The winning lens at yesterday's shoot? A dinosaur optic that continues to be just right.

The ultimate portrait lens? 

Shooting portraits has been the mainstay of my business for many, many years. I'm not picky though; if you want me to shoot some landscapes or buildings for an annual report I'm happy to oblige. If you've got some sort of process that needs documenting you can count me in for that as well, but the bulk of what I get hired for is portraits. 

And like most photographers who have come to this business from other professions I suffer with issues of self-confidence. After all, there's no formal licensing, no tests to pass and no real rules that regulate how we go about doing our work. It's highly subjective. You eat by making images that get approved by clients. You get the clients by doing your marketing right. 

But most of us consciously or sub-consciously think that having the "best" gear gives us an advantage over our competition (even though we all have access to, and end up buying pretty much the same basic inventory). I know from talking to lots and lots of guys who either do photography for a living or love photography as a hobby that most of us are looking for magic camera bodies and lenses that will give us a leg up on everyone else. Super-charge our vision. Leave the less well inventoried in the dust. How else do we explain the ability to rationalize the $4000+ Zeiss Otus lenses which offer a bit better quality, wide open than lenses that cost half or even a tenth the purchase price? Especially when experience shows us (time after time) that we're stopping down out of the need to get enough depth of focus, most of the time. And we're pretty sure that the wide open advantage of the most precious optical systems generally evaporates compared to more pedestrian lenses as we hit the well used range of f4.0 to f8.0.

Being an anxious person who is largely self-taught in photography I have all of the problems with self-confidence that most other people struggle with. Maybe more so than beginners because I am only now coming to grips with just how much I don't know...

So I rush to buy the cool optics. And the cool cameras. Sometimes it actually pays off. The Nikon D610s and D810s actually make beautiful files that have everything a working pro could want: lots of good detail, low noise and crazy good dynamic range. But most of the time it's a crap shoot. 

I've recently bought a Sigma 50mm Art lens and I must tell you that the images generated at it's widest apertures just smoke everything else I own. I keep trying to use it on jobs but I keep finding out that the wide open performance is, for the most part, a chimera that goes unused in day-to-day work. I tried to use it at the theater on Tues. but it was just not a long enough focal length. When I did use it I could easily see that the limited depth of field at the money apertures was nowhere near enough to keep two actors, separated by just a few feet, in sharp focus. We need f5.6 to do that.....

I tried to use the lens in a shoot yesterday that consisted of environmental portraits but again, it was too short. Even my very well regarded Nikon 85mm was a bit short to corral the background in just the right way. All the fast f-stops in the world are more or less meaningless if the focal length isn't right for the shot. I guess you could crop your frame but....

The lens I keep reaching for is probably the cheapest lens I've paid for in years. It's the Nikon manual focus, 105mm f2.5 ais. Yesterday I fought and fought to use the 50mm and the 85mm but the 105mm kept floating back and solving my need to create shallow depth of field while keeping cluttered backgrounds at bay. The perspective is just right for portraits. I mean just right. 

I've always been a bit nervous about using manual focus lenses on DSLRs because the cameras aren't really set up to manually focus well. I worry that the green confirmation spot is too generous, too willing to say "yes" when the real sharpness is saying "no." I got burned by the focus shift of the "vaunted" Zeiss 85mm f1.4 (MF) on the Canons when I shot with them. The image would always look good in the finder but when I looked on the computer screen it was obvious that a small bit of stopping down shifted the focus back too far. It was a nightmare.

Since I read too much on the web and I hear so often how much better current lens design must be I am always inclined to believe I am leaving some quality on the table when using older lenses. Especially older, manual focus lenses. Without the latest miracle glass and massive computational design assistance how can they stand a chance???

Well..... I shot so many images with the 105mm yesterday just because it was the right angle of view for the vision I was following. I got home and started zooming in to 100% to make sure I had nailed focus and I marveled at how sharp the lens was at f2.8, f4.0 and f5.6. It gives away nothing to the Nikon 85mm f1.8G lens at any aperture and if there is a sharpness difference between the 105 and the Sigma art lens at f4.0 I sure can't see it. Get the focus right and this $125 used investment really brings home the visual bacon. 

I seem to be having a recurring epiphany. It goes something like this:  Older lenses were perhaps more carefully made and more painstakingly hand calibrated, and even with older designs they can perform as well as the newest optics, especially when both are used two stops down from wide open. 

The real reason I like the 105mm is that this is the angle of view at which I feel that I have control (total control) of what is in my frame and how it's all arranged. Some lenses just speak to you. This one says "hello" while for my money something like a 28mm never says much more than "Doh!"

Final observation? The 105mm plays well with the green focus confirmation dot in both of my D610s. Nice.

Scary to be on the other side of the camera. I was a model for an interesting assignment.

Kirk Tuck by ©2015 Frank Grygier.

My friend, Frank, is taking an online course from photographer/teacher, Don Giannatti. As part of the workshop the students are trying to figure out how to light and shoot in the styles of a number of great photographers. The most recent assignment for Frank was to work in the style of portrait legend, Albert Watson. Watson is most popularly known for his iconic portrait of Steve Jobs but I have admired his portrait lighting; especially in his black and white work, for many years. When Frank mentioned his assignment I shamelessly volunteered to sit for the portrait. 

I have become comfortable meeting strangers and asking them to pose for me but when the shoe is on the other foot it's a bit scary. I know that photographs will point out all the things about me I want to avoid; that I am getting older. That a little hair sticks up from my left eyebrow and makes me look unbalanced. That my skin has become rugged and flawed by time and the elements. That the backs of my hand are hairy. That my barber missed a little bit of hair on the back of my neck that becomes a white flag against a black background. That my nose has gotten bigger. All these things make up a collage of my own frailties. But what the hell ---- it's interesting to see myself through the eyes of another. 

We decided to shoot the portrait in my little studio. I had the space to work in and extra gear if Frank needed something beyond the kit he was bringing. I set up a dark background for Frank and then settled into some post processing while the clock ticked closer to my engagement with portrait destiny. 

Frank did his lighting homework well. He used a small softbox from high up and left of frame. He used it in close to take advantage of fall off. While not apparent in this image he also used a second light on the backdrop which is more evident in other versions of the portraits.

While we waste a lot of virtual ink talking up the advantages and disadvantages of various formats for portraits most of it is silly and meaningless as the pluses and minuses of the formats can be trumped by the skill of the photographer. Frank managed to get a (technically) wonderful portrait with a smaller format --- he was shooting with the (exquisite) 35-100mm f2.8 Panasonic lens on a GH4. But the camera is almost meaningless compared with his clear intention and his well-crafted and well thought out lighting. 

Frank and I work in different ways. He is much more assured in his methodology and shoots sparingly. When he has what he wants he wraps up and moves on. I am less confident or less able to commit so I shoot and shoot in an almost promiscuous fashion. He is a "ten perfect frame" portrait shooter while I am a "one hundred frame--I'll know it when (if) I see it shooter. Sometimes fate conspires to make me lucky. Sometimes not. 

Frank shot with battery powered, electronic flashes and didn't have the advantage of modeling lights. It didn't matter, he knew how his lighting should be designed and followed his plans and instincts. I knew the image would be well done otherwise I would have never volunteered. I just didn't realize that I might like a portrait of me as much as I do like this one, warts and all.

I don't know about Don G. but I'll give Frank a solid "A." It's a real learning experience to be on the other side of the camera. I'm glad I wore the navy blue, linen shirt. And I'm glad I grabbed an old pair of glasses ---- I forgot how much I liked those frames. 

My advice to everyone who wants to shoot better portraits? Go out and start shooting them. The practice on both sides of the camera is invaluable.

Returning to my roots as a minimalist lighting expert. I did write the book about it, after all.

Stuff to put into the Think Tank Airport Security case tonight for tomorrow's shoot. 

Two Yongnuo flashes, one Cactus RF60 flash, one Metz flash, 

three Cactus V6 Transceivers, lots of rechargeable batteries and (top left)

my trusty Sekonic light meter. 

Out of the blue, about a month ago, I got a nice note from someone at the company that makes Cactus products and he offered to send me some of their products to test. I thought about it for a couple of days because I've found extended loans of cameras for the purpose of reviewing has the effect of making me subconsciously feel that I should alter my approach to photography by learning a new, different, weird interface or menu or handling characteristic. Also, when testing cameras you tend to become locked into whatever lens the camera company might send you. Would I enjoy testing an Olympus camera if the company was hellbent on sending me only a 14-42mm kit lens? No! I would not. Did I enjoy working with the Samsung NX-1 and the lesser kit lens? Not really. So the camera you use is an essential driver. Do I feel the same way about lighting? No really. I think of flashes as more or less interchangeable as far as the light they put out and the way they handle. For most work I am a manual setting user and not a TTL geek user. I don't spend a lot of time figuring out every little way a flash could work and I don't like to leave the metering of multiple light set ups to the camera or flash's discretion. A flash is a flash is a flash. If they put out the same power and they recycle quickly then I'm pretty happy.

I decided that I could compartmentalize the way I work with lights and I decided not to try and press the test gear into every shoot. And I further promised myself that I wouldn't change the way I work just to investigate features that I might never want to use in real life. With that all in mind I sent back an e-mail and agreed to accept and test the gear.

A couple weeks later I got a box from Fed Ex that came all the way from Hong Kong. Inside the box, and beautifully packaged, were three Cactus V6 Wireless Flash Transceivers and one Cactus RF60 Wireless flash. I pulled out the user manuals and started reading. The transceivers are radio triggers; they can be used on camera as a master to trigger other transceivers or they can be used as slaves to trigger attached flashes. The transceivers are set up with 16 channels and four groups. A master can control certain flashes by changing their power levels. The transceivers are programmed with some of the most popular Nikon and Canon flash profiles and they control the flash power levels through hotshoe contact communication. You can change power levels separately for each group of flashes and transceivers. So far so good.

For my uses I can stop right there. I can put one of the V6's on the camera and use the other two V6's to trigger attached flashes. I can also trigger the RF60 flash with a V6 on the camera. And that's mostly the way I end up using my flashes for most work. I am so old school with this stuff. I want to set the levels on the flashes and make a test frame---then adjust. But the V6s can do more. You can assign each V6 a channel and you can enable or disable each channel or any combination of channels from the master in the hot shoe. Wanna see what one set of lights looks like? Turn off the other channels and blaze away.

With approved flashes (Nikon users will find SB-800, SB-900 and SB-910s on the list) you can increase or decrease the manual power level for each group. That means if I use the RF60 flash as a master and hook up three compatible flashes on three V6s, and then assign  different channel for every V6 I can, from camera, control the power levels of all three slaved flashes from the camera location, individually. Nice.

If you are using a compatible TTL flash (say an SB-900) you can put the SB-900 in the V6's flash shoe and take advantage of their TTL "passthrough." Your flash will communicate directly with the camera in the normal TTL mode with all the usual stuff and you will still be able to trigger and control flashes connected to other V6s remotely.

There's one more thing about the V6s that's pretty cool but I haven't played with yet and that's the ability of the transceivers to "learn" new flashes. Someday soon I'll get around to writing about it but for right now I'll just extol the virtues of the V6s. They work. They are easy to set up. The flash shoe on the unit is a great flash interface. I like that the V6s take two double A batteries. I used the V6s as triggers pretty extensively while I was shooting the annual report project for a public utility back in April. I used them indoors in industrial spaces, and outdoors in electrical substations and they never failed to trigger.

Using the battery powered flashes and the transceivers on several recent jobs that required moving quickly and setting up and tearing down just enough stuff to get the job done reminded me that I've been so intrigued by new technologies like LEDs that I'd skirted using the tried and true tech like flash for too long. Practically speaking, this is the stuff we learned on and it's like riding a bicycle--you really don't forget how to set up and execute with flash.

I'm packing up to do a shoot tomorrow and I was looking through the light inventory trying to decide what to use. My first thoughts were about LED panels because there is a certain charm in continuous lighting but then I thought about how easy the job would be with a Think Tank rolling case full of shoe mount flashes and I decided to go all in on that methodology.

I'm only taking four flash units. Two are inexpensive Yongnuo flashes, one is the Cactus RF60 and the third is a Metz flash. The Yongnuo flashes have built in optical slaves while the Cactus and the Metz require external triggers. I'll take along a bunch of Eneloop batteries, a small softbox and a few collapsible Westcott umbrellas and I should be set. We're going to attempt to make portraits on location with very, very shallow depth of field. I can't use the ambient light. I scouted it yesterday and it's not photography friendly. It's all ceiling fixtures with florescent tubes. Not pretty tubes either.

I want to bring lights to leverage the ability to create light direction and light quality as well as color purity. I chose the flashes over LEDs in case I want to shoot with windows in the background. A couple of stout flashes and some sunscreens over the windows gives me more than a fighting chance at overpowering or matching existing exterior light. Especially with the cloudy weather we're having lately. The beauty of this plan is that everything; cameras and flashes, will fit in one case with wheels. A bag of small, light stands is the only other luggage I'll need to get through an entire day or portrait shooting.

But it's not like this is all new to me. I did actually write a bestselling book about lighting with small lights. It's a bit dated now but I think it's still a good read and the foundational concepts are still right on the money even if the gear has changed a bit. Here's a link to my very first technical book on photography:  Minimalist Lighting.

And yes, it's still in print!

Crazy Weather in Austin. Five inches of rain in four hours at my studio. (and some in my studio....)

It's another shop vac day in the neighborhood. We live up in the hills so nothing is ever going to be underwater (unless it's the end days) but with lots of elevations and grades along with super saturated soil the floors were not immune. We've had 23 days of good rain in a row, effectively curtailing the worst of the severe drought (for now).

I've spent hours today vacuuming up water and dumping it outside the studio. Nothing was damaged or destroyed inside. We have everything up on shelves and the foam mats on the floor are very helpful. All the cameras are snug in their cabinets and far from the floor.

In the downtown Austin area entire businesses are flooded and the recovery from the wide spread water damage will take time.

We're safe and sound here. My prayers go out to all the Austinites who live around Shoal Creek and other flood prone areas. I hope the worst we get is property damage and that no lives are lost.

Staying dry. Hope you are too.

A Reader Asked to See How I Was Rigging My Video Gear Around the Camera. Here's My Set-up.

This is the way I have my camera set up for shooting video on a tripod. If someone else was handling the sound it would less cluttered. If I was shooting solo I probably wouldn't use the monitor either...

This is the set up I used to shoot the video I talked about in the previous blog post. The box on the top left is the Beachtek DXA-2T which is a passive microphone mixer. I can combine both channels into one or keep the signals in separate channels. The important thing is that the Beachtek box allows me to control audio levels as needed. Always going down, never up; because there are no active preamplifiers in the box. But it also does a great job of impedance matching between the professional XLR connected microphones and the consumer level, mini-plug inputs.

Next to the blue Beachtek box is a Sennheiser receiver which is one half of the wireless microphone support set. Note that its output is connected into the mixer. 

I can add more utility shoes to the top bar of this "cage" in order to add more stuff but at a certain point more stuff makes the whole rig top heavy, plus it's already starting to look messy.... Don't try this with a little weanie tripod and head!

The Marshall monitor is a cheap one but it does a nice job. People can watch what I'm shooting without breathing down my neck and I can click on the focus peaking and see if what I'm shooting is really in focus or not. The headphones serve the same purpose only for ears. I will need to add a little hook to one of the tripod legs to hand the headphones on when we're between takes.

If I'm going to use a tripod it's really nice to have all the stuff I need right there, clustered around the camera. These are all simple and effective tools but they make a difference in the shooting. You can imagine that on bigger sets with multiple monitors and digital recorders sucking information out of the camera's HDMI socket and with the camera rigged with a follow focus mechanism and a matte box things get complex, crowded and more and more unwieldy. 

When I shoot with the Olympus stuff I don't want to wire it up like so. I want to shoot with them handheld and use the EVF finder. The D810 doesn't seem to mind the add-ons. 

Cost of stuff: The Beachtek box is about $170, the Sennheiser system, with lavaliere microphone is $700, The monitor is $349 and the grippy/cagey thing was a little less than $100. Not bad at all for stuff you can really use to make video projects work.

The Giddy Excitement of Getting Something Just Right. A video project for the theater.

A screen grab from my video project at Zach Theatre.

I have a really, really fun job and it amazes me that I can still get excited about things like getting the lighting on a subject just right, or getting the audio perfect. You would think after almost thirty years in the business that one would get a bit jaded. A bit complacent. In a short length of time yesterday, in the early evening, I had the wonderful feeling that I lined up everything correctly. Please let me share.

Zach Theatre is doing a play called, Mothers and Sons, and they cast Michael Learned in one of the starring roles. For those of you who don't know Ms. Learned she is the actress who played Olivia Walton (the Walton's mom) in the Waltons. She has been in numerous movies, is very active on the stage and has won four Emmy's for Best Actress. You've often heard people talk about someone who lights up a room by just walking in? That would be Ms. Learned.  

The production team at Zach wanted to do a thirty second TV spot featuring Ms. Learned against black, in character, for the upcoming play. The team got in touch and asked me to do the project. I immediately went into pre-production mode and got as many details as I could. We would be shooting the principal part of the spot with Ms. Learned against a black background. She would be speaking directly into camera and the audio was critical. They wanted the lighting to be natural and non-clinical. I would need to be totally set and tested by the time Ms. Learned appeared on our set as we would only have a limited amount of time to get what we needed before she had to get to another commitment. 

The first thing I needed to lock down was a black background. I checked pricing for a roll of black seamless background paper, nine feet wide. It would be $55. I checked on getting a black muslin in a 10 by12 foot size and at Amazon it was $29. Since I pay for the Prime service shipping to my studio door was free. I went with the muslin option and it was delivered in the pouring rain on Friday; just in time.

I experimented with lighting and devised a different way of lighting this video than I had used before. I also went back in time and selected one lighting instrument from antiquity that acquitted itself very well. 

I wanted a soft light that was directional so I used a 72 inch, soft white (with black backing) Fotodiox umbrella as my main light, just to the left of the camera. I lit up the umbrella with an old (very old) Lowell Tota-Light that a friend had given me years ago. When the whole combination was used as close as I wanted it to my subject to get the right balance of softness and detail I got the exposure I was looking for into the bargain. A 750 watt tungsten light is still (relatively speaking) a powerful source. 

Just to my subject's left (right hand side of the frame) I put up a very big white reflector. It's just out of camera range but it tamed the lighting ratio and added additional softness and fill to the overall image. The final piece of lighting was the chameleon in my case; the Fiilex P360 LED light. I dialed the color temperature dial all the way to tungsten (to match the main light) and used it high up and about twenty feet behind the subject, on her left side. The Fiilex makes a great backlight and is one of the few, very high quality LED products that can be used as a spot. 

In order to assess the effects of the lighting set up as we worked, my producer, Michael Ferstenfeld, acted as the stand in and was very patient as I moved lights around and finessed the subject to camera to background distances. 

I used the Nikon D810 as my video camera setting the camera to its highest quality setting and, after consultation with my editor, set the rig to 29.97 fps. The exposure was 1/60th of a second with my 85mm f1.8 G Nikon lens set at f4.0. The ISO was 320. Since the entire set was illuminated by tungsten halogen bulbs (of the equivalent) I was able to use the tungsten preset for WB. 

I had the D810 hooked up to my 7 inch Marshall monitor, via HDMI, to provide focus peaking during  set up and shooting and to provide a big monitor for the artistic director and the producer to watch as I filmed. The bigger screen, in combination with focus peaking made it easy to manually focus the 85mm and I paid close attention to both the screen and the subject's relationship to her mark on the floor while I was shooting. 

The final step was to get the audio set up and zero'd in. I wanted to use two microphones on this set up, just to cover myself. The primary unit was a Sennheiser wireless rig and you can see the mic placement on the subject in the screen grab above. This is a great wireless mic set up and one we use all the time but every once in a while an actor will get carried away and get loud enough to blast out of the safe levels and distort the audio. I wanted a second "safety" channel with a different mic set about 12 db down from the main microphone; just in case. 

As a back-up I chose the Rode NTG-2 shotgun microphone. I wired it up with an XLR cable and put it on a Gitzo microphone boom and secured that to a stout light stand. The microphone is about 18 inches above and in front of Ms. Learned. Both microphones were running through a small, passive mixer and into the camera's audio input. I use the mixer because it gives me physical knobs to twist for each channel. After we do several rehearsal takes with our actor I can quickly set the levels that work best without having to menu dive or get finger-traction on a small, rear screen. The difference between the channels ended up being about 6db as I dialed down the input from the main microphone by a bit during rehearsal. I always wear headphones when shooting speaking parts in video so I can hear anything that make make the recorded sound unusable. 

Ms. Learned came in trailed by the costumer and the theater's make-up person. She instantly memorized her lines and walked over to the mark. We shot six or seven takes but honestly, she nailed it on the very first take, everything else was just in case. Her whole time investment on set was a bit less than 15 minutes. We all reviewed the product, couldn't figure out a single way to improve it and so we wrapped up and started packing. 

The editor was on set so as soon as my gear was packed and stowed in the car I handed him the SD memory card and he downloaded the files to his laptop. I mentioned that he would have 24 hours to make back ups but I was (mostly) kidding. I'll back up anything I liked shooting....

I played the segments on my computer for the first time this morning and got that warm and happy feeling of having nailed something as well as I possibly could. Another step forward.

My Ongoing learning process with Video and the Olympus OMD EM5.2. Caution: Video programming included.

EM5.2 Video Test 2 from Kirk Tuck on Vimeo.
This video is about Untitled Project

Click through to Vimeo using the links above if you want to see the test video at full res. The embedded version is limited to 800 pixels wide.

I bought the Olympus EM5.2 cameras because I am convinced that the image stabilization in those cameras will really work well with the way I like to shoot video. While some people may be able to sit down, read a review on the web or watch a YouTube video and hit the ground running, getting perfect video every time, I am not so lucky. I seem to have to work through a camera and try it in every setting before I really understand how the camera will give up its best images for me.

The EM5.2 is a classic case in point. It's a great still cameras that is both blessed and cursed with ultimately flexible configuration possibilities. But for everyone who likes to shoot video there might be a combination that makes their work look better than any other collage of settings. For me it's all about rejecting what doesn't work and focusing on what does.

My first experiments with the camera weren't bad, they just weren't as good as what I was getting out other cameras, like the Panasonic GH4 and the Nikon D810, and I had an inkling that I could do better.

The video above is my attempt to tune in my camera and make it work of the primary task I envisioned; walking around with the camera and getting wonderfully smooth, handheld footage with good sharpness and detail.

I am happy now to say that I am finally very happy with the video in the EM5.2. In the experiment above I can see lots and lots of detail in my face and hair and the overall appearance of sharpness is just right. That's a good thing. But how did I get there?

I set up the camera to record in the All-I setting. This means every frame contains the full image file and this makes editing easier even though it increases the size of the in-camera video files. It's the highest quality in-camera setting but you can get even more serious and buy an external recorder and take a clean, uncompressed video file from the HDMI port if you really need more quality and control.

My camera was set up to do 1080p video at its highest quality ISO, which is 200. The frame rate was set at 24 fps and the shutter speed was 1/50th of a second. Finally, the aperture on the 45mm f1.8 lens was set to f3.2 which should be in the optimum range of apertures for that lens. I metered myself with a Sekonic light meter which has a cine scale and used the meter's recommended settings.

Here's where I changed direction (happily) and where I think I was able get footage I liked today. I had the feeling that the noise reduction in the camera was just too strong and was killing fine detail so I set it to "off." That was one step too far and I could see noise in the mid-tones when I played test footage back on my desktop monitor. I stepped back one step and set the noise reduction to "low" and that seemed

Took down the em5.2 video post. Flawed setting discovered!

we'll have a revised test up shortly.

The Science Fiction of Writing Camera Reviews. Or....Most People Don't Know Squat.

There are two groups of people (generalization) who write camera reviews: 1. People who are mercenary and writing in hopes you'll click through the ads sprinkled through and around their camera reviews and indirectly reward the writers with money. 2. Happy amateurs who are writing because writing is fun and owning cameras is fun and it's nice way to feel connected to other camera owners on the internet.

But to camera makers there's only one group that counts in the business world. That would be the group of writers that has accrued a large and loyal an audience who frequently act on the presentation of a review and proceed to click through and buy the gear that gets reviewed.

Which group am I in? I like to think I straddle the two groups a bit. But the bottom line is that I started writing the blog many years ago to help sell my technical photo books and have continued mostly out of habit. It's also a nice way to connect with astute readers from around the world. But I do have to admit that I like being able to push my books, and the novel, from time to time and I appreciate the small income stream I make from the affiliate income I earn through links in reviews.

When it comes to cameras and lenses the dirty little secret is that no one, other than professional photographers, really needs this stuff and that makes all of it both a luxury purchase and a highly discretionary expense. The real competitors for dollars that might go to a new camera (that usually features a very small improvement over the last generation of basically the same camera) are not just the other camera brands but the new gas grill for the back porch, a new hunting rifle, a recreational (as opposed to commuter) motorcycle, a lavish dinner at a one, two or (god forbid) three Michelin star restaurant, classic bordeaux wines from good vineyards---harvested in noteworthy years; a cool, long weekend vacation, a new pair of cowboy boots, a new laptop computer, a custom-made bicycle, a new, 4K television set for the media room, new speakers for the surround sound, a personal trainer, a hot girlfriend, or even this semester's dues for your masters swim program.

Nobody really needs one of these little, black or chrome gems and once they have a good one there's never much reason to immediately replace it with something marginally better. So, why do we break down and buy the new cameras over and over again? It's those damn reviewers.

I imagine that many readers (at least based on the comments I read on various forums) assume many things about reviewers. They assume that the reviewers are far more gifted photographers than mainstream practitioners. I've come to understand this because both Ming Thein and I released our Olympus EM5.2 reviews on exactly the same day. A commenter on DP Review immediately called the reviews into question and gave, as one reason, that Ming's images (while perfectly crafted, color correct and sharp!!!) were "cold and soulless." They dismissed my images (sprinkled through the review as visual rest stops for the eyes) as "underwhelming." I assume "underwhelming" means that I didn't go to the trouble of hiring a national level swim suit model to pose nude and a lighting crew and smoke machines and lasers to do my usual walking around shots. I find it strange that while we are both testing whether or not we like a camera and whether or not it works for the things that we like to do, the quality of our casual images, written out at 1200 pixels and statistically viewed mostly on iPhone screens, seem to be vital proofs of concept to the reviews. These people who believe this are, of course, insane.

They assume that reviewers should pick a brand to be loyal to and never wander from their chosen brand. Trying out new gear (something you'd think would be helpful in developing context) is also heavily frowned upon unless it is new gear from the ecosystem of the one true brand that you need to swear undying allegiance to. Nikon users can only review Nikons and so on. I learned this by reading a commenter who dismissed my input about the Olympus EM5.2 because I had previously "liked" the Nikon D810, the Samsung NX1, the Panasonic GH4,  the Sony a99 and others. Everyone reading (he stated) must not take my reviews seriously because I might, in the near future, also like something else.

I have a newsflash for the moron who wrote that. There are a lot of good cameras out on the market right now. In the hands of even a middle-of-the-road photographic talent any one of those cameras is fully capable of taking professional caliber shots or shooting usable video. Of course I liked the Samsung NX1 camera. The files were sharp, detailed and had very acceptable color. The video was damn good (once transcoded...). Of course I liked the Nikon D810. The files were sharp, detailed and had very acceptable color. And the 2K video was very good. What a terrible quandary for a reviewer; that any review must be his only review, or, at the very least, he will be constrained forever to writing only about his ONE brand.  That he or she is only allowed to "like" and use one camera at a time.... Of course this is nonsense. Like having to choose between your children.

The cliché definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results. I would modify this definition for photographers and say, "the definition of churlish insanity is to use one camera over and over again and expect a different point of view, or to learn something new about new cameras and new technology while doing so."

Then there is the presumption that camera tests and reviews have to done in technically advanced labs with white coat technicians and reviewers who have multiple, advanced degrees. One degree in electrical engineering (so we can understand the underlying technology of imaging sensors). One in optical theory (so we can understand the ins and outs of lenses =  Yes, Yes, Bokeh is everything!!!! I read that on the web!!!!). One in mechanical engineering so we can understand the resonance profiles and torsional anamolies of the shutter mechanisms based on their composition and velocities. Sadly, they never expect a background in aesthetics, art history, or criticism. On those points they practice the idea that everyone's taste is equal and everyone gets a trophy. Except for reviewers whose own work must have both soul and pizzazz. It's not enough just to pick up a camera, use it for the kind of subject matter you normally use it for and then give a wholly subjective appraisal of how that particularly juicy bit of kit ended up working out for you...

For the white coat junkies we have two (actually) valuable resources to depend upon on the web. One is DPReview (which is strange because it is ground central for rampant misinformation on its forums) and also DXO. But DXO is tricky because you have to be smart enough to read about and understand their testing procedures and the parameters that they use to measure performance.

But that's okay because it seems that many out in reader-land already understands all the concepts of alloys and carbon fiber composites and their role in camera design. They even understand all the advanced math and physics---which leads me to ask what the hell they are bothering to read these reviews for anyway?

That's one part of the reviewing conundrum---but it gets better. It's now common knowledge that all well known and well followed reviewers are on the take. This means that the camera companies are coming to the reviewers with gift baskets full not only of shiny (and performance tweaked) new cameras and all of the juiciest lenses but also chubby envelopes filled to bursting with hard cash. Every good review is the direct result of an unambiguous quid pro quo. Cash for gushing rhetoric.

The obverse is also common knowledge. That any negative review (or, for fans of the brand, neutral review) is the direct result of the reviewer not having been paid for the review and not getting to keep the whole catalog of gear the company makes. No payola = no kind words. This, of course, is unmitigated bullshit. While we unrepentant and slimy reviewers would be all over this gold mine like ants on a dropped lollipop the FTC or FCC or whomever makes this a bit, well, illegal. Any gift or payment sent to reviewers would have to be fully disclosed in any discussion of the products being reviewed from any company.  And even if we as reviewers were unscrupulous enough to accept $$$ or product without disclosing it the manufacturer would be taking a risk that far outweighed any advantage.

Notwithstanding fines and sanctioning from the federal government one can only imagine the uproar of outrage from prospective buyers if these arrangement became known. It would be a credibility nightmare of wonderful proportions. The press would have a field day with it. But people from the photo forums think all photo commerce is rife with larceny and nothing reviewers or camera makers say will dissuade them.

I can only presume that many of the people who think this way reside outside of the U.S. and Canada and don't enjoy quite the freedom we do from graft and payoffs. Rule of law does have value when it comes to honest commerce.

I am happy to write reviews about the cameras we buy and play with because I think my regular readers like it and it gives me a chance to think out loud about gear. I am sad to write reviews about cameras because it brings all the crazy people out of the woodwork with their paranoia, insecurities and conspiracy theories. I'll keep doing it just to keep them riled up and frothing. It's kinda fun to watch.

But in case you are wondering about our review process it goes something like this:

One day intrepid photographer woke up and, still bleary and sleepy, poured himself a cup of coffee and sat down in front of his computer to see what might be new in the world of photography. He visited all the usual sites only to find that something interesting happened while he tried to sleep. A major camera maker has just announced a brand new camera. This makes Kirk sit up and take notice. He rushes to DPReview to read the press release. Goodness, the P.R. agency for the camera maker sure makes this new camera model sound great. Some of the new features might solve some of Kirk's little peevish problems he experiences when using his current cameras! Sometimes there's even a genuine advancement that might make his business a bit more profitable and a bit more interesting to his clients. 

He remembers fondly when he first learned about Panasonic launching the GH4 with fully operational and high quality 4K video. All the information sounded great although he suspected there might be some hyperbole involved. Regardless, he gave it a shot and bought one of the bodies. At first he got used to it by using it on paid photographic shoots where the file sizes and features were appropriate. As he got more and more used to the camera he started shooting it more and more frequently because it was new and fun and, so far, all the images he got from the camera looked great. 

After a great deal of studying and practice in the studio he introduced the camera to his clients for video and, over the course of the year, was able to do six or seven video projects which returned profits equal to twenty times the original investment in that piece of gear. He thought this was a good return and liked the look of both the video and image files and so he wrote a review which talked about these things he learned from hands-on experience.  A 20X return on investment in one year is pretty cool so he was happy and wrote as much. In fact, he still reveres this camera as one of the best on the market. 

But he is not a purely linear, process driven, robotic, cube worker and thrives on change and experimentation; and has like minded friends. He hears great things about the video and the still images of the Nikon D810 and decides that this camera might also provide a fun shooting experience and a good financial return. It also offers a new style of image with more control over depth of field. He buys one and goes through the same process of experimentation and professional use. And then he writes a review that is his subjective narrative about having used the camera over time, in different types of projects, for different types of clients. 

According to Kirk he wants his reviews to work the same way things would work if you were a personal friend of his and you sat down with him at a local Starbucks over coffee and the two of you decided to discuss a camera that he had been using, and in which you were curious. He might give you some background, fill in with a few stories about using the camera in real situations and then proceed to tell you (truthfully---because you are friends) exactly what he liked about the camera and the various things he didn't like about the camera. Just friends over coffee. 

Kirk and his friend enjoyed the give and take and could talk about operational features in general terms. They did not need to grab cocktail napkins and sketch out flow charts or spreadsheets of technical details. At the end of the conversation, after the coffee got cold, the friend would know enough to decide whether or not it was worth his time to try out the camera under discussion. Maybe head to the store and handle it for a while. Or to just walk away and be happy with the miracle camera he already held in his hands. 

In many ways I am a privileged photographer. I live in a lively and very affluent market. I have carefully selected well funded and generous clients who seem to understand the value of photographs to move their businesses forward. I have made some smart investments over the years. I can make money with the cameras I buy. I can quickly resell the cameras I am no longer interested in. Since my business offers a range of styles and services it's easier to justify owning several different kinds of cameras and that allows me to have multiple favorite cameras just as you can favorite more than one tweet at a time. Some cameras I buy for their video capabilities and some for their still image quality. Some I buy for both. Others I buy when my brain tells me that I can engage in photography as a hobby.

I like to think that writing reviews is a way of sharing what I learn as I play with and experience, over time, brilliant and not so brilliant cameras. If you don't like these kinds of reviews you needn't read them. But instead of being petulant and derisive why not grow a pair and write your own reviews?
it might put the various reviewing processes into perspective for you.

Thank God for my daily VSL readers. Writing a popular review and getting the backsplash makes me appreciate you more and more.



Once again Ken Rockwell calls it just so.....http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm