of overall illumination to the sensor compared to an unfiltered sensor the whole picture is much more complex. See this engaging article to learn more: https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/87528/how-much-light-and-resolution-is-lost-to-color-filter-arrays

A thorough reading of several sources shows that while the Bayer filter can cut light to the sensor by 2X or more the actual efficiency of a sensor with a Bayer filter in terms of overall resolution is about 50% or one stop difference. And the visual effect, or what your eye sees, is usually much less because of ever more precise algorithms which use information from surrounding clusters of pixels to interpolate color. 

If you match up a color camera and a monochrome camera of the same resolutions the measured resolution of the color camera is, mathematically, 50% of the B&W only camera. But many photographers are using monochrome cameras with only 24 megapixels of resolution while many popular color cameras in use right now have double the megapixel resolution or more. Even if we use the 50% loss of information as a standard it would mean that a 47 megapixel color sensor would effectively equal the 24 megapixel B&W sensor but would suffer a penalty of a stop to two stops less illumination efficiency.  But importantly the resolution would be the same. While to the perception of the human eye the filtered sensor, coupled with advanced algorithms, could even exceed the perceptual maximum of the unfiltered sensor. 

When I have compared 24 megapixel B&W file apparent sharpness; encompassing detail, accutance and fine texture, with downsampled conversions from 47 megapixel color sensors there are differences in tonality from the sensitivity to different colors in a scene and the panchromatic rendering versus linear rendering the overall sharpness and resolution is, for all intents and purposes equivalent. Obviously comparing 24 versus 24 megapixel sensors gives the advantage to the monochrome sensor but with the loss from the monochrome sensor of advanced color channel control. A loss which yields a diminishing of much of the creative control in the final look of a file. 

While most things can be measured the measurements are generally presented in a vacuum while photographic equipment operates as a system. Much depends on the quality of a lens, the stability of the whole system platform, the method of post processing and even the efficiency of various cameras' de-Bayering algorithms and processing. 

Raw, unprocessed files out of almost any kind of camera from either side of the aisle, are linear tonal constructs and it's only after a characteristic curve is applied to a file that we can see a clear image that appears tonally correct to our eyes. An "S" curve of some sort is nearly always applied in the first step of post processing by whatever program is used. You generally never see an actual, linear raw file on your screen because when you open a raw file in any modern processing application a general curve or a precise curve has been applied to the file upon opening. Since the contrast of an image directly affects our perception of sharpness it is possible that the automatic application of a curve profile is in fact more important to our perception of the qualities of a monochrome image than what kind of sensor was used in the image's initial creation. 

A further step for some photographers is to use the built-in camera profiles for monochrome along with the utilization of Jpegs as a file type. In older generation digital color cameras manufacturers generally took the short cut version of just deducting the saturation of a color file in order to make a representation of black and white. A deeper study of newer generations of color cameras shows that camera makers have created B&W profiles that are color spectrum sensitive and use precise applications of color channels, in conjunction with appropriate contrast curves to more precisely and convincingly create monochrome files that are much more complex and pleasingly close to classic black and white film imaging and paper printing. These profiles take into consideration contrast levels in multiple sectors or tonal ranges of the files instead of depending on just one overarching and averaging contrast curve.

If one were to eliminate the variables that come from the lens, the skill of the photographer in providing a stable platform for the system, and in doing legitimate post processing with the best tools I submit that there would be little, if any, difference in any 47+ resolution color camera film converted to monochrome and an identical but half resolution dedicated black and white camera file. Even though the owners of those monochrome cameras would wish otherwise.

But is sharpness and detail that big of a differentiator in current photography? I think not. Those properties can be cold and analytical in a field where aesthetics is more functionally and fundamentally important than small percentage increases in already overly endowed resolution characteristics. Finally, we have to understand the limitations of viewing distance on perceived sharpness and detail. The human eye can only resolve about 5 to 15 megapixels of information when stationary (eyes not scanning). At a glance. For instance while taking in a whole photographic print. The eyes have an imputed resolution of over 500 megapixels but, importantly, only while moving and scanning. And the eye has no actual pixels and perceives color and detail in a much different way than a sensor. 

When we view a photographic print we are limited by factors such as how bright the viewing lights on the print are as well as our age, our overall health, our personal visual potential and, equally important, the viewing distance to the print and the size of the print. Also, prints have properties of granularity, halation and are often degraded by back reflection and artifacts of internal reflection. The substrate itself introduces limitations in actual resolution as well. Given the complex mix of limiting factors just about any current digital camera resolving 24 megapixels or more, black and white only or in full color, is enough to provide the correct amount of detail given standard and accepted viewing distances. Certainly you can press your nose against a print but that's hardly the common use case for viewing photographic prints. The bigger the print the lower per inch resolution needed to deliver the same viewing perception as a smaller print. 

Many people who are using monochrome only cameras and displaying the results on websites and various screen-centric presentations are making photographs of landscapes, urban constructions, etc. A good proportion of the subjects photographed are highly suitable for yet another "curative" for the interference (pun intended) of Bayer filters. That would be the use of widely available in-camera, multi-shot resolution enhancement. In those (usually tripod mounted) cameras the sensor is moved up to eight times in small increments during the capture time and the eight resulting images are blended together while throwing out anomalies occurring between "layers." An eight step multi-res process adds up to four times the resolution of a single exposure which should yield two times as much unadulterated detail as a regular file. A conversion and downsampling of these files to match the size of a single shot mono file should be more than equivalent in terms of the accuracy of the raw data. At that point the post processing application is the common denominator/inflection point of differentiation. 

As I said at the beginning, I'm not the smartest guy in the gallery but I do trust my eyes to detect differences in final files and prints. That's why I often don't take other people's anecdotal relaying of information as gospel. I prefer to see what the actual effects of mixtures of complex interrelationships of imaging parameters are in the real world. As in: How do the differently generated images look on the screen after I've post processed them? How do the differently generated images look on paper after I have printed them? 

You may see all kinds of differences in different cameras. Those differences may be down to any number of things beyond the kind of sensor being used. While color cameras can make very, very convincing and pleasing black and white images you will find that there are not any one shot, black and white only cameras that can make a color image worth a damn. 

One observational note about the desire-ability of specialty black and white cameras is this: I see more monochrome model Leica rangefinder cameras on the used camera market in a season (as a percentage of total sales) than I do the stock, color versions of the same model family. Used, tested, tried and released back into the wild. Not an exact study but a trend I've certainly seen recur over time. 

Of course, I could be wrong but as long as I am able to pull sharp, detailed, contrast-appropriate images out of Bayer Filtered camera sensors I think I'm okay with it. Everyone is looking for a magic bullet in this artistic field. The Placebo Effect is strong among photographers. How else could Leica and Hasselblad command such high prices??? 

And yeah. I fall for marketing as hard or harder than everyone else. 

I like this image because of the soft gradations of the white sheets in the upper highlight range. The black band on the hat provides a nice tonal contrast as do the details of the weave in the hat. Would this image be better with greater perception of detail or would it be trading off the initial intention of the photographer?

It seems a bit disingenuous to show an image that's 3200 pixel wide when it started life at 8800+ pixels wide and then try to make an argument that it is sharper or less sharp than it would be if made with a different camera. On the original file one can see details on individual bricks. Those are not visible on this presentation. The final use of the file is the important point. Resolution, or post production sharpness used as bragging rights has nothing to do with making images for general viewing. Just as using Kodak's ISO Technical Pan 25 black and white film wasn't and isn't the appropriate substitute for Tri-X film. Not from an artistic/aestetic point of view..... anyway.

Cameras I will likely never get around to purchasing. Or owning. Or using....

There are so many cameras out in the world. Some are fantastic. Most are serviceable. A few are addicting-ly fun. And some are just boring. While I have a reputation (or did have a reputation) for churning through cameras, that proclivity seems to have slowed down... a lot. As I was looking into my cache of equipment today, trying to land on just the right camera to keep me company on my short drive to and from the pool (water, not table) I started thinking about cameras that some people seem to love but which I'll probably never buy or use. It was an interesting mind game.

I will never again buy or use a Pentax 6x7 film camera. At one point, long ago, in my professional career I owned three of these cameras. Two for shooting with roll film and one that was adapted with a Marty Forescher, fiber optic Polaroid back. They are too big, too loud, have too much vibration from the mirror slap and...I don't think I could go back to dealing with ten exposures between reloads. That's definitely a never again. 

Sony's original A7 series of cameras. I owned several. The A7ii and the A7Rii. Both worked okay. Both were a nightmare to hold. Both had tiny, crappy, low I.Q. batteries and both had, at the time, menus that were so convoluted and bad that Olympus menus were actually starting to look okay. Added to that mess

were really mediocre EVFs along with crappy AF. Never again. If I saw one on the bargain table at the camera store for $50 I'd walk right on by. That was not how we imagined good digital cameras... And to think, they had all those talented Minolta camera engineers who could have taught Sony how to make a camera body that was enjoyable to hold. Funny (not funny) they are able to do a good job of physical camera design with the a850 and a900 DSLRs that proceeded the pocket calculator meets bad toaster design of the first couple gens of mirrorless cameras. I hope the newer ones have gotten much, much better but I'm afraid to even look.

I almost fell for the blind to sensor size mantra when I looked at the cute, little Leica D-Lux8. Caught myself before I got too cozy with the buy now button on the computer screen. Why? Because I just can't see a reason to buy a compact camera when iPhone cameras (and processing) have gotten so good. If a photo is important I've got a lot of full frame cameras from which to choose; I don't think I would intentionally choose a small sensor, small resolution camera instead. And one powerful thing that keeps me from buying a lot of cameras is the realization that I've be bringing yet another battery size and battery type into the house. It's like bringing home kittens and puppies. At some point, with enough different batteries to maintain I could have a full time job just charging and recharging batteries. I'll draw the line at compact point and shoot cameras, and mostly because the batteries are all so small that I'd be changing them faster than I change the channels on my TV when boring sports stuff comes on. 

Yeah. Well. There I was sitting at the computer when I looked at a listing on my fave Leica Store. A pristine, used Leica D-Lux8 with a case, a thumb grip, an extra battery, a filter and all the trimmings came up at a reasonable price. I quickly rationalized why I needed to buy this camera and did so. So much for me being consistent on the blog.... Gotta beat the tariffs anyway...

And that's damn fast. People watch bowling? Really? People must get paid to watch snooker, otherwise who would ever watch that? Oh, and golf. I kind of understand people playing golf (not really) but watching people in bad pants, ugly shoes, stupid hats and 1960s Banlon shirts walking around looking serious about trying to smack balls with clubs? Insane. The only way I can imagine that people would be convinced to watch golf would be if they were in traction in a hospital room, unable to speak and a nurse inadvertently left the TV set on and golf came on after he or she left the room. Intravenous drugs would be helpful.... But same with having to keep tabs on a jigsaw puzzle of batteries. No fun. And so no cameras that take dinky, weak batteries so....no compacts. 

I'll never again buy a super popular camera that's a fetish item for influencers. Yes. I'm writing about the Fuji X100Vi. Imagine you were actually able to buy one and you did. And having just that camera and being unable to afford anything else you actually used it over and over again until you mastered it. It's the one camera you know well enough to make great images with. But then you lose it or break it or it gets stolen. You need to make pictures but that's the only camera you feel comfortable using. And then you find out that you might be on a waiting list for years --- waiting to get a replacement. And it's a list that's longer than the ones for donated kidneys or hearts. And you fall into despair, give up photography and turn to golf. See how depressing it could be to own the wrong camera? I'll never fall for that again. 

In all probability I will probably never buy another big, sports oriented camera; either a DSLR model or one of the new digital mirrorless ones like the Canon R1 or the Sony Alpha A1ii. Or one of the older Nikon D3s. Anything big and bulky which has as its reason for existence super fast frame rates and reputedly, super fast autofocus tracking, is off the table. They are too overwrought. Too capable. Too fraught (in a bad way) with misguided potential. And any time I use one of those cameras I think it's making fun of me for just being human. They are all one step away from being able to shoot for themselves and do a better job of it than I might. There's a reason we like to do stuff for ourselves. But those cameras would sneer at you if you tried to take it off auto focus and do it yourself. They just would. And look! We're already on rev two of a camera (Sony or Canon's R5ii) that hasn't even been around long enough to run down the clock on its predecessors warranty. At least give me a chance to wear the damn thing out. 

Life is too short for Olympus camera menus. Or OM Systems camera menus. I'll just stop there. You know what I mean. And sure, I know that after you ingest the 1100 page menu you can set the camera the way you like it and never go into the menus again. But I don't always shoot the same stuff and might need to go into the menus and unlike a physical labyrinth it's impossible to mark your path with string or breadcrumbs. When you most need to understand the labyrinth that is an Olympus menu you will undoubtable meet a Minotaur of conflicts. Nothing will be resolved. Innocent images will go unrecorded. 

I'm pretty sure that at this late stage of my career as a photographer I will not willingly part with the cash to own a Hasselblad mirrorless medium format camera. I'm sure everyone finds the color remarkable and the lenses pretty cool but I'm equally sure that it's like buying a sports car that's a work in progress. It looks really cool but.... performance? Not so sure about that. And who owns the Hasselblad company these days anyway? Is it the company that got famous for making drones or the one who got famous for being part of the Swedish Socialist Miracle? And who do I send it to when it breaks? 

Last week I thought I could afford to buy one. Or maybe even two! But this morning I got the news from my broker that I really shouldn't be buying anything right now. And in fact, I had to hang up quickly because I'm back to just buying minutes on a burner phone so --- the high priced Hasselblad stuff is off the table. 

I will never own another 4x5 or 8x10 view camera. I have owned and used both but I never want to work that hard again to make mostly well focused, well exposed static and boring images. And I never want to spend between $15 and $30 each to make one exposure. And I hated being trapped under the black dark cloth when it's 110° outside. You fry like bacon. And the pictures are never better for it. Got an older, wooden 8x10 view camera? They make great kindling. 

In this continuing list of cameras I would never buy again I'd have to include the Leica R8 and Leica R9 cameras. Why? Because they require batteries to function. I'm of the opinion that the basic bar to jump over for a usable film camera is that it take double A batteries and nothing a like a 2CR5 or some other lithium rarity. Better yet, I'd draw the line at any camera that requires a battery for anything other than metering. If the metering battery in a Nikon F2 goes south the camera still works. You can actually use brain power to get into the exposure ballpark. Worst case scenario you can drag around an external light meter. But sport a Nikon F3 film camera and you need those little silver button batteries or you've got a brick on a strap. This eliminates for me a whole raft of cameras. No Nikon FE cameras. Yes on the original FM. No Canon EOS film cameras, all of which required batteries to function. I get the need for batteries on a digital camera but am religiously opposed to battery dependence on film cameras. And you should be too. 

Top of the list for me of cameras to scrupulously avoid are all those big, plasticky, crappy Fuji medium format film cameras with fixed lenses. They always seemed like a good idea until you got your hands on one and tried to use it. The finders were so inaccurate and the meters sucked. The lenses were never a good match for the formats and, again, ten or fewer frames per roll on most of them. Might have been okay if you were going to scurry into the darkroom and print from the negatives but in the digital age? It's like preferring carbureted car engines. Painfully inefficient. "Texas Leica" my ass.

That's all I can trash today. This will be continued. Someone has to draw the line between usable cameras and nostalgic crap and it might as well be me. And I can hardly wait to discuss lenses. 

But one last thing. Remember that even Leica was guilty of making really shitty film cameras (looking directly at you R4!!!). The 1990s wasn't a good time for their SLRs. I think they would admit it. After all, they had to repair a huge percentage of them under warranty. Amazing they survived. 

On most shoots cameras are the least of my worries. 

I liked the idea of monochrome only cameras until I looked at a bunch of samples posted by aging influencers. I tried a few conversions from color negatives and.... YMMV

If your lens comes with a lens hood please mount the hood on the lens correctly. Nothing looks much dorkier than walking around shooting stuff with your lens hood attached backwards. It's just sad.

No good cameras was ever designed to fit nicely into pants pockets.

Either your pants are too big or your camera is too small...

jacket? Sure. But pants? never.

All time favorite. Glad I bought it before the great depression.

America. Bringing back the best of the 1950's. One step at a time.

 What cameras have you tried and really disliked? 

"If you give someone a hammer then everything looks like a nail." I have a photographic corollary that says, "If you give a photographer a big empty memory card everything looks like a photographic opportunity."

 If you have a rationalization for why you enjoy digital better than shooting film you might think of this analogy that a highly successful female photographer once told me when I asked her why she was still carrying around her medium format camera. 

She said, "The difference between a big, wonderful film camera and a digital camera is like the difference between one of those all you can eat buffets and really fine dining. In the bargain buffets the people rush to the serving lines and pile their plates high with lots and lots of mediocre food. Then they sit down and stuff themselves. It's hardly a unique experience, not one you'll remember with fondness, and nothing stands out as special. But, in a really fine restaurant with a talented and artistic chef you go for the experience of trying delicacies and masterpieces. You will not fill your plate but you will have a unique experience, the flavors of which will infuse and enrich your life, and memories, for years to come."

She went on to say as she put her camera into a straw basket and got ready to bike home, "I can't always afford the fine dining experience. Sometimes I just need to eat because I'm hungry. So we need both kinds of restaurants. But the times when art meets food are the times when I feel like I've had an experience that will subtly change my life. The rest of the times I'm just placated until I'm hungry again and go off to refill my plate with inconsequential food."

"But what does this have to do with my question?" I asked.

As she peddled off on her bicycle she turned over her shoulder and suggested, "Isn't photography a lot like food?"

I predict the U.S. market for used cameras and lenses is about to boom. Big time.

Feet up on the desk just slurping coffee and watching the stock market in free fall. 

So... the new tariffs were announced yesterday. Roundly criticized by every economist not currently being directly paid by the current U.S. administration. I watched the markets collapse this morning and I thought to myself...."I wonder what will happen to the domestic camera market?" Surely, in the next month or two Leica, Canon, Nikon and Sony will all open big factories right here in the USA in order to skirt the high cost of tariffs. It can't be that hard, right? Just round up some of those recently unemployed government workers, train them for a few weeks and then watch them crank out some complex, apo-chromatically corrected lenses. Use that legendary American work ethic to crank out some extremely precise mechanical assemblies and then find some "shade tree" semi-conductor engineers to churn out some state-of-the-art camera sensors from their home workshops. Bingo. A brand new camera industry!!!

Which brings up the pressing question to other photographers; those unwilling to go with the fantasy...

Aren't tariffs supposed to protect domestic markets and domestic producers from "unfair" competition? So what American camera industry are President Trump's latest tariffs on "all" consumer electronic products attempting to protect--- vis-a-vis photography? Have I missed some home grown camera manufacturing sector here at home that's currently making good, mass market, consumer cameras? Are we trying to protect Deardorf's view camera market?  Didn't they go out of business in 1988? Is there an American rangefinder camera that's just waiting for a chance to compete once we "tax" those pesky foreign cameras? And then there's the American zoom lens industry. I seem to have missed that one as well.... Can't find one even if I search all day on Google... Didn't Enron emerge from bankruptcy in order to start making zoom lenses for various cameras? I guess not.

I guess we'll all be okay. Until the markets run out of used gear... But I'm not too worried; I seem to have bought way too many cameras in the last few years but maybe it will turn out that I've squirreled away just the right amount to make it through the next three years. Or maybe our dear leader will realize that he's not just "owning the libs"  with the new taxes but also greatly pissing off a huge portion of his actual electoral base. Maybe having realized that the only thing that counts in politics is "the money-stupid"  he'll declare victory shortly and back away from yet another unforced error. As several right wing pundits have mentioned in many interviews, the kinds of jobs these tariffs were designed to protect were automated a long time ago and will never be coming back. I can't wait for his "We Won!" speech and the resulting rush on the part of companies and consumers to get back to normal times. 

So, if we drop half a trillion tax dollars into creating a camera and lens industry here in the USA will you be lining up to buy the products? Ready to embrace that home grown, highly educated manufacturing work force? Ready to onboard an industry directly subsidized by your tax dollars? Maybe Steve Mnuchin and Michael Dell will run it. Like they do the real estate rental markets.   

Or would you prefer to see the tariffs die and the markets stabilize? Either way camera prices are going up and once the prices go up they historically never go back down again. Ever.

I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think we're about to see an actual economic depression. That's my pessimistic assessment. But, as an optimist I think I have enough cameras and lenses saved up to work through the worst of it and, if things get really bad, I still have some leather camera straps I can use to make soup. 

Can't wait for my 23 element, high precision, zoom lenses to emerge from a newly put up camera maker's plants in the hollers of West Virginia. Should be a revelation! 

Is it any wonder that the U.S.A. is the 63rd happiest country in the world? 

And that was before the tariff announcement yesterday.

Loving those old, M series rangefinders. I'd better take good care of them.

Now all the good, new cameras will go to the freshly minted millionaires in China and India.

I guess it's their turn...

Everything's coming up roses.

Ah. American Exceptionalism...

My only advice?  Don't sell off your 401K at the bottom of the market. It might come right back up. Thoughts and Prayers.  

Spring Time in Austin. Time to get outside more and see the sites. Prices on cameras set to rise by at least 10%. Best close on that once in a lifetime camera deal today!!!

 

It was a beautiful day in Austin. The sun was coming in and out of the clouds. There was a soft breeze for most of the afternoon and the temperatures stayed in the lower 80s. We had some good, soaking rains last week and some on again, off again showers this week. In central Texas that means just about everything is bright green or blooming like crazy. The trees surrounding the house and studio have thick canopies and the live oaks are dropping oak pollen like confetti. 

I could have stayed in the office and listened to the news about tariffs and then watched my favorite stocks falling like lead balloons but I decided to ignore everything and go for a walk instead. It was the right choice. 

The camera I chose today was the Leica top 240 M-E. A gorgeous grey metal finish with nary a defect on it anywhere. I paired it with my current favorite 50mm lens, the Voigtlander APO Lanthar. I set up the camera to shoot in .dng and headed off to my favorite parking place, just north of Lady Bird Lake. 

As I crossed over the railroad tracks and headed for the pedestrian bridge that would lead me into South Austin I wondered just how many times I've walked across the tracks, behind a huge parking garage, past Mañana Coffee and over the Pfluger Bridge. At least a couple hundred times. Maybe more. That triggered my memories of just how long I've been running the four mile loop around the lake in downtown. I started running the trail with a college girlfriend who was the first person I knew who not only had Nike Waffle Trainers but also had a passion for finding just the right running shoes. That would have been back in 1975. 

When we were undergraduates on just about every nice weather day we'd lace up our running shoes and run down from the UT campus (about a mile and a half) and hit the four mile trail. We're both pretty competitive but she was always the better runner. After a fast spin around the lake we'd walk or jog back to our dorms on campus. We broke up, eventually, but I never stopped running the trails. 

I competed in the very first Capitol 10K way back in 1978 and ran my first marathon in 1979. I'm going to guess I've been around the lake in running shoes about 5,000 times over the last 50 years. Sounds like a  lot but that's really only 100 days a year. The last time I ran a race was in 2013 when my kid was running cross country in high school and we decided to run the Thundercloud Turkey Trot. Geez! I can hardly believe that was twelve years ago.... (sigh). Yes, my 17 year old kicked my butt by several minutes. But at least I could still knock out a 10K with a minimum of active training. I guess the cardio of swimming transfers --- a bit. Not sure how I'd do today but I'm in no hurry to find out.

Anyway, I got across the pedestrian bridge and headed east on Barton Springs Road. I walked past the lunch rush at Black's BBQ. Lots of big, big people with trays loaded high jockeying for picnic table space. Funny that the restaurant is juxtaposed right next to Austin TriCyclist which is a store than serves swimmers, runners, cyclists and triathletes (I swim most days with one of the owners. She is faster than me...). I buy my swim goggles from her. It's kind of fun to be part of an exercise clique... Makes it all feel more like a family of athletes. I actually used the owner of the sport shop as a primary model in a photo shoot for Austin Sports Medicine. She was perfect for the role. Because she lives the role.

I was traveling light this afternoon. One camera, one lens. I had my car key in one pocket and my wallet in the other. That's it. No cell phone, no extra batteries, no encumbrances. Nothing weighting me down. 

Just comfortable shoes and a cool pair of shorts. I walked up one side of South Congress Ave., crossed over after I ran out of stores, shops and restaurants to look at on the east side of the street and came back down on the west side of the street. I walked into one gallery and found two really fun litho prints I liked very much. 

I stopped at Torchy's Tacos to grab a big, stuffed, bacon, egg and cheese taco on a flour tortilla for lunch. Cruised by the Maufrais hat shop to see what might be new. 

I cut through the Hotel San José just to watch the people sitting in the courtyard in the mid-afternoon sipping cocktails and wine, and came to rest, temporarily, at Jo's Coffee right next door. I'd just read an article on Medscape about how having enough dairy in your daily diet can reduce your chances of colon cancer by up to 20% over people who don't have enough dairy in their diets. Seems big studies now show that all that hoopla over the evils of dairy and saturated fat was wrong. The big cut back of dairy may be one of the reasons why CRC is increasing among younger and younger generations. Too much oat milk, not enough whole cow milk. Who am I to argue with big studies from legit sources? 

So, of course I had a latté made with whole milk. But really, is there any other way to make a good latté??? Secondary studies also indicate that twice weekly yogurt ingestion has a similar positive effect. And, just to mollify yogurt naysayers, my preferred yogurt, from FAGE has two ingredients. One is milk and the second is yogurt cultures. No sugars, no sweeteners, no candy soup. Just protein and CRC reducing properties. Who knew that so many previously vilified foods would turn out to be so good for you? Be careful where you source your nutrition info. You may be playing footsie with a proponent of RFK, Jr. The patron saint of Measles. 

After the coffee, which I enjoyed while sitting almost motionless at a table, I walked back toward the other side of downtown and headed off to find my car. Which was right where I left it four miles ago. Vroooom. 

When I got home there was a box waiting for me just outside the front door of the house. It's a Pelican case I ordered from B&H. It's just right for the back-up gear. 

The images from today validate my understanding of just how good this camera and lens combination can be. I stayed close to f5.6 but I have no fears about using f16 if I need to/want to and, by the same token, no fears about using f2.0. They must have put those settings on the lens for a reason!!!

An interesting fact to share: A great uncle of my father was Edward Tuck. He was a banker, a diplomat (mostly stationed in France) and a philanthropist. His father was Amos Tuck, the founder of the Republican party. When I took my parents on a trip to Paris back in 1994 we made a visit to the Petit Palais where Edward Tuck had donated a large collection of his art. He was also a frequent benefactor for social programs there. There is a street named after him in Paris. It's Avenue Edouard Tuck which runs between La Place de la Concord to the Petit Palais. My father and mother were greeted warmly by the museum staff after they learned of his relationship to Edward Tuck. While he lived most of his later life in Monte Carlo he did dabble in philanthropy in the U.S.; his most noted gift was the establishment of the Amos Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. He was an alumni of Dartmouth, and earlier,  Exeter Academy. 

I always find it interesting to learn more about the family's past. My father was the first to break a long line of precedence of being in banking... But that's a story for another time.

But look! Spring has sprung in Austin....

When I got back home I heard the financial news about the tariffs. Seems like they cover not just cars and steel and such but also electronics and consumer goods from just about every country on the face of the earth. I'm sure we'll see camera and lens prices heading north in short order. While I was joking earlier, with inflation not coming down and tariffs driving prices higher, this might be the best moment to finally push the "buy now" button for the camera you've been saving up for. They may never be this "cheap" again.

I was going to buy a D-Lux 8 today. I put one in my shopping cart at Leica Store Miami. They had at least one in stock. I thought I'd come back after my walk and finish up the order. But by the time I got back they'd sold through their supply. I guess that's all for the best. I never attended the Edward Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. Only the Kirk Tuck School of Hard Knocks, so maybe it was a sign from the universe to keep some powder dry (save the money). 

At least the current milieu means never a boring day on Wall Street. 

Don't leave them hanging...

 

In the end the camera you choose to use doesn't really matter at all. For most of us our brand choice is an extension of ego. The most mentally healthy amongst us can make a good argument that their choices are only predicated by the intended use case. But I'm not sure I buy that. 

I had a client call and ask if I would put together a collection of food shots from which to choose a small sampling of images for a campaign. The funny thing is that some of my favorite images from the 400+ I put together in the catalog came from the casual use of an older iPhone; the XR. Now five generations old. A few of my least favorite came from very expensive cameras and top tier lenses. 

Putting together a collection is like looking into a time machine. There were image candidates made with cameras from nearly every major brand. Micro 4:3rd camera images were over-represented. As were images from Fuji cameras. There were even a couple from my old, cheap, 4x5 Calumet view camera...

Were those cameras better than the other, newer, full frame cameras? Not at all, they were just the cameras that were in the right place at the right time when I was in the right mood to be entirely awake to the potential in front of me. 

I have no external reasons not to succeed at making good images. The stumbling blocks I do have are: preconceived notions of style, copying the look and feel of a homogenous collection of shots I've seen over time, depending on a particular feature of a camera or lens that doesn't pan out, laziness, feeling rushed, feeling bored by the subject, trying to hard to please the client standing next to me, an over -reliance on technical chops, an under-reliance on creativity and intuition, ignoring inspiration and instead clinging to the safest way to make a photograph. 

None of these things has anything do to with cameras or lenses and everything to do with the state of mind you find yourself in, or the ability to allow yourself to step outside of how you did stuff yesterday in order to try something new today. Inspiration comes to those who can conquer their own fears. And none of us are perfect at this all the time.

Some stuff is about problem solving but most stuff is about paying attention to how you like things to look.

Organizing a brief trip to another city to shoot a conference. Who knew there were so many details to attend?

 

The Eldorado Hotel. Santa Fe.

Never give a certain type of photographer too much time to plan a trip. They will research it to death. 

I'm heading to Santa Fe, N.M. in the middle of next month for a three day bank conference. I'm working for a client I really like and have worked with for nearly 30 years now. She mentioned my participation for this meeting way back in Spring of 2024 and confirmed it just after the start of this year. I put the dates in my calendar and ... immediately started worrying over details. 

The last time we did this conference in Santa Fe was 2022. I drove there then. That was a big mistake. Everyone says you can drive it in one day. I'll only agree that if you are 18 years old, high on speed and driving a Porsche GTS-R3 then...yeah. You can make it in one day. If you are, say 66 years old, driving a Subaru Forester and the most powerful drug you ever put in your system is coffee? Then no. It's a two day trip.

Better yet? You can now fly directly into Santa Fe on a real airline. It's no longer required to fly into Albuquerque, rent a car and drive for two hours. Nope, you can fly right in. I researched it. I booked my tickets back in January. There's a one hour stop at DFW. Not a big deal. 

The airlines seem to be anticipating declining travel numbers in the short term. Businesses are uncertain about things like tariffs and, well, basically the sanity of the people running the government. It's showing. American Airlines emailed today and offered to upgrade all of the legs of my flights in and out of Austin  and Santa Fe to first class seating for a fee that would just about cover dinner for two at a nice restaurant. First class buys you pre-boarding, a better seat and...most important of all, a dedicated overhead luggage space. Perfect for people traveling with delicate cameras. I jumped on the offer and didn't give it a second thought. 

For the last several months I've been trying to figure out exactly what gear to take. The flights into and out of Santa Fe are on smaller regional jets and I was operating under the idea that I'd be flying economy and that I needed to pack to make sure the cameras could fit under the seat in front of me. That's based on the premise that the overheads will be tiny and that no matter how I tried to game the boarding with my luck I'd end up near the end of the line and would have to hassle with whether or not I'd have to gate check cameras. And lenses. 

One month, back in 2018, I was working on an annual report job for a huge infrastructure company and I did 24 different flights, some round trips, over the course of 30 days. Most of the locations were in and out of rural areas where big planes didn't fly. I got really good at figuring out how to pack hard to break stuff to check into the bellies of planes and how to pack soft-sided camera bags that could be coerced to ride under the seat in front of me; if necessary. Those were the memories I conjured up as I approached packing logistics. 

And I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to safely bring along everything I wanted to have, from just in case to wouldn't that be nice to have? I'm pretty much locked in now. Then I found a solution that will allow me to bring everything I could ever imagine. Which is good because at last year's conference in a different city we needed extra lights, light stands, a tripod, and modifiers. Not stuff that fits into overhead compartments. 

No fun packing... but.... I remembered that the Austin-based event production company (lighting, sound and staging) that my client likes to use are people I have happily worked with in cities across the country and in places like Lisbon, Monte Carlo and Madrid. Really good guys who do mostly very high end production work. I called over to them last week and asked if they were sending a big truck to Santa Fe for the show. Yes indeed. They are. Could I toss in one medium-sized Pelican hard case? You bet! Just have it at our office by the 9th of April and we'll have it backstage at the hotel when you arrive. This allows me to pack a full complement of prime lenses, an extra flash, mountains of batteries and a second SL2-S body, along with accessories and cabling, and have it shipped free of charge right to my final destination. And back home again.

That means when I fly I only have to handle a much lighter camera bag with an SL2-S, the 24-90mm zoom, one flash and one Q2 camera. Oh, and my laptop. These will all fit in one manageable Domke shoulder bag which will ride on top of the roller case with all my clothing and toiletries in it as I march through the airports.

And now that I have upgraded to first class I could actually check two bags for free and also be assured that my roller case is flying close to me in the overhead space. 

My flight will leave before sunrise and I don't take chances so I'm driving myself to the airport at 4:30 in the morning. Way too early!!! But parking at the terminal can be time consuming and iffy so I've made a reservation for a covered parking space at one of the close-in private lots at the airport periphery. I've used them many times before and their shuttle will get me to the terminal fast. On the other end I have ample time to get a taxi. Or an Uber. 

I've upgraded all my production software on the laptop as well as all the firmware for the various cameras. In addition I'm meeting with my client for a lunch this week to discuss schedules, needed photos and other details. We do this each year before the show and it's helpful to know what's planned and to get a feel for the mood of the corporation. 

Every work camera will have two fast SD cards backing each other up and I'll be downloading to an outboard SSD and also to the internal SSD in the laptop each night of the conference. 

Now that I have more leeway in the luggage I'll also pack swim gear. You never know when a Santa Fe based friend might need an impromptu swim lesson....

None of this planning is my only focus on work. Last week, this week and the week after all have other projects booked in. But it's nice to have a plan, a plan "B" and a plan "C" just in case. Once I hit the hotel and grab the trucked in case the feeling of relaxation will be almost overwhelming. At that point my only worry will be getting the shots. And having fun shooting. 

Bit by bit a project comes together. It's so much easier these days when I'm not planning around a kid's soccer games or trying to figure out how to pre-pay for stuff out of a limited budget. The schedule is mine to plan around and the cash flow is no longer a worry. In fact, the most stressful part of almost every out of town trip these days is getting to the airport, getting seated on the plane and making those connections. Everything else?  I've practiced so many times it should be automatic. 

The only other logistics consideration is wardrobe. It's a banker conference. Very high end. Coat and tie. Shiny shoes. Pressed shirts. Unwrinkled pants. More than one jacket. But, again, this is not my first rodeo. I've practiced the wardrobe thing with U.S. presidents and Fortune 100 CEOs. It's the same basic plan. Dress conservatively, plan for plan B and lean on the hotel for needed pressing and dry cleaning. And if the shoes get scuffed...get them shined. 

Love the Eldorado Hotel. It's a great business destination. That's all I've got for today.

Someone asked me what camera system I'd buy into if I'd never stumbled head first into the Leica swamp.

When I look back over all the cameras (and lenses) I've used in the past twenty five years (the Age of Digital) there are lots of individual cameras I liked. A lot. But one camera does not a system make. 

The hand feel of Nikons like the D700, D610 and D750 were really good for me. But the system had its issues. Most of the pre-mirrorless Nikons could have issues with front focusing and back focusing. And I found that correcting for one lens might put another, different lens in jeopardy. I have some good images from my years with Nikon but...

Then there's my time with Sony. Interesting to me that I was at the Photo Expo in NYC in 2013 when Sony debuted the A7 and A7R cameras. The A7 was interesting but the shutter noise and slap in the A7R (even though it was a mirrorless camera!!!) was so awful and profound that I almost dropped it out of sheer surprise. I owned an A7ii, and A7Rii and a couple iterations of the (very good) RX10 cameras but back in the early days of Sony cameras both the batteries and the camera menus seemed locked in a competition to see which could be worse. Which one could most annoy working photographers. And I never got used to carrying around eight to ten batteries to get through a day. And I never really wanted to have the 250 page .pdf of the manual on my phone to try, while out in the field, to unlock the secrets of some control which seemed straightforward on every other camera brand's cameras. The photos were fine....

I could have lived with Panasonic's first generation of S1 cameras. They worked well. But they were a bit noisy (file noise at higher ISOS) and the focusing could have been better. At the time I traded them for Leica stuff they seemed not to be making much forward movement and like immobile sharks I thought the brand, Lumix, might stop breathing and die. The Leicas were expensive to buy and it may be that the sheer expense has kept me anchored to the brand. Who wants to spend a small fortune only to abandon the brand and switch yet again to something else?

I even had a flirtation with a Pentax camera. It was the K1. The original K1. And from a handling point of view I'd still have it. But, again, the scourge of DSLRs. Variable front and back focusing reared its ugly head. Still, the camera itself was mature, charming and almost sophisticated. Sad to see it go. Now that I think about it I'll start wishing that Pentax would take that body and use it as the platform for a really great mirrorless system... Not going to happen. Sorry. 

But the one brand I haven't mentioned is probably the one brand I would go to if I were to replace the Leicas, and that's Canon. There's a lot to dislike about Canon. But then again, I used the 60D, the 70D, the 5D and the 5Dmk2 cameras back in the day and when I revisit those files I still like em. A lot. The handling of the full frame cameras was comfortable and I never worried that the files would be compromised by focus issues, noise issues or skin color issues. Sure, there's no real prestige value to a camera system that every weekend warrior uses for weddings of all stripes but you can't really count that against a brand. I also owned one of the big 1Dmk4 cameras they made for sports shooters and liked it a lot. Sure it was big but what good camera back in the pre-2010 days wasn't? The beauty was that cameras such as the 1Dmk4 were practically indestructible and well formed to spend a day in one's hands with little to no strain. 

I shot with Canon SLRs back in the film days. My first real camera was a TX. Replaced by an FTb, augmented with an EF and then an F1. When Canon switched to the EOS mount from the FD mount I switched with them and had the EOS-1...which was a wonderful camera. I paired it with the 85mm L f1.2 and, except for slow focusing (torturously slow) it was an amazing lens. 

I haven't kept up with what Canon is doing in the mirrorless space. Once in a while I'll hear about a camera they've introduced that has heat issues with not only video but also with photos. Then I'll hear that it's been fixed but it has seemed like a brand in such flux that I guess I decided I didn't have the bandwidth to keep up with their strained campaign to move, seriously, into the mirrorless space. 

I guess the Canon camera that would interest me the most would be the R5mk2. More than enough pixels. Seems like they worked out the thermal issues that plagued the original model. It seems advanced enough to do just about anything I need and I'd couple it with basic 24-105mm L lens (not the Z model). There are a few cheaper models that could serve in a pinch for backup but I haven't looked into them. There is a super cheap, full frame model called the EOS RP which you can pick up right now, on sale for about $800, new. Clamp on a kit version of the 24-105 (f4-something to f7-something), add a flash and you'd be ready to go shoot a wedding or an event. But really?

I can't imagine changing stuff right now. If I found the Leica stuff just too pricy to go on with I think I'd just default to the Panasonic S5 series cameras and their cheap as dirt line of prime lenses. At least I'd be able navigate the menus, having used the original S5 since...forever. 

It's been asked on other blogs but I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask here: If storm troopers tossed you into the street and burned down your house with all your camera gear in it, and you needed/wanted to start over again in photography, what system would you be looking at???? Presuming you got to keep your basic wealth and the insurance paid for your losses (house, gear, etc) after the overlords figured out that you actually weren't the terrorist cell they anticipated???? Sorry dude! Mistakes happen.

Just a few thoughts on a Monday.