After 6397 days without rain ---- it finally rained. Some. Not enough to cancel a midday walk. With a camera.... (hyperbole alert). Photographing with the GFX 50Sii as a 35mm camera....

 

Does the Fuji camera make me look fat?

It rained earlier this morning. And then, as Paul and I sat outside drinking coffee this afternoon, and talking about his pre-order of the Fuji GFX 30mm Shift lens, it started raining again. Real rain. Not heavy rain but good rain. And it was good.

In the middle of the day things were dry and warm and it was a perfect time to be out on the street with a camera in my hands. Since my job last week I've really been warming up to the new Fuji camera. Seems like the one I've been picking up all the time for casual photography. Today I set it up to use it like a 35mm camera. I changed the aspect ratio to 3:2 and put the 50mm f3.5 lens in the mount. I set the camera to make raw files and headed over to South Congress Ave. to see what it looks like before the Gen Z crowd gets up and makes their way over to the restaurants, coffee shops and cafés. 

The magic thing for me is that the whole time I was strolling north and then south on the Ave. the temperature never crested 90°. I shoulda brought a sweater. 

Paul and I had a long discussion about the different Fuji G cameras. I guess it only makes sense since they now have more than a handful and most of the do different things. While some might like the idea of the phase detect AF in the GFX100S, and now the GFX100mk2, I'm happy with the contrast detect AF in the 50Sii. and, after post producing about a thousand files from the camera last week, I'm joyous NOT to have a 100 megapixel camera. I mean, how big do you really need to go with those images? Especially when you consider that they'll mostly end up on the web...

So far the GFX50Sii is the "sweet spot" of new medium format cameras for me. I wish the menus were more Leica-like but I'm getting used to them and I've got a little cheat sheet on my phone that tells me things like where the ISO control is and how to turn off the preview in manual when I use flash. But the camera itself seems rugged and robust. The EVF is nice, as is the rear screen. I've actually even used the tilt screen feature while shooting a job and that made the work just a bit easier. 

But the bottom line is that if you are shooting Raw files you'll end up with big, juicy, detail-rich and wide dynamic range files that you can mess with till the cows come home and not ever really see the files fall apart and break. And that's about all I need out of Raw files. 

I had no compelling reason to be out walking today. No pressing camera tests to do. No new lenses to put through their paces. I just didn't want to miss the most welcome change we've had in the Texas weather in months. I wanted to see gray clouds and feel random raindrops.

My new (to me) Leica M240 is arriving tomorrow. I've been doing housecleaning to make space for the new arrival. I'd like for it to feel welcome. I pulled out the three lenses I envision using with the new camera and placed them in a nice row on the top of my desk. They are all native M mount lenses. No adapters needed. Two are Carl Zeiss lenses (28 and 35) and one is the Voigtlander 50mm APO-Lanthar. I have high hopes for all three. They sure look cute. I'm also thrilled to remember that the camera is coming with a second battery as well. The battery life is the first thing I'll check. I want to be sure to order a couple of new ones if the current ones are aging out.... Since it's an older camera the batteries are probably cheap as dirt. Let me check....   Nope. They are Leica batteries and Leica only. No Watson or Wasabi substitutes. New, the batteries are $215 each on B&H's site. Ouch. Hope the existing batteries are flawless...

Oh look! It's started to rain again. How exciting!!!

A few last thoughts about my two day shoot last week. It's the first time in a while that I really got into the flow while photographing on a job. With a camera set to manual and a custom white balance plugged in all that remains is keeping an eye on the meter and the slowest shutter speed, and then staying on target. I am not shy about shooting a lot of frames. In fact, it drives me a little crazy when I watch other shooters treat each digital frame like it's a golden Kodachrome slide with all the attendant costs and particularities. Carefully nursing each shot. What? Did they only invest in 16 GB SD cards? Are they editing their final images on an iPhone 4S? 

When photographing people hard at work on a complicated dish their faces range from tense to happy to tongue-between-teeth in concentration. Every frame is a bit different and there is no right or wrong frame. No objective target to hit. So, if you've got the time and the card space it makes sense to try for variations and different angles. You might like one; your art director might like the other. 

Why would you stop before you have what you imagine would be the very, very best frame. As my swim coaches all say, "Finish Strong." Keep shooting until you know  you have the best you can do. 

Another observation from the  shoot: I was able to compare files made under the same lighting and the same conditions between the Leica SL2 mated with the 24-90mm lens and the Fuji 50Sii mated with the 35-70mm f4.5-5.6 lens. While the Fuji looked like it had more dynamic range; more detail in highlights, less blocked up shadows, the Leica felt sharper, grittier and more in the moment. Neither one was ultimately better than the other but I think the Fuji files are more malleable. More changeable. And, in the end maybe a better choice for advertising work. But with a little huffing and puffing in post production I'm sure you could make the files from both cameras more or less interchangeable. In other words, the Fuji doesn't spank the SL2 in any obvious way. Unless you are desperate for maximum possible dynamic range. But that's way down on my list of attributes needed to make good photos. 

nice cream shop.

and more coffee. always more coffee.

Blog note: We won't be changing our core direction here at VSL. Even though there is less interest across the web in all things photography it's really the only topic I want to write about.  Sure, I might talk about a swim from time to time but I'm trying to keep the content focused on what I originally set out to include. That would be content about photography, about the advertising industry as it relates to photography and.....my life as a photographer. 

We don't have Patreon benefactors. We don't accept advertising. We don't include affiliate links. We won't bore you with our doctor's latest diagnosis, or our crazy aunt's foibles. Won't trot out our University degrees. Won't participate in credential oneupmanship. If you want to know about our work just look at the pictures. If you want to know about our process just read the type. 

Why don't we try and monetize the blog? Because we don't need to... and we think it's better that way.

the M240 arrives tomorrow. Be prepared to look at some M photos and read about my experiences getting reacquainted with the system. 

Comment all you want. We almost always guarantee same day moderation. That's it.

An "On Topic" post from 11 years ago. Still makes sense right now. Hop into the Time Machine and see what you think.

 https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2012/05/what-i-learned-when-i-dragged.html

Graffiti from Denver. Pentax K-01. 2013

Not related to the article. Just for fun....

Why would someone buy a 11 year old camera model with no autofocus, rudimentary video, no EVF, and a viewfinder that gets partly blocked by some lenses? And why would they pay a premium for it?

A VSL reader named Gary asked: 

"As someone who has never used a Leica M camera, I must humbly ask why you would go back to a rangefinder with its fiddly focusing, lack of TTL view, and lack of telephoto range. It could be nostalgia for an old (I'm not talking about age) Leica M user, and it could be the tradition of great photojournalists who used film M cameras. I suppose "Because I want it and can afford it" is a sufficient answer. That said, I've always heard that the reason to buy a Leica is "for the Leica glass." And yet all the lenses you mention are non-Leica. I would appreciate your thoughts on the common "for the glass" advice. Is there really some magic in Leica lenses? And all THAT said, I'm glad you are still writing about photography and cameras instead of various and sundry other topics."

 This is where a lot of Leica owners struggle. They know they like their cameras but find it hard to make logical arguments about why they are willing to put up with old tech at premium prices when they could instead buy a feature laden, wonder camera from Sony, Nikon or Canon that's just throbbing with the latest picture taking technology. The inability to articulate the advantages of a Leica M series camera is mostly what gets M users labeled as "snobs" who only buy the brand to show off. To publicly exhibit their buying power and their knowledge of popular "luxe" brands. 

Okay. I can go with that. There are very few aspects now concerning camera selection that make any sense at all. And most contemporary camera purchases are plainly overkill for the actual use (as opposed to their intended use). 

But...there are some reasons that make an M series digital camera acquisition mildly logical. 

I think I'll try to tackle them. 

A commenter posited that the appeal might be about the superiority of the lens optics. That Leica lenses are uniformly a cut above the competition. Hmmm. Might be true if one is splashing out for the $10K+ 50mm APO Summicron. But I have to say that I've seen very, very few copies of that lens on the M cameras I usually see out in the wild. Leica can build some lenses that do have amazing performance but if that's what you are looking for you might be better off exploring Leica's lenses designed and made for their SL series of cameras. Leica takes advantage of the wider throat of the SL and SL2 cameras to make much bigger lenses in each focal length that those made for the smaller M mount. They also have decided that while the M series lenses need to be smaller and lighter the SL lenses can be as big and heavy as they want to be commensurate with achieving the highest performance. Simpler said, the bigger SL lenses have fewer optical design compromises and can deliver the best results. 

The trade off is in the size difference. And the weight difference. And, as you can see, I'm not doing a great job rationalizing the value of an M camera so far....

There are three or four remarkable Leica lenses in the M line-up but there are certainly a number of mid-level M lenses that are more modest performers. In fact, when I compared the Leica (non-APO) 50mm Summicron to the Voigtlander 50mm f2.0 APO-Lanthar lens I found the V lens to be at least as good as it's German rival but at a far lower cost (perhaps one third the cost?). But, be aware that if you use non-Leica M lenses, and Leica M lenses made before Leica started to add a coding feature to their line around the turn of the century, you won't get any sort of electronic information transfer. No exif info. No way to add focal length information or lens correction profiles in camera. 

Oh gosh, again, I'm doing a piss poor job of explaining the appeal of M series Leicas. I did this so much better in my 2000 A.D. article on the Leica M6 cameras for Photo.net. Here's a saved version: https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/search?q=Leica+M6 Thanks Dave Jenkins for the save! The article is hard to find these days giving a lie to the idea that what's on the web is on the web forever..... But maybe bear with me.

I'd like to tell you that Leica M bodies through the ages are built like tanks. And, for the most part it's true. But throughout the ages (with the exception of the M2 and M3, and the original M4) the M bodies have had an embarrassing "Achille's Heel." The focusing mechanisms, the optical triangulation that makes focusing a rangefinder work, often gets knocked out of calibration from rough handling. We're not talking about tossing the camera around and dropping it on the pavement (although that's one way to change rangefinder calibration). We're talking about just daily use bumps and camera bag rides. 

So while I'd love to be able to say that the robust body construction nearly guarantees a long working life I'd have to add the caution that during this "long life" the camera will probably be returned to the mothership for rangefinder recalibrations at least once or twice....

Whew. Not doing a good job here pumping up the brand. Might be why I don't get invited to represent...

Let's talk "feel." I started shooting M cameras with various M3 and M2 cameras around 1980. My favorite moment was the day I could actually afford to walk into Precision Camera and lay down cash money to buy a very well preserved but still previous owned, M4. Not an M4-P or one of the later variants, but the original M4. I felt like I had arrived. 

I carried these camera bodies around for the next twenty years. Other brands came and went but the Leicas lasted right up until we decided to jump into digital cameras via a complete immersion. Everything film-y was replaced by digital cameras and their attendant lenses. It was a wild time. A time when even the shittiest 6 megapixel cameras were priced at levels much higher than the Leica M cameras we'd bought just a few years earlier. In fact, you just have to blame the transition to digital for the wild inflation in camera prices over the last twenty years...

So, I carried at least one Leica M body with me everyday, everywhere. And I got used to the handling. "Got used to..." is the operative phrase. Why? Well, because while the sides of the a Leica M are nicely rounded the bottoms and tops are hard, unforgiving metal edges. Handling one for long periods of time is a masochist's delight. And most of those experiences I had with film Ms long preceded the introduction of things like thumb grips and hand grips. It was a good camera to use with a strap because the strap was your safety leash for a camera that....in your early days of using one.....is almost uniformly uncomfortable and hard to hold compared to the lush, jelly bean camera designs of most cameras now. 

I'm beginning to feel just now like I've suckered myself into an expensive reunion with an ugly girlfriend....

But here's where I'll take a turn to a more positive direction. Looking through the optical viewfinder is wholly different than either looking through an EVF or a DSLR mirrored pentaprism. You see the world directly. There is no black out at time of exposure. No electronic interpretation between what your eye sees directly and what the representative file looks like. Nothing is added because you are not even looking through the taking lens. 

If you are using a 50mm lens, which is mostly my intention, you'll see a bright line frame indicating the boundaries of that focal length. But the entire finder shows an angle of view similar to a 28mm lens. That means the 50mm frames "float" in the center of the finder and allow you to see outside the edges of the frame. You get to see what is about to come into the frame and what is about to exit the frame. You can better predict photographic events. 

Because the optical finder never blacks out during exposures you can actually see the direct effect that a flash has on your photograph. You see the actual flash splash across a subject's face. It's confidence building when shooting stuff like events. You "know" that your flash went off and you know if your subjects' eyes were open --- or closed. 

Also, without all of the required optics that make a DSLR work or an EVF camera work, you get a cleaner, clearer and brighter view of the subjects in front of your camera. Think about it. If you are using a DSLR the image first hits whatever filter you've decided to put in front of your lens, then the light goes through anywhere from 7 to 22 optical glass elements, some smushed together with adhesives, before hitting a semi-silvered mirror which reflects the light up into a silvered glass pentaprism and then through mostly plastic optical finders, modified with adjustable diopters before exiting and registering the image on your eye. A direct optical viewfinder skips almost all those steps. A Leica optical viewfinder does so with a sophisticated emphasis on making any glass in the eyepiece out of real, very high quality glass. And, in addition, the image forming light is going through maybe five or ten fewer air-glass interfaces before you evaluate it. A big nod to greater clarity? A cleaner appraisal of your scene?

The real reason to use an M series Leica is the combination of the optical finder and a preference for focusing with a rangefinder. Remembering back 25 years ago I recall being able to focus much faster and with much greater confidence with a rangefinder. The patches line up or they don't. No gray space. No missed targets. Especially with standard and wider angle lenses. The focusing is binary. 

In all kinds of light. I'm pretty sure that's why I've become re-interested in having an M. It's the different feeling and mental process of viewing, composing and focusing directly through the optical finder that I remember liking. 

So, for me it's not necessarily the Leica lenses. If I need the ne plus ultra of optical performance for a job where I have complete control over lighting and camera movements I'll be reaching for some of that Leica SL glass. Or, better yet, pull out the medium format camera and use some of those great lenses. But...one thing I do like about the M series lenses is that almost to a lens they are half the size of DSLR or other mirrorless lenses. The lenses also lack all mechanical complexity (no I.S., no aperture automation, no motors) so I can convince myself that they will be longer lived and more reliable. 

A large part of my current attraction to the M is to use smaller, but still high performing lenses on a simpler body along with the very good feeling of using a direct optical finder coupled to a rangefinder that can be very accurate in focusing normal and wide angle lenses.

The M would not be my choice for most portraits. Not my choice for exacting work. Not my choice for most advertising jobs either. But consider how much time I spend walking around the streets taking casual photos. The M and the small 50mm lens is perfect for that. 

And here's where the M240 gives me a leg up compared to all the previous generations of Leica M cameras. It's the first Leica M to implement live view. This means that using the camera in the dirty baby diaper hold is now possible. As is checking focus after the fact. As is focus peaking on the rear screen.  You can use longer lenses and punch in to focus. You can even put an EVF on the hot shoe if you want to screw up all the reasons I just lauded as being significant and worthwhile....

I'll probably never use the video capabilities that also arrived for the first time in this M camera. I don't use the truncated video features on the Leica CLs either. But it doesn't bother me that they are there. 

Finally, let me toss in a modest amount of honesty about why I bought a camera I definitely don't need and don't have a pressing use for.... When I was growing into photography, working late night shifts as a short order cook at a local restaurant so I'd have time to show my portfolio during the day but still have enough income to feed myself and pay rent, the idea of buying a Leica was a lofty aspiration. Those cameras were a symbol of a kind of photography I think many in my generation aspired to. Famous photographers might have a brace of Nikons over their shoulders but the best of the best had a Leica rangefinder camera on a short neck strap, hanging down at sternum level. Ready with a 28mm or 35mm that could be focused much quicker than the same focal lengths on manual focusing SLRs. 

They were the cameras of Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, William Klein,  Josef Koudelka, and so many others. They represented a certain freedom from the bulk of "system" cameras. They connoted that the user had evolved up to the camera.  They were and still are the antithesis of "spray and pray" photography. 

When we bought film Leicas back before the turn of the century you could buy a brand new M6 camera for around $1295. Lenses were mostly priced under $1K. But when Leica finally entered the digital market with M cameras the prices started to double and quadruple. It didn't make sense to buy one while running a small business, saving to send a kid to college, paying off a house and taking care of parents. 

Even now, having a good sense of financial security, I would have a hard, difficult, hard time justifying spending over $10K on a Leica M10R black paint edition camera. The biggest "benefit" being more resolution and less noise on the sensor. All else being mostly the same.

I can "reward" myself for a lifetime of frugality and diligence by rekindling the good feelings I had working with an M series camera. Especially with a nicely preserved camera that cost me only $2800. Half of what I paid for much inferior cameras in the early days of digital. Toss the Voigtlander 50 APO on the front and I hope I'll have a fun documentary camera package to play with. Complete with the brass tops and bottoms and the shiny, black paint finish. And this will be the very first M I've ever owned with a black paint finish. 

Would I have it as my "only" camera? Probably not. I get bored quickly. I like the big Leicas (SL, SL2) for use with zooms and longer lenses. I like the MF for its ability to shoot squares and still have lots and lots of detail in the bucket for large black and white portraits. But for those days when you've got all your work done, your calls returned, your bills paid and you want to lace up an old, worn pair of boots and walk through some interesting spaces with nothing on your agenda it seems like it would be a pleasure to do so with a camera like the M. Even if the lenses aren't demonstrably better than those from other makers. 

Before I go I will also make the point that simplicity of operation, concision on the menus, the minimalist design of the interfaces all add up as well. Design for design's sake is not a fault. Not a weakness. It's about clarifying your mental and visual space. Leaving more room to let stuff in. 

While I am not a "writer" per se this blog post required 1.5 hours to write and proof. The advantage is that the material was created using decades of daily photographic experiences and much tenure with M cameras. Not a glancing blow.

P.S. To Gary. You nailed it.  Bottom Line:  I wanted it and I can afford it. Thanks for the inspiration!!!

Blank Signage.

 

Less perfect lenses are more fun. At least on non-job shooting adventures. These two images were taken with the TTArtisan 90mm f1.25 lens for the Fuji GFX. It's a big, fat, heavy lens. It's relatively cheap to buy. It doesn't really, really cover the full 33x44mm format. I don't care. I figured out that if I set the aspect ratio of the frame to 7:6 the lens does a fine job covering that much of the frame while still leaving me nearly 40 megapixels of information. 

I went downtown to go to my bank. It's the last time I'll be at this bank location because they are moving next week. The new location will be closer to my usual route. On the other hand a trip to the bank is always an excuse to leave the car far away and walk through the urban jungle. Well....the urban manicured gardens.

The lens does a good job on the sensor territory it does cover. Even near wide open it does a good job with details. If you keep bright light behind or beside your camera the images are nice and snappy. Put a light source into the shot at your own peril. The GFX 50Sii is a fine camera with lots of dynamic range and big pixels. Just the way I like them. 51 megapixels, if you are able to use the full frame. 38 megapixels if you prefer to crop square like I do. And a few more megapixels if you crop just a bit wider than square --- which also looks very nice. 

We'll probably be the last generation to actually go into a bank. To actually see a human teller. I go there to deposit business checks. Most clients do direct deposits. And I do know how to use my phone app to make deposits. But I love seeing what's happening out in the streets and I like the exercise. The bank is just an excuse. One of my other banks is in San Antonio and while I do a fair amount of business with them over the course of a year I haven't been in their only lobby since 2017. How things have changed. 

In keeping with the laissez faire attitude for today I overcame inertia and made an important life decision.

 I've been buying various M mount lenses for a while. This year I've acquired three that I like. The Carl Zeiss 28mm f2.8, the Carl Zeiss 35mm f2.0, and the Voigtlander 50mm App-Lanthar. They join the Voigtlander 40mm f1.4 lens I bought last year. And used extensively in Vancouver.

I've been using these lenses from time to time on the L mount cameras (SL, SL2, Sigma fp, and Panasonic S5) with various adapters, including a very pricey M to L adapter from Leica. They mostly work well but some of the cheaper adapters (non-Leica) allow lenses to focus past infinity. They mostly work for taking photos but you lose some of the close focus ability of each lens on those "lesser" adapters.

Even though I've been accumulating these M lenses I have been resisting the lure of the M series digital cameras. I was put off by their sheer cost, the need for yet another battery type, and my memory from a decade of shooting with M series film cameras. Seemed back then that rangefinders (the actual mechanics of optical rangefinder triangulation for focusing) had to be handled with kid gloves or they would go out of adjustment and make trying to focus via the rangefinder patches a fool's errand. 

But the other day I was looking at lenses on the Leica Store Miami website and for some bad and unknowable reason I decided to take a quick (and hopefully uninterested) glance at used Leica M rangefinder digital cameras. You know, just to see. 

And there it was. A Leica digital M camera I'd been interested in since its launch in 2012.  The M240.

This one is a black enamel paint model which means that under the finish the top and bottom plates of the camera are brass instead of aluminum. Just as Leicas had been through nearly all of the film days. The brass is heavier and, when you begin to wear off the paint, because you love handling the camera so much you can't imagine ever letting it out of your hands --- the edging shows the warm brass underneath instead of a lifeless, dull, neutral metal. 

The camera in question was little used and is nearly perfectly mint. It comes with a thumb grip and an extra battery. This particular model introduced Leica's 24 megapixel CMOS sensors. It was the first of the M series to feature live view and video capabilities. And it's a very capable photography tool. 

I've had this one in and out of my "shopping cart" at Leica Store Miami maybe five times over the last week. Always hesitant to push the "buy" button. 

Ben was over for dinner last night. I told him about the camera. He is immune to the charms of cameras; even to the charms of Leicas. But he knows his father well. 

After I told him all the cool stuff about the camera he calmly suggested, "Just buy it." My friend Paul had suggested I buy it as well. I thought I was doing such a good job resisting. I asked my spouse with the misguided idea that she would rein in my camera avarice. She just said, "If you want it buy it. Why not?"

Do I have no support network left? No one to restrain my wildest inclinations? No one to help set limits?

Ben shrugged, "Cheaper than an Aston Martin." B. added, "Cheaper than the new fence." Both added, "It's billing for a one day shoot...."

The salesperson on the phone finished me off by casually stating, "You can never have too many Leicas." 

Of course I pulled out a credit card and ordered in on the spot. It'll be here in the next few days. I'm worried it might be a "gateway" drug to a black paint M11. But... would that be such a bad thing?

Besides, I've read that no one actually uses ILC cameras any more. It's all done with phones. The cameras are just for decoration. Especially Leica rangefinders. Purely ornamental.

I just re-read this. It's wonderful to actually read something about a real camera. Especially a really cool camera. 

Just a reminder..... we are not sponsored by any camera maker, lens maker, photo retailer or, in fact, anyone. I guess that makes me self sponsored. All cameras and lenses written about here are purchased with my own funds. No one will go hungry in my extended family because I bought another camera. My imminent retirement is not in peril. No hard choices will need to be made. No begging for patronage will ensue. What a relief. 

Blog stuff. Just tired of the web. And the bloggers. And the rest of it.

 I took a couple of recent blog posts down. Nobody seems to be responding to them anyway and the number of people accessing and interacting with content about actually using cameras, actually working on paying jobs, etc. has been dropping over time. I get it. Interest in actual, current photography is dying out.

You'd really think so if you read photo blogs on the web. But really?

I'm having a blast working on advertising projects. Actual projects done in collaboration with contemporary advertising agencies. Campaigns. Work with young art directors. Real photo work. But I think my readers here are tired of hearing about how we do our jobs. About our plans about which cameras and lenses to use. And maybe I just don't write it all very well.

It seems that everyone is drawn instead to photo blogs that are the online analogy of a book club at which everyone sits around, drinks wine and gossips and pontificates in the comments while only a handful of the participants have actually read this month's book. It's the group vibe and the socializing that's important to them. Online friends? Is that still a concept? Does it actually work for anyone?

I'm not blind to the fact that most of my readers and the readers of other photo blogs know as much important stuff about photography was we do. As the writers do. Some knowledge we hold on to is arcane and only useful in the service of engaging nostalgia for a time well past. I could bore the crap out of most of you with spirited essays about reciprocity failure or the Scheimpflug Principle but why would I want to? Only a tiny percentage of you are interested in shooting film in the dark and even fewer are operating view cameras with front and rear standard movements.... why dredge up trivia and make it sound important and useful? Photo trivia bragging rights?

I took the posts down because, like a series on Netflix, we weren't making our numbers and so we "cancelled" the posts. We're not making money with this blog so I measure the value to me by engagement and I measure that by page views and comments. Something is stuck in the lawn mower blades and I fear I might have to turn it off, look underneath and see what's causing the slow down.

I won't be competing in the writing world by blogging outside my own interests in photography. If you want to read it that's great. If you'd rather not that's great too. 

At the moment it feels like photography, both commercial and artistic, is thriving. Energized and vibrant. But at the same time it's been so much examined, picked over and dissected by the armchair teams that interest and actual engagement by those not in the thick of it is no more entertaining to them than a cooking show or a nostalgia for carburetors in cars or a vivid discussion about trans fats.

And that's how it looks from this side of the keyboard. 

Me?

Not sick. No starving. Not poor. Not lonely. Not disengaged. Not sore. Not bored. 

Just feeling the gap between what I want to write and what you all seem to want to read. Taking a walk instead and, for a change, not planning to post any images from the same. 

Hope your day is interesting...

Everyone is either crazy, scared, pompous, greedy, opinionated, or not on the web... But this camera and lens combination is pretty nice....

I'm pretty much through reading other blogs on the web. Maybe you're ready to throw in the towel on blogs as well. Even this one. I think, pretty much, we've all gotten to the point where we've sucked out all the knowledge there is to squeeze out of topics like photography and cameras and we're just sticking around for the camaraderie and the occasional blog post about a camera we were smart enough to buy. And, if the later is the case we're mostly just looking for an approval of our choices. It's either that or we go to our usual blogs just out of habit. Something to read over coffee. Maybe a break from political fights streaming everywhere. 

The problem is that nearly every blog is someone's opinion. Generally an opinion formed in vacuum of facts. "Everyone is doing this....."  "Nobody is doing this..." "This niche is dead...." "Don't eat this or you'll die!" "Eat this now or you'll die!!!" "Sony cameras are the best." "Leica cameras are the best." "Nikon cameras are the best." Or, my favorite: "All the cameras are crap now and we should all go back to shooting film." And it's the same on other kinds of channels. Camping blogs. Car blogs. Etc. In fact I'm waiting to see "retro" on those other channels. A return to tried and true canvas tents. A renaissance of carburetors in long luxury cars. Along with more V-8s. 

Many photo blogs "spill a lot of ink" begging for money and fostering the presumption that all photographers are impoverished and living on the edge. Again, my point of view is quite different. A lot of working photographers I knew retired wealthy.  I guess it all depends on where your focus lies. And who you hang out with. Some of us think prints and the printing of photographs is dead. Others cling to the idea that prints are some sort of "gold standard." 

One of our favorite long time photo bloggers just announced that he can't give portraits away for free and is toying with the idea of paying people to come by and have portraits made mostly so he can control the process. My point of view is exactly opposite; people pay me to make portraits and portraits still seem to be in demand. People ask for what they see and like. Show work to get work. Show art to get collaborators.  Two points of view exactly opposed. Maybe it depends on where you live. Or how you market. Or some other disconnection.... Blame it on the overall market? Blame it on a trend? At one point do we conjecture that some people are just bad at doing the business end of the art game and that being able to sell a concept is a secret to success? More people who might want to collaborate... if they are exposed in advance to the kinds of work you want to make...

Peter McKinnon (very famous YouTube photo influencer with 5 million+ followers) buys two Leica models, loves them and spends half a video stating that he doesn't understand them, doesn't know how they work, hates the lens cap and thinks they are too expensive. And ends by, again, telling us how much he loves them...

Diet books are back. An endless cycle. Will a new appreciation of pickle ball be far behind? 

Maybe I'm just in a funk after a long week of actually making a living by photographing mostly people, for a large ad agency, for the money,  but I'm thinking we're all just tired of hearing anything more about photography. Really tired. Hence we have the once exclusively writers about photography grasping for new topics and trying hard to hang on to audiences in spite of the topics going off the rails. 

I think we've all finally gotten the message: All cameras are good enough. All lenses are good enough. All post processing software is good enough. The new smart phones are good enough. The new tripods are all good enough. Everything is too expensive now. Only dentists use Leicas. Everything we learned in the film days is as useful as a book of matches in a hurricane now. Photographers are no longer envied. Inflation is uncomfortable. Film is too expensive. "I hope my spouse doesn't find out about my new: Lens, Camera, Flash, Ferrari!!!" (might be a good idea to stop lying to your partner about joint finances). 

I think we're all tired of street photography. I know I'm just exhausted at the prospect of having to look at yet another portfolio of "dramatic" black and white landscape prints/images. I'm tired nearly to death of images of half naked women trying to look "sexy" on share sites. About the only thing I still find interesting on the web is videos about rescued dogs. And that's quickly getting endlessly self-referential. 

How to reconcile all this with my trip to an art gallery today where the average price of contemporary paintings seemed locked in at an average of about $75,000. Somebody is buying art or big galleries wouldn't exist. Just because you and I are not splashing out $125,000 for a Banksy print doesn't mean that someone else isn't. It's all so wildly dis-associative. 

If we're all too poor to buy new cameras and lenses (as some contend) how then to explain the fact that cars costing over $100K are so in demand that there are waiting lists for them --- but not for middle class cars? If the Leica Q3 is so outrageously overpriced then why are the waiting lists at dealers around the world pegged at 18 months to 2 years? Somebody is buying them.

No, I think mostly we age out of hobbies and habits. I've spent a lot of time typing about things I know but I don't think there is anything else in the tank. I like posting stuff because I also like to look at the slides shows of the work. But blogs, videos and podcasts about photography only remind me that we got nearly everything we needed to get figured out figured out years ago. Now we're just like people at church singing the same hymn every Sunday and sinning all week long. We want photography to go back to being cool and interesting. Maybe it will --- at least for people who haven't drained the entire subject into our brains and soaked in it for decades. Hard to know. 

Today was our first day under 100°. I walked through downtown. I noticed a big increase in private security services. I notice things looked cleaner; more locked down. I guess we're gearing up for ACL Fest or something. An inpouring of tourists again. Dear God, I just hope it's not another bout of Formula One. I can't bear to hear that F1 really is a "sport" because the drivers lose 7 pounds of sweat during the race. So do people who sit for too long in saunas... Ah well. 

Leica SL2 camera. Voigtlander 50mm APO Lanthar lens. Timberland boots. All good. 

The beginning of the end of a city's coolness corresponds with the arrival of double decker tour busses. 

At least they are not riding on the sidewalks....

Red.

More red.