APhotoContributor

zodiac friends

I’ve had my little friend Taurus since April in one form or another through many iterations of firmware.  I lost count of how many times I had to re-do my settings.  Each version got better and better … and … better.  There’s a kind of thrill taking an “experiment beta” on a real job.  If you’re not nervous, the client’s not nervous.  It’s nothing a battery pull can’t remedy.

Having freshly come off the Fujifilm X-Pro2 it was nice to get the camera in my hands I really wanted to use.  The Fujifilm X-T1 had become my go-to “B” camera 70% of the time and my “A” and “B” camera about thirty percent of the time.  There weren’t many jobs I couldn’t complete with just X-T1’s.  Most of those jobs including the need for flash.  I’m so used to the consistent results I get with Nikons that it’s hard to fully pull away from them.  I’d probably not feel the same way if I were still shooting Canon.  Hey, Canon, it’s 2016:  Isn’t time you did as well as Nikon in the flash department.  I still remember being told by Canon people back in the day, “Maybe you’re doing it wrong.”  

“That’s funny it’s always worked flawlessly with Nikon.”  They're both full of arrogant staff.

I have a feeling Fujifilm will get there with flash, although I primarily used it with slaves and studio strobe and not with an on-camera-type flash.  When I do use it with flash, though, I put a Nikon SB-910 on manual and it does pretty well.  What I’d love, though, is for Fujifilm to do as well as Nikon’s TTL flash does.  I think they’ll get there.  I’m looking forward to seeing how good the (new flash) is.  I’d love to dump all of the Nikon gear. :)

Although the X-T2 is bigger than the X-T1, you can barely notice it except in the front grip.  The new accessory grip configuration fits my hands really well.  Having three batteries on-board is almost as good as one D4s battery, which have given me more than 2,000 frames.  With any Fujifilm you need to have a lot of batteries if you’re hammering through assignments.  I don’t think I’ve shot the X-T2 without the grip at all.  If I want a smaller footprint, I just use the X-Pro2.  Having shooting controls on the grip is a welcome addition.  Having the extra batteries on-board and using an electronic shutter on boost mode allows up to 14 fps.  It also allows you to use boost mode, which brings the EVF up to 100 fps.

The EVF on the X-T2 is beautiful and one of the best I’ve seen.  No, I don’t use Sony stuff but know they’re great, too.  You can’t be a gear whore and get to know any one system exceptionally well.  Since you’re just “shooting for the blog,” though, one would think one could get to know them more than tacitly.  I love the way the X-T2 — and the X-Pro2 for that matter — render what I'm looking at.  The higher magnification of the X-T2 is better for me and its refresh rate is spectacular.  

It’s funny that I’ve heard people say that the X-Pro2 is “better for prime lens users” and street photography.  Um, really?  They’re both equally good for using primes AND for street.  I don’t know how people come up with that stuff unless they’re just “looking for something to say” because they’ve “only tacitly gotten to know the platform.”  Dunno why but the X-Pro2's EVF looks different than the X-T2's.  It was explained to me that the X-Pro2's is/was a TFT and the X-T2 is an OLED.  Guess that explains why.

Even though I know the X-T2’s rear screen has less resolution than the X-Pro2, it rendered files to chimp beautifully.  I’ll give up whatever the minuscule difference is to have a rear screen that articulates, too.  It’s one thing I really missed having used the X-Pro2 for so long.  I guess if you have an articulating screen you have to give up a little reso because it has to be inherently thinner.

While the X-Pro2 focuses better than the X-T1, the X-T2’s AF is better than the X-Pro2.  Even though I’m not a sports-guy I found AF-C focus tracking to be as good my Nikon D4s.  No, I don’t have a D5; I have no reason to ever buy one.  I’m sure they’re lovely.  I’m over the whole full-frame (whatever that really means) vs. APS-C debate.  If you’ve enjoyed anything Hollywood has put out for the last while, it’s more than likely shot on an Arri Alexa, which has a sensor size very very close to APS-C (within a millimeter).  If it’s good enough for those kings of visual schlock, it’s good enough for me.

Bigger costs more.  It’s not any different in the sensor world.  Bigger sensors cost more money.  I’m not sure spending $6500 on a Nikon D5 is going to do anything for me except waste valuable resources.  Editors nor clients have ever said, “the quality isn’t good enough.”  Actually, much to the contrary.  Clients love the skin tones that come out of the Fujifilm X-T2.  I just heard about a client that actually wanted “the look” of what Canon does so the photographer had to get a whole Canon kit Fedex’d because he is a Nikon shooter.  Like they say in used car sales, “There’s an ass for every seat.”  Perhaps that client needs to be introduced to lovely Fujifilm files?

While there is a slight difference in unscharfen bereichen — another word for bokeh, a word I refuse to use — or out-of-focus areas when shooting wide open between full-frame and APS-C, I don’t think it really matters.  It hasn’t hampered me from shooting gigs and assignments.  Zack explains it the best.

When you hold the X-T2 in your hands you can feel the quality that goes into building it.  Wasn’t sure how I was going to feel about the little push button locks on the shutter speed and ISO dials but learned to love them.  Not only that but the detents on things like shooting modes and compensation are much stronger.  I don’t think I cursed at it once for going into "Toy Camera" mode.  I’ve also dropped one of the X-T2’s several different times.  Once its strap was tangled with a Nikon and it went from the seat of a car to the floorboard to the curb to the street.  Another unfortunate time it went from the dashboard bouncing off the gear selector to the floor board.  That time I saw some weirdness in the EVF but it’s almost as if it self-healed.  The last and least graceful crashes to the ground involved me tripping in an airport and the X-T2 dropping to the carpeted floor and sliding a few feet.  It’s still going although I’m using another one that’s less “pre-production-y.”

I’ve found all of the Fujifilm digitals I’ve used to be extremely durable.  I don’t mean to break things; it just happens.

I’d hate to be in the camera blimp manufacturing business because those are all but irrelevant unless you’re a total dinosaur.  In electronic shutter mode they’re absolutely silent.  Was walking around DTLA one day and was stopped on the sidewalk so they could shoot a take.  When I looked for the A-Camera I saw the unit shooter using his Sony without a blimp.  Although I didn’t shoot the X-T2 on a film set, I did happen to use it during a live performance at the St. Louis Opera Company.  I was told I was the only one in twenty-plus years to do that.  When I showed the director how quiet it is he didn’t believe I actually made any frames.  A Leica sounds like an explosion compared to the X-T2 or even the X-Pro2 in electronic mode.  Another way -- besides their old sensors -- Leica is completely behind the times, especially for a manufacturer that claims they're so silent. 

Love the fact that the card slot door is so much better than the “flappy thing” used on the X-T1.  Having dual UHS slots is really nice as well.  

I know people bitch about the camera not having a GPS radio built in but hopefully those in the U.S. military find out because they actually require the cameras they use NOT to have onboard GPS capabilities.  Perhaps that’s why I’ve never seen a U.S. Air Force-guy with a Canon?  Fujifilm’s government sales should take note.  I still use the Fujifilm app on an iPhone for GPS tagging when I need that.

Like the X-Pro2 I loved seeing that I could control the AF focus areas with a joystick.  Such a great addition.  My Nikons have it but my Nikons are significantly more expensive than this “little $1600 camera body."

Coming from using several X-T1’s as my secondary — and many times primary — bodies I didn’t think there was “much to fix.”  They worked perfectly for me in every situation where I didn’t have to use some behemoth of megapixels such as my D810 or Phase back.  Of course, there were the dials that moved a bit easily, the mode buttons that would move over to “toy camera mode” a bit too much or the card doors that were a little flimsy.  None of those problems precluded me from making the photos I needed to make.

Fujifilm made the next iteration of the X-T1 even better in my opinion.  Not to mention the fact it’s so much lighter than the behemoth Nikons I shoot.  My shoulders appreciate it.  Oh, yeah, that little diopter control dial on the left side of the “prism bump” (which doesn’t have a prism) could use stronger detents.

Having the lovely joystick that controls the AF point just like my Nikons is great but the one thing that some of my Nikons have and the X-T2 does not … is … voice tagging.  Besides the need for a powerful on-camera flash I also need voice tagging to help editors (and myself) with the captioning part of many of my assignments.  Writing stuff down is so 1999.  You guys have done it before so it can’t be that tough.  

The “big guys” will see that as a shot across their bow and it’s going to be funny as hell when they realize a company they “never saw as a competitor” is taking some of their market share.  Mirror boxes are not the future yet I don’t think they’ve “seen that memo yet.”

Another reason I “kept the Nikons around” for was video and motion photography.  Normally, I just put it on 24p and forget about it because I hardly needed to over crank.  If I really needed it I’d use 50p and then slow it down another 40% in Final Cut.  Would I like to have 96p to make over cranking that much easier?  Sure.  It’s kind of a shame that Fujifilm hasn’t put out some kind of video-centric grip together like the Panasonic GH4 has with the YAGH interface unit.  Although I didn’t shoot anything I’m going to show here, I did make some test videos and they look amazing.  

The AF focus tracking also worked very well in video mode.  I was kind of shocked.  I could never imagine any of my Nikons working that well.  Having a friend walk down the street as I used the joystick to nudge the AF point in the direction they were walking nailed focus every time. 

It’s great to see that Fujifilm isn’t just relying upon their past successes and becoming complacent.  They’re continually moving forward and giving us better and better stuff.  I don’t know of any manufacturer that works so hard at newer and better firmware making our jobs/hobbies that much easier.  

Oh, wait, how about dual battery chargers?  The big guys won’t like seeing that either.

Really don’t need to talk about ISO performance as I believe I covered it when I talked about the Fujifilm X-Pro2, which I loved.

How about some photos?  I've processed these very minimally.  In fact, all of these were shot as in-camera JPG files.  I know ... everyone talks about how good Fujifilm JPG's really are.  They are amazing.  Yes, I prefer to work on RAW files but I don't mind working their JPG's coming out of Fujifilm cameras ... nor should you.  I just had no time to process RAWs. :)

Nick Jonas Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

"Things will be fine" Dinosaur, Los Angeles Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Frank Jackson doing Frank Jackson-things.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

There were giant inflatable rabbits all over DTLA a while back.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

People actually brave the stench of stale urine and go to DTLA.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

Also

Where you can find a Cavalier King Charles, surprisingly.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

Always airports.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Salman Rushdie at The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis' "Shalimar the Clown"  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Did some product-y stuff, too.  Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro (if you're easily triggered, just scroll past)

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.8 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.8 Macro (Battle Arms Development take-down pins are amazing)

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro

Hensel Porty strobe.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 60/2.4 Macro (that Surefire P3X Fury is ridiculously bright)

Another great cup at Copa Vida. Fujifilm X-T2 and 23/1.4

Baby pinot noir.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Things you don't see in California.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

If you say so.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Burbank.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Smoke and cars.  Summer in L.A. Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4

Makes the summer better.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Girl boss.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

The closest I get to shooting sports.  AF-C did nice!  Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

They're actually pretty fast. Ish.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

She's always the fastest!  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

One of those nights I suppose.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Ubiquity.  You don't need full-frame for lovely unscharfen bereichen.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Whenever you fly in a Robinson and live it's a great day!  Fujifilm X-T2 and 16/1.4+polarizer

Teenage pinot noir.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

More teenage pinot noir.  X-T2 and 35/2.0

More lovely late-day light on teenage pinor noir from Wädenswil clones. Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

A moment and a sun star.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Waiting for customers.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Those lovely pinot noir grapes grow up to die for us.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Old glory.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

When one is in the PacNW one drinks coffee.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Lovely sour cherries are found up there, too.  FujiFilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

"But rent is really expensive now."  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

The incomparable Ryan Muirhead, his empty taco (vege) bowl and his tattoo.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Just a dude playing piano on a street.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Met my dog's litter brother in an airport.  Small world.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Time to bail. Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Moses invests.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

I'm sure he'd rather have been taking my finger off.  X-T2 and 35/2.0

Pretty Los Feliz sunset.  Fujifilm X-T2.

Thoughts.  X-T2 and 35/2.0

More thoughts.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

And more thoughts at the Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus.  Fujifilm X-T2 and 35/2.0

Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Wild Belle (amazing) at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Wild Belle at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Wild Belle at AAnnenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8 (some LED-type lighting and the electronic shutter don't play well together)

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Nas at Annenberg Foundation Sound in Focus. Fujifilm X-T2 and 50-140/2.8

Yes, indeed, you can tell that I love the 35/2.0.  If you don't have that particular lens, you should buy it.  I mean it's almost free.  I used it along with the venerable 50-140/2.8, the 23/1.4 and 16/1.4.  All of those are very similar focal lengths to what I normally use for work with the Nikons.  I can definitely see the day when I don't use Nikons any longer because these Fujifilm digitals (X-T2 and X-Pro2) are fantastic. 

They're not just fantastic for work but also for just walking around doing some street or when you travel.  The thought of ever bringing a gigantic Nikon D-SLR on vacation or travel (unless it's work) makes my shoulders hurt just thinking about it.  Taking the grip off of the Fujifilm X-T2 makes for an extremely capable platform that can make any photo that's in front of you.

Cannot wait to see what they do with the 23/2.0.  I think, though, I'd love for Fujifilm to do another iteration of their 23 and 35 in 1.4 with faster focusing motors.  I have a feeling they're pretty busy.

With more and more newspaper staffs laying off employees, wires firing staff and such I think that the day of the $6-7K D-SLR flagship is coming to an end.  For the price of one body a photographer can get an X-T2 and several lenses and be ready to shoot.  Honestly, I think wire services are going to wise up soon, too.  There's no need to spend $20K to outfit any one photographer.  While Nikon and Canon rest on their laurels companies such as Fuji and Sony are just killing it. 

A lot of people were waiting with anticipation for this camera and I see why:  It's fantastic.  Again, well done, guys!  You continue to make my shoulders thank you.

***This post, its text and photographs, is not intended to be included in posts by ANY aggregator site unless specifically authorized in writing.***

my friend leo.

I’m not going to go to the blog and see the last time I updated.  I’m betting it’s been at least two years.  Audiences require daily content; I don’t have time for that.  There’s a huge difference writing about photography playing to an audience than actually making photos for clients. 

I prefer to post on IG.  It’s so easy.  You don’t really have to reply to comments; you just tap to like.  One of the reasons I stopped blogging or posting on dA is that I couldn’t keep up with the comments.  Blogging was a hobby; shooting for me is not.  Not being able to comment back and look like a jerk got old.  On dA I could get 1000 comments a week on journal or photo posts.  That’s full-time job to keep up.

Would I be remiss if I didn’t say I missed photoblogging?  For sure-ish.  Making my living, though, from affiliate sales and hot linking makes me sick to my stomach.  Time is time.  I get more inspired by looking at my feed on IG.  Isn’t that what it’s all about?  Being inspired by photography and not being inspired by “new gear” (ironic this post is about a new camera)?  Instead of chasing gear I think someone who truly wants to be a better photographer would just pick a platform and commit to shooting instead of commenting on some blog.  How does that make you a better photographer?  It doesn’t.  

But I'll bet it makes you a "super commenter." The only blogs with really high rates of clicks are those that talk about gear.  I know that personally:  Anytime I just posted about gear the views went though the roof.  Most of the people I know who make photos for a living rarely change their gear.  I think that’s left for IT weekend warrior-types who tend to post the most on the “gear review sites.”  

I still shoot D4’s, D800/810’s, Leica for 35mm film, Contax for medium format film and medium format digital — I’ve shot these same platforms for years and 10’s of TB’s for clients.

I moved from the Fujifilm X-Pro1 to the X-T1 because I liked the way it focused and wrote to cards faster.  Never really got into the X100/s/t because I don’t like being forced into a focal length.  I have an iPhone for that.

Recently, I did some drive/RAID maintenance and saw that I’d shot about 18 TB of Fuji files over the course of a few years.  The more and more I shot the X-T1 I really liked the fact I didn’t need some heavy mirror box to make photos.  Sometimes I’d just bring one as an ambient body while still having the D4-beast on another shoulder.  Wanna guess which shoulder hurt more after four or five hours of shooting?

For some assignments where I wasn’t expected to use flash I’d just take a few X-T1’s.  There hasn’t been one client or publication yet who’s said the deliverables were “too small” or not “high-quality enough.”  I did hear a couple times “Is that little thing good enough?”  They don’t realize that it’s about the same as the D4 file size-wise.  It’s not their job to know that.  When clients were surprised that they’d see images appear as a text on their phone all I heard was, “Our social media team loves that you can get us photos almost immediately.”  Couldn’t do that with the Nikons.  
Can't wait for the X-Pro2 to work with the app.

My shoulders appreciate it so much when I leave the "mirror boxes" at home.  Slinging two D4’s is torture now that I’m used to having one and sometimes two Fuji’s for a gig.  When I was first checking out the X-Pro1 what I really wanted was something to replace my Leica M9’s.  I know I know I know:  It’s heresy to suggest anyone could make any real photo with anything less than a Summilux or Summicron.   After using the X-Pro1 for a while I got used to the autofocus.  I still think most people don't know how to use AF properly.  Fujifilm engineers made it better and better with subsequent firmware upgrades.  I don’t really remember Leica doing anything like that except to try and correct numerous problems with their platforms not to mention sensor glass that liked to crack.  To be honest, I didn’t even really pay attention to what Nikon did with their firmware upgrades because they usually nail it right out of the gate.  

Getting better and better with both hardware and software tends to happen when you have beta-testers who are actually guys who work with their gear and not just fawn about it on forums.
  
I haven’t been blown away by a camera since the X-T1.  Yeah, cool, I can put two XQD’s in the new D5 but I probably won’t be buying D5’s.  12 frames per second.  Don’t do much sports so that aspect doesn’t matter much.  I get the shot in three frames.  Six and a half grand for a camera body just seems so stupid when one considers that’s almost approaching the glorious world of medium format digital.  I'd be surprised if they actually sold a lot-a lot.  Hopefully, Fuji gets "voice tagging" integrated before my D4's die.

Not only that but it’s only 20mp.  I mean I guess it’s a game of give and take when you’re designing a camera but still having a noisy mirror flopping up and down and all of that extra unnecessary weight just doesn’t seem to go the way the camera industry is going.  Yeah, I know:  It’s full frame.  These days who cares.  There hasn’t been one client who’s ever said, “Yeah, but can you shoot a full frame camera, please.”  Not one.  I’ve never had a deliverable rejected because the file wasn’t good enough or a client having said, "I was really hoping for that full-frame look."  Not once.

That’s not to say I would have liked to have had “a bit more file” to work with when shooting the X-T1.  Well, I may not have gotten the replacement to my X-T1’s but I’ve been shooting the X-Pro2 (codenamed “Leo”) for the past few months.  The first thing I noticed was it was so much “snappier.”  The focus was just crisp and super-accurate.  I’m not saying the X-T1 isn't good I’m just saying this is better.  Files processed through the X-Pro2's image engine were amazingly fast — at least two times faster and probably faster than that.  Whatever this new Sony sensor is doing it’s doing it much faster than the X-T1 does  and exponentially faster than the old venerable X-Pro1.

I asked why this sensor was better and was told that its architecture stems from conductivity using copper instead of aluminum giving it much more speed.  That speed isn’t just limited to recording the image but the readout speed, which effects the EVF refresh rate, AF speed and all sensor functions.  Because the internal architecture is based upon copper the general thickness of the sensor is greatly reduced the gaps between the pixels all but disappears.  All of those aspects are hard to quantify as an end-user but I saw way less noise in the mids and shadows.  Fuji confirmed that this new sensor has reduced noise as well.

The 64gb SDHC Class 3 UHS-II prototype Samsung memory cards along with the 16gb SDHC Class 3 UHS-II Toshiba cards I was using with the X-T1’s write so incredibly quickly.  I never hit the end of my buffer.  Then again, I rarely hit it with the D4’s, sometimes hit it with my D800/810’s.  

I’m not sure what the throughput on the Samsung cards was but I know the Toshiba’s were 260/240 mb/s.  Much faster than the dinosaur workhorse CF cards and on par with the XQD’s I put in the D4’s.  Why live in the past by using old CF cards when there’s new technology available? 


It’s also got two card slots one being for the UHS-II cards and the second for normal SD cards whatever those are because I don’t use them.  I know people love to put RAW files on one card and cooked JPG’s in another or write sequentially but I don’t really see why people really want to do that.  Whatever.  If it helps your workflow, all good.  I normally have a TB of card space on hand so it’s never really been an issue.  Not only that but I rarely touch my workflow as I have editors who handle it.

One thing I love about using SDHC Class 3 UHS-II and XQD’s for that matter in the D4’s is that they also download A LOT quicker.  Any amount of time I don't have to be editing photos or waiting to edit photos is a good thing.

Fuji added a cool little joystick on the back to select the area you want to use for AF.  Love this feature because it’s one of the things I love about my Nikon’s.

  Although I normally have “Single Point AF” selected for 90% of what I do, the “Zone AF” worked exceptionally well with little spaniels running at me.  Unsure how it’d do for sports but at least the target would be bigger than a “little dog.”

Single Point AF is extremely snappy and focuses on just about anything I pointed it at.  Where my Nikon’s contrast detection would hunt this little camera just locked and let me get the shot I wanted.

I noticed that the XF 35/2.0 seemed to be extra-snappy. Dunno why but that lens was on the body most of the time -- you'll see below.  I tend to use the XF 23/1.4 the most.  Really enjoyed that XF 35/2.0 as it seemed very Summicron-like to me.  

The menu system on the body has been fully revamped and much more intuitive to me.  Before I just “got used to where everything lived” but with the X-Pro2 the moment I launched the menu I figured out where everything was almost immediately except for formatting.  

Since this is the X-Pro2, there’s that rangefinder-ish window that allows you to see your photo optically as well as the lovely EVF.  I’ve gotten so used to the EVF using the X-T1 to make 100’s of thousands of frames that it’s something I really like and it's the mode I use the most.  The EVF on the X-Pro2 is even better.  Fuji explained to me that the OLED EVF is .48” with 2.36M dots vs. the one in the X-T1 which is .5” and 2.36M dots.  It’s also a much newer generation screen with a big feature that in its high performance mode it runs at 85fps rather than the 56fps refresh rate we find in the X-T1.

Along with the EVF one of the things you’ll notice first is the larger monitor on the X-Pro2. Instead of 1.04M pixels this one is 1.62M pixels.  Does it tilt?  No.  Would I prefer that it did?  I’d be lying if I said I didn’t.  I get why it doesn't, though.

No, there’s not 4K video.  That really doesn’t bother me because I don’t use this platform for video.  When I shoot video I use D800/810’s.  I’d like to experiment more often with the Fujifilm platform for video, though.  It does have 60p at 1080, though, which is a nice tool to have.  Would love to see a poll of how many people have actually edited 4k video, though.

  Like the X-T1 it has electronic shutter up to 1/32,000th of a second which means I don’t have to carry ND filters as much as I have in the past.  Another lovely thing with the electronic shutter is that it’s totally silent (if you turn off the sounds, of course), which allows me to shoot on set without a camera condom AKA “a blimp.”  I’ve now seen three other guys “lose the blimp” because technology is your friend and you don’t need to shoot like it’s 10 or 15 years ago. I'd hate to be in the blimp business.


Leicas aren’t even this quiet.  I do tend, however, when silence isn’t a total issue to use the mechanical shutter because I’m old and I like the positive feedback of hearing a frame recorded.  And for shooting street this camera feels sneakier to me than the X-T1 does.

Living in sunny California I normally shoot when it’s nice outside.  It’s always nice out.  We get the occasional rain but that doesn’t happen very often.  Except for now at least thanks to our friend “El Nino.”  No, I’m not looking up the tilde version of the “n.”  I would expect a camera to work well in nice weather.  

I was able to shoot an assignment with some cattle ranchers in Northern California in the middle of December of 2015.  Driving toward the ranch from my hotel in the tiny little town I watched the temp gauge in my truck start out at 32F (0C) ... then ... 22F (-5C)  … then 18F (-7C) … then 14F (-10F) and then 8F (-13C) when I got to the ranch.  Since I’d never used this camera in these kinds of environments, I was a little apprehensive.  Not only … it’s a prototype as well.  It’s close to production but it’s not production.  The firmware was pre-production as well.  I was used to my Nikons and Canons (back in the day when I was forced to shoot Canon) not being very happy in similar conditions when I shot as an official Sundance Film Festival photographer in the winter ... in the Utah mountains. 

I expected the battery to drain faster because of the frigid temps as it did.  I didn’t get as many frames as I would have on a temperate day but this little camera performed as well as anything I’ve ever shot in the same conditions.  It kept going and going.  Instead of perhaps 230 frames per battery I got about 200.

Interestingly, when I got off one of the horses I didn’t look down — trying to make sure I didn’t drop any gear — and inadvertently stepped in a hole that was full of slushy sloppy muddy cold-ass water with my right leg up to about my calf.  I’d shot for about 10 minutes.  I think it had warmed up to 14F (-10C).  When I told one of the ranchers/cowboys that “I couldn’t really feel my foot” his response was “Have a donut.  You’ll live.”  I think that glazed raised was really what helped. ;)

Being on both a horse and riding shotgun in a 4-wheel drive Kawasaki Mule keeping a hold of the camera wasn’t as much of a challenge because the new X-Pro2 has a handgrip-thingy built into the body.  So happy I didn’t drop/break any gear on this gig.  We rode all over a certain portion of the 12,000 acres which had obstacles everywhere. Yes, I know how to ride a horse.  I didn’t just jump on one blindly.

  That said, yes, I was sore for the next day.  

What else?  Film simulation mode!  I love the “classic chrome” setting.  It reminds me of Leica M9 files, which I thought were some of the loveliest to come out of a digital camera (under 640 iso, of course).  The “Acros” setting was also very nice for monochrome but I almost never shoot monochrome JPG files.  I like to use VSCO vis-a-via Lightroom or my own settings in PS CC and Capture One.


Although I was provided with an advanced version of Silky Pix, I never used it so I’ve actually never even seen a RAW from the X-Pro2.  I’m set in my ways and prefer to process RAW files with Capture One or if I have to I’ll use Lightroom.  Given that I was very conscientious of how my highlights were coming out given the exposures I chose.  Surprisingly, there’s pretty good latitude in the cooked JPG files coming out of the X-Pro2.  That said, I’m looking forward to seeing what RAW’s look like!

In the few months I’ve used Leo I’ve fallen in love with it.  If you’re upgrading from an X-Pro1, you’re definitely going to love what you’re going to get in the X-Pro2!  I have no doubt.  Given what they’ve done with the first Fujifilm digital camera that the world fell in love with they did an incredible job.  It even feels better in my hands.

ISO performance is as good as I expected.  I RARELY go over 6400 with any platform.  I mean I guess there's a need but I've never really seen any examples that are of those stratospheric speeds that a desk editor would ever accept.  Dynamic range is lovely as well.  I was told to put the dynamic range on auto, though, a while back and it seems to work just as well on the X-Pro2 as it does on the X-T1.

Don't get me wrong:  ISO is important.  My first digital camera, the Nikon D1, is fresh in my mind (15 years ago?) with its horrible dynamic range and ISO performance.  What I really want, though, is a camera that is as comfortable for me doing street and going straight into an paid assignment.  The M9 was cool until you got past ISO 400.  The X-Pro1 was a bit slow for work.  The X-T1 did both very well ... as ... does ... this little beast.  It's so damn snappy.  Focus locks whether I've got a 23/1.4 or even the 50-150/2.8 (even with the 1.4x converter), which is used as recently as this past weekend.

Although I’m not sure what the X-T2 will feature, given what I’m seeing with this camera, I can’t wait to see!  I know I hope that it includes the ability to “voice tag” so my editors can listen to the tags to speed up their workflow.  Did I mention voice tagging already as a friend at the AP also mentioned to me today?

In addition to “voice tagging” I’m also looking forward to a competitive on-camera flash solution from Fuji.  When that happens I’m pretty sure that I’ll be saying goodbye to mirror box cameras for the majority of my work.

  In most of my prior blog posts I interlaced photographs into the text.  This time I decided to put them all at the end…

Los Angeles - After I got it out of the box and wanted to see it work. :)  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8

Los Angeles - Then I picked on the dogs. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

The Los Angeles - The dog before doesn't really like to look at cameras.  This guy doesn't care.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - 'tis (was) the season -- everyone is always so happy.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Bishop - Almost. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 35/2

Round Valley - It's as cold as it looks.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 35/2

Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

I was more just hoping I didn't fall off with all of my gear ... and a prototype named Leo.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

12,000 acres at the foot of the beautiful Sierras.  Fujifilm X-Pro 2 and XF50-140/2.8

Not only was I cold but I was dusty as hell, too. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8

Works with cattle every single day. "Cows don't know it's Christmas."  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

I remember having gone to a country bar once and seeing a guy with spurs.  I asked him, "What kind of horse do you have?"  He told me to f*ck off.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

I think even they were cold.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Hasn't run for a couple decades-ish.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Their winter home. It's 15 degrees warmer up here ... or wherever we were.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Works harder than 99% of the people I know.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Round Valley - Absolutely love this area of California - Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF 23/1.4

Bishop - Later that day. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - Dinner by LED.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

St. Louis - Afternoon tea.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Agoura Hills - I asked him if that's the way he really felt and he said, "They should stay in Williamsburg." Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - We used to have to wait a week after going to Fotomat but now it's instant.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - Finally, it rains.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2.0

Los Angeles - Hula girl in an old VW van. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Beverly Hills - Window shopping.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Downtown Los Angeles - Surveying the new Broad museum. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Los Angeles - Pretty princess. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4

Downtown Los Angeles - Caught in nice light.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF35/2

Downtown Los Angeles - Contemplation over a drink at happy hour. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Santa Anita Race Track - Opening day.  Homie was rocking an M6, too. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Los Angeles - Coquettish daughter. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Santa Anita Race Track - He acted like an alien.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Downtown Los Angeles - "Yo, you should get some of those to shoot street, man."  "Nah, I just try to blend."  And he does.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF23/1.4

Las Vegas - Or how I spent my New Year's Eve weekend.  Vegas.  For the umteenth time.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF90/2

Las Vegas - Nicki Minaj and I'm still trying to figure out how she's talented.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

Las Vegas - She doesn't look anyone in their eyes.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

Las Vegas - Quiet moment in chaos. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4

Las Vegas - Chris Brown before he allegedly smacked someone else.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4

Las Vegas - He's very proud of his "talent."  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

Las Vegas - Some people pay huge $$$ for the privilege.  I look out into the crowd and see hell.  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF10-24/4

Las Vegas - Next up was The Weeknd.  He definitely had a semblance of talent.  Crowd loved him. Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF16/1.4 converter

Las Vegas - Surprised that the X-Pro2 focused better than my D800.  I'm also surprised that so many people think mobile phones are going to provide great photos and video.  People don't just enjoy concerts anymore?  Fujifilm X-Pro2 and XF50-140/2.8+1.4 converter

***All Photos ©2015/2016 Chris Weeks***

i'll show you what that big word means.

When you get any sort of fame or infamy on the web or otherwise you definitely attract all sorts.

Some – and I’d say the majority – are there to be inspired … to learn … to interact in an authentic way.  The minority is there to try and get close to you so that they can piggy-back on your fame and try and import your facebook contacts so that they can market your contacts with newsletters.  They meta tag you on their sites.  They buy google adwords with your name.

They are the deluded personality.

The deluded personality thinks that anyone who doesn’t agree with them are antisocial.  They think that any affront to them is an affront to society in general.  They talk about human rights and freedom of choice but subscribe to a mentality supporting hate sites.  (google whoispaulhaggis)

On one hand they would have you believe that certain people do not want you to succeed and are happier when you’re moving laterally.  On the other hand they think that sharing everything is par for the course.  They believe that it’s okay to download a friend’s entire facebook contact list and attempt to market said list.  It’s deluded to think that just because someone has a mutual friend – only because they asked for a friend request even though they don’t know them in real life – that they may have similar interests.  

Because some of the deluded are roped into thinking that they can accomplish anything by visualizing their goal and “being their goal” they believe they are experts within five minutes.  No amount of understanding the meaning behind words can achieve that no matter one’s intelligence.  While this may look attractive to those without a qualified eye most can see through the veneer of glossy shit and buzzwords and clever titles.  The deluded are undaunted and resolute in their delusion.

The deluded also deride any negative input as a “hater comment.”  Hate is such a strong word.  When I think of hate I think of hate groups that are in the Deep South or Idaho not just some internet keyboard cowboy with an opinion.  The deluded, though, think that if you don’t share their exact opinion that you must be a hater.  If you don’t subscribe to their dream delusion of grandeur, you must be out to get them and anyone else like them.  That having been said, indeed, true dreamers exist.  They’re not all gross deluded personality types.

I’m not sure if that’s a personality deficit of the deluded or just policy from what they subscribe.  It could be both.

The deluded  believe that they can pay for their soul’s salvation.  I’ve always thought God or at least the “idea of God” wanted or deserved to be free.  “Let me in the ring; I’ll show you what that big word means” - Lorde

The deluded wouldn’t know what being free is really about.

Only the deluded would attempt to deceive others into thinking that they’re experts.  They do this in many ways.  When they’re able to associate themselves with others who are credible they feel they are then credible themselves.  They attempt to deride others into thinking they’re legitimate in their field by associating themselves with “bona fide” media outlets.  Sometimes that works out if not for just a little while until people find out the truth.

The deluded have hidden agendas.  While under the guise of selling “The Key to Your Creativity” all they really want are your clicks and/or your money.

No matter what the deluded achieved in the past they will never let you forget it as recycling material on whichever platform – or sometimes all of them – is standard operating procedure.  What they don’t understand is that most see right through it.  One needn’t be bombarded with repetitive material to get what the author is talking about.  Sometimes, though, that thinking has been hammered into their heads by whatever philosophy they adhere to.  The deluded don’t see it that way. 

The deluded personality’s attempt to deceive others through frequent and continual posting in specialist forums about their dubious professional success.  Since those forums aren’t populated with many established in the field of photography, some fall for the scheme.   The deluded personality is about surface-level understanding.  They claim to contribute to legitimate media outlets even though their contracts have been canceled for some time.  They claim to “shoot portraits for magazines” without naming the magazines.  Sometimes those magazines are as simple as church publications, which don’t have wide distribution.

If you ask which publications they contribute to, they take that as an affront to their dream.  They’ll still list any outlet that they had even a distant association to keep up their delusion.  Their delusion is an energy. 

By associating themselves with brands – whether or not the brands are photography brands – they attempt to make it seem as though they’re relevant.  They subscribe to the feeling that if they are telling time with a Patek, they must be able to appreciate time better than someone with a Casio.  If they’re a Leica Photographer, surely, their view of their backyard is better than anyone with a lowly Canon or Nikon.  If they wear a Louis Vuitton bag to carry their gear, surely it must do a better job than a pedestrian Domke.  Surely, if they sign their exhibition prints with a limited edition Mont Blanc, that in and of itself, must make it more valuable.  I would suggest never buying anything from the deluded; it will never go up in value.

The deluded wear a camera; a photographer uses his camera.

Believing that a camera – any camera made by any manufacturer – is just a fashion accessory that goes nicely with one’s scarf is delusional.  Sadly, some of the deluded don’t even realize they’re doing it.  Only the severely materialistic are impressed by the deluded.  Those who have a true understanding of photography shun the deluded.  They identify the deluded as the fraud that they are.

I’m much more apt to respect the fraud that knows he’s a fraud.  That kind of fraud at least isn’t deluded.  He knows what he’s doing.  He’s not lead by a deluded ego.

The deluded are also contradictory.  While they sometimes subscribe to a doctrine that makes fun or attempts to deride an entire profession they use vernacular from that exact profession when it’s convenient to define others.  The deluded are so caught up in their personal delusions that they are incapable of seeing the truth. 

There is nothing wrong with pursuing one’s dreams authentically.  There is not one course or teacher, though, out there who can give you access to that dream beside yourself.  You don’t need a workshop to make you better.  You especially don’t need a workshop taught by the deluded. 

Paying someone hundreds of dollars or euros will not get you closer to who you want to be as a photographer.  There is no quick way to the top no matter what the deluded will try and sell you.

The deluded will, of course, think this is a "hater post."

Whether you have attracted the deluded because of notiariety or because you're simply on their newsletter hawking downloads or workshops, just know that they want one thing from you ... they want money.  

Sometimes there are deluded individuals that preach "positive thinking" when in actuality that's the antithesis of what they're really about.  Someone who acutally adheres to thinking positive should be relatively ethical.  The problem is that, again, they're misleading their audience into thinking that whatever they say actually has weight in whatever field they try to promote themselves.  

The web is full of them.  I can totally understand how it would be hard to differentiate them given the amount of content being published by the minute.

One funny thing about them is that they tend to also attract each other.  They tend to simutaneously publish stories on their blogs.

I'm actually happy for them.  They have each other. ;) I wonder if they buy each other zen beads?

pretty palette.

Prior to and kinda concurrant to getting my hands on the Fuji X-T1 The Brothers Wright gave me a few rolls of Cinestill Film during dinner with Ryan Muirhead this past December-ish.  It could have been January, though.  I don’t remember 

I have to digress a bit.  I know I’ve been caught in a “Cartier-Bresson Vortex.”  When I shoot for clients I’m shooting color.  Digital color.  Shooting black and white images is how I started when I was 10.  I’ve loved seeing black and white for a long time.  It always felt to me that it was a perfect foil to making color photos for clients.

It really wasn’t until I shot the M9 that I learned to really enjoy seeing some color street shots.  Prior to that 99.9% of my street work was shot on black and white film.  I didn’t see what was in my viewfinder in color; I saw it in monochrome.  Seeing the .dng files come out of the M9 I saw the files that I originally shot in my mind as black and white.  There were other frames that even though I may have seen them as monochromes they appeared to work in color.  It got me thinking about color street shots and actually making more and more of them. 

That thinking definitely carried forward when I retired my Leica digitals to eBay and got the Fuji X-Pro1.  I hadn’t really considered shooting tungsten film – either C-41 or E-6 – because it’s so specific.  When I’ve done unit photography I’ve always shot a couple Ektachrome 640T rolls.  This happens less and less because, to be honest, there was almost no reason to take an extra body and to have that body limited to film on a commercial shoot … hmm … not so much.

Personally, though, when I just felt like manually focusing my MP and feeling that slight left to right torque when I made a frame I felt limited using Tri-X.  I’d see some frames I really wished I could shoot in color.  Then I finally met the Brothers Wright guys in person and they gave me a few rolls.  I’m sure I’ll lament when I get a frame in color that I really love but can’t print.  No, I’m never going to do C-41 printing.  Doing black and white printing is enough. 

Even though I wasn’t limited in the context of only having a black and white photo I was still shooting tungsten.  I was told the results of shooting it straight during the day was cool but a little different.  I wasn’t sure I wanted that look.  Finding an 85B filter is difficult unless, of course, you go straight to B&H.  B+W was the only brand offering immediate shipping.  I gotta think the number of people using them was really small these days.

I tried to think of when I mostly used tungsten and originally thought it’d be at night.  With this film, though, you become well-aware of the myriad color temperatures that exist in different places in the frame.

She seemed as though she was somewhere else.  I think we had to repeat our order at least twice and ask for things we wanted at least twice.  We were still nice to her, though.  The lights if I remember correctly were the cheap CFL curly variety.  Clearly, those lights on this film look like UFO’s.    I really like the tension in the frame but I’m not wholly in love with the way the UFO’s are depicted. 

I don’t think the rendition of the CFL’s bug me too too much.

There’s an odd still color palate to this stuff.

Even when there wasn’t too much light and you exposed exactly for what you’re exposing for it holds up.  Oh, and by the way, all of these photographs were shot with a Leica MP and Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 ASPH (not the FLE as I don’t use a Leica to shoot at less than a meter and I’m not shooting Leica digital). 

During the day using the 85B filter it seemed as though it looked different – sometimes a lot different – during different lighting scenarios.  Overcast gave off a really cold look.

At night it was really a crapshoot.

As long as you have some light you can make a frame.

Those were not CFL’s; they were the popular Edison vintage bulbs.  I don’t think they were more than 60 watts and I’m not sure they were turned up all the way. 

The guy falling asleep at his valet stand was lit by some UFO-looking LED light.  In the background there were so many different types of light sources.

I really enjoy the color palates of this film.  I’m not sure if I like what I get at night or during the day more or less.

Incredibly mixed light would make its own color palate such as this lunch crowd downtown.

Skin tones – even during the day with an 85B – were so much more “interesting” than Portra. 

I don’t know if I had black and white film loaded if I’d have made a photo of the Disney Hall.

The tones are really lovely.  Again, any day-shot is filtered with an 85B.

Flat light is flat light is flat light but with this film flat light was a bit more interesting looking.

Been watching this project progress albeit slowly.  Knowing I didn’t have black and white film loaded allowed me to see interesting color patterns that wouldn’t necessarily work in monochrome.

Lights in backgrounds look so trippy at night.  I’m not exactly sure why they look like that because I’m not sure I recall really studying movies made with this film stock.  I was about an eighth wide open for that last one. 

There’s definitely no digital file that I know of that looks like this stuff.

 Skin tones, though, under almost any situation look pretty good.

This was shot on the same day as the next one but the sun came out in this one.

Crappy overhead office fluorescents don’t even look that bad.  Then again, how can a bunch of English Bulldog puppies look bad?

This film – I think, at least – really looks cinematic.  Guess it stands to reason given what it is.

I also go to many of the same places a lot.  This time the pervy valet pervert wasn’t at his post.

I was really impressed with the range of the film, too.  Even subjects in the shadows read well.  

Sometimes shooting in flat light is – for me, at least – almost always a moment.  I don’t really go for a shot with just form or composition.  With Cinestill film I found I made frames that may just include an interesting palate.  Sometimes it was that cold grayness that I liked.

Yet skin tones were still to my liking.

I’m not really sure what’s going on here.  I do know that some of the more inebriated downtown inhabitants were LOVING the dj a drug store hired to entertain during their grand opening.

I was told that backlight subjects weren’t all that good to shoot because of possible halation because the Rem-jet was removed.  This film is designed for subjects that are well light from the front.  It’s movie film.  Makes sense.

I didn’t find it unpleasing when a subject wasn’t well-lit.

When I was testing the Fujifilm X-T1 I also brought the MP loaded with the last few frames of Cinestill Film.  Okay, I also shot a Contax 645 a Phase P45+ digital back, too.  I have yet to do selects or color grade those frames. 

These particular frames were light with Mole Richardson Baby 1K’s.  This particular shot was the tungsten 1K bounced on some foamcore.  There was still a bit of daylight pouring in from some of the windows.

Even though it was a semi-mixed lighting scenario, Cody was lit primarily with tungsten and tungsten lights in a book lighting scenario primarily used in motion pictures.  Her skin tones were as I expected and more than pleasing.

The bathroom was primarily light with red-color bulbs and some tungsten pouring in from the window.  I also used some 4x4 bottom floppies to block out some of the daylight spilling in.

I’d turned off the 1K tungstens to allow them some time to cool down.  I saw Cody relaxing on the couch after our grueling shoot.  I saw I had one frame left from the five rolls I’d shot.  Reached in my pocket, grabbed the 85B and had my assistant bounce in some of the daylight with a medium-soft bead board.  Again, this film handled a lot of lighting influences with ease and produced absolutely lovely skin tones.

Having shot so much native color digital street photography ever since I beta-tested the M9 for Leica I’ve gotten to really love shooting color photos for myself.  Although I’ll still shoot Tri-X or Fujifilm Acros 100 or APX 25 (because I still love making prints in the darkroom), I think that Cinestill Film is definitely going to find a way into my heart.  The tones and color palate are so lovely and complimentary to a lot the things I want to see again.  The UFO-quality of odd lights with odd color temperatures will be something I’ll have to get used to but I’m looking forward to making many more frames with this stock.

I’m pretty sure you can get it at Freestyle here in Los Angeles and Photo Impex in Berlin. 

i didn't actually plan to do this...

Honestly, I can’t believe I remembered my password much less my username to log onto my typepad account.  It’s been almost two years since I’ve written anything here.  My friend Randall saw me in Venice walking to a gig and he said, “When are you ever gonna write something new.”  He named my last blog post but, seriously, I have no idea what it was.  I’m actually shocked typepad was still here when I went to my blog.  I’d suspect old people with gardening blogs probably use the service. Gardening is the number one hobby in the States.

I remember sitting in Central Park talking about street photography with Severin awhile back.  The topic of popularity, social media and what kind of people are attracted to that in the context of photography.  We both agreed that it takes a lot of effort to post content every day.  One has to be committed.  I just don’t know any constantly working photographer who has that kind of time.  It’s not just the work.  It’s the marketing of oneself to one’s clients to keep up the flow of work.  That takes time.  

I’d rather makes photos for clients than spend time racking up likes and followers.  Thinking of running a blog-slash-forum actually turns my stomach.

That, in a nutshell, is why I haven’t blogged a lot … well … at all.  The page views aren’t important to me.  In fact, I’d rather post a stream of photos, which I do much more regularly than write blogs.  

I mean if that’s what you want to do and if that’s how you feel relevant in photography … by all means.  Making photos for clients allows me to make photos for myself; I prefer it that way.

I still like to share photos.

I/we have been working on an update or answer or whatever to “Documenting the Human Condition” as well.  Editing video is a joy.  A week or so ago someone rushed up to me on the street trying to scare me and said, “Give me your Leica, pal.”  I knew him.  He introduced me to his friend who said he was a video editor to which I said, “So you have no life, enjoy tedious bullshit, rendering and you live in a black hole?”

“Something like that.”  Yeah, that’s how I feel about video editing.  But instead of responding to blog/forum comments or endlessly promoting oneself on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram I’d rather do something more fulfilling.  Fulfilling to me, at least.

We shot footage in a lot of different cities in a few different countries on a few different continents over the past three or four years.  Human Condition was way too Leica-centric for my taste.  But whatever I didn’t know any better at the time.  I think it'll be done this year.  I’d say the appearance of a Leica played a pretty small part in the current project.  

The only Leica I use is my venerable MP which has been loaded as of late with CineStill film.  Shooting street with the M9 taught me that there were more than a few instances where I really liked what I saw in color unlike always having b/w film loaded in the MP.  The Fujifilm X-Pro1 solidified it because I didn’t have to focus and the files the X-Trans sensors make are fantastic.  I’m so used to shooting Nikon D4’s and D800’s and before that Canon 1Ds Mark 3’s and 1D Mark 4’s and their terrific autofocus. I wanted that option when I was using a rangefinder-ish body. The Fujifilm X-T1 isn't a rangefinder-ish body in the way the X-Pro1 is but it's definitely different. 

I still get asked if the X-Pro1 is a film camera.  No, not by photographer-photographers but like laypeople.   After almost two years I can say that I beat the crap out of my X-Pro1.  It has dropped to tarmac on at least a few occassions from at least a couple of feet.  There is NO WAY I could have done that with an M9.  No way.  It'd still be getting fixed.  I’m sure the X-Pro’s resale value wouldn’t be too high, though.  But whatever.  She served her purpose more than well.    

It’s nice having AF; I don’t care what the hardcore Leica-users say.  The only place they’re absolutely relevant is largely to themselves within their specialist forums with a couple thousand users.  They have their heroes.  Their heroes like to measure sharpness by shooting hoses in their yards.  I guess that’s real world to someone.  It's funny the difference between the "real world" my friends and I have and the "real world" of enthusiasts/forum photographers.

I can honestly say I’ve never shot a hose in my yard nor patio furniture nor any trees for that matter unless I'm paying homage to enthusiasts.

Recently, I've been using the Fujifilm X-T1.  I’d heard rumors on enthusiast sites that “mirrorless was going to replace the D-SLR.”  I always laughed when I read that.  My only experience with a mirrorless EVF was the X-Pro1.  It has an optical and EVF mode.  I used them each about half of the time equally.  I didn’t mind the EVF at all.  I thought I’d hate it but I didn’t.  Did I ever think an EVF/mirrorless camera would replace my D-SLR’s?  No way.  None of my shooter-homies shoot mirrorless.  Perhaps they have a point-and-shoot for throw-away snaps or even an iPhone but no way could it replace one of our D-SLR’s.

I also hear “...but full-frame is always better than a cropped sensor.”  I shot cropped sensors for years.  It never bothered me.  It never hindered me from getting a frame I needed.  I got published plenty.  I guess I just don’t need full-frame for everything I do.  If I really need what full-frame is truly capable of, I’m going to shoot a 16-bit RAW out of a Phase back, which no D-SLR can match.

When talking about the X-Pro1 I’d heard people also say, “It’s only 16 megapixels.”  I’d ask them, “That’s going to hold you back from getting a two-page spread in a magazine?”

“I don’t shoot for magazines; I just post to my blog and flickr.”

“Well … I think 16 megapixels will be fine.”  I’ve made beautiful 16 x 20 and larger prints with 16 megapixel X-Pro1 files on the Epson 9890.  They’re gorgeous.  Color and monochrome.  

When I held a pre-production sample of the X-T1 I had no predisposition about how I’d feel about it.  When I put it up to my eye, though, I had never seen an EVF like that.  No optical finder option at all.  First time I’d ever had a camera like that in my hands. I knew I couldn’t post anything so I just made a few random frames to check a few things.  No, I didn’t find any hoses laying around the hotel to shoot.  I looked, though.

A few weeks later I got to use a proper X-T1.  Same battery as the X-Pro1, which was nice.  Same menus except for some additional WIFI modes.  The EVF, again, was the first thing that absolutely blew me away aside from the build quality.  I know it’s way better than what I saw in the 1.4 mp EVF Leica rebrands and sticks on their M240.  In fact, the EVF in the Fujifilm X-T1 is almost double the resolution of the Leica EVF and the Fuji is OLED. The AF was significantly faster than anything I’d used extensively from Fujifilm, meaning the X-Pro1.  The X100s has pretty zippy AF but I didn’t use that camera very often. 

After making a few frames I put on my glasses and looked at the beautiful monitor, which seems better than the X-Pro1 as well and was amazed it nailed focus so consistently.  Again, no, I didn’t run outside and find the first hose to photograph.  I did make a photo of a pretty rain drop – yes, it rains here once in a while – on a branch.

Homage to you backyard tree shooters and gear reviewers.  

Took the Metro – yes, we actually have public transit in Los Angeles other than than buses with pee-stained seats – and shot downtown.  Took it with me pretty much everywhere because I always have something to shoot with.

As long as I picked the perfect spot to use AF with the X-Pro1 it was cool.  The X-T1, however, locked on  anything.  So fast it's mental.  I still use a center AF and recompose.  I know my Nikons will focus just about anywhere there are AF patches but I still use the center. I've just always just used the center.  I'm old.  Same goes the same with how I focus with the X-T1.

Yeah, I know: I hate when cars are in photos.  Rinz hates them, too.  But random mariachis (sp?) are pretty common in Los Angeles.

What I like about a small-ish camera like the Leicas I’ve used is that it’s not like putting a D4, D800 or some other huge D-SLR to my face to make a frame.  Even though the X-T1 has a bump on the top part, which usually signifies some type of prism (there’s no prism in there), it’s still a diminutive camera.  The shutter is way quieter than any digital Leica I’ve ever used.  It’s about the same as the X-Pro1.  I’m not buying a db meter to find out the difference.   

I like surreptitious frames.  The X-T1 helps me achieve that kind of photograph by boiling itself down to the essentials.  Honestly, having had the Nikon Df in my hands I can say that Fuji did what Nikon wished they could have done.  The X-T1 is almost half the weight of the Df. The MP with the Summilux-M 35/1.4 ASPH is far heavier than the little X-T1 with any lens other than the Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS.  That isn’t to say that it doesn’t feel nice in your hands.  It has that little bit of heft like the iPhone 5, which lets you know it’s made very well.

I guess they weren’t too busy.  Then again, it was an odd time during a weekday.

 

I’m not totally sure I would have raised my camera to my face and pointed it at this dude.  I’ve never had a camera that had a rear monitor that tilted.  For the much-vilified hipshot it sure is useful.  I was surprised I liked that aspect so much.  Who knew.

In this low-light situation I don’t think the X-Pro1 would have liked it so much.  The X-T1, well, it nailed the face in the window three frames in a row.  I think in any low-light situation you really have to pick your AF area wisely.  AF likes contrast.  Granted, with the MP I could have nailed it no matter what but that’s one of the places a rangefinder really shines.

Spot-metering works extremely well, too, nailing the exact shutter speed I would have picked manually.  I know, I know, I’m supposed to get out my physical spot meter and take a real reading.  My bad. I'm supposed to use a color checker, too, right!?  All real photographers never leave home without one. ;)

I’m not bagging on the AF of the X-Pro1 at all.  I knew how to make it work for me.  The X-T1 is seriously in a whole other league.  I would sometimes have had to double-check the focus on the X-Pro1 monitor.  Ya' know ... just to check.  There was no AF-hunting with the X-T1 on the man’s face at all in the above photo.  I didn’t believe it, checked focus on the monitor, zoomed in and was impressed. 

I still have no idea what a benevolent society is.

I don’t think I’d ever try on a hat.  It kinda creeps me out.  Happy these two were enjoying it.  We also talked about how to make carnitas.  I’ve learned three random facts about carnitas by asking three random people.  Each of them has said, though, “You must cook it really really slow.”

I know for a fact that firecrackers are illegal in Los Angeles County if not all of Caifornia.  The dude frame left lit pack after pack of various sizes with impunity.  It was the weekend after Chinese New Year and they were still going.  LAPD acted like nothing was going on.  Love city cops!

A whole store and they sell pandas accessories.  I had no idea there was market interest like this.

I wasn’t ever able to look at RAW files (.raf) because as of the night of 19 February neither Adobe or Apple (or Phase) had any update including the X-T1.  Each file, sorry, photo, was an in-camera jpg.  That being said Fujifilm appears to crank out very pleasing jpg’s.  Best coffee in Los Angeles on this corner.  Just FYI.  They don’t serve sugar or any standard Dumb Starbucks condiments.

This is my friend’s latest rescue.  He’s pretty amazing.  They found him wandering the streets.   The Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens makes lovely frames.

I also had the Fujifilm XF 10-24mm f/4 R OIS.  Normally, I use this kind of lens for atmosphere photographs during assignments.  It’s definitely not something I would carry with me.  Knowing that lens is available, though, is quite nice.  When I used the M9 as an ambient body one of the biggest issues was super-wide glass.  Not just 24mm or 21mm … but wide-wide. It just wasn't available. 

Not to mention the extra accessory grip.  It makes it look like a bit smaller FM2 with a winder.  Having extra battery life is nice, too.  Anything besides a D4’s battery is less-than-optimal for me.  I can make over 5000 frames on one charge.  It seemed as though I got about 200-250 frames per charge with the X-T1.  I have several batteries – as I do with every camera I own – so it’s not a huge issue for me.  Gotta think that gorgeous EVF sucks a little energy.  Everyone should have at least four batteries.

I was interested to see what the continuous focus AF mode was like.  I tried it only a few times with the X-Pro1.  It’s not a camera format I mentally associate with continuous.  If I need focus-tracking, I use a Nikon.  I didn’t shoot any sports with the X-T1 but subjects I shot moving toward me or away from me were surprisingly tack.

I think I made four or five frames on Continuous Low and it was properly focused on each one.  I just don’t use that mode of AF.  I guess it’s nice to know that if I really need it this camera can deliver.  I’m almost positive homeboy had been drinking.  Driving a rascal on the sidewalk after drinking and then talking on the phone.  We have it all in L.A.

People always duck and look more asinine than if they would have just walked through the frame.

If you’re near Sunset and Alvarado, you can find free records.

Or all sorts of religious items if you’re into that.

Or a random fire suit and whatever that is frame right.

Or a motel room by the hour.

Or … whatever the hell that is in the window.  Sunset is very colorful.

Instead of going into the backyard and finding a hose or snow-covered law furniture I texted my friend and actress, Cody Kennedy, and asked her if she wanted to do a shoot.  I’m not a huge fan of the Hallmark holiday that screws with the self-confidence of insecure single girls.  I had an idea.  

The available light was spilling in frame right so I diffused a surprisingly bright LED by Simple Studio Lighting (Photo Video 1344 LED Light Panel) to “extend the available light.”  This thing is kind of a brute force kind of LED; I've diffused it everytime I've used it.  I get sick of strobe all the time.  Dunno wny.  Continuous is so much more fun.

Our winter light is almost over.  Soon we’ll be back to that brassy up and down stuff we get for a while.  I wish we had winter light all the time. 

The premise was that she was pensively readying herself for a Valentine’s day date.  All girls wait by pools in their bra waiting for a text.  #normal

I tried to use the Fujifilm XF 56mm f/1.2 R Lens as much as I could.  Whether it's wide open or any other f/stop I found it to be excellent.  Reminds me of the out-of-focus areas unscharfen bereichen I get from one-four Nikon glass.  I just can't bring myself to use the word bokeh.  It gives me the same reaction as some girls I know when they hear the word moist. 

I used the same kind of diffusion as I did for the first shot but with different light.  A kind gaffer on a set where I was doing unit photography explained a concept for me and I use it quite often.  When the ambient light is one thing or another I try and use the same color temperature.  This scene was predominately tungsten so I used a Mole Richardson 1K Baby Solarspot.  Yes, I could have gelled up the LED with CTO but I didn’t. A gel plus diffusion cripples the output. 

We had access to more clothes than I think is healthy.  I've seen stylists racks but this was outta control.

Harsh I know.  My poor subject gets the text of death on Valentine’s.

Clearly, the text wasn’t taken well.

I used the same 1K Baby Solarspot Mole outside next to the window and blocked out most of the spilling ambient daylight with two four-by bottom floppies on C-Stands.

Even shooting into a mirror the X-T1 focused where I wanted every time.

As a note I haven’t color-graded these at all.  Levels, contrast and perhaps tweaking the color temperature/hue or adjusting the exposure level is all I did.  I wanted to show what was possible in-camera with only light adjustments in Aperture … on a broken MacBook Pro.  An old one to boot.

Cody was beyond brilliant!  Thank you again!

We wrapped in about two and a half hours.  Everything I asked the X-T1 to do it did.  Everything I asked Cody to do she gave me.  Love working with professionals.

That’s another thing.  There’s this new type of SD card called Exceria Pro by Toshiba that writes at 240 MB/s (reads at 260).  Ridiculous.  I have fast CF cards and even faster XQD’s that I use in the D4’s.  This is on the same level as the XQD it seems.  I did a burst of about five frames and didn’t even see the drive light on the camera body light up.  I actually wondered if it actually recorded the frames.  

Valentine’s Day dinners were in full swing at the restaurants. 

When I write a blog I use Word and make notes as to what photo to insert in brackets.  My bracket for this photo was [enormous breasts and desert].  ‘nuf said.  And, honestly, I have no idea if I took this or my homie Bert did.  Mai Tai's were involved.  He won Best Director at the Pasadena International Film Festival.  Congrats, again, man!

I don’t think I shot anything at 3200 ISO.  I have this mental block to never go past 1600.  If I have fast enough glass, which Fuji definitely has, about all I need is 1600.  And the X-T1 has a clean 1600.  I wouldn’t expect any less because the X-Pro1 did very well at high ISO’s. 

Fuji’s got this app called Fujifilm Camera Remote that I downloaded from iTunes.  It took a little bit of getting used to it.  It has four programs:  Remote Control, Receive, Browse Camera and Geotagging.  Between all of those programs it cancels your connection and you have to reselect the camera’s WIFI from the iPhone.  That was my only issue with it.  As long as you work within one particular program it was pretty robust.  You have to reconnect within each of the four programs in the Remote app.

Although it doesn’t have a GPS radio, you can get GPS data from an iPhone and embed it into the EXIF on the X-T1.  I do a lot of location scouting and don’t have to take a reference photo with the iPhone any longer.  Yes, I know I can buy a GPS radio for one of the Nikons but I never did.

Browse Camera is cool because I can transfer a photo to the iPhone instead of using the iPhone’s camera.  I know you can control the iPhone's camera pretty well but I still prefer using a “real camera,” whatever that means.   I pulled a few photos from the X-T1 to my iPhone, adjusted them in VSCO and posted to Instagram pretty fast. 

I have no idea what Receive does within the app but I’m going to assume it receives something.

Wish my Nikons did this kind of stuff.  There are always situations where a client wants something immediately.  Being able to send a file from my iPhone to my client will be more than helpful.  Except once you spoil them there’s no going back.  Ya’ know kind of like showing them how well you can do video b-roll with D-SLR’s.  

On the X-Pro1 I had the Fujifilm 18mm f/2.0 XF R on it at least seventy percent of the time.  On the MP or the M9 I primarily use a 35 ‘lux.  The Fujifilm 18mm f/2.0 XF R is the closest prime Fujifilm had available at the time.  I knew the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R was available at a certain point but never got one.  The Fujifilm 18mm f/2.0 XF R’s angle of view was interesting because it was just that little bit wider that I didn’t normally use on my street/personal Leica.  In fact, because of using that 28mm on the Fuji I'd buy one for the MP if Leica ever does a Summilux-M 28/1.4 ASPH. It would represent the last Leica lens I ever buy. I'll bet if one ever comes out it's at least six grand.

I've recently been using the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R and feel like I’m looking through an old friend.  It’s funny how we find that focal length that we like more than other focal lengths. 

 No idea what was going on behind the curtains.

It’s also odd that I never really got around to buying the normal set of ND filters I normally have for whatever system I’m shooting.  The day I received the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R I also received the requisite set of filters from B&H for the Fuji glass.  It was so funny when I tried to shop local.  “Can I get 52mm and 62mm in either Hoya or B+W 1, 2 and 3 stop ND’s”?

“You really should be using Heliopan.”

“Yeah, okay.  B+W and Hoya have always treated me well.  So have the Schneider Cine ones.” 

“With that beautiful Fuji glass I’d really put Heliopan on it.”

He starts rattling off prices and I’m B&H’ing the prices on my iPhone. 

“That’s the best you can do?”

“Yeah.”

I turned the phone around so he could see that B&H’s prices were about thirty percent less.  The Fuji lenses I have use 52mm, 62mm and 72mm (for that super-wide zoom which I already have because they're the same size on many Nikon lenses, too).  I don’t use dial-a-stop ND’s even though I’ve heard they’re good. 

I like using an ND filter when I'm shooting digital so that I can open up a bit and sometimes give my subject a bit of diferentiation from the background.  I remember when I loaned my Noctilux to a workshop instructor who was a friend at the time.  He looked at the front of the lens and saw the 3-stop B+W filter and said, "Why do you have that on there?"  I thought everyone knew what an ND was.  I mean especially by someone who teaches Leica owners.  I hear since that day he's been all about using an ND.

I’m so happy to have a 35-equivolent on my ambient body.  Sometimes I really missed that extra stop when using the Fujifilm 18mm f/2.0 XF R.  

Although I didn’t expect the build quality of the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R to be anything but well-made, it’s not until you get it in your hands that you see what a great job Fujifilm did. 

When I was mentally proofreading this to see if I missed anything I couldn’t believe that I almost blanked out about something I saw.  The local news in LA starts off with the first five minutes telling us who was brutalized, who was run-over, who was shot, who was whatever.  This day was no different.  There was a story about a nineteen year-old girl who was shot by her boyfriend who then went on the run but turned himself in at the behest of his mother who witnessed the shooting in her apartment.  I looked it up on my iPhone and saw they were having a candlelight vigil for the slain girl.

It’s only a few blocks away.  

It could be a world away, actually.  

His sister was brutally murdered the night before.

And the “news people” stood around to get their eleven o’clock content.  They’re so formulaic and predictable.  They were literally bitching at each other to get their interviews first so they could finish up and go home.  Each time homie was asked to recount his story he cried.  It was sad to watch.  

I was making this frame and thinking, “My kid never had to see this kinda shit.  I never grew up seeing this kind of shit for that matter.  But it happens right around the corner.”  How does that affect you growing up?

The little camera I was holding didn’t make me stand out at all even with the grip.  I shot the photos with the Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R and the Fujifilm 35mm f/1.4 XF R.  They both performed lovely.  When the ENG (electronic news gathering) guys get “their content” I don’t think their mannerisms, methods and equipment lend anything to being surreptitious.  Your subjects will almost always be reacting to the massive equipment you’re using to document the situation. Putting a ultra-bright spot light in someone's face is never a way to get true emotion.

After I made a few frames I asked, “Did you know her?”

“She was my neighbor.  She was so nice.  I haven't seen her for a month or so.”

Any blur is not the AF.  It was the fact I was at an 1/8^th wide open and 1600 ISO.  There’s no mirror floppin’ around, which makes shooting slower shutter speeds easier. But 1/8th's and 1/4's can sometimes be a little tricky handheld.  Not that I'd bring a tripod with me. I could always just bite the bullet and shoot 3200 I guess.

Luckily, these subjects were lit so that I could be at a 30th.  Looking right of that group I saw a frame I wanted but knew I’d never get it at an eighth.  I thought I could use that extra shutter stop.  So I went to 3200.  Not only that but the Fujifilm X-T1 performs very well in low-light (I don't have the AF focus assist beam turned on).  AF-hunting depends upon the skill of the photographer knowing where to select focus.  At least I think so.  I find that some complain about their system's AF ability because they don't know how AF works and they expect it to work under any circumstance.

I got the extra shutter stop I needed by going up to 3200.

I left but got one more frame.

When I looked through the EVF I saw the lines on the girls hand when I went to focus.  I can now say that if I really really really need 3200 I’m pretty confident shooting it that high with this camera.

Sent the photos I posted here for online printing and delivery to the family of the slain teenager.  In a neighborhood where pit bulls roam the streets – happened during the vigil – and life is a little tougher than many other places ... there was a kind energy in that little part of the world.  It’s too bad it had to happen because of the death of some girl who hadn’t seen the best part of her life yet.

I still can’t believe I like a mirrorless camera body.  The OLED viewfinder is just amazing.  From the analogue dial on the top for exposure compensation – it doesn’t move as easy as the X-Pro1 – to the ISO and shutter speed knobs the X-T1 just feels like someone finally got it right.  It doesn’t have a cable release-type shutter button.  I know that’s gonna piss off some.  My Nikons don’t have one either.  I think that’s one of the reasons it felt so good in my hands. It feels quicker making photos than the X-Pro1.  I'll just use Camera Remote to trip the camera without touching it.

How many times has any of my Nikons been mounted on a tripod?  Probably count it one hand.  Never put the MP’s or M9’s or the X-Pro1 on a tripod.  The only reason I’d ever need a cable release was if it was tripod-mounted.  So … I see no need.  I’m sure there will be some who just have to have a soft-release.  Although my friend Gandy gave me several of them, I believe they’re still in some random box containing random unused accessories.  I don't know one working photographer who uses a soft release. I always though they were camera jewelry.

Looking forward to making many many more frames with the Fujifilm X-T1.  It’s a joy to use.  Wanna see the RAW files, too.  I’ve been shooting RAW+jpg so that I’ll have the RAW files in the future.  Hopefully, that will be very very soon.  

Figured out that using “Silent Mode” didn’t actually give me all of the AF’s capabilities.  You get essentially the same thing by turning off the beep and the AF-assist beam but the AF is a hair faster when you don't activate Silent Mode.  I have no idea why that is but on both the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and X-T1 it seems faster to me without it.

There's this other palpable different I see with the files from both the X-Pro1 and X-T1:  the colors are so different than the "other CMOS" sensors out there.  There's just something.  They seriously remind me of the colors I loved getting from the CCD sensor on the M9. Ya' know ... up to ISO 640.  There was a "pop" to them that CMOS files just don't seem to have.  Whatever Fujifilm is doing I hope they keep doing it because I get that same pop.

Not once did I take it off auto-white balance.  Granted, I wasn't able to see the files from RAW but the X-T1 did really well.

I used the M-Mount Adapter as well.  On the X-Pro1 I used several Leica lenses with the adapter and was pretty pleased with the results.  It slows shooting down considerably seeing as how the X-System is meant for autofocus especially now with the X-T1's lighting fast AF.  With the X-Pro1 I was able to use assisted manual focusing with a later firmware update including focus peaking.  The X-T1 has a Digital Split Image focusing aid that is spot on and seems faster than the previously mentioned method.  I used my Noctilux-M 50/1.0, which makes it about a 75mm in full-frame parlance.  I just wanted to see how the split image worked and it seemed to be more than adequate.  The OLED EVF makes that aspect of the camera sing.

The X-T1 also comes with a tiny flash but I didn't really check it out yet.

There are definitely going to be situations in future assignments where at least one of the Nikons will be left at home.  I can foresee situations where I could use just the Fujifilm platform and save my shoulders. 

I don’t know why I’m shocked I love this camera as much as I do.  Fuji did A LOT of things right with the X-T1.  And, no, I've never extensively used one of the new Sony's or the Olympus I've heard some things about.  Unless I know a system pretty well I'm not going to talk about it.  No idea how they compare but then again I don't chase gear.  I learn how to use what I have.  It's cheaper that way.  Most working guys I know don't chase gear at all.  

Would have put this on tumblr but doing a long post and tumblr aren’t well suited for each other.   I have no idea how often I’ll post on this blog in the future.  I’d rather spend my time making photos. 

In the comments leave me a website, tumblr or flickr feed or wherever you start posting the photos you're making with the X-T1!  I want to see!  I really want to see what James can do with one!

I hope this finds everyone very well!

Note:  None of the photos or text posted in this entry are intended for use or quotation anywhere but on aphotocontributor.com. 

Digital Kool-Aid.

Let’s see … I know I’m many months late with my impressions of the Fuji X-Pro 1.  I’m sure there were “reviews” before the camera was even released.  Even if there weren’t I’m sure there were thoughts – probably numbering in the thousands – on forum sites.  Quite honestly, I didn’t read any of them.

Then again, I never really do.  How is the experience of a retired engineer or a forum-whore-turned-blogger going to help me?  They’re not.

I got the chance to play with the X100 when I was in Berlin last summer.  Loved how quiet it was.  I wasn’t, however, so happy with its AF focusing ability.  It hunted like the old Nikon AF stuff I shot back in the day with D-series lenses.  It wasn’t quite the same but it hunted.  In daylight it seemed fine but I wanted more than fine.  I compared – at the time – everything AF to the way my Canons performed.  Now, since I’m shooting Nikon digital, I compare everything to that.  And that’s pretty spectacular.

Interestingly I was having “issues” with my digital rangefinder, the venerable yet outdated M9.  There was a time when the M9 was my ambient light body as an accoutrement to the Canons I was using.  For some reason the SD cards would lock up.  I’d get that annoying red “writing light” more than I cared to see it.  Anyone that knows me knows it wasn’t because I was reaching the end of the buffer either.  It’s one thing to happen when you’re shooting for yourself but I also shot that camera system for clients, too.  If it weren’t for clients, I wouldn’t be able to make as many personal photographs.  Each is important yet when someone’s paying you to shoot your equipment must work 100% of the time.

With the M9 that wasn’t exactly the case.  I’m not an M9 hater.  I’m not a Leica hater.  I just think they’ve done boneheaded marketing moves but I still like the company.  I mean … I was one of the original beta-testers of the M9 when it was the P864.  I know I’ve made almost as many frames with that camera system as anyone on the planet.  That folder has in excess of 100,000 photos in it.  Personal street, stuff I shot at the request of engineers on the original design … and work stuff.  The M9’s that went through my hands saw everything from street photos all over the world to Metalica to The Prince and Princess’ visit to California last year.  Speaking of which I was overjoyed that the M9 worked flawlessly on that assignment. 

It tended to do that when the light was good.  When ambient (good CRI only) was 800 or higher and you were about halfway on a battery you’d get banding.  Ya’ know … and even though they released firmware update after firmware update the response I got was “use older cards with it.”  Nikon and Canon have never told me that.  Then again, working photographers DEPEND on their cameras and most who shoot with Leica are more concerned that the strap matches their bespoke jacket and hat. ;)

Last summer my love affair with Leica digital ended.  I started shooting my daytime street photography with my MP almost exclusively.  The lab was happy.  Now, though, the lab is sad because I’m souping my workflow.  From USD22.00/roll to under a dollar.  Way under a dollar.  Forgot how much I loved doing my own analog workflow.

Besides … when I push the release on the MP I know I am making a photo and not possibly doing a battery-pull-reset on the M9 and losing a frame (s) I liked.  I know some – and I used to say in the past – that digital street is heresy.  Well, it’s not.  It’s just different.  I know it’s different for me.  I missed having the ability to reliably shoot a digital rangefinder-ish camera.  That was until this Spring.  I got my hands on the Fuji X-Pro 1.  My only memory of shooting anything Fuji – besides their lovely black and white and E6 film – was the X100.

When I first looked at the initial frames I thought “gone is the nicely rendered CCD colour images from the Kodak sensor.”  They weren’t exactly gone because the Fuji looks different than my Canon and Nikon files.  Not worse.  Different.  They were, again, different than what the M9 produces but … not worse of better.  They’re just different.  And I grew to love those files!  Still do!

Admittedly, most of the colour files from the X-Pro 1 become monochromes via Nik’s Silver Efex Pro 2.  That was one of the things I credit the M9 with:  It got me used to and enjoying street moments in colour.  I like having the option.  Besides … if I showed up to a shoot and told a client, “This camera only does black and white images” I think they’d look at me funny and tell me to use one of the others.  Never quite understood the Leica mM as it’s a solution to a problem that didn’t exist in the first place. 

Unless you’re rich and want the newest fetish in camera wear.  Or, of course, that you really enjoy monochrome HDR images.  You’d be an mM-man.  I have no doubt they’ll sell every single one they make, though.  Funny thing is I know more kids with Canon digital Rebels doing better work than 99% of the guys wearing a Leica.

I found that I enjoyed looking at X-Pro 1 images and making them monochromes in post just as much as the files I saw from the M9.  They were just different.

It always struck me odd that I would use a seven grand camera and have to manually focus it.  Even though the X-Pro 1 was “challenged” in certain light to grab AF on a subject I found that it liked certain areas better than others.  I also found if I used the EVF in the viewfinder it seemed to focus much quicker.  I’m sure if you used this camera for a few days and didn’t know how to work it you’d be a bit frustrated.  Cameras don’t frustrate me.  I just learn their weak points and strong points and use them to the best of their ability.

I got pretty good with the X-Pro 1.

Never had a problem writing to any SD card either!  Old cards.  Newer cards.  The little-ish Fuji wrote to them all (I use only Sandisk cards of the SD or CF variety but use Sony QXD cards in the D4) without the complaint of a batter-pull reset.  In fact, I’ve never had to pull the battery on the X-Pro 1 to stop it from doing something I didn’t want it do.  I heard people say they didn’t like the menus on the X-Pro 1.  I get through them just fine.  Their RAW conversion program is another story altogether, though.  Saw it once and never launched it again.

In the back of my mind I always said, “Oh, but your favourite glass, man:  it’s not gonna look the same.”  My go-to lens on my Leicas is the 1.4/35 Summilux-M.  With film I rarely go above 800.  Funny that with the M9 one couldn’t go over 800 if they wanted useable photos.  The closest lens on the Fuji system was the 18mm f/2.0 XF R.  A stop faster than what I normally use for the ambient body.  Having the ability to shoot the X-Pro 1 at 3200 and 6400 ISO made that extra stop irrelevant.  I could actually shoot in situations I would have just put the M9 back in the bag and forgot about it.  

I found that the 18mm f/2.0 XF R was faster focusing than the 35mm f/1.4 XF R.  Could have been just me but seemed that way.  Both of these lenses are fantastic.  Are they less expensive than the Leicas?  Totally.  They performed every time I asked them to.  The results are beautiful.

It seems Fuji has a pretty good idea how to make excellent lenses.  Are they excellent?  Well … for someone that actually uses them for work … they perform amazing.  I’m not an MTF-freak.  Both the Fuji 18 (about 28mm in full-frame parlance) and the 35 (about 50mm in full-frame) are in my opinion spectacular.  When one factors in the cost associated with them and contrasting them with Leica lenses the difference is staggering.  Is the performance difference staggering?  Well … Fuji’s are AF and the Leicas will probably never be AF.  Ya’ know …. Even though it’s 2012.  Shoot a jumping puppy with an MF Leica digital and see if you can get what you want. 

I heard a quote from Leica back in the day, “We’re not interested in AF:  Our customers know how to focus.”  Think that’s bitten then in the ass to tell you truth.  Leica digital’s footprint on the digital photography landscape is pretty small in terms of users.  I don’t think they’ve ever wanted mainstream acceptance.  They want customers who want to take pictures in Cuba. 

Another thing it seems to me is that Fuji designed a digital rangefinder-ish camera from the ground up instead of trying to appease a group of Leica owners who are older than those sitting on the Supreme Court.  I think that Leica used to think of the photographer first before they became a lifestyle brand but I guarantee Fuji thought of the photographer first.  You can tell by using the X-Pro 1.

I’m done with any digital system that isn’t AF.  Digital should be AF.  Why the hell would anyone want an MF-only digital camera in 2012?  Not only that but when the M9 develops new problems and Leica starts to consider it a “legacy system” I have no doubt they’ll try to just up-sell the customer to their newest model instead of fixing it.  I was genuinely concerned that my M9 would end up a paperweight instead of a viable camera.  That’s one of the reasons I sold it.  I'm not interested in mounting my Leica glass on the X-Pro 1 either unless it's the 2.0/75 Sumicron-M perhaps for tight portrait work.

I’ve gotten literally a hundred emails from guys who ditched their M9’s, bought the X-Pro 1 and have never looked back.  A Leica and “passion for the perfect picture” doesn’t mean you’re going to make great photos.  A camera is a tool.  The photographer makes the photos.  The camera just records what he/she saw.  The X-Pro 1 does that exceptionally well.

Another thing that used piss me off about the M9 is the shutter sound.  An MP it definitely is NOT.  The X-Pro 1 is a whisper compared to the M9.  I like being as inconspicuous with my camera as possible.  The Fuji may be a bit bigger but … it’s way more silent.  The Fuji is way lighter, though.  Does lighter make it more prone to break?  No way.  So far the X-Pro 1 has fallen from the backseat of a car to the ground (2 feet), knocked off my shoulder by the gf (about 3.25 feet to concrete) and a couple feet to a wooden floor.  It's still making fabulous frames and hasn't complained.  It's also been knocked into door jams.  Not on purpose, of course.  I can tell you that when you knock a Leica hard it's going in for an RF adjustment. 

I’d spent more than a few months with the X-Pro 1, gotten used to its AF quirks and still loved what I was seeing.  Then … the engineers did the 2.0 firmware upgrade.  They unleashed a beast.  Fuji makes you update camera firmware AND lens firmware.  Whatever the hell they did made the AF really really good.  I mean … almost great.  I switch back and forth between the optical viewfinder and the EVF and find that they both perform way better than before.  The files write to the cards faster.  I was used to Leica updates and being wholly underwhelmed. 

This update was OVERwhelming.  So nice to see a company actually care about people who want to make beautiful photos instead of appeasing people who wear a camera.

The wake-up time has drastically improved as well.

I couldn’t be happier shooting the X-Pro 1.  When I just “grab and camera” and go I either get the X-Pro 1 or the MP … or lately a Nikon F100 with the 2.0D/35.  If I’m purposefully going to make street photographs I use both the MP and the X-Pro 1.  One of the bodies is normally in my bag, though.  They are nice accoutrements to each other.  Both wholly different but … they’re both amazing in their own ways.

I couldn’t have been happier exiting from the Leica digital upgrade path.  Spending 7K every time they upgraded their lagging technology wasn’t something I was interested in doing.  I’m a photographer; I’m not a fanboy; I’m not into looking like I’m a discerning picture taker.  I was in a Sur La Table in L.A. one day and a check-out clerk seeing the MP says, “Nice camera.  Do you actually use it or carry to be cool.”

I told him he probably had outdated headshots and wasn’t getting the commercial work he hoped for and that he was arrogant.

Seeing the look on his face made me also think he was probably “an improv guy” and was improvising with me in a jocular way. I doubt he’ll do that to another customer.

Honestly, I don’t care if it’s a Leica or a Fuji on my shoulder when I want to make photos.  I make photos because it’s one of the reasons I live not just because I want to look cool wearing a Leica as the king of dilettantes likes to say.

I just want to make the photo I want to make when I push the button.  The X-Pro 1  allows me to do that every single damn time.  Not to mention really silently!  I have more confidence picking up the X-Pro 1  more than I ever did when I wanted to make a photo with the M9.

I’m done drinking Leica’s digital Kool-Aid.  From what I’m hearing so are a lot of others.  Their work isn’t suffering whatsoever.  Neither is mine.

Bravo, Fuji, Bravo!  You guys really went above and beyond.  In fact, I think you guys out-Leica’d Leica.

The only caveat with this camera is that for some reason Apple hasn’t released a Camera RAW update for it.  All of the photos I’ve posted in this entry were processed through Lightroom 4.  I know.  Heresy for a diehard Aperture user.  Perhaps someday… I mean they've never ignored a camera but ... seriously ... wtf?

Beyond having to use Lightroom 4 when doing post on the X-Pro 1 files this is the digital rangefinder-ish camera of choice for me.  My last Leica M9 has a nice new home and I hope that guy is making lovely photographs with it.  

In the eyes of the Kool-Aid drinkers, though, seeing that Fuji on my shoulder must mean that I don't know how to make proper photos ... and that if I could possibly like an affordable camera ... I'm not as cool as they are.  That's all good.  Let them think that ... It's all good with me.

The Fuji does a better job at street photography than the M9 could ever dream of doing. I have a feeling that the market segment that used to only use Leica will "see the light" as it were sooner or later when they're tired of chasing an upgrade path that costs as much as a car.

And if you're a red-dot-Kool-Aid drinker and see the Fuji and think I'm less of a photographer than you are, well, go ahead and keep that "passion for the perfect picture" going on in your head.

Oh, yeah, buy the X-Pro 1 grip-thing, too.  It's way better with it.  And, I'd also get at least one extra battery.  I don't know if it was the battery that was originally sent with it but ... I wasn't too stoked on its performance.  The crappy M9 battery almost seemed good compared to it.  The second battery I ordered seems to be way better.  Funny when you look at those prices.  The battery is half of what Leica would charge and it's probably a better battery.  Who the hell knows what a grip would cost for a Leica but I'm positive the Fuji's grip is at least a cheaper by 80%, too. ;)  Sorry red dot ... the Kool-Aid is starting to taste a bit overly sugary yet rancid.

Cheers from La-La-Land. Best wishes for making nice photos!

p.s., check out my homey Rinzi's work on his blog ... he's uses the X-Pro 1 well. 

the dilettante and the red dot.

A friend of mine pointed out an article (loosely defined) published in an online magazine (loosely defined) that would probably never see the light of day. Because I'm feeling charitable today I'll shed some light on it.

The article isn't an interview because an interview is done by the interviewer and the subject.  This was written to look like an interview but was written entirely by the subject of the interview.  No one who actually works within the legitimate photo industry would know that EVERTHING written in this interview is false.  If you are a Leica fanboy and post in the l-camera-forum or on Huff's site, because your only connection to photography industry is merely a surface understanding, you may think this interview contains real information.  It doesn't.

First off, the writer has no real world knowledge of what he's writing about.  That doesn't really stop a guy like this, though.  The first question was pretty funny, "In a nutshell, what are the differences between general photography and photojournalism?"

He answered his own question as follows, "Yes, there is a difference. Generally speaking - and let that be a warning to anybody seeking a career as a photographer - photojournalism seems to be most popular with people who seek photography as an interesting career and thus take an education to become a photographer, eventually end up illustrating stories tailored for newspapers. This might sound a bit negative, and perhaps it is, because the majority of photojournalists end up as angry men in a photo pit shooting pictures for others. But some rise above the randomness of the one having to illustrate the news stories, there're notable photographers such as Terakopian in London and Jan Grarup in Denmark who do really nice work and enjoy what they are doing."

There are no photojournists hanging out on the l-camera-forum or Steve Huff's forums.  None.  They're working.  They're chasing dayrates.  They don't have time to hang around gear-fondlers that put "Leica Photographer" in front of their names.  In fact, if you were to actually see a photojournalist in the wild, you'd never see them with a Leica hanging around their necks for several reasons.  Working photojournalists for the most part can't afford a Leica.  If you were to read the credentials of the guy writing this, he claims to be contributor to The AP, WireImage and Getty Images.  Aren't those newsgathering organizations?  If you click each one of the links you'll see an aggregate of perhaps 326 images contributed over the last five years by someone who wouldn't seem to respect anyone who does that for a living.  My friends and I can file more photos in an afternoon much less years than this guy has done in many years.

What someone should read between the lines is that Thorsten was never really "accepted" as a photojournalist.  Except for teaching workshops to wealthy Leica owners he doesn't earn his living making photographs.  When one reads, "because the majority of photojournalists end up as angry men in a photo pit shooting pictures for others," what you should also read is that he never really got the chance to do that and it upsets him.  He limited himself to only using out-of-date photographic equipment while everyone else uses state-of-the-art.  He couldn't survive on his dubious photographic talent alone.  When the situation dictated a colour picture with an ISO over 800 his equipment couldn't handle it.  When someone misses a photo because they don't have their long zoom it's called "being under-lensed."  In this guy's case he's "under-camera'd."  Perhaps he's even "under-talented."

What other morsel of photographic wisdom does the king of lifestyle photographers make?  "So that is the real difference between the happy photographer and the unhappy one: If you are taking the photos that you enjoy taking you will be happy, but fulfilling a job as one who takes home images will make you unhappy. The more you wanted to create something, the less happy you will be with not creating your own images."

Basically, because I've called him out friending everyone who was my Facebook friend, adding them to his address book and marketing to them with his newsletters -- subsequently defriending him and blocking all of his email addresses from ever again contacting me -- and I wouldn't "play along" with his charades he's basically characterized me as unhappy.  In fact, some of his "manufactured interview" was a vieled hit piece on me even though he didn't name me specifically.  Quite honestly I love the fact I'm hired to make photos for the most read magazines in the world, the biggest brands known to mankind and cover some of the most illustrious events that have ever been held.  The fact someone pays me to do this amazes me.  In fact, most photographers I know who actually make their living in the photographic world feel the same way.

The only unhappy ones are those who were never really accepted ... such as Mr. Overgaard.  There are many others such as Overgaard.  They know Search Engine Optimization, networking and their own version of marketing very very well.  Their infectious enthusiam for gear gains them fanboys.  

Using company names such as Getty, the AP and WireImage on your business card, your website and basically anywhere else you need to "establish the fact you're legitimate" is fine if you actually get assigned and contribute.  300 photos?  Does that really make you legitimate in a field that you clearly don't like?  I think a reasonable person would agree with me:  It does not.  I also think a reasonable person would agree that you're clearly embellishing on the truth to give yourself credibility.

"It helps a lot in photography to have a purpose. If you had to have a photo of some people demonstrating, you get the courage, the eye and the efficiency the purpose requires. Because you basically know from the beginning, what the picture you need to get must contain, or hold emotions off, for it to communicate. " Really, dude, you've covered a demonstration?  Or is this just superfluous puffery to, AGAIN, make it appear that you know what you're talking about?  Indeed.

"The pictures showing royal families or celebrities in their worst or 'funny' situations are products of hunters with a camera, working for indecent medias. They basically have nothing to do with journalism or photography."  While I deplore the paparazzi and their indecent intentions, Overgaard should really do some more searching into the image catalogs of Getty and Wire; they both have paparazzi contributors who do exactly what he talked about.  Whilst it bothers me I know there's nothing I can do about it.  If it really bothers you, why would you list outlets to augment your perceived connection to the photo world that supply the very photos you deplore?  Dilettante.  In Webster's there should be a photo of this guy next to that word.

I honestly love when people compare themselves on their websites as "His work has been compared to Piscasso," generally written by someone with a surface understanding or p.r.  Or written by someone who has perhaps read "The Five Minute Expert's Guide to Marketing" and writes something like "The great artists in music and film I know are all very organized, and I am too."

Yes, sir, much like aligning yourself with those you feel are more successful and talented than you are ... comparing yourself to "a great" makes you great.  Sorry ... that's deluded.  Wonder how much it cost to find that pearl of information.  

When talking about workflow I saw "When I edit pictures, I do them all, I add all information to the image files while I remember names and places, and save editions in a set of sizes for any possible use on my website, by picture agencies and clients."  Well that's funny your agencies have a total of three hundred photos with your name on the byline.  You must have the slowest workflow known to man.

Real photographers have editors. ;)  Editors that we appreciate and respect.

"I also think that it is important to make your own choices. I shoot what I want, with the equipment I want to use and have developed a style, which is what my clients want."  

You mean your website is your client, right?  Because I'll put money on the fact your real income from being a photographer is less than what I spent on coffee so far this week.

"You’ve got to develop your own style and your own specialty, which you will get known for. Not when you grow up or become rich, but from the beginning where you don't have five kids and two cars to support. And it goes remarkably fast to build a style and a clientele, I would say you can start getting food within weeks from your photography and have a real style that generates your income in a couple of years."

Within weeks you can begin making money with your photograpy?  If ANYONE believes this, they deserve to part with their €1000 or more.  Trade schools tell students that so that they sign their life away and take student loans.  Now dubiously wealthy Leica owners masquerading as working photographers tell people that to entice them to leave their boring banking, engineering or dental careers?  Really?  I don't see how people sleep well at night when they make these claims.

"With dSLR, you tend to plan the photo and then get that. With the Leica M9 rangefinder you see the picture possibility and it's more a matter of trusting your instincts than actually ensuring a given result. In a way, with Leica M9 your confidence is in yourself, whereas with dSLR it is often in the equipment."

I dig using my M9 so that I can use my Leica-M glass.  It's wonderful.  This quote, however, is written by someone who has not one clue about working photographers.  Except for a Magnum guy here or there and some music shooters you will not find even .0001% of the photos that play on front pages or leading news picture galleries taken with an M.  I know of not one working photojournalist for Getty, the AP, AFP, EPA, etc., etc. that uses anything but a dSLR.  This santimonious Dane is going to call my contemporaries people that "rely on their equipment more than their talent"?  This guy relies on bullshit more than talent.

It is so frustrating to read things written by a dilettante and glorified forum guru.  It saddens me that true enthusiasts of photography -- who may have no intention of ever using their camera to make a living -- are subjected to the kind of information they're presented with.  It's beyond sad.

"I travel quite a bit, with a Leica M9 around the neck, a few lenses, a light meter and a reflector. Sometimes an extra M9 in the bag too. Life is so much easier when you walk through airport security without a 25 kg trolley full of dSLR equipment."

And if your client or agency requires you to make a photo that requires ISO 6400 and long glass, your Leica M9 can handle that?  No.  I've shot just as many frames with an M9 and know just as much if not more about how it handles.  It's impossible.  I could -- if I didn't actually work as a photographer -- compile an extensive website for gear-bators to droll over ... but I won't.  Ever.  

I've carried a much heavier roller bag with me all over the world.   And I'm still smiling because I know I'm actually working as a photographer instead of trying to make people THINK I'm a photographer.

"The shooting style is very much like a dSLR and as long as the light conditions are good, the result is perfect, detailed, 3D and accurate colours without much work in Lightroom."

Indeed the S2 is a lovely machine but, yo, Thorsten I thought you didn't like dSLR's?  I thought you didn't like heavy cameras.  He doesn't even realize when he contradicts himself.  Total dilettante.

Back in the day when Thorsten approached me he seemed like a nice guy.  Please ask him who introduced him to editors at some wire services.  I regret doing so today, of course.  Not only were the outlet names used only to further a marketing campaign instead of doing real photographic work but ... it seems it may have also been used to further religious views within "news coverage," which, again, of course, I wholeheartedly disagree with and deplore.  Inserting any of your views in news photos is completely against what news photos are about.

And, yes, Thorsten, I intended for you to be sent a screencap.  You may fool the entusiasts, the rich Leica owners and others ... but ... you really don't fool me.

Besides ... I saw photographic work at a county fair recently that was much better than your exhibition.

Leica ... You guys should be really careful who you thinks tipifies your brand.  Shouldn't it represent great photography and NOT guys who wear a camera to look cool?  Don't worry Thorsten anyone with a truly qualified eye knows you have zero chance of actually working as a true professional photographer.  Keep up the charade with your workshops!  I'm sure it has to be spiritually fulfilling to fleece the pockets of the idiots you rope into paying you. ;)

One last thing ... if you are "spiritually clear" why on Earth would you need to be addicted to anything like cigarettes?  Just wondering.  

NOTE:  The article referenced appears to have been taken down.  It was originally located at http://connoisseurs.my/8ththorsten

 

Multi Selector slut...

Although I’ve shot Canon for the last 8 years, it wasn’t something when I decided to switch that I thought I’d do forever.  Prior to buying my first Canon Eos 1D all of my professional gear was Nikon and the Mamiya RZ-67 Pro II system.   Prior to that I’d used Canon A-1’s, Canon AE-1’s, a Zenza Bronica EC, Rolleiflex 2.8 and the venerable Pentax K-1000.  I’ve just so dated myself.  Prior to Leica but during my Nikon F4s days I’d shot the Contax G2 system, which was the reason I started shooting Leica M’s.  I don’t want to get off-track but the AF on the G2 system sucked and the MF was practically non-existent.

The day I sold my Nikon F5’s was a sad day.  To be relevant in the market I was then shooting in it was all digital.  Scanning film was finished as part of a serious workflow for most or us.  The Nikon D1 was revolutionary.  It was the first camera – felt a lot like my Nikon F5’s – that wasn’t one of those cobbled-together USD20,000 beasts made by Kodak for Nikon and Canon.  Those bitches weighed a ton and they sucked.   The D1 answered a lot of questions for me … ya’ know … with those massive 128mb and 256mb CF cards.  I think I have enough of those things to actually use them as poker chips.  Could probably complete a set pretty cheap I’d think.  Aren't they like a nickle a piece now?

The 16gb and 32gb XQD cards I’m using now are way more like SxS cards than they are like either CF or SD’s.  Looking forward to seeing video output from the Nikon D4 with hopefully less banding than I saw come out of the Canon 1D Mark 4 when I shot at more than 800 ISO.

Don’t get me wrong the Canon 1D Mark 4’s were great -- we deserved even better, though.  Even though they were crop-frame cameras I found them to be the best Canon had produced.  I know people bitched and moaned about the 1D Mark 3’s inability to handle autofocus well but the only Mark 3’s I had were of the 1Ds-variety; they worked exceedingly well for me.  I punished those things and they all worked as well as I expected them to work.  The 1Ds Mark III also did the best on DxO compared to other Canon bodies.

Unlike the Nikon D1X’s from back in the day that failed on me time after time, it was nice to be using gear that didn’t burn through shutter boxes.  For whatever reason all of my bodies tend to do that frame 9999 reset to frame 0001 around the same time.  Sometimes it’s literally during the same shoot but most often at least during the same day or 24-hour period.   Always seemed odd to me.  During the time I was being told by one of my agencies “you better get a Canon and start using one if you want access to the lens pool:  We’re switching in a couple months” I had not one or two but three D1X’s fail on me.  Funny thing is that I had two 1DX’s fail on me within one two-hour period and one fail the next day.

After returning from the Nikon repair depot I immediately picked up a Canon 1D and the lovely 70-200/2.8.  I thought I’d dip my toe in the Canon world by using it as my ambient body alongside my primary Nikon 1DX’s.  Honestly, I didn’t hate it at all.  The colours were interesting ... different than what I was used to but ... interesting.  The body worked really well.  Even though Canons aren’t know to be “as durable” as Nikons it felt pretty good in my hands. I beat the shit out all of my Canon bodies and they did really really well.  I'd made a Nikon 1DX crumble once so I was pleased.

What didn’t feel good in my hands was that stupid-ass big dial on the back of the Canons.  Gone were the days of truly simple AF sensor selection.  Yeah, I know diehard Canon guys say it’s “just as easy to hit the button and then turn the dial” but I never got into it.  In fact, eight years later I was still not digging it.  It never made sense to me after having used the Multi Selector on the F5 and then on the D1 and D1X I was a Multi Selector slut.  The Sub Selector is pretty damn cool, too. 

One of my Canon-loving friends said, “Say goodbye to easy aperture control, man.”  Oh really!?  You mean the stupid wheel that would rub against my hip and change my stop?  I always like the Sub-Command dial much more for selecting my aperture.  I don’t mind the Main Command dial for Shutter speed at all. The little joystick on the back of the D4 is nice, too.

I will say that going back from Canon’s odd zoom direction has been a bit odd … not to mention the fact putting lenses on bodies is different as well.  I’m hoping this wears off quickly.  Having had Canon bodies and lenses in my hands literally tens of thousands of times over the past eight years has made the Nikons feel much different in my hands.  Feels ergonomically 10x better.

I’m actually pissed at Canon so I’m equating the “difference” of feel … mentally … as a way to deal with how much they pissed me off.  Changing systems is not something many really want to do.  It’s hella expensive and just a pain in the ass.  Cables.  Batteries.  Flash cables.  Not to mention ALL of the lenses.  And … the flashes that are almost approaching the price of proper studio strobe heads – unless, of course, you’re using Alien Bee’s.

As an aside I can’t tell you how many people I know who actually work as photographers who are switching from Canon to Nikon right now.  I’m shocked yet from what I hear there is a flood of guys switching to Nikon.  I don't know anyone who's switching to Canon, though. ;)

I was able to use some Nikon D3s’s during real assignments and commissions – wholly different than wanking about with a bunch of gear geeks at a glorified meet-up and cooing about bokeh.  I prefer the word unscharfen bereich.  I doubt it will catch on, though.  Whatever.  The D3s’s in the real-real world and not what starfucker lackeys call real world … were … brilliant.  Honestly, I’m not sure any manufacturer marketing rep has a qualified eye or they’d be able to see through the equipmentbator-driven page views and stop giving most idiotic blog writers evaluation cameras.  Then again, I consider DPReview and their "cadre of the unqualified" complete shit.

Sorry.  Canon.  The D3s’s did what Canon could not even dream of doing:  Making TTL flash actually work.  In as much as I’d love to never have to use on-camera TTL flash that’s not my reality.  If I did ambient or studio strobe work only, I wouldn’t have been as motivated to switch systems.  Again, that’s not the case and from what I saw with the Nikon D3s and its ability to perform with TTL flash.  It was superb.  Every damn frame.  Perfectly exposed.  Light background, dark subject … perfect.  Dark background, light subject … perfect.  Not having to fight my equipment is a high priority for me.

Funny that when a lot of us were fed-the-fuck-up with Canon’s lackluster TTL flash performance someone from Canon said, “Well, you’re a pro, you should be shooting manual flash.”

So I buy USD500 flash units to shoot friggin’ manual?  Yeah, okay.  Sure.  That makes a lot of sense.  I never used the Nikon D3 and have no idea if it was as good as the D3s but damn was the D3s good.  What I expect from TTL on-camera or even off-camera flash – I doubt Canon will ever get the off- part right – is that 90% of the flash exposures should be spot on.  The Canon 1D Mark 4 was right about 70% of the time during great conditions and much less in questionable conditions.  The original 1D sucked and exposures with flash looked blue/green-ish.  I got over it.  Still hated that stupid wheel but … ya’ know … if you’re in a bad relationship but just don’t want the hassle of breaking up or changing, you just put up with it.  At that point I had a Canon 1D Mark 2 and flash was a bit better but still not great.  The 1Ds Mark III was pretty good but still intermittently bad.  I think the only time I used on-camera or off-camera flash with the 5D or 5D Mark 2’s was when I was seriously dragging the shutter and using the flash pretty much manual so I can’t really say if they sucked as bad as the rest of the bodies.

There was this other thing, too.  I got some email that had CPS on it so I totally thought it was CPS-oriented.   RSVP’d as I was interested in seeing the C300 cine camera Canon was touting.  Turned out it was a Canon Live Learning event yet they spammed their CPS members for good measure.  When I was in line I could tell that perhaps 1 in 50 of these people actually used their cameras to make money.  The rest were lookie-loos taking time off from “forum patrol” or cruising for porn on DOMAI.  That’s totally cool and good for them but I don’t want to be surrounded by these fucking donuts when I want to see some equipment up close and personal.  Besides all of that … they ask the dumbest questions on Earth.  Even though CPS is a pay-to-play service now at least they kind of weed out some of the people and allow real working photographers to actually demo the equipment. 

I’d been playing with the idea of really switching but after that P.O.S. event Canon my decision was solidified.  Actually, though, the odd thing is that my kid bought me a lens coffee mug as one of her Christmas presents to me.  It was a Nikon lens mug.  I asked her “You know I shoot Canon, right!?”

“I thought you said you didn’t always so I bought you that.”

 Fair enough.  I guess it was a sign.

Whilst on the subject of CPS I’m sorry but seriously … you can buy your way in?  Didn’t used to be that way but now … anyone can join and reserve lenses to borrow.  Nikon Professional Services still requires tear sheets, letters from editors, references from other NPS members and approval by NPS.  Sorry I know that sounds exclusionary but it’s way better than buying your way in.  Seriously, it’s kind of like photo schools that don’t require a portfolio for admission.  Same mentality.  I love the fact that NPS requires sponsorship from two current NPS members.  It really does cut down on the rich wannabe’s who just want to flash an NPS card.  Those kinda donkeys also reserve new equipment that could have gone to legitimate working photographers.  Ya’ know … the equipment that’s very tough to get at present.  Many times they're the same ones who get a body or two before the masses and sell them on eBay.

Besides that lame Canon Live Learning bullshit, using the D3s and loving it, the fact my kid bought me a Nikon coffee mug … I left Nikon because the 1DX wasn’t the greatest camera and I sure as hell wasn’t going to be buying a camera with essentially the same name but made by Canon.  Really Canon?  You couldn’t have come up with a better name?  The Eos 1D-X?  I think that Canon's brilliant marketing people must have thought, "It's extreme:  We'll call it the X."   Not only that but I knew it’d be delayed in typical Canon style.  Since the AF is nice on it ... I wonder what friggin' issue they're trying to solve now?  TTL flash perhaps?

I think their success with the 1Ds Mark 3 killer revolutionary 5D Mark 2 made them arrogant.  I’ll never forget them telling me to “shoot manual flash” or spamming me with Canon Live Learning pedantic bullshit all because I was on their CPS list.  Donkeys.  Dumb donkeys.  I feel bad saying that as I like donkeys.

A few weeks ago I had a couple friends over.  One is a staffer from a Canon-shop and the other from a Nikon-shop.  It was hilarious seeing the Canon guy's face when TTL flash exposure after TTL flash exposure on the Nikon D4 was absolutely perfect.

“Think you Mark-fucking-Four can do that, man!?”

He shook his head and the Nikon-shop shooting friend said, “We’re all getting those in a couple weeks.”  Should be interesting to see the stills come out of the Olympics in London soon.  Canon should have released their 1D-X’s long before that event but … no … just a delay. ;)

Since I was swapping systems, I thought a lot about the lenses I was shooting, too.   The standard set up I shot back in my old Nikon days and the current Canon days was the 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4.  At one time I also had the 300/2.8 but lens pools make it so you don’t have to own that beast or any of the other beasts.  I thought a lot about how I really shot and what I really needed.

I know it sounds like heresy coming from me but … ciao-ciao Zeiss ZE manual focus primes.  Yes, they’re nice but they tended to have lateral fringing when shooting backlit subject matter.  Not only that but when shooting a concert I’m done using manual-fucking-focus unless it’s a Leica body I’m using.  I can’t focus as fast as AF … especially the Nikon AF that’s in the D4.  Jesus.  Amazing.

The one lens I was always pissed I felt like I had to buy was any 24-70/2.8.   For me this lens was what I used when I was commissioned or assigned to shoot some fancy event or party.  No, not on the outside but as the official inside photographer.  I love when I get comments from anonymous commenters saying “you’re a paparazzi.”  Sure, you uninformed forum troll neophyte … I’m a paparazzi.  Anytime any entertainment-related subject is who you’re shooting there is some landscape-only shooting forum troll who thinks you’re a paparazzi. 

I never shot the 24-70 at full 2.8 aperture.  Almost ever.  Seems like a waste of about a grand just to have a two-eight lens that I’ll never use at its fullest potential.  I only ever used this lens at events and whilst on the wide-side was fine with fullframe sensors but a bit tight with crop-frames like the Mark 4 on the long-side it just wasn’t tight enough for me.  This is the lens that would also get beat to shit just from working.  Yeah, beat an almost two grand lens just for the fuck of it.  Fun.

Not only that but the Canon 16-35/2.8 always seemed wonky to me.  Things didn’t look right to me.  I could always tell when I looked at someone’s photo and it was shot with that P.O.S.  Honestly, 16mm never seemed wide enough to me either and what the hell do i want a 2.8/35 anyway.

The 70-200/2.8 Canon lens was pretty damn good, though.  Then again, the one I just replaced it with is just as good if not a bit better at AF.

This time around I purchased the following lenses:

AF-S NIKKOR 
14-24mm f/2.8G ED

AF-S NIKKOR 
24-120mm f/4G ED VR

AF-S NIKKOR 
70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G

AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G

AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D

All of these lenses on the D4 have been superb.  The 14-24/2.8 is ridiculously good.  The 24-120/4 is way better than I expected.  I know a lot of staffers who’ve been given that lens to use and if they love it … I felt I’d probably love it, too.  I do.  The 70-200/2.8 kicks ass as I thought it would.  My past Zeiss ZE primes were great except putting them on one of the best AF platforms to ever hit the planet seemed antithetical.  That … and I’m getting older. ;)  The Nikon 50/1.4 is pretty damn nice and doesn’t seem to lateral fringe like the Zeiss or that P.O.S. Canon 50/1.4 did.  I know.  I know … I should have bought the 50/1.2 or the 85/1.2 for that matter.  Well, I owned the 85/1.2 and found the AF slow as shit.  The 50/1.2 was the same.  Heavy and slow and expensive for what it is/was.  Nikon's newest iteration of the 85/1.4 is so lovely.  I got the 35/2D to shoot on either an F6 or F100 for some street photography. :) Heresy ... shooting an SLR for street, right?  And, no, I didn't opt for the 24 or 35 1.4 Nikon primes. Given the fact the D4 has such good high ISO performance there really was no reason.  Shooting 6400 clean is a gift.  Thank you, Nikon!

Besides … why the hell would I want to have same “special sauce glass” that all of the mamarazzi-turned lifestyle-picture-takers so loved to shoot and post on blogs proving to their suburban white friends they’re amazing?  Not that suburban moms have a "qualified eye."

The Canon one-two glass is a gimmick.  Did I mention it was expensive as hell?

With the Canon system I had the 24/1.4 but honestly it was big and heavy and seemed like a chore to carry.  Hence the reason I didn’t get either a 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 with the new Nikon kit.  Great lenses but … seeing as how the D4 handles 6400, which is the highest ISO I’ll ever use, I didn’t need one-four glass on that prime.  Two-oh is fine.  No, it’s not a fancy AF-S but the little AF-D focuses really fast.

Did I mention that the D4 – and for that matter the D3s – and the Nikon SB910 kick Canon’s ass?  Oh, yeah, I did.  It makes me happy that I don’t have to fight my equipment to make it work.

Perhaps the 1D-X does a better job with whatever new flash they’ll throw at the problem but I don’t think it will.  In fact, I’ll bet it will still suck.  Wasn’t gonna spend seven grand to find out.  I’d waited them out long enough to get it right.  They didn't.  In fact, the 5D Mark III is kinda how D3S users feel about the D4 if they already owned the 5D Mark II.  Ciao Canon.

Honestly, I think that because Canon develops their own proprietary sensors – unlike Nikon that uses Sony sensors – they lag in other areas. I don’t think they put enough research and development into AF or TTL flash for that matter.  Now they have the whole video-thing to worry about so … more R&D into that and less into things that matter to stills-only photographers. 

The Nikon D4 completely leap-frogged Canon in every way possible.  I know that there are guys who say the D4 isn’t sharp and doesn’t have enough contrast.  Others say there’s some weird colour-cast.  Others that say it didn’t work tethered.  First off, this camera is sharp as hell.  Since shooting motion projects with the 5D Mark 2, I always set the camera to a flat picture style to suck all dynamic range I could out of it.  Have you ever seen RAW Alexa or RED picture before?   To those with a surface understanding they’d look like shit.  Once you do a little post … they look amazing.  Whilst this isn’t the case with the Nikon D4 completely I like to shoot flat and D4 files look flatter to me.  I’ll add the contrast and sharpness myself, thank you.  I don’t need a camera cooking files for me.  Then again, I prefer shooting RAW.  Coming from what I was shooting D4 files looked lovely!

I’ve never seen any colour cast in my D4 files.  They’ve looked fantastic.  And before I ever used any camera on an editorial job I think I’d check to see – ya’ know seeing as how the camera had been out for a day or two – if it was compatible with my tethering software.   I know at least a few guys who’s D4’s are still in the boxes as they haven’t had time to completely familiarize themselves with it.  Anyone who would bring an untested new camera to a shoot deserves the problems they had with tethering.  No matter if they think they’re cool and live in Brooklyn or not.

I could NOT have chosen a better time to not just “come back to Nikon” but swap systems … for a MUCH better system.  The D3 led a lot of temporary Canon shooters either to or back to Nikon but the D3s really turned the tide.  I suspect The D4 will bring even more Canon shooters to the Nikon system.  Haven’t even talked about the Nikon D800.  Another time.

Agencies and photographers don’t want to have to switch from one system to another.  It’s expensive.  It’s a hassle.  There’s a learning curve.  I gotta say, though, if you do what I do for a living, there’s no way you’re going to still be shooting Canon unless you’re a total fanboy and are deluded to think that a better tool doesn’t exist to do your job.

The learning curve has been easy.  Menu systems are great.  I have buttons on the back of my camera that light up because it gets dark in VIP areas and in the pits of concert venues.  Canon never gave me that.  Canon never gave me truly great AF like the D4 has been giving me.  Mind you … I’m not a sports guy.  The most sports I’ve shot has been golf and those fuckers don’t move very fast.  I think I’ve shot two soccer games in my life.  I have shot my share of polo games all over the world and some high school water sports at the behest of my kid and other parents.  Hmm … I’m sure most wouldn’t consider the showing of dogs a sport. 

That doesn’t mean I don’t want really good AF.  I do.

Canon’s also arrogant for charging USD6,799 for a 1D-X body.  Sure it’s got barely 2mp more sensor-wise.  Is there much of a difference in me doing my job with 16mp or 18mp camera bodies?  Um, no.  Those are concerns of gearwank blogs.  Canon thinks their camera is worth almost a grand more than the D4?

Honestly, I think they think so.  I mean … they thought the C300 was worth almost twenty grand  … and revised that.  I’ve also heard that sales of the C300 have sucked.  Bad.

The difference in price between  buying the D4 and passing on the 1D-X bought half of the beautiful 85/1.4.   What I got for the Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE bought the other half.  Effectively, it was a complete wash.  Is the Canon 1.2 USD500 better than the Nikon 85/1.4?  Perhaps, only to those needing that fraction of a stop because optically I prefer the Nikon.  I also prefer 9 bladed apertures over 8.  Is the Canon 50/1.2 at USD1,599 a grand better than the Nikon 50/1.4?  Well, again, if you really need that fractional f-stop, sure.  Optically, it may be a bit better but when I shot the one-two I saw a lot of lateral fringing.  The Canon’s got 8 aperture blades and Nikon, again, 9.  Call me an elitist but the Leica lenses I’m most accustomed to have 9 and 11 blades respectively.  Only my seventy-five ‘cron has 8 blades like Canon but I don’t think it could physically have any more if memory serves.  Hell … my Nocti’ has 11 blades. What does Leica and NIkon know about using as many aperture blades as possible that Canon doesnt?

I think the more blades a lens has the better the unscharfen bereich.

Pretty sure I’ll add a Nikon F6 as well but I may end up with an F100.  I’d love to see how this new Nikon glass renders to film.

I haven’t decided if I’m going to include photos with this blog.  Anyone who really knows me knows where I post and I think I’ve grown tired of including photos in a long-form blog post.  I’d much rather tumblr a photo stream than do photoblogs.  Doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy checking out traditional photoblogs but it’s way too much work to post.

Thank you Canon for making my decision so easy to once again shoot Nikon.  Funny enough, though, a friend of mine tells me that the new 1D-X actually does focus much faster than anything Canon’s produced so far.  TTL-flash was still questionable and I hear the wireless capability of the 1D-X isn’t that great.  So slow ... it's almost unusable. ;)

So, yeah, still happy with my decision! :)

Hope this finds everyone well!  Wish I could do these more often but when you actually work making photos these kinds of things have to take a back seat.  Pretty much the commenters I care about interacting with are FB friends anyway. ;)

And, no, I decided I'm not posting photos to go along with this entry.  Go find me on tumblr for photos.

Caveat emptor.

Yeah, it’s been almost a year since anything has been posted here.  I think uber.com was ahead of their time:  I didn’t want to think the long-form blog was over.  I kinda think it is now.  The long-form is best served by the kind of people who roast their own coffee beans, dream of the life they read about in Playboy in the seventies, wish they had a sports car and probably listen to jazz.

 Because of the sheer amount of content “out there” I’m not sure I even have the attention span any longer to write more than a short caption.  I think there is a collective A.D.D.  It’s all about the quick bite.  Now, at least, of course.

I can still look through a long photoblog, well, one actually.  I prefer tumblr.com now.

But can I write a rant on tumblr?  Nah, not really.  It’s not designed for that.  For that fact alone I guess I’ll keep this alive even though typepad really sucks.  Give me a maximum width of the photos I want to post!? Really?  Hence I tumble.  But a good rant is fun to write once in a while.

I mean … I don’t write equipment reviews.  I’ve written about equipment but I dunno if I’d characterize them as reviews.

Besides … why compete with the legions of ex-forum-voices-now-with-a-blog and even their OWN forum.  Fancy.  I’m not going to name names in this post.  Think of it as a giant blind item post.  I love blind items.  My publicist-friends love items, too.

Items can be used as currency in that world.  “Perhaps if you don’t write this about this client I can give you two items about someone else.”  That’s actually the way it works.

So … what’s pissing me off?

First off, real working photographers fuck with each other.  It’s just the way we are.  We’re extremely competitive yet we’ll always go out of the way to help those who deserve it.  But we call each other out like mad.  What I’ve found in dealing with a sub-genre of photographers known as the Ex-Forum-Blogging-Experts (EFBE or effbee) is that they have no sense of humor whatsoever.

One guy who I’ll just call “Mr. Luxury” said “you’re a waste of time” when I asked him if he feels comfortable calling himself a “working photographer” or “photographic contributor” if he barely has 2500 photos on the legitimate outlet names he LOVES to flaunt to anyone who’ll listen.  Many legitimate contributors have that many frames in a month.  Some … in a week.  Some, believe it or not, in one day.  He’s been “posting” for at least a few years.  Relevant?  Not in the real photographic world he would so love to be a part of.  He said, because I won’t “drink his own brand koolaid,” “… you’re a waste of time.”  Yes, sir, I am, I’m not gonna kiss your ass because you have some entitlement issue.  I think if you were truly evolved and not just a “five minute expert” you’d realize that the only reason you’re allowed to use the outlet names on EVERYTHING you write is because someone helped you.  Trust me, I’m more careful now about letting someone use my name.  Altruism scorned.  It’s funny when you see contributors pushing a political or religious agenda, too. 

Aligning oneself with successful and talented people does not make oneself successful nor talented.  Normally, it means you know how to identify people to move yourself closer to your ultimate goal of malignant narcissism self-gratifying quasi-success.  I like to call them “light suckers,” pardon the pun.  Mosquitoes almost.

These kinds of guys know luxury.  Oh yes they deign to be fancy.  Wearing a nice hat.  Smoking a cigarette.  Ya’ know … bein’ artsy.  Yes, right down to the eyeglasses frame selection.  Funny that they don’t have a real knowledge of wine.  You can always call someone’s bullshit by what they know about wine.

They don’t seem to like dogs much, either.  Do you like people who don’t like dogs?

People who don't like dogs also think their photographic gear is sexy.  Gear is not sexy you vonce.

They’re more in love with the idea of being somehow relevant in the photo-world than actually making photos.  Sad.  Laughable to those with authentically qualified eyes.  Even sadder is the fact they’re deluded enough to believe their own bullshit.
And charge others – mostly rich digital rangefinder owners perhaps truthfully on a quest to better their own photographic talent – USD1500 for this intellectual masturbatory snake oil. 

I’ve heard they get to eat at nice restaurants and hear sermons about photographic philosophies.  I’ve heard that it’s almost maddening.  Do they actually learn how to be better photographers or just leave with a stomach full of supposedly good food and a mind full of “quips” or pnemonics?  I’ll be their hit up to pay for “other modules.”  Modules like workflow.  A subject they know nothing about.  Nothing.

What’s sadder than a Mr. Luxury?  Wow.  So many choices for that.  I think sadder would definitely have to be Mr. Zen.

Always beware of the Mr. Zens of life.  Definitely don’t let your daughter (or son) date one of these guys.  They preach brotherly love.  And they charge for glorified meet-ups.   They also dream about being a ninja.

It’s so funny – again I’m only saying funny because interjecting humor into something gainfully sad makes it easier to palate – to see what people have done to street photography.  During these glorified meet-ups they’ll include others to justify charging any money.  They feel like stars having twenty or so people around.  The people that attend are pretty much like the teacher’s pets of the forum.  And they’ll give you an earful about street photography.  They’re effbee’s … they know everything.  Lazy marketing guys love effbees.

Like Mormons that have a vacation home in Utah – they’re more Mormon than thou.

They’ll parade “teachers” or “speakers” who, in the “real world” have absolutely no relevancy at all outside of the circle-jerk of a forum.  But because of their own twitter followers or over-saturating whatever market they’re vying for relevancy others just assume “they’re a big photographer.”

Shit … they gotta be big if they’re friends with our exalted moderator.  Right?  Ooohhh … moderating your own forum:  Doesn’t that sound like the photographic dream of a fucking lifetime?  I mean, shit, if that’s all ya’ got, cool.  I mean … not really, though.  Perhaps they got kicked off a forum – one that they got pretty popular on – and in the back of their minds they said “As long as I own the forum no one can kick me off for anything.”  They love validation.

These are the same kinds of guys, these Mr. Zens, that would also attempt to instruct – for lack of a better word and sorry for the loose definition of instruct – others in “how to be popular on the internet.”

Yes, the end-all-be-all of being a photographer is being popular on the internet.  Get that pro Flickr account.  It says “pro” so … get those pictures of the heavy-hitters up on that vision board … if you think it … it will come to you.  I wonder if they jerk off whilst looking in a mirror?  I’ll be there are Samarai swords in the background in that mirror.

And ya’ know the funny thing about a Mr. Zen – not that all of it isn’t funny – they’ll still post photos of trees or a chain link fence or a parking lot or all friggin’ three in a review of some ubiquitous piece of photographic gear that will NOT make you a better photographer.

There was hope for them at first because they actually put some of their validation-loving soul in the first attempts to “woo their forum buddies” and then fell into the horrible trap of trying to provide constant content and just “ran out to a parking lot” to shoot fucking trees and do “bokeh” tests.  Yeah for you!  You just confirmed your own mediocrity.  You succumbed.  I know.  I know.  Your legions love you.  They’ll “get the point” if you post a photo of anything no matter how much it lacks anything interesting to look at.  You’re at the top of your own forum, though.  You’ve made it.  You’re the moderator-in-chief!  No one can kick you off for posting inappropriate S&M photos.

When all you wanted to find was inner-peace you found an audience.  Can starfuckers ever really find inner-peace?  Actually, they find their inner-peace in doing box-opening videos they hope to go viral by hash tagging the fuck out it.

There are guys who I’ll call Mr. Saturation as well.  I know they have no inner peace.  There’s no way they could.  Ya’ know … instead of actually shooting street photographs they’d rather be making a cam-girl style video and posting it to their minions every fucking day.  They even seem to be out of breath most of the time.  Minions, I may add, that are waiting with baited breath for the next utterance of their blogging Jesus. 

They are the consummate imitators.  They haven’t innovated shit.  In fact, whomever they can copy they just chalk it up to “finding their own style.”

The Mr. Saturations of the world gain their relevance by posting multiple times a day across crazy amounts of platforms.  You friend them on Facebook and they friend every single fucking one of your friends.  Anyone who comments and leaves a real email address they’ll search it on Facebook or Twitter or G+ and immediately friend, follow or add them.  Unless you set them to some highly edited news stream you will be barraged by endless posts about their views on photography … and especially street photography.

Even though, of course, they have no real experience as a photographer.  They even call themselves “Professional Street Photographer.”  Even though, that doesn’t exist.

The lazy marketer – of whom I’ll get to shortly – sees their twitter followers and gets a chub-in-the-trou over how many people they can reach … ALL for free or next to free.  Ya’ know … even though … it wholly bastardizes their luxury brand and in the quest of free marketing … cheapens their brand.  Honestly, it leaves a skid mark on their brand.

What does it matter, though?  They’re getting’ the clicks.  Clicks look good to the bosses who understand almost NOTHING about social media and the way it works.  They should be able to qualify clicks.  Like the healthcare industry there’s no money in curing.  Why on Earth would they want to qualify the click.

Or the audience.  Ten percent of that audience could be interesting to a real marketer but that’s not what impresses someone with barely a surface understanding of photography in general not to mention social media.

Mr. Saturation will talk for hours about Doisneau, HCB, Vivian Maier, Erwitt or whomever they feel is an important subject for a talk and can fill up a couple of hours.  

It’s funny that one could have coffee with someone like this,  let them ask questions and then use the entire topic of discussion as the subject of their next workshop.  They need to keep up the saturation stream.

Like Mr. Zen they don’t workshops in as much as they do glorified meet-ups.  Oh, to meet the face behind the litany of posts.  But only a true douchebag would charge for a meet-up.  That’s why they don’t call them meet-ups; they call them workshops because they can charge for it.  Mr. Saturation is the low-end of the workshop market.  If he charges the least, he’ll make up for it with volume.  He’s all about volume.  Not volumes of good material … just volume in general.

If you are making 95% of your money by doing workshops, I can guarantee you are full of shit.  Perhaps you’ll be able to mimic your favourite prof and just wax poetic about any subject. Doesn’t mean you’re not full of shit and could only impress those with little more than thinking street photography is taking pictures of streets.

Mr. Saturation is almost always personable.  Infectious.

The other funny thing they do – because they’re usually young and wholly SEO-savvy – is tag relevant people in their blog posts as part of their “tag list.”  If they do this on every post every day, their own name will show up on google even when you may have only searched for the person in their ever-growing tag list.  Confront them about it and they’ll giggle like an embarrassed hentai school girl.

There are stock photographers who because they have seniority or other interests important to “the agency” that have said to me “… post everything you can.”  Why?  Certain agencies “weight” the searches and give preference to certain photographers.  If you post 5 times the amount that others do and you do it for years and years and years, you’ll succeed in making people think you’re the only eyes out there.

Mr. Saturation is there to stay … if he keeps saturating, of course.  Once he stops saturating … his “buzz” will end.  And the lazy marketing guy will move on.  Smiling like a tree-loving rodent.

Equally annoying are the guys I’ll call Mr. Artsy Glasses.  They think they know their audience.  They’ll claim things in their bios and C.V.’s that they think will impress – usually but not limited to others with equally-as-artsy-glasses – but the claims are usually puffery.   Almost always puffery, actually.

“From the best work published in …” and then they go on to name huge-ass dailies or other publications.  You contact your friends in the editorial department and drop their name and they say “who the fuck are you talking about?”  They search the name in their respective systems for searching bylines and they find “a hand-out photo” was published.  Yep, that’s your best work, mate.

But you got your artsy glasses and a good line of bullshit.  Wonder if that’s good enough to sell prints?  Kinda think even luxury brand afficianados are smart enough to know that behind that almost-two-thousand dollar price is a hefty dealer commission leaving them with an expensive piece of wall art.  Good luck selling that donkey on the secondary market.

Funny that one of the types impressed by Mr. Artsy Glasses is usually Mr. Lazy Marketer.  “He can hold an audience, though.”  The audience is mesmerized by the glasses and perhaps a few photos.

When it doesn’t get to the second printing will they still love you?  When the next project isn’t getting the “warm reception” you got with the first will that sink you to irrelevancy?   The chances are very high.

Hope that day job didn’t get abandoned.  The gift of gab is a lovely talent.  Too bad it doesn’t usually translate to consistently making good photos. 

Is it really about making good photos?  The lazy marketer doesn’t really care.  As long as it can plausibly allow someone to make better photos he cares not.  Why would he?  He wouldn’t know a good photo if it had teeth and bit his face.

He’s usually the guy who got drunk on the wine of social media – still with no real understanding of how it really works.  But doesn’t his product give him a entitlement that he has a photographic sensibility in the way he sees something?  Nope.  Not really.  Photographically he’s blind.

Why else would the lazy marketer hire Mr. Luxury, Mr. Zen, Mr. Saturation or even Mr. Artsy Glasses?  Because he, too, believes his own bullshit. 

I almost forgot about Mr. Hype.  He’s close to Mr. Saturate but he’s been “out there for a very long time.”  Mr. Hype’s minions are landscape guys.  He taught them about differing contrast layers and then gave them the heroin shot-in-the-arm … HDR.

It’s hard to tell if this guy loves photography or loves the fact legions of newly born Photoshop jockeys pray to him.  He’s one of them.  He rose to the top.  Now he even gets to shoot sports!  See … if he can do it, surely, you can take one of his workshops and you can do it, too.

Even though he has no experience in fashion or portraits he’ll “show you the way.”  For a price.

Mr. Hype is a marketing genius.  Much more so than Mr. Saturate.  He’s the marketing genius Mr. Luxury wishes he could be and the genius Mr. Zen puts up on the vision board.

Mr. Hype is very close to Mr. 100 Speedlights.  Mr. 100 Speedlights will show you how to professionally light a portrait with 30 or 40 speedlights mounted on brackets that, yes, he sells, too.

Funny that I’ve never met a working photographer who uses 10’s of Speedlights to do the job of a proper studio strobe system.  How much do multiple Speedlights cost anyway?  Surely, it’s probably cheaper in the long run to just go out and buy a used or demo’d strobe system.

Not according to him, though.  And, yes, he’ll let you pay him to “show you the way.”

There’s another kinda guy out there, too.  He’s The Curmudgeon.  He wishes the world wasn’t the way it was.  The good thing about him is that he doesn’t host workshops.  In fact, he doesn’t even like meet-ups.  He’s shy and likes to hide behind his words.

He dreams about a solitary Playboy-kinda life.  Listening to jazz.  Indeed listening to jazz in a sports car.  Alone.  Nothing with words, of course, because he’s got plenty of words rolling around in his mind.

He dreams of being a curator.  In fact, that’s the kind of workshop he’d love to lead.  Problem is he has no experience as a curator.  He doesn’t even have much experience as a photographer but that never stopped him from telling you what a good photograph is … and isn’t.  He’d like to think he has a qualified eye and his sheep wait for his posts with baited breath, which probably stinks of bad cheese and coffee.  Dunno why.  I’ll bet he’d love to tell you how to structure your portfolio even though he’s never had experience as an art buyer.

I’m sure he will have some kind of workshop some day.  It’ll probably be held in a rest home … where most of his readers presently live.

The buyer should beware out there for sure.  I think it’s horribly sad to market something to an audience that must have at least a percentage of those who truly want to learn something to make their travel photos better and all they get is pretention, inaction, poetry and puffery.

Before you attend a workshop do yourself a favour and put “Photo by [name]” into the search line of google and see what comes up.  Trust me on this.  One or two pages?  Really?  Even if there are more than a couple pages you can immediately discount those associated with the name’s political or religious affiliations.  They don’t pay for content.

Instead of spending a few hundred or even a thousand with Mr. Luxury you’d be better off buying non-instructional books by photographers you like and looking at how they shot something.  I mean unless you really need to get away from the wife to “hang with the boys” at a meet-up.

A meet-up you paid for.

Be even more wary of those who have learned from marketing luxury brands:  Luxury doesn’t come cheap.  If you charge enough, you have to be good, right!?  Except in rare cases this is never true.  

Brand-led workshops are a whole other beast.  They will tell you one can only make street photographs with their own gear.  Many times their leader will display only cursory knowledge of both photography and the brand’s equipment.

But HCB used it so you should, too.

One of the most maddening things that the brand-led workshop tries to teach – again, sorry for the loose definition of teach – is workflow.  Workflow?  Really?  I would love to know what Mickey Mouse knows about workflow.  He probably knows about the same as Mr. Zen when it comes to workflow as they’re both browsing images of trees, lawn furniture, photos of their own and other’s children – photos that the children will hate later in life – and  pictures of their cats.  Mr. Luxury’s workflow consists mostly of pictures of people from his workshops yet he’ll tell everyone because he’s a contributor he knows the “real world.”  Mr. Saturate is too overwhelmed by the thousands of meaningless photographs he makes so his take on workflow is akin to listening to someone who has no idea what they’re talking about.

When you’re choosing a workshop ask the presenter/organizer questions:

What magazines are you published in?

Do you have tear sheets?

What percentage of the money you earn is from photographic commissions?

Who commissions them to make photographs?

Are they only giving a workshop because they want to “promote their own brand”?

Will paid product demonstrations be made?

Have they ever been a working photographer?

Do they like dogs? (I’m only semi-joking about this)

It’s so easy to hype anything on the internet.  Just know that not everyone out there has your best intentions at the forefront of their interests.  Their interests are being popular, being relevant and … taking your money from you in the guise of teaching you something.  Perhaps a workshop from one of these people is good for someone who just watched a box-opening video, got all hot and ordered their very own NEX-7 from B&H.

Given the choices out there most people are much better off buying books, studying work by those they like, not hanging out with blowhards who espouse volumes of bullshit and eating at a fancy restaurant with their girlfriends or wives and not a bunch of forum guys who love a nice circle jerk.

And instead of commenting on yet another meaningless post only posted to drive traffic … go out and use the gear you already have.  No workshop presenter or glorified meet-up organizer is gonna help you find that magic bullet.

You can only find that on your own …

Making photographs yourself.

Cheers!

(Not sure I’m gonna allow comments on this one.)

 

R.S.H.N.... Pink Eye... welcome to LA.

I think those are the key words of the trip. :) 

Los Angeles... well, I've been meaning to visit for a while now. Back in 2006 when I found Chris' work it made me look at photography in a completely different way. I was sixteen and my biggest photographic inquisition was how I could create out-of-focus areas in my photos because with my camera at the time it was not possible. I was shooting with a little point and shoot which back then I thought was as high-end as cameras got. Shortly after discovering Chris' work I bought some camera equipment and was now able to create out-of-focus areas in my photos whenever I wanted. It's been an incredibly memorable five years since then looking back... and it's amazing how it all roots back in one way or another to finding Chris' work. 

We developed a friendship through the Internet which transitioned into phone conversations about all sorts of things and advice on real-world work as I had started getting jobs shooting. Finally five years later, we hung out and shot together. How many people can say they've done that with their first inspiration? It's funny because I was meeting many of his friends who I had been familiar with through his blogs in Toronto at the film festival. And now I met him. It goes without saying that it was a great feeling and I had an amazing time. I'm amazed at what the Internet can do and the doors it can open.

I also found Sev's work through Chris' blog (that link brings back some good nostalgia) and it was amazing to meet and shoot with such a talented person. Sev and I got along really well (it must be the Euro connection) and I think his passion for photography is from another planet. He's an amazing dude... and I think we're gonna get R.S.H.N. tattoos after this trip. ;) 

I was very appreciative of Frank Jackson's work after seeing the street photography video and meeting him was a totally amazing experience as well. I love his approach to photography and he really is a true character. Meeting people like Richard Polom, Nhat Nguyen, Andy Bond, Paul Posadas, Andres Izquieta, Michael Hacker and everyone else was also very amazing and surreal at the same time. The Internet is an incredible thing and it was so cool how it brought us all together. 

I only shot film with my Zeiss Ikon coupled with my Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2 lens as well as Chris' Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0. I left LA with 14 rolls of a mix of Kodak Tri-X, Plus-X and Rollei Pan 25. I developed and scanned them about a week ago but going through all the photos and trying to sequence them is very tough. Especially for a trip that I believe was very important and memorable. 

Out of the 504 photos, there are close to 300 in this blog... which is a pretty good ratio I think. I posted more than every other photo I took there and I maybe should have cut it down but I hope you'll enjoy it. I will do a feature for my dot com of about the 20 best photos... that will be super hard to choose so if you have suggestions I'd love to hear. But for the blog close to 300 is fine. ;) 

Beginning with my mom who dropped me off at the airport. By the way, if you open these images in a new tab/window they will be about 100 pixels bigger... I just had to size them down to fit in the body of this blog layout without getting cut off. 

I was just in Florida for a full week and returned to Toronto a day before I left for LA so I was kind of exhausted of being on planes back-to-back. But the view was nice with the clouds... 1/2 second exposure. 

I arrived to Chris' place late at night and thought the doormat was pretty fitting to his sense of humor. :) 

We went to bed soon after I arrived because it was already pretty late and the next morning we were off to Chinatown for the first day of Street is Serious. LA's Chinatown is way cleaner than Toronto's and doesn't smell like a R.S.H.N. either... I was pretty impressed actually. We were walking to a restaurant to meet up with everybody. Funny how these people didn't feel like strangers...

This next picture is SO Picasso body shop... :) 

In between chatting I took some photos of whatever was around me. I was trying not to think too hard about what I was shooting and filtering out photos in my head which I do in Toronto. While in LA I constantly reminded myself that I was only there for four days so I should shoot as much as possible. I find that a lot of the times judgments change anyways and a photo that wouldn't have "made the cut" in my first draft of selects would end up in the second. 

Shooting street there was really really fun. I found that no one really payed attention to it even though at times they were getting photo-gangbanged. I guess everyone there wants to be an actor or director. Even these ladies. ;)

I thought this was an odd scene with awkward body language.

What an awkward position... there were a lot of kids in LA... lots of wannabe child stars. ;) 

I love this photo. Look at the look on her face... maybe they were enemies in a past life?

Notice the four legs and feet?

Lunch break in the parking lot?

We also have a College Street in Toronto and ours is part of Chinatown too. 

After a few hours we went back to Chris' house and I had to make at least one "pretty" photo for my Mom. :) She thinks it should have been in color... maybe she's right. But I actually took zero color photos while I was there. 

Later that night I met up with Richard and we walked along Sunset Blvd. which I thought would be super packed and full of people and parties but it was literally deserted. It was actually a really bizarre feeling and very unexpected. It was also freezing...

This ad would definitely not fly in Canada...

After over an hour of walking and some great conversations and stories, we decided it was too cold to stay out and shoot even for us Canadians. I was on my way back to Chris' house around 1:30am but I got lost since the streets in this neighborhood are dark and it was my first time getting there. It was really quite a trip to be lost by myself at that time on Sunset Blvd. I felt almost like I was on set in a movie or something.

This "Chapel" was very strange to me. I can imagine there being a meth lab in the basement or something. Weird vibe.

The streets in LA were surprisingly really dark at night... and there were lots of weird things to be seen, but I finally made it back with some GPS navigation help from my girlfriend in Toronto. ;) 

The next morning walked to the subway to head to Hollywood Blvd.

This scene was to be expected.

Not sure which one I like better...?

This is probably one of my favorites as well. I love the film in the background... very Hollywood. And I love the division of the photo into three's from all directions. 

Typical scene when we got out. She told me that the actress had the same name as her and they were looking for that star all day... I forget who's it was.

Vassup?!

There is a very subtle detail in this photo which is the only reason I took it. This would look incredible as a big print. 

Awkward scene in Hollywood. And a cool trench coat and car. ;) 

It was Oscar weekend after all:

Interesting position. I think she was trying to find a lighter.

Classic west coast car. I wish it was Snoop in it though. ;)

I thought this was a very Hollywood-type photo. 

Dazed and confused in Hollywood. 

We wandered into some sort of market off of Hollywood Blvd. Totally different vibe.

I wonder if this woman really shops at H&M? I'm not sure if she is really their "target market." 

I love his this man and the young girl are almost the same size. Kind of an awkward pair I think.

Found my way back to Hollywood Blvd. but lost the group for a while... found some short grannies. 

This chick was yelling from her car to stop taking pictures. Hilarious!

Found a Banksy. Felt like taking a mirror shot almost. ;) 

Where are all the celebs?! Either that or they weren't sure where they were going.

Moved the group to Olvera Street.

Took a ride with Chris, Jamie, Sev, Brenna and Richard... the LA way. 3 up front. :)

Took the bus at some point too but I can't remember when... I think Chris has a video of me taking this photo.

And this one too...

After a few hours Chris, Sev, Richard, Michael and I went to Echo Park to shoot. Grabbing Richard from his hotel... not sure what these dudes were doing.

This is for my friend Russell. :)

1/2 second exposure... not easy. But I think the mood comes across. 

There were a lot of punks out this night.

I found some life on Sunset... I think this shows how dead it was. 

Punks vs. police. Not sure what happened... 

Sketchy taped together car. Someone was getting out of the backseat right as I took this. I'm telling you, Sunset Blvd. is a strange place... 

Love the items in the car. The cross is what makes it for me. 

Could never forget I was in America. :) 

I thought this said LA PRESS at first and that's why I took the shot because I liked the juxtaposition between that and the "DEAD" tag on the other side. It was intended to be a commentary on the state of the press. But I found out after I scanned it that it actually says "LA XPRESS" ... I think it still works though. 

Weird situation on Sunset. 

Went into a restaurant to get some food. Had an amazing red velvet cupcake but this place had a weird vibe for me. Switching to Chris' Nocti right now. Shooting 1.0 saved me in these lighting conditions. Two shots... I think I like the second one better.

The next day Sev and I went downtown. Jamie was so awesome and dropped us off. Thanks Jamie. :) This was very American:

I actually love that this dude didn't want me to take his picture. Looks cool this way.

?

We found another Banksy.

I like how his face is in shadow... subtle detail but I think it makes the shot.

This seemed to be a common thing with the pay phones in LA. 

This is one of my favorite photos I think...

What compels someone to do this?! I don't think this was her "weekend hobby" either. I'm just glad she didn't bite/scratch me. ;) 

JESUS SAVES. Sev and I made a joke that the ultimate street photo would be to have the LA Jesus running out of this building on fire with a girl in his arms, saving her from the flames. So I guess this shot is a work in progress for now. ;) At least we have the location scouted. 

I love this guy's physique. 

I needed this license plate on film. :)

This woman was scraping the gum off of that... 

Sev made a new friend with this dude who was showing us his camera...

Switching to the Nocti now. This lens is really something else... all at f/1.0. It's not easy focusing that on a moving subject. Even if he was moving slow. ;) Love the jacket and the Dickies. 

The light here was great... my girlfriend thought this was with a tilt/shift. Just f/1.0... :) 

Another photo for my Mom. :)

Said ciao to Sev after this and put back my 35/2 to shoot a bit more downtown. I love this photo for some reason but I'm still not really sure why... it just really reminds me of downtown. 

I asked her how to get back to Silver Lake and she told me she used to be a photographer. She wanted to take pictures of me so I gave her my Zeiss... they weren't bad! Better than I thought they would be.

Got back to Silver Lake at night and had to kill some time until Chris got home. I think Sunset Blvd. was my favorite place to shoot in LA. 

Weird grass on the sidewalk... 

I think this is one of my favorite photos from LA.

I met up with Chris when he got home and we went to our friend Natalie's Oscar after party. It was nice to see everybody who I only see at the Toronto International Film Festival in a different environment and in LA this time. Paul edited my photos a few years ago during TIFF but he wasn't there last year. Hope to see him in September.

Mario! I knew Mario's face from Chris' blogs and the street video and when I saw him in the hotel for the film fest two years ago I went up to him and told him I just watched the video the day before. We ended up shooting Drew Barrymore beside each other a few days after that at my university's theatre. Mario's an awesome guy and another inspiring shooter and I'm glad we got to hang out both in Toronto and in LA. Again, the connecting power of the Internet absolutely amazes me.

Mario's lovely girlfriend Heather with Mike who's also a wicked photographer.

Jamie and Sev:

The next day was my last in LA so I said goodbye to Chris, Jamie and Sev in the morning because they were going to the desert to shoot and I had some things I had to do before my flight. I had a meeting with someone during the day and then had to lock up my luggage before heading to LAX so I went to Venice Beach to kill the last few hours and because I was curious what it was like. Actually, it was not at all what I expected. It was pretty dead but it may have been because of the weather.

It was seriously windy that day. No wonder Venice Beach was kind of deserted. 

I love how he's flipping me off. :) 

These "doctors" were everywhere in Venice Beach... literally every other store.

Another very American car.

Check out the hand... :) This would be a cool big print too. 

This trip was really memorable and amazing on so many different levels. It was incredible meeting everybody who was there and being able to hang out and shoot with the person who inspired me to get into photography was just amazing. It's hard to put it into words. I was looking forward to meeting Angelo from deviantART to thank him for that site... but hopefully next time! Huge thank you Jamie and Chris for the hospitality... it was such a pleasure & I appreciate it. I can't wait to go back to LA again... shooting there was so much fun. 

While I'm on the topic of how cool it is to meet people from Uber (RIP), dA, etc... Dan Entwistle was in Toronto for a few months and I got to hang out and shoot with him a few times and Dmitry Koupriyanov and I have become good friends. I will also be hanging out with Philip Schulte for dinner & shooting in a few hours in Toronto. Seems pretty amazing to me. 

Cheers,

Arthur Mola

http://arthurmola.com

http://twitter.com/arthurmolaphoto

PS - I did a cleaner edit of a smaller selection of my LA photos on my website.