One photo in fifty rolls
"I am a tough editor of my work and usually when looking at my contacts I find I can go as many as 50 rolls without getting a good photo."
Bruce Gilden
Thredbo River during last years White on White Workshop in Jindabyne. Copyright © Len Metcalf 2017
Giving your work time to mature
Len muses of his latest photographic discovery when looking back through his work from a year ago. He then discusses how he uses time to help decide which are the masterpieces.
Mist in the Tarkine Wilderness - The Donaldson River, Corrina, The Tarkine. Copyright © Len Metcalf 2017
I have just found this photograph. Well a couple of days ago I rediscovered it, and today I realised how much I really loved it. That was looking at it on the phone. On the full screen of my computer, I am not so sure. So today I will print it out and pin it up on the wall to stare at for a while, to see if it really passes the test of time.
Time seems to answer many questions and solves a lot of problems. Yes, it is true that it doesn't solve all of the worlds and humanities problems, otherwise we would be happily living in utopia. But it does seem to solve creativity problems, it does help decide on if an artwork is resolved. It allows your minds to mature on an idea and on your photographs.
I have read recently that giving your images time to breathe, to mature and grow is bullshit. They cited reasons and talked about Garry Winogrand. How terrible it was that he didn't see all of his work. It seemed to play down on his obvious genius. Criticised his demeanour. It was actually very disappointing to read. I am surprised how dogmatic some photographers and writers on photography can be. I suppose they think it brings them clicks, or perhaps they are just like that as people. Who are you to tell someone what is right or wrong? Isn't better to just describe what you do and express your opinions as opinions. Nothing more. To urge people to experiment visually and with their thinking is to be celebrated.
To tell others what to do should be condoned. Is much like the photoshop argument, which I hate, we argue where the line of post-processing ends and manipulation begins. For me, it starts when I start to imagine the photograph. The manipulation grows as I use my camera, actively changing how the photograph is going to look. I stop with burning and dodging, and a bit of spot removal. That is because I love the taking photographs. I dislike (hate and despise even) my time at the computer. I don't think I have used Photoshop for the past ten years. I stop the post-production manipulation at a point that suits me. Who am I to tell you when to stop using photoshop. You should stop at the point where you find yourself with a resolved photograph or one you feel you need to abandon. Process as much as you love to do.
When I write that time is the answer to many questions, that is just my opinion. You don't have to follow my advice. I am actually just suggesting that you go back and revisit your work, and spend time with it. So with this in mind lets revisit the included image.
On first viewing, I would have discounted it because the branch in the upper right-hand corner is disappointingly soft. I tell people, sharpness is an illusion, and that sharpness like many things photographic depends on size. So I won't really know if it is sharp enough until I print it out at my favourite size. My eye scans the edges of the photograph. I am looking for distractions. There are some, but the question is are they too much or not. I could darken the vignette, but that would change the natural one. I could clone it out, but I don't like doing that. I could burn it down a bit. But I intuitively think it doesn't need it. Again, on my computer where the photograph is larger than the printed size, I can't really tell. So yet again I come back to the same answer. Print it out Len, have a look at it. And see how you feel about it over time.
So I print it out. Look. I stare. I analyse with my logic. I listen to my feelings. I judge.
It looks good, the branch is marginally soft, but not obviously so at normal viewing distance. The tree in the lower corner isn't the distraction I imagined. So as an act of finishing it, I number it #1. I title it, "The Donaldson River, The Tarkine". I sign it. I emboss it with my studio's stamp and the business logo.
I take it to my bedroom and blue tac it to my grandfather's wardrobe. Yes, that is also special to me, for he made it well before I was born. Now I can really live with it. Actually, if all of my picture frames weren't in an exhibition I think this one is worthy of a frame.
But the frame needs to wait. The next few months of looking at it will seal its fate. Will it get ripped up. Will it get thrown in the box of old prints? Will it get a frame? Will it get exhibited? Right now I don't know. But one day the answer will just arrive.
The real moral of this article, the one that I started with in my mind, is the same one I have been telling people for ages. Give your work time.
So here are some things I do:
I only have one rating system. Five stars for outstanding work. That is it. I don't use four stars or any less. It is the flagging system that is built into Lightroom. But I don't like to give a photography a flag, I prefer to give it five stars. A little bit of positive psychology just for myself. When I go through my lifelong digital catalogue on Lightroom there is just over 9,000 five star photographs. The reality is that most of them probably don't deserve that rating. But by doing so I get to revisit ones that I thought had merit sometime in the past.
I often let my photographs sit on my camera for some time before I download them. So last week I did a shoot with a model in lingerie, the first one in what seemed like years. I waited a few days before looking at them. So I could forget what I was trying to achieve when I took them. Forget the look I was going for. This is because I didn't want to judge them on striving for that look. If it I don't succeed I will often discount the photograph rather than judge it purely on its artistic merit.
I regularly revisit shoots from a year ago, and even longer. I pick a full trip. Say, all of my Tarkine photographs. I then go through all of the images again. I take my time, I savour them. I assess and judge them again, without the memory of taking them. Well, usually I can't remember. Some photographs are just so memorable I can't let them go. Do you know that every time I do this I usually find a better photograph than all of the ones I have previously given five stars too? That is what I am doing I am looking for the hidden gems. The ones I glossed over. The ones I judged as failures. My taste may have changed, my memory might have faded, my emotions will have shifted. Search for the gems, and the masterpieces. They are there hidden amongst your previous work.
I live with my work that I think is going to be amazing. I show people these photographs. I will put them on the web, present them in camera club talks, I will put them into my workshops. This is so I keep seeing them. It gives me time to live with them. Slowly my feelings change, either they grow or slowly they fade.
I print my work. I pin it to the walls. I blue-tac them to the cupboards. I use a magnet and put them on the fridge. I try to do this at the finished size, but I often do small little prints. I own a little Canon Zelphie printer, it only does 4 x 6 inch prints. It gives me a working proof that is great. If it is going to be an exhibition print, I print it off at A3 and live with it at that size too. Sometimes I even frame them and put them on the wall. There have been times when I have taken the frame down, removed the print and ripped it up.
Really look at your photographs. I mean stare at them. Not for a minute or two. But for much longer. Ten minutes. Twenty? An hour! Over a month. A year. Allow your mind to drift. Notice your feelings. Analise your work. Really get to know it. Work out what works for you.
Locations and possibilities
Do you chase known locations or photographs?
Still haven't captured those trees at Minni Haha to my satisfaction, but I do enjoy this one in the creek. Copyright © Len Metcalf 2017
I am driving down to Minni Haha Falls in Katoomba this beautiful misty foggy morning. I realise that many years ago I would be coming here because the place was on my tick list of search engine queries. I wanted photos from all the iconic locations that didn't look like the ones before me.
I realise now how wrong I was. Today I come here for the white gums. There is a stand of stunning trees here and I have failed to capture their beauty so I am hoping the mist will be thick enough and I will find something to photograph. Today, if the photograph doesn't come, I will happily move on.
Oh how I have changed. Instead of chasing places I now chase photographs. So much more fun, relaxing and rewarding.
How many photographs have you taken?
Katoomba Falls, The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area Copyright © Len Metcalf
“Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.”
Punctuation; the space between
Len's presentation to the On Landscape, A Meeting of the Minds Conference in The Lake District, United Kingdom, November 2016.
Len's talk from the On Landscape, Meeting of the Minds Conference in the Lake District in the United Kingdom in November 2016.
Len discusses the space between objects and his exploration of it as a subject matter.
This is a long talk as it goes for an hour, so you might like to get a cuppa before you sit back to watch it all.
Please enjoy
Depth Captivates
Two photographs showing the difference between a misty mountains day and a clear one.
Whilst, not exactly the same composition, in these two photographs you can clearly see the difference between a clear morning and a misty morning. I love the extra depth the mist brings to the first one. No wonder I love photographing in the mist despite the extra difficulties it brings.
Olympus 25mm f1.2 Pro Review
Len has just spent a month with his Olympus M.Zukio 25mm f 1.2 Pro Lens, and in this review he discusses his observations. He also shows direct comparison with the Olympus 25mm f1.8 lens and the Voitlander 25mm f 0.95 lens.
Scotland pine forest, plantation that will be replaced with the areas natural trees in the near future. Olympus EM-1 & Olympus 25mm f1.2 shot handheld @ 1/10 second, f 5.6 1600 ISO
I was able to pick up an early copy of the new Olympus M.Zukio 25mm f 1.2 Pro lens designed for micro four thirds. It is a large heavy lens, it feels a little more bulky than my Voitlander 25mm f 0.95 lens which has been my favourite micro four thirds lens for the past seven years. It was clearly my favourite lens with over 95% of all of my digital photographs being taken with that lens. It had its faults, namely the jittery or nervous bokeh, the ultra soft and often too soft rendering wide open with a bit of haloing going on. And it wasn't weather proof. I used that lens in the rain, and it did suffer. It would eventually fog up internally, the aperture would get gritty, and I would have to stop working.
I purchased the 12mm - 40mm f2.4 Olympus Pro Zoom so I could work in the rain, but unfortunately zooms and I don't get on too well.
When the Olympus was rumoured to be of Pro quality and hence weather proofed I knew it was a lens I wanted. I put my pre order in the day it was announced. Picked up as soon as it was available at the store. It has hardly come off since I purchased it. So here are my first impressions.
The good...
It is weather proof - my primary reason for buying this lens
It has the same filter size as the other Pro lenses 62mm
It has a great lens hood. It shelters the lens from rain quite effectively. It has a different clip system than Olympus has given us before and it works very well.
The lens has an amazingly beautiful out of focus areas, at all apertures. The bokeh is delicious. Have a look at the photographs. It simply is stunning.
The lens is sharp. I look forward to seeing some tests to confirm my suspicions that this lens was designed for the new high-resolution modes on the Olympus cameras and will easily out resolve the current sensor technology.
It is sharp to the edges that I use, when I shoot square.
The resolution seems to be fantastic from f2.4 through to f 8.0 other f stops are very usable. I wouldn't worry myself about only using the sharpest f stops and I would use all of them.
It is a stunning portrait lens, it works beautifully with nudes as well.
It has the start of swirly bokeh at f 1.2 reminiscent of Petzval lenses such as the famed French Darlot. It only shows itself when the conditions are just right. This is when the out of focus lines follow the circumference of the lens. (there is probably a better way to describe this, suggestions welcome)
I can focus it manually without having to zoom in to see the focus in the viewfinder. This is a very important issue for me, as the Voitlander lens that the Olympus replaces snaps into clear focus. I prefer using manual focus all the time.
I love the 25mm focal length, and this lens is just a joy to use and look at images taken with it.
and the bad...
It is a bulky lens
The micro contrast is gentle and shows less contrast than my other 25mm micro four thirds lenses. I think smoothness topped sharpness when this lens was designed.
The sharp roll-off from the sharp to the blur is quite pronounced. I am noticing I have to stop the lens down further than I did with my previous lens. It is more of an adjustment in my working practices rather than really a disadvantage
It is on the expensive side, but considering what you are getting I think it is worth the money.
It is more of a portrait lens when shot wide open than a landscape lens, but once I stop it down I don't notice any more.
It is expensive & the 25mm f 1.8 is almost as good at many landscape photographers working apertures.
Sometimes in manual focus, when the focus clutch is pulled back for manual focus, the lens becomes disengaged from the focus by wire mechanism. This happened to me on a number of occasions on cold mornings, and was quickly fixed by disengaging the clutch and then reengaging it again. I hope this doesn't continue.
The close focus distance isn't as close as my Voitlander 25mm f 0.95, so that means I will have to carry my 60 mm macro around a bit more I suspect.
Sharp enough for me
So far the prints that I have made from this lens are outstanding, and are indistinguishable in sharpness from my standard reference lens the Voitlander 25mm f0.95 shot at 2.8 hit 82 lpmm. My camera only resolves about 52 lpmm. I don't know exactly how sharp this lens is, but I can't tell the difference in my prints and that is all that matters.
Beautiful out of focus areas
Beautiful results with figures
Andrea poses for our Fine Art Nude Workshop where we explored natural light nudes. Olympus 25mm f 1.2 shot at f5.6
Ama poses for the Fine Art Nude Photography Workshop, held in the Blue Mountains. Olympus 25mm f 1.2 shot at f2.5
Comparing between apertures
Comparisons at different f stops
The Olympus 25mm f1.2 shot at f1.2 on the left and f 5.6 on the right. Here I can see a sharpness difference with the lens being slightly softer wide open. Notice how the micro contrast improves as the lens shuts down. I suspect this lens has been consciously optimised for portaits.
The Olympus 25mm f1.2 shot at f1.2 on the left and 5.6 on the right. There is definitely a difference in sharpness, with the lens being softer wide open. This is to be expected in my humble opinion.
Is that swirly bokeh I see?
Comparisons between the Voitlander 25mm f 0.95, the Olympus 25mm F1.2 and the f1.8 lenses
Olympus 25mm f1.2 on left and Voitlander 25mm f0.95 on right both shot at f 1.8 - The Voitlander has better micro contrast, while the Olympus has smoother bokeh. I can't pick the difference in sharpness.
Olympus 25mm f1.2 on left and Voitlander 25mm f0.95 on right both shot at f 2.8 - The Voitlander has better micro contrast, while the Olympus has smoother bokeh. I can't pick the difference in sharpness.
Olympus 25mm f1.2 on left and Voitlander 25mm f0.95 on right both shot at f 11 - The Voitlander is now a little softer, with micro contrast dropping off as well.
Olympus 25mm f1.2 on left and Olympus 25mm f1.8 on right both shot at f 1.8 - The f1.8 appears to have better micro contrast, while the f1.2 Pro version has smoother out of focus areas. I can't pick the difference in sharpness.
Olympus 25mm f1.2 on left and Olympus 25mm f1.8 on right both shot at f 5.6 - Now I am really struggling to see the differences. The 1.2 now has lovely micro contrast, it still has a little smoother out of focus areas.
Notice the difference between the Olympus 1.2 on the left and the Voitlander 0.95 on the right
The Olympus 25mm f 1.2 has a beautiful soft bokeh, it renders out of focus areas beautifully. Compare this with the image on the right, note how jittery the figure is. I would describe this as a nervous bokeh.
Field of view differences between 25mm lenses
Olympus 25mm f 1.2 on the left, Olympus 25mm f 1.8 middle, Voitlander 25mm f 0.95 right. Despite the same focal length the lenses all have a slightly different angle of view. Note, these are shown in the order they were taken. I used my large format heavy duty tripod designed to take 15 kgs, so the tripod didn't move.
How close can you go?
All set at the minimum focus distance. Olympus 25mm f 1.2 left, Olympus 25mm f 1.8 centre, Voitlander 25mm f 0.95 right, all shot at f 2.0 - note I have increased the clarity on all of these to make it easier to see the areas in focus.
A few more to whet your appetite
Scotland... just stunning... Olympus 25mm f 1.2 @ f 6.3
@ f6.3 in case you were wondering... shot with an EM-1 & the Olympus 25mm f 1.2
CONCLUSIONS
This is a unique lens and it fits in well in my arsenal of lenses. It has its quirks. Namely, I am finding I need to stop it down a little more than my previous 25 mm. I have been out shooting with this lens in the pouring rain, and that has already made this lens a firm favourite. Not having to hold an umbrella over my camera to work is a god send. It is so appreciated. The swirly bokeh is quite cute when it comes. The soft gentle bokeh is a delight to utilise in my work. It is just gorgeous. The lens appears sharp across the whole frame, well the bits I use anyway. Yes that is an advantage of shooting square, I get to use the best bit of the lens for all of my work. I have to add vignette in post processing, as I never see any.
This lens is a delight to use in manual mode. Apparently it focuses quickly, but I haven't noticed that as I it has rarely been there for me.
I doubt that my Voitlander will see much use now, and this lens is destined to become my favourite. Time will tell, but after the last month with this lens I haven't felt the need to return to my stalwart lens.
I think Olympus has produced a fantastic beautiful and functional lens, that will suit those of us who love the nifty fifty focal length.
NOTES
All photographs are taken with an Olympus EM-1 micro four thirds camera
All images have been shot in raw, and processed in Lightroom
I haven't used any of the lightroom lens corrections or presets
I usually use tripods, a very heavy one, though I do a lot of handheld work too. This little review has shots taken both ways.
If you come across any sharpness tests please let me know.
Most of the photographs in this review are clickable to see a large on screen version.
Thanks for taking the time to read to the end..
I run photographic workshops in Australia, come and join me one day...
Len's favourite photographs for the 2016 year to date
So far 2016 has been a great year of photography for me, here are some of my favourite shots. It is amazing that all of these were taken on workshops. Either ones I have lead, or ones I have attended.
Click on a photograph to go to full screen, and browse through them from there...
Learning to draw, learning to see...
Learning to draw will improve your photography. Learning to draw in charcoal will help you understand and compose in tones. In this short article Len explains why you would want to learn to draw, and how to get started..
Glass House Rocks, Narooma, Copyright © Len Metcalf 2016
Dear Len.
A good friend of mine attended one of your presentations at the Norths Camera Club.
He took some notes of your presentation and on sent them to me. I read these with keen interest and was intrigued by one of your thoughts'- to "Learn to draw with a pencil and charcoal".
When you have time, I was wondering if you could shed some light for me on this thought of yours and how this activity can impact on my photography.
Once again, thank you for your time and help.
Kind Regards
John
Dear John,
As well as an accomplished photographer I am a trained and experienced art teacher. My major at art school was photography while my minor was the beautiful art of lithography, a printmaking process based on drawing with grease pencils and beautiful black inks. Learning to draw taught me how to see and how to compose.
So what does this have to do with photography?
Firstly it has to do with learning to see. Just as photography is a lesson in learning how to see, so too is drawing. Each discipline will teach you something different. Drawing will teach you how to see. The best photographers can really see. So my suggestion is simple.
Put a huge effort into learning how to see.
How to learn to draw.
The best text on how to do this for the beginner is Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. The only better way is to find a great drawing teacher, mind you they are hard to find in my humble opinion.
One of her secrets is learning to switch off the left logical part of the brain that controls what we think we see. We need to really look, and not imagine what we see. An exercise she uses with great success is to turn the object you are drawing upside down (a chair for example) and so you draw what you are seeing and not what you are imagining. The amazing thing is that when you do this exercise you will instantly see a better result in your drawing. It is like someone turned on the light for you. Before you know it, you will drawing the ground, around the figure with grace.
This is the same reason that photographers love large format cameras for composition. Seeing the image on the ground glass, back the front and up side down, helps distance our logical minds from the what we imagine we are seeing, and really look at the shapes and composition. Do you know when I am giving feedback to my photography students I examine each photograph upside down before I make any comments.
When you learn to draw you learn to draw using the negative space. You actually measure and concentrate on the negative space. You slowly learn to compose the negative space. As your drawing develops, so will your ability to see, to observe.
Taking this to the next step is learning to draw in charcoal, a beautiful medium. One that requires you getting your hands really dirty. Wear old clothes and really immerse yourself in the drawing. Drawing in charcoal is about loosening up, using more than just your hand, but using your whole body to draw. Best done at an easel standing. Drawing is about connecting with your artwork with your whole body.
Charcoal is a beautifully dense black. Once you have have the basics of line, the next learning is about tone. This is where charcoal really shines. You can easily and quickly block in areas of beautiful tone with charcoal. Learning how to see the tones and learning how to compose the tones will really help your photography. As I have said previously "Tone trumps colour".
Did you know that artists when they are fleshing out a painting start with a huge wide brush and a dark tone and put them down first. We don't start with a line drawing. We start with the tonal composition. A good trick in learning how to see tones is to squint your eyes. Shut off the cones and go with the rods that work well in low light, we do this by reducing the amount of light to our eyes. Squinting does this quickly.
My last point, is about another similarity between drawing and photography besides the obvious 'drawing with light' with which the term photography is derived. Is that you are usually working on a flat two dimensional rectangular piece of paper. Usually, I say clearly, as you can draw in other shapes, just as you can photograph in other shapes. This similarity is fantastic to work with as the similarities in good composition in a photograph and in a drawing are so similar, each benefits from the other.
So learning to draw will help you learn how to see better. Learning to draw in tones will help you with your composition.
John, I hope this helps explain what I was thinking when I said that at the presentation.
Thanks for asking.
Kindest regards,
Len
Play to Learn
The Tarkine, Tasmania, Australia Copyright © Len Metcalf 2016
Advice on how to PLAY with your Camera and Photography
“Play is how we learn. It Is research, it is experimentation, it is getting away from what you
expect. As children, we play to learn, but as adults, we are at risk at losing this ability to
play, due to our adult thoughts and expectations. The best way to learn how to take
photographs is to take them. Playing with what is possible. It is how we discover new
techniques, new ways of seeing and it is how we discover our own photographic style and
signature. To learn and understand we must play more. Through play we incrementally
improve.
Let go the final outcome. Rather than setting out to achieve a photographic masterpiece, set
out to see what you can find visually and what you can create. Explore photographic
variations by creating multiple visual answers, rather than creating just one definitive visual
answer.”
By Len Metcalf – from Issue 84 (winter 2016) of Better Photography, page 66
It is not the critic who counts
Dip Falls, the Tarkine, Tasmania. Copyright (c) Len Metcalf 2016
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt
I shoot with my heart
" My photography is not ‘brain photography’. I put my brain under the pillow when I shoot. I shoot with my heart and with my stomach." Anders Petersen
Leura Cascades, PhotographCopyright © Len Metcalf 2016
“ My photography is not ‘brain photography’. I put my brain under the pillow when I shoot. I shoot with my heart and with my stomach.”
Works of art are...
Hopewell, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand, © Len Metcalf 2016
Works of art are of an infinite loneliness and with nothing so little to be reached as with criticism. Only love can grasp and hold and be just toward them.
Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
choosing a mirrorless camera
John wrote to me yesterday and asked me for some advice about choosing a Mirrorless camera. I started writing back to him, and thought I should turn this into a blog post about my current thoughts on which cameras to consider when going mirrorless.
Wabi Sabi - Hopewell, New Zealand, Olympus OM-D EM-1, Voitlander 25mm f0.95 lens © Len Metcalf 2016
On Friday, 11 March 2016, <john> wrote:
Hi Len
My name is John and I live in Abbotsford Sydney.
I have and am enjoying your photography. Your images are wonderful.
A question that you must be asked by so many, but please forgive the question again.
I know that the most important ingredient to capturing an image is the person behind the camera and the available light. I have been looking to purchase a mirror less camera and the choice is quite bewildering. So many different opinions. I am enjoying your images and am wondering if you can give me some advice re this choice. I would appreciate any help that you could send my way.
Kind Regards
John
Dear John,
The first question you need to ask yourself is what sort of photographs you would like to take? If tracking of sports athletes is a high priority then Mirrorless may not be the right choice. Would you like a range of zoom lenses or a set of primes. Is weight and size your highest priority?
The second question is how big will you print? As this can sway your choice with the number of mega pixels becoming important. If you never plan to print larger than A2 with the majority of your prints at A3 then 16 mega pixels is more than sufficient. Actually ten was more than enough for my work.
Personally I am very biased towards Micro Four Thirds because it is an open mount. Meaning that any manufacturer is welcome to join and make cameras or lenses. I think this is admirable in a world where competitors try to keep you tied into their brand by forcing you to lock into their system. Because of this you have the widest range of cameras and lenses of any other mirror less system. For ethical reasons alone Micro Four Thirds is a sound choice. I find the lenses and bodies a lovely compromise between size, sharpness and quality. I always hoped some other camera manufacturers would come on board such as Fuji, Leica and Sony or lens makers like Zeiss, but alas they have chosen their own paths.
The Micro Four Thirds system clearly has the best and most comprehensive lens choice in any of the Mirrorless systems with around 70-100 lenses to choose from. I must admit I don't know how many there are. I started counting and stopped at fifty and still wasn't close. There is a list on this page here.
I am also biased towards in camera image stabilisation. It works very very well and it can be used on any lens. I can hand hold at half a second and get a reasonable photograph. It is just so fantastic for people that have trouble hand-holding.
Olympus is by far my favourite mirror less camera manufacturer. My love affair with their cameras started with my OM-1, my first slr. My first camera I loved. It was the first compact slr and it is no coincidence that its dimensions closely matched the Leica M3 as it is also a lovely camera to hold and use.
In Micro For Thirds their cameras are a firm favourite for still photography. The sensor based image stabilisation system is outstanding and for that alone their cameras lead the pack. Some of the cameras are too small and benefit from extra grips. I always buy the Really Right Stuff camera plates and add them to the camera. The EM-5's handling substantially improves with their extra grip. The EM-1 with the Really Right Stuff base plate extends the camera body just enough to get my little finger around it which makes the camera very comfortable in my large hands. For all day use the EM-1 is my preferred camera, and for walking where every ounce counts I like the EM-5 mk2, which is also my preferred camera for videoing as it has a headphone jack in the extra grip so I can monitor my audio input levels.
The Panasonic cameras are well known for their beautiful colour renditions and their high quality video. One of their latest models now includes sensor based image stabilisation. A huge improvement which I hope to see on all their future cameras. I can't comment on their use as I have never used one. You tend to find that Micro Four Thirds users are either in the Olympus or Panasonic camps and won't consider the other. A few members of my family have Panasonic cameras who aren't very serious photographers so they shoot in jpg and print or share their work. The colours and photographs from the Panasonic cameras is always outstanding. So I have no reason to doubt their quality. It was that the image stabilisation system they initially developed didn't work with my favourite lenses.
Fuji has a solid range of mirror less cameras. They are renowned for their beautiful colour rendition and and lovely lenses. They use a very different sensor array. The colours are layer out differently and therefore many third party image processing engines used to struggle with processing their raw files. So make sure you check this out before going ahead with Fuji. Some may find their lens choice limiting while others say it sufficient. Fuji cameras are very popular among street shooters as there are a few models that have hybrid viewfinders that allow for either electronic or optical and both mixed together. A feature that isn't seen in any other manufacturers cameras.
Sony's latest mirror less offerings now have sensor based image stabilisation. They apparently work equally as well as the Olympus ones. My theory is that they bought half of the company just to get this technology then sold it on latter once they had it. There are few lenses to choose from and the lenses are much larger than Micro Four Thirds. So you may find you end up with a heavier kit. Many of my students went to a shop to buy an Olympus and came back with a Sony. I think the full frame and large mega pixel count is an easy up sell (the camera store makes more money when you buy a more expensive system). You will be spending 2 - 3 times as much money as you would on an equivalent Micro Four Thirds kit when you consider the lenses. It would end up being nearly twice as heavy overall too. Mind you these students who have gone with the Sony love them dearly and haven't ever looked back. There is plenty of room if you want to crop. They also make an amazing low light camera that has great high ISO capabilities. The Sony system has limited lens choice so consider if they have the lenses you want before committing to it.
I haven't looked at the Canon or Nikon offerings in Mirrorless much as they seem to be very limited with lenses.
The new Sigma Quatro looks interesting, though only a few lenses might be limiting. The Samsung Mirrorless System didn't pass the economic test of time.
The only other Mirror less camera I would consider is the Alpa / Phase One A-Series combination which I actually lust over. When I can afford the price of it yes I would love to use it, but alas for now the plus price tags put it firmly in the 'Len you're dreaming' category.
When buying a new camera I now start with the lenses, for the most interesting and desirable camera in the world is useless to me unless I can find an as equally desirable lens. I have written an article on my thoughts for Micro Four Thirds lens choices, which you can read here.
I have another article brewing in my head comparing full frame with micro four thirds, with the advantages going to micro four thirds. After the last nine months with a full frame DSLR, my conclusion is that it is not worth the pain it causes. ;)
I wish you well in your search and purchases
Kindest regards
Len
Accidental masterpiece - Chuck Close
Photography may be the easiest artistic medium, with the possibility that someone may accidentally create a masterpiece. This therefore makes it the hardest artistic medium. Chuck Close explains this further very eloquently...
Cathedral Rocks, Kiama, NSW, Australia © Len Metcalf 2016
"The thing that interests me about photography and why it's different from all other media, is that it's the only medium in which there is even the possibility of an accidental masterpiece. You cannot make an accidental masterpiece if you're a painter or a sculptor. It's just not going to happen. Something will be wrong.
This is simultaneously photography's great advantage and it's Achilles heel: it is the easiest medium in which to be competent. Anybody can be a marginally capable photographer, but it takes a lot of work to learn to become even a competent painter. Now, having said that, I think while photography is the easiest medium in which to become competent, it is probably the hardest one in which to develop an idiosyncratic personal vision. It's the hardest medium in which to separate yourself from all those other people who are doing reasonably good stuff and to find a personal voice, your own vision, and to make something that is truly, memorably yours and not someone else's. A recognised signature style of photography is an incredibly difficult thing to achieve.
It always amazes me that just when I think that there's nothing left to do in photography and that all the permutations and possibilities have been exhausted, someone comes along and puts the medium to a new use, and makes it his or her own, yanks it out of this kind of amateur status, and makes it as profound and moving and as formally interesting as any other medium. It is like pushing something heavy up hill. Photography's not an easy medium. It is, finally, perhaps the hardest medium of them all."
- Chuck Close p30 Photowisdom, Lewis Blackwell, Hachette, Sydney, Australia, 2015 3rd Edition.
Film is a Disease
Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream, it takes over as the number one hormone; it bosses the enzymes; directs the pineal gland; plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to film is more film.
-Frank Capra
“Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream, it takes over as the number one hormone; it bosses the enzymes; directs the pineal gland; plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to film is more film.”
Peter Dombrovskis
"...the more preoccupied I become with photography and with producing 'results', the less productive becomes my vision. The more open and receptive I am to find those objects of beauty that are symbols of the mysterious and unknowable. The search is always more important than the goal."
- Peter Dombrovskis
"The pursuit of photography and the experience of wilderness are uneasy companions. We go to the wilds to reaffirm our place in the natural scheme of things, to be rejuvenated by contact with elemental forces and to be reminded that the civilised bagage with which we complicate our lives is perhaps not so important to our happiness as the advertising man would claim.
Therefore, when my rucksack is already straining at the seams with the essentials of food, shelter and clothing, is seems folly indeed to add a metal box crammed with mechanical, optical and electronic gadgetry. How then do I justify my vocation? For wilderness demands answers from all who travel there.
Photography is, quite simply, a means of communicating my concern for the beauty of the Earth; and making images is a need which sometimes borders on the compulsive. But without the opportunity for communication that photography offers, my journeys into the wild would perhaps lose some of their motivation. And here lies a paradox, because the more preoccupied I become with photography and with producing 'results', the less productive becomes my vision. The more open and receptive I am to find those objects of beauty that are symbols of the mysterious and unknowable. The search is always more important than the goal. When the images of nature become more important than the experience of wilderness it will be time to leave my camera at home."
- Peter Dombroviskis, Author's comment, from Peter's 1985 Wilderness Diary
including stars in your landscapes
Len describes how to add stars to your photographs with some tips on astrophotography.
Arkaroola Starry Night - The Gammon Ranges / Flinders Ranges, South Australia
Astrophotography is taking photographs at night. In this short set of notes we will look at getting acceptably sharp stars in our photographs using the 500 rule. We will be limited by your equipment and locations. Firstly you need to be somewhere away from cities and bright lights. Much like the places they build observatories. The city lights reduce our ability to see the stars as they reflect off the atmosphere reducing the amount of light that gets through, which effectively reduces the amount of stars in our photographs. So go bush dear friends, and find a clear night sky.
Next you will need a fast lens. F1.2 to f1.4 will work best. You may get away with a f 2.8 lens. Any slower and this won't work. Don't have an f 1.4 lens yet? Why not, for their price they are one of the most important lenses in your kit. They are sharp, fast and relatively cheap. Go for a standard one. 50 mm equivalent on 35 mm is the one recommend and is my personal favourite. It was always the lens they used to see with a film slr before zooms became popular. There is a reason for this, and that is they are cheap to make and have outstanding performance. They also can be made to look wide angle and telephoto in skillful hands. For the last three years I lived with one lens, and a 50 mm equivalent was it. I can frame my shot without a camera for this lens now. An amazing thing that helps me take great photographs.
You camera needs a few characteristics too. Firstly you need to be able to shoot at 15 - 30 seconds. Sometimes you may need to go past a minute. Secondly you need a camera that works well at higher ISO's, in the 1000 to 6400 range. Lastly you need a tripod and a way to fire the camera without introducing vibration. If you have an SLR you will need to lock the mirror up and use a cable release. With mirrorless cameras you can just use a delay. I use the two second one, but I do have a very solid tripod designed for a very heavy large format camera, so my camera is very solid on it.
To focus your camera just focus on infinity. Close enough to those stars I suspect ;)
Shoot RAW and worry about white balance latter. Put your long exposure noise reduction on or set to auto. This will take longer when you as now your camera will take a second photograph of blackness with the shutter closed after your first photograph, and subtract the hot white pixels from your original exposure. This is called a dark frame subtraction and reduces noise in your final image. Well worth the wait in my opinion.
The way to figure out exposure is by trial and error. So I just dial in the following settings, take one photograph and then adjust my settings for optimum picture quality. I like to bring my ISO down to keep the noise low.
I would start with a 10 second exposure at f 1.4 at 3600 ISO
When considering exposure I like my night photographs to look like night, so I often drop the exposure to make them a little darker. I prefer to do this post processing though. You will also need to consider the moon and this will effect your final exposure.
To figure out what the longest shutter speed you can use with your lens use the '500 rule'.
500 divided by focal length in 35mm equivalent = maximum shutter speed in seconds for sharp stars.
So with my 25 mm lens on my micro four thirds camera is a 50 mm equivalent.
500 / 50 = 10 seconds
Now you can hopefully see how I determined my exposure.
The wider the lens the longer you will have.
Go and practice. Lots experiments the next time you get away from the city.