APhotoContributor

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?

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.)

 

integrity?

One day this week I started getting emails saying "did Leica stop making film bodies!?"  When I asked "where the hell did you hear that?" and then hearing where they were all hearing it ... I just shook my head.  The finest amalgamation of photo entusiasts, rumor mongers and ... gear-heads.

Back in May -- it took me a while to remember -- some Rangefinder forum topic surfaced about the Asahi magazine report.

I almost think that if someone writes something in a forum it's almost like gossiping but if a website that is ostensibly a "photo enthusiast" or "photographic news site" ... shouldn't they check?

The funny thing to me is that although I'm not a huge fan of that rumors site that attempts to report on Leica from a wholly pedestrian angle (seeing as how the author has little photographic experience) had asked Leica about it.  Even homeboy got it right!  By no means do I wish to endorse him but I do applaud him for actually getting an official position rather than perpetuate rumor.

When I read THIS ARTICLE (if one calls it an article since all it does is PARROT something that wasn't even verified) I said "I'll ask them myself."  When I asked this -- which I'm assuming anyone could do, especially a site that claims to be a photographic news site -- I got this response from Germany:

Please find herewith the official company statement:

Leica Camera AG has not stopped producing its analog camera models, the Leica M7 and Leica MP, nor does it currently have any intention to do so. Although the demand for analog Leica camera models is not high, it is stable, and we are still producing cameras on a daily basis as always. This is confirmed by a film made last year at the Leica factory showing analog camera models being manufactured. The film can be viewed on youtube.  Besides this, any visitor to Leica Camera AG can go on a factory tour in Solms to see the current camera models - both analog and digital - being produced.

Why does it matter to me?  Well ... It matters because anyone can say anything on the web.  The denizens just take things at face value.  What's even funnier is that one can really see the "entitlement" some have ... well ... especially those who wrote the original article PARROTING an unverified article in a response here.  We'll see.  Yeah ... instead of just being flippant why wouldn't you just call the company in question and ask?

I did.  I'm a photographer; I don't run a website proclaiming to report news.

At least the British Journal of Photography did exactly what I did ... and the rumors site did.  They asked.  They verified.

Instead of "we'll see" why wouldn't someone write "let me ask."

You clearly can't believe everything you read.  Clearly.

Enjoy irrelevancy, mate.

snowy hell and pictures of wolves.

Went from Apparat to Cold Play.  From doing selects and adjustments in Aperture to finally ftp’ing.  As much as I want to hate Cold Play, if only because there’s no way that cool lead singer could possibly be married to G, I can’t.

 

Met my new friend.  He was warding off the rain.

 

 

I’m sure he was more successful than I. 

 

Delta Guy:  You’re 8 pounds over.

 

He looks at me.

 

Delta Guy:  I’ll just chalk it up to the rain.

 

Thanks, man.  It was the boots.

 

There’s some punctuation and capitalization going on.  No thanks to wordpad or whatever the fuck it is I use to blog.  Doing this in Word.  Then a nice copy/paste.

 

We had a bit of rain in beautiful L.A.  Besides not seeing the people most important to me there was no chance of doing exterior scenes for something I’m shooting.  Then again, I walked into a nice snowstorm. 

 

Airport first.

 

Vespa was getting the chops down for his portrait studio.

 

 

Besides being greeted by a friendly driver with my name on a board I saw a ridiculous map which I’m sure makes some drool.  All I see is elevation, lack of humidity, a reason to wear enormous boots and … to be really friggin’ cold.

 

 

Our driver thought our respective dissertations about why Avatar sucked-ass or was the most brilliant and emotional piece of cinematic art we’ve ever been fed by a studio.  I didn’t cry.

 

Fyi.

 

 

After finally eating I ran into Bob and Mario.  It was friggin’ cold.  Sure it was raining in L.A. but seriously it was nothing compared to Utah.

 

If you’re reading this and you shoot fashion week in Nebraska, no, I don’t give a rat’s ass what you have to say. ;)

 

I’m sure George does as he illustrates to us his latest 57 page spread in CanadaLand mag, of which, he had a case.

 

 

lots of this was to be seen.

 

 

which covered the trees.

 

 

but made atmosphere a bit more interesting to look at.

 

 

1^st day there and I was a bit winded walking up Main.  I stopped to … um … catch my breath and within a few minutes out walks Mr. Sundance himself with his beloved volunteers.

 

 

Banksy was here, too.  No one saw him, though.

 

 

He was not inside that bag of chips so the guy digging thought.

 

 

I was actually focused on the Sundance catalogue.  How do you make those seem interesting? 

 

Ya’ know … on-air talent people … they really are their own breed.  Seems that they’re usually OVERPOSTERS on facebook.  And most of the time they have no idea how to dress but they'll tell you on facebook every FUCKING time they're on television. ;)

 

 

he is  not on-air talent … I guess he could be somewhere. ;)  like latvia.

 

 

Lotsa different video capturing rigs floating ‘round Sundance.  Most of them were 7d’s.

 

 

The woman’s face is priceless and I have no idea what Bob’s looking for.  He’s the talented Galbraith.  Just fyi. There's another with a popular sell-out website who shoots high school sports.  Yes, please believe that one. ;)

 

Whilst Redford posed with the volunteers and Kenneth Cole the official photographer grabbed me and said “you need this right?”

 

 

All I had was the 5dm2 with the 45 t/s and the m9-m8-thing with a thirty-five 'lux.  But, sure, I’ll make a photo.  Genaro is the guy mid-frame.  He makes really nice photos.

 

I found dogs here. 

 

 

The Banksy always caught my attention.  Then again, everyone else was looked at it everytime they walked by, too…

 

 

It’s important to make venues look full.

 

 

all of the 5dm2 photos were made with either the Leica R 35 ‘cron or the 50 ‘lux.  Since I’ve been shooting this film/movie, I’ve been getting to know and love certain filters.  I think they can make stills look … different …

 

 

like I said … people were always checking out the Banksies.

 

 

No idea if this film is good or not.  It just looked cool in the viewfinder.

 

 

Interesting how different an SLR and a rangefinder let you see things.

 

 

This may have been the same rig as the day before.  I’m unsure.  A lot of people were rocking these things instead of the traditional camcorder-format.

 

It’s so fucking funny … most of the blogs I read … written by old men who have no idea what it’s like in the “real world” … they really have no idea.

 

But they sure can shoot a fuckin’ landscape.

 

I’ll bet they own condos in the mountains and put wolf pictures on the walls.  More on that later.

 

Malin is so sweet …

 

 

this is not sweet.

 

 

Overt consumerism isn’t sweet either but the girl connected to the legs is.

 

 

Kristen is, though.  Like amazing.

 

 

I have no friggin’ clue why they posed like this.  No.  Idea.  Why. (John C. Reilly, Danny McBride, Jonah Hill)

 

 

perhaps because they were surrounded by buddahs.

 

 

and throngs of sweaty people in a hotbox.

 

 

Brent was cool, though.  He kind of always is, though.

 

 

wtf?  Wtf is that woman punching in the background?  i thougth it was a bear.  yep you fuckin' vonces ... i see i didn't captilize the i.  and i don't care.  you ... though ... should try and make a photo.  any photo. get over it:  stock agencies don't want your stuff, natgeo will never hire you ... get over it. ;)

 

 

Such an advert for Stella. ;)

 

There was a football game on.  It was supposed to have been important.

 

 

Someone tried to sell me this pit bull for us$1.  I don’t really think they meant it.  Seriously, the Salt Lake hillbillies that come “up the hill” … man … wtf?  Alcohol is so not a pretty site on some people.  The joys of being in the "middle of the country."

 

 

The irony, no?

 

 

That’s the real fucking world.  That’s not some masturbatory dream of content of some irrelevant old landscape shooter who couldn’t make it in the real world.  Not you Ken, promise.

 

I’m always stoked when a driver is on the phone whilst driving.

 

 

He does.  He really really does.  Like he took this from the party and walked down fucking Main Street with it.  How'd you get it in the plane, mate?

 

 

And he really loves his ‘nana.

 

 

There’s that damned wolf photo.  With beer.  And Anna. (can't find her website).  I think that Wolf photo was from some CanadaLand Toronto gallery but better described as a "cheap Peter Lik." ;)

 

 

And who focuses on Polk?  Who?  I think I remember who. 

 

 

The annual elevator shot.

 

 

Really.

 

Good.

 

Bacon.

 

I did that just for you Mr. Nebraska Fashion Fucking Week Shooter. ;)

 

 

Where else do you get bacon and then Miss Washington?

 

 

Sundance.

 

And here I guess.

 

My friend Elissa.  And her friend.  No idea.

 

 

She’s probably a talent agent who’s stabbed everyone in the back and has no friends.  I dunno.  That’s fucked up.  Then again, those are the people killing creativity in Hollywood.  Not that she is in particular ... just sayin'.

 

 

See the wolf?  Yep.  I hear this game went on until 08:00.  funny that the talent in this room is the reason the world gets to see timely entertainment and news photos all over the planet.  nuke that room -- and i guess if this were nuked the editors bunker would have been nuked -- and no one would have gotten any sundance news.  Every popular photo blogger -- save two -- would love to be published even 10% of the least published of anyone in that photo save the random chick in the back some Argentine dudes brought with them.

 

 

Gustavo really likes to pose. (damn staffers never have personal websites). ;) 

 

 

No idea.  My camera ended up in a few different hands.  Safe hands to be sure. ;)

 

 

I kinda remember taking it though.

 

Keith can light like a motherfucker.

 

 

George not only poses but he makes grilled cheese.  Honestly, besides making photos I think making grilled cheese is the only thing he knows how make.  I could be wrong.  I guess he does robotic delivery as well.

 

 

I’ve decided I like blooming blown-out highlights.

 

 

And McCarthy likes Patron.

 

 

Some of the crew.  Different outlets but … a crew.

 

 

and some dumb motherfuckers loose their p/s’s.  won’t say who.

 

Up-and-comer according to the film’s publicist.

 

 

One of the nicest people I know.

 

 

funny how the cool people come through in their photos. Jason ritter is another of the nicest.

 

 

my gf would say “he should be nice.”  And I know what she means by that.  Whatever.

 

They put these up every time we roll in.  I’m sure.

 

 

Bob working photos.  Their accommodations were so much better than ours.  Whatever.  We didn’t have to edit. ;)

L’Aftermath.

 

 

Stella and PBR represent.

 

Random.

 

 

Random, too.  Mario’s playing with a prototype of the Hot Rod Camera’s PL Mounting system for REAL CINEMA lenses mounting to the Canon 7d.  Yeah, you have to get off your fucking couch in some irrelevant fucking place to see this kind of shit.  You can postulate about photography all you want but … if you aren’t out with your peers discovering new shit first hand … you … suck.  Then again, you know that. ;)  hope the seminars teaching the hopelessly untalented treat you well ... even though you wish you were published. ;)

 

The Hot Rod Camera mount had a nice t/1.5 50 zeiss prime.

 

 

George likes to pose.

 

 

last night of sundance.  Last night of seeing snow tracks …

 

 

This, albeit beautiful, showed me I needed a sensor cleaning…

 

 

reminds me why flying is so beautiful and peaceful when you have your headphones in and listening to the iPhone.  On airplane mode of course.

 

From snow to … not-so-cold and having coffee with J.

 

And making the sneaky photo…

 

 

and not so sneaky…

 

love this photo! :)

homeboy is on guard...

 

to being an official team photographer. :)

 

 

And they’re a pretty good team.  Might be the most amount of sports I’ve ever shot.  I mean when I get to shoot but when I do … it’s a lot of fun.  At least the other dad now forgets the monopod for his two hundred. ;)

 

Wish I had time to do this more often … I have no idea how other guys are able to do a blog every day.  Jesus.  Takes so much time. 

 

*looks at picture count in folder*

 

damn.  71.  That’s kind of a lot for me.

 

I know the iPad’s had some haters.  No, I don’t care if it does flash.  Flash sucks.  Whenever I crash a browser window it’s because of flash.  I get why they don’t allow it on the iPhone and now the iPad.  Why people would want to edit photos on one I have no idea. 

 

There are delineations.  MacBookPro for editing photos and video.  Iphone for general distractions and surfing the web.  iPad for reading magazines and books, listening to music and watching video content.  It’s easy.  They’re evil geniuses who find new ways to suck money out of us.

 

As unexciting as it will be to hear about space rates going down because of electronic delivery I think it’ll be interesting to see new electronic-only distributed magazines.  Perhaps they’ll do for print what iTunes did for music. 

 

I know.  Certain in the music industry hate iTunes … but … those assholes charged me us$14.99 for cd after cd of like one or two good songs and the rest shit.  Until you sign artists who can make a whole album ... wait ... no ... i'm past cd's.

 

Perhaps the same with print in a way.

 

I kinda see a culling.

 

Game changing.

 

Like the film world’s become – above and beyond the fucking boring test footage – different because of small format camera capable of really good reso. 

 

Gonna be interesting.

 

I know it is for me.

 

Shooting motion is … really … interesting.  But you get to know this stuff by doing.

 

Unlike 90% of the fucktards writing blogs for equally uninteresting audiences.

 

Okay … I wanted to get this out before something else distracted me.

Oh yeah, I can now vouch for the m9 working perfectly in pretty damn cold, damp and snowy conditions.  Blistering as hell, check (this past summer).  Cold as shit (this past sundance).

 

Hope you’re all well and are making photos instead of posting on forums.  Posting on dA or flickr's cool. ;)

 

Cheers from a rather chilly for an exterior shoot l.a.

 

-c

marketing genius.

granted, i don't understand japanese corporate mentality.  i know it's different than what i know about north american and european corporate culture ...

but, seriously, canon japan was so inconceivably stupid today ... it made even me question anything they do.  that whole mark 3 bullshit coulda killed them.  only because shooters are invested in glass did a good number stick with canon.

yes, guys, totally-totally-totally remove one of the best pieces of viral marketing you could ever think of having produced.

i think that's the issue though:  they didn't think of it.

so typical of corporate idiots.

i guess by writing this i'll probably never have a cool relationship with canon japan.  whatever.

had this conversation with a friend the other day ... about photography ... about the fact you can never ever be as good as the camera you have ... about gear-allegiance. 

I'll digress.  i shot nikon for years and years and years.  i'll bet there are people younger than how long i shot nikon.  the f5 was superb.  the f4 was superb.  hell ... the f3's and fm2's and fm3a's i shot were all superb.  i always looked at canon as kinda funny looking and perhaps even cheap looking.  the nikons were solid sexy beasts.

then digital happened.  had the d1.  then the d1x.  for what it did at the time it did it ... it was amazing.  had a shutterbox go.  had it replaced.  had a few bodies go at the same time.  heard that one of the wires was moving to canon and that i should do that as well.  got a 1d and used it as the ambient body.  i liked what it did and although i thought flash sucked with canon.  the mark 2 came out and although flash still wasn't great, i went canon all the way.  ciao-ciao nikon.  nikon's digital sucked ass until only recently really.

seems as though the nikon japan people are a bit smarter than their canon counterparts.  now, at least.

the whole mark three bullshit with autofocus really hurt canon.  my friends told me endless stories about missing shots or getting the shots but the the mark 3's didn't focus correctly.  pissed a lot of people off.  in fact, i know a lot of people who now shoot nikon yet only a month or so ago there were canons on their shoulders.  dunno if the "traditional wires" will switch but i know others who may or may not have "had a better take" at the olympics ... were shooting the new nikons.

interesting that canon has the successor to a camera system PLAGUED with issues ... and they pull one of the dumbest selfish moves ... ever.

they have the chance to fire back to nikon's newest ... and ...

they do that.

since the advent of digital i have far less camera loyalty than i had in the past.  it was sad selling the f4's and getting the f5's.  even though the d1's were groundbreaking i didn't feel bad selling them nor any other digital gear after that.

don't get me wrong my 1dsm3's are amazing cameras.  i don't shoot sports ... and except for the rare spaniel running at me ... my subjects are less than fast-moving.  in fact, i don't even usually shoot canon glass so autofocus isn't as important to me as it is to MOST of my friends -- a good number, of which, are shooting nikon now.  i love love love the 5dm2 not only because of what it can do with motion but because it's a phenomenal camera ... it's the 3-series bmw of the camera world. 

they only really fail with on-camera flash.  nikon's new stuff looks pretty nice.

thing is ... i'm happy with the equipment i'm using irrespective of the manufacturer.  would i switch?  i mean ... sure ... i'd go back.  i liked nikon glass well enough.

it's funny because ... there are two brands of which i'd never switch ... leica and apple.  if you're not just "in it for the status" leica can do more for your serious photography than canon or nikon ever could.  apple just works.  pc-people can say whatever they'd like; apple kicks ass.  i know more than a few network security people who "never want to see a fuckin' windows box" at home. ;)  they know who they are.

it's funny watching canon and nikon playing the iso game right now.  i know i know i know ... 6400's amazing with the new nikons.  i haven't used the new mark 4 but i'm told it's one of the better features of the camera.  i know 3200 and definitely 1600 are pretty damn good with the 5dm2's and 1dsm3's.  i use them regularly.

i was "meh" about the mark 4.  won't be buying one.  i'd use one, though, just to see what's up.  the only camera i've been excited about in the last year is the m9.  yeah, i know ... rangefinders have weaknesses.  so the fuck what.  i guess it's easier for some to just forget about what they loved shooting to what they felt was more pragmatic to shoot.  even when the m9 wasn't around i still shot my third body which was a leica mp or whatever i felt like picking off the shelf.  the timeliness of the images may have made them a bit irrelevant at the end of the day but ... they're still images i loved making and could have only made with a rangefinder.

if you hate rangefinders, i don't care.  you can leave your pithy-ass anonymous comment.  don't give a rat's ass.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that it's so refreshing to see a camera company take a chance and really do it right ... with the m9. 

the other "noise" is just kinda funny.

and sadly stupid that they would have their heads so far up their asses because of corporate cowardice and selfishness. 

even though they fired their counterstrike to the d3s, i think i can hear that tennis umpire say "advantage nikon."  dumb move dumb asses.

because leica became so relevant again with their little wondercamera ... it continues to replace my canon ambient body more and more and more ...

i know my shoulder's happy about it.

okay ... sorry ... was just pissed tonight.

hope you're all well!

cheers from a still-warm los angeles.

-c

hype

as much as i want canon to succeed in this apparent iso-competition between canon and nikon ... it just makes me laugh.  canon announced the mark 4 today.  it's been being tested by beta-testers since at least that world soccer thing in south africa. 

from what i heard there wasn't any "buzz" -- the kind that doesn't make it on the friggin' internet -- about the video and high iso functions.  all i was hearing about was the autofocus ... seeing as how the mark 3's were ... well ... a bit less than what shooters wanted.

would i switch back to nikon?  no.  i'm not doing sports.  in as much as my friends who are "back to shooting nikon" show me the results with on-camera flash ... well ... what i have is still plenty good.

i'm not impressed by iso's in the 100,000+ range.  camera manufacturers want us all to think ... we need the newest equipment.  that's total bs.  in fact, my cameras are far better at making files than i am. 

if i were to go out and spend $10K on new golf clubs, i'd still be unable to break 100.

same thing goes for cameras.

i know that i've made a nine foot wide print with the files coming out of my 5dm2's and 1dsm3's.  21 mp is perfectly fine for the work i do.  if i need something bigger, i'll rent it.  looking forward to the time i need to use something like the s2! :)

back to iso.  back in the day film slrs would tout themselves as "the fastest," the smallest, the most feature-packed, etc., etc.  i think now it's gonna be a race to iso prominence.  i mean ... like that matters.  honestly, there's never been a shot i've missed due to my cameras not being able to shoot fast-enough isos.  i guess if you're shooting "kit glass" it could matter but i prefer shooting the fastest available glass. there's no substitute for good, fast glass.

then again, if you can't shoot, none of it really matters.

let's see what else?  oh, yeah, the 5dm2 and it's future 24/25p capabilities.  i don't believe shit i believe on the web.  having been part of the m9 project i can tell you ... the shit you see on the web is laughable.  my favourite piece of bullshit was the "the m9 will have the 5dm2 sensor" or the dude who took apart an m8 to prove it couldn't ever be full-frame.  BULLSHIT.  thing is ... even though both of the people who put that up on whatever board it was ... i'm sure they're still posting.  posting bullshit.

i'm sure they're still making horrible photos. ;)

honestly, from the film industry people i know who were using the 5dm2 on real film sets told me that the cameras came from canon but included some kind of hardware change and that at the time 24/25p couldn't be achieved with just a "firmware update."  interesting.

honestly, though, i don't know why people are so excited about 24/25p ... please tell me when you're gonna have this projected ... 'cause that's the only reason you'd want 24/25p.  i'm good with 29.97.  i just wish canon and even nikon would fucking forget this h264 bullshit.  i think they should output to apple prores 422!  do you know how much time i'd save in transcoding? ;)

get with the fucking program.  screw h264.  funny thing is that some "film expert" who's a friend of a friend told me "you can totally edit in h264."  um, sure, buddy.  you keep believing that.  funny 'cause i saw what this "film expert" shot himself and i almost threw up in my mouth.

whatever.

at least zeiss got another lens out for us canon-users!  so looking forward to both the 21 and the 28.  unsure about the 35 as i almost don't think it's gonna be wide enough to justify purchasing. dunno.  we'll see.

i'm sure you've seen laforet's latest production?  god damn do i hate linking to anything with the smugmug name in it.  that's the stupidest friggin' name on the planet.  smugmug?  fuck me.

i've been having a private conversation -- which arose from me taking something the wrong way -- with a longtime hollywood professional in the "camera department."  what i think is funny about "nocturne" is that it's a production.  yes, it's pretty to look at.  yes, it's edited beautifully. 

but can you do it?  well ... if you have a nice dolly, access to aerial stuff, rad stabilization gear, um ... a total steadicam pro and like 30 other people ... sure you can friggin' do it, too.  

i don't think that laforet has seen the cinevate stuff, surely, if he did he'd be using it ...

of course, unless, redrock has a big "marketing budget." ;)

there's this quote ... my friend dan ... one of the best grips and people i know.  he'll see something i'm working on and say "now that's gripping my friend."  i'd text him right now but i know he's sleeping as he's working nights on one of the only big-budget films shooting in town right now.

anyway ... it's this quote about how to make a movie ... and needing an army of people to accomplish it. 

just going out with "you and your friend" and a 5dm2 or 7d or whatever variant you use ... you'll never be able to do what laforet does.

ask laforet if he "focuses himself."  bet he doesn't. 

i remember going to the premiere of some movie ... as a guest.  pretty enough.  i wouldn't expect any less.  i did notice a lot of flaws which ... for me ... because i'm an asshole took away from the story.  so ... at the after-party the person who brought me says "let's go say hi to xxx."

okay.

he says "so what did you think about the film?"

knowing he's a "leica guy" i knew i could say something other than what the ass-kissers would say, "um, may i be honest?"

"of course."

"it was a nice film except for the focusing on the close-ups."

he takes me by the arm away from a sea of suits -- people i know to be disgusting talent agents.  those suits were pissed that some "nobody" was getting the ear of one of the most successful producers on the planet.

after we're away from the earshot of "the suits" ... he says "that dumb motherfucker gave me 1 to 3 takes and i told him i wanted more."

i smile.

he goes on "those were the best-focused takes even though the takes weren't all that great.  i told him to fire the 1st asst. camera and he refused."

my smile dissolved to astonishment that this dude was sharing this kind of info, "... i told him i'd never use him again."

so .. i went and checked (i meant to in the past) ... the last and only film homeboy ever worked on ... as a director ... was the film mr. producer hired him for.  i love it when someone big in hollywood is NOT full of shit.  i won't go into exactly what mr. producer said but everything he said was true.

focus is important.

we then talked 30 minutes about everything leica.  the suits were glaring the entire time and when mr. producer actually gave me a hug ... and i left ... i said to one of the suits -- of course, a really short little guy -- "bro, you got an ugly spot on your tie."

he didn't but i thought i'd fuck with him as he clearly thought mr. producer and i had a relationship that ... we did not.

what he said to me ... lives inside my brain, though, and i think about it every time i'm shooting some little project.

my next project shoots soon.

and, yes, i'll be using a professional focus-puller or 1st a.c. as they're called ...

anyone who thinks they can do what laforet did alone, is smoking something funny.  you need a fucking army.

i know that sounds very american.

but the army i'm talking about isn't the kind which prosecutes improper and illegal wars...

they just make movies.

hope you're all well.

while i'm at it ... i want to thank you guys for continuing to read my site, making comments, sending me private emails ...

you guys are the best.

what i like the best about you guys?  is that you're all good shooters ...

unlike those other sites ... who's readers are just a bunch of old white guys who can't shoot their respective ways out of paper-fucking-bags.  and, no, leica is not just a status symbol.  if you actually knew the photo business -- like you claim to -- you'd know that leica is very much in the game.  then again, you'd have to talk to real photographers and not sycophants who -- for what reason i have no idea -- kiss your ass so that you mention them in your blog.  seriously, mate, please take some pictures so that we can see that you are talented. ;)  being a high school photo teacher doesn't mean shit ... nor does a bfa in photography.  in fact, a bfa usually means you can't shoot shit.  just so you know.  photos of trees and lawn furniture ... doesn't mean shit.

okay ... gotta jump in the shower.

cheers from a partly cloudy l.a.!

-c

UPDATE:  it would appear that laforet posted a blog to answer some questions.

also, the quote i was looking for was from orson welles ... "A writer needs a pen, an artist needs a brush, but a filmmaker needs an army."true then, true today, true about the laforet videos.  no way you're doing that with 2 people. ;)

photovests.

so ... the other day i taped a segment with my friend damon.  he posted it on youtube:

i discovered that i should have stolen damon's mike. ;)  i also discovered that he did a pretty cool interview with elliot erwitt.

we spoke about lots of things that afternoon.  a lot of what we spoke about didn't make it on video.  funny because when i write about gear my pageviews go through the roof.  seems like he experiences the same thing.  i guess that's why wank is so popular, no? (hope you click that last wank-link)

gear-bators make me laugh so hard.  just so you know ... because you own a fancy d-slr, slr, holga, rangefinder ... doesn't mean you can do anything good with it.  yes, of course, if you own any of the aforementioned that means that you know everything about photography.  it means instead of using the gear to make photos you sit in forums with other gear-bators and discuss everything photography ad naseum.

yes, i've seen the galleries attached to your profiles and they're total shit.

just so you know.

you're laughable.

what else?  um ... my first street photograph was made with an slr.  it was a big-ass slr as well.  the nikon f4 was not a small camera by any means.  it was a great camera.  don't really think the subjects -- they were dogs (go figure) -- minded too much.  i saw the limitations of doing this type of photography with an slr.  i then went to the contax g system.  it was a good system.  it's just that the autofocus system was more of a limiting factor rather than something good. 

that's when i bit the bullet.  i sold some gear i didn't use.

i bought a leica.

yes, i said it ... a leica.  it changed the way i saw things.  it was different than the contax in so many good ways.  yes, the contax g system had great glass if not a bit slow for my taste.

i wouldn't think of shooting street with anything else now.  yes, i've used the zeiss zm body and their lenses.  they are excellent.  in fact, the voigtlander stuff is excellent as well.  the lenses i've tried coming from voigtlander are pretty damn good as well.  wait ... i own the cv 15/4.5.  nice glass for sure.  cheap, too.  sorry ... inexpensive. 

i also like certain wines over other wines.

it's taste.

is taste bias?

perhaps.

i just know that i prefer leica products over just about everything else.

and why the fuck does that NOT matter?  i'm not doing some lame gear-bator pay-for-review-site punctuated by equally as lame photographs.  then again, i'm sure the audience -- who makes the same lame-ass photos -- probably loves the work.  misery is great company as they say.

so, yeah, i love shooting leica. 

don't be a jealous-ass hater rubbing up on your gear.  get a girl for that, mates. ;)

but .. i'll bet that would be a bigger challenge than buying a new piece of gear, right?

okay .. i gotta get outta here.

hope you're all well and enjoy damon's interview about ... gear. ;)

cheers from a way-to-friggin'-hot-to-be-driving-to-the-friggin-valley-to-look-at-curtains!

-chris

thank you

usually i try and comment back to everyone ... this time ... there was no way.  suffice it to say ... i enjoyed reading each and every comment, guys.

besides wanting to redux my '06 thing on dA ... i, like others i'm sure, found almost nothing on the web about street.  funny enough ... the most popular video out there was ... well ... something that became my motivation to do something better:

i mean ... yeah ... dress up like a cat burglar. i think the best part is "hi, i'm joel meyerowitz, i'm a serious photographer." yes, sir, you are. keep those cape cod landscapes comin' buddy. ;)

"here comes a whole breed of dogs.  look at this crowd.  look at this crowd!"

not gonna say who watched this with me but we laughed our asses off.

i mean ... he and colin westerbeck published bystander back in 1994.  if you can get through the first 100 or so pages ... it's not bad reading. ;)

so, yes, mr. meyerowitz ... thank you for the motivation.

seriously, i cannot believe the comments i've gotten!  THANK YOU SO MUCH!

yes, i'm getting a full-on m9 review done.  thing is ... i think that what i write is much better suited for those who actually shoot.  it never ceases to amaze me that fucking people can review a camera THEY'VE NEVER EVEN FUCKING SHOT.

oh, sorry for the x-rated language.  i forgot that dentists and others who post on forums have virgin-fucking-ears.  sorry.  no, actually i'm not sorry.  then again, you know that.

i see someone post about the dynamic range, perhaps the same person who said the m8 could never be full-frame, and this is on their profile:

 

why don't you stick to school, mate.  clearly, you know nothing about photography.  not only ... but ... some other dude -- clearly, bitter about having bought an m8.2 and out to influence other gear-bators -- wrote this.

although i've met a few pretty good people through a couple of the message boards, for the most part they are populated and fed content, content being very loosely defined, by gear-bators.  i respect wank more than i respect the fat part of the bell curve of the people who post reviews about cameras they've never touched.

seriously, why even spend fucking time on a forum?  isn't photography about making photos and not finger-banging your equipment?  of course, one may finger-bang one's equipment whilst shooting.

if you want to learn more about photography and even gear for that matter, go to flickr ... go to dA.  if you go to a forum, you'll get a bunch of angry old white men who can't shoot yet post 10,000-fucking-posts and are probably friends with the fucking moderator so if you disagree with them they'll lock your post or even delete it ... or ... ban you.

wanna know what i find abso-fucking-lutely funny as shit?  the top posters on at least a few of the forums i've seen .. they don't even have public photo galleries?  ah ... too embarrassed of your snow-covered lawn furniture and brick walls? 

photography is about seeing something.

go to flickr.  go to dA.  go to wherever people post photos.  don't go to places where people pontificate about shit but have NO PHOTOGRAPHIC TALENT TO BACK THAT SHIT UP.  i'd rather talk to people who actually use cameras to make beautiful photos.  my friend ricci in nyc ... he's been making some nice m9 photos. :) 

okay ... enough of the diatribe.

i can't tell you how happy i am ... that one of my heavier dslr canon bodies ... the ambient body as opposed to the flash body ... is now replaced by a leica.  the leica m9.  well ... mine says leica m8 but it's insides are all m9.  my left shoulder thanked me, actually.  my right shoulder is still angry.  but ... i told the right shoulder to fuck off.

;)

perhaps if the right shoulder is nice i'll switch bodies from one side to the other.

perhaps.

okay ... unlike 99% of the people on the forums ... i actually get paid to make photos by some of the biggest publications and brands on the planet ... and that's what i gotta do.

and ... the m9 will be proudly on my happy left shoulder ...

as the right shoulder is pissed off about having a 1dsm3 weighing it down. ;)

shooting this camera -- the m9 -- is pure joy.  was experimenting with off-camera flash -- using a canon ttl cord -- and the m9.  interesting.

again, THANK YOU ALL FOR THE TERRIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE STREET VIDEO-THING.

hope your week gets off to a nice start!

cheers from the amazingly temperate los angeles!

-chris