If you use a film rangefinder, you can just leave your lens cap on and shoot away... this will also save you lots of time on post-processing! (Once you get into this habit, you can cut back on film costs as well.)
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Lucky me. I live in a beautiful town. I have cosmopolitan scenes at my disposal, nice beaches, and even a hint of rural landscapes. It allows me most kinds of photography, from street scenes to long coastal exposures, without the expense of travelling. I know exactly what Mr. Krieger is talking about.Those who keep complaining their hometown is uninteresting should look harder. After all, as Garry Winogrand put it, "everything is photographable".
"Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." - Garry Winogrand
Other quotes by Garry Winogrand:
nawknai: This is like a rich guy suggesting that poor people just earn more money.
I grew up in the 'burbs.
I live in the city now, so I can try some street photography, but landscape photography is on hold until my next vacation.
Folks, he's using his personal experience as an example of looking, returning, looking again, trying different things, all from the same spot. It's really not about how beautiful or accessible that spot may be: it's about EXPLORING from the brain/eye outward. Live in the city but want nature? Go to a park, go macro in a planter box. Live in the country but want gritty cityscapes? Shoot a junkyard, mechanics' shops, and the liquor store. Look around your world. What do you see? What aren't you seeing that someone else would?
marike6: When shooting "minutes from your home" means dramatic cliffs in Loop Head, Ireland, then yes, I suppose you don't need to travel to far and exotic lands for find interesting subjects. If you live near the Long Island Sound in NY, or some New England town, say New London, CT, I'd say the work of making compelling landscapes "in your own backyard" gets dramatically more difficult.
Where the author lives looks like paradise for a landscape photographer, you could literally shoot the same scene in different seasons, with different light, treatments, and focal lengths, and you'd never run out compelling things to shoot.
Beautiful images, and interesting article. Bravo, and thanks very much.
@Marike6 -You might find Dan Juraks's blog interesting for inspiration on shooting locally with "non-dramatic" scenes. He gets down in the roadside ditches, uses whatever foreground elements he can find, and sometimes shows what he has "cropped out" of his viewpoint.http://danjurak.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/shooting-landscapes-in-your-own-backyard-literally/
Deleted pending purge: Regardless of the fact that it is just another of tub & shower resistant frustration to divers which wait for some manufacturer to understand what waterproofing is all about, this model is an anatomically undefendable ugly piece of design. There is no ergometry that would require such form.
Can you say, "Marine paint?"Actually, the shape of it looks good for well-held candid in-the-palm street shooting, working the shutter button with the thumb, the rounded end toward the wrist. And one could do a whole series taken from underwater in city fountains, too...
But really, I have always been intrigued by those LED lights for macro shots. Does anyone out there have any experience/examples?
JDThomas: Instead of these over-priced "photography" bags I usually buy tactical military bags designed for weapons. They are highly padded, ultra-durable, and about 1/3 of the price that these photo bag companies charge.
I could buy these in bulk sell them at twice the price and still come in way under what these companies charge for a product of lesser quality.
If you go to the Goodwill or Salvation Army, etc. thrift stores, you can usually find a messenger bag, and a neoprene computer sleeve or two. For under $10 you will have a nicely padded bag that does not look like a typical new camera bag. You might also find very nice Domke, LowePro, or Tamrac, etc. bags, as I have.
CameraCarl: Once again, lots of new cameras but only two with viewfinders. My wife (who is not as serious a photographer as me) won't even consider using a camera that does not have a viewfinder. And after struggling with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon S100 in daylight and bright sun, I will never buy another camera that doesn't have one. I can't figure why the manufacturers do not realize this. Why do they think photos ought to be taken at arm's length?
re: viewfinders, I most enjoy the act of looking "through" a TTL viewfinder, with camera up to my face, rather than "at" a screen on the back, at a bit of a distance. BUT having BOTH is the best! There are times and uses for both, and current technology makes it easy enough to provide both. It doesn't have to be one or the other, and just because you prefer one way over the other yourself, doesn't make the other side stupid, too old or too young, etc. Let's have our cake and eat it too, with extra frosting if we want!
pbailey4: HDR techniques - please respect the fact that some people (ok it may just be me) see these images as a manipulation to far, compressing the natural lighting range to show detail. Did I just say the king has no clothes?
i don't do hdr, but since film and sensors cannot "see" as much range of light as the human eye, it is quite possible (if not too common) to use hdr to more closely show what the eye sees. it doesn't have to be un-natural, in fact it can be more-natural. just saying.
jamesfrmphilly: rules? rules! we don't need no stinkin rules!
@Wye Photographyahem, that was a classic popular adaptation of a classic movie line which was in turn adapted from the original book.
to subject it to any formality is as dull as this note itself... but just in case some are not aware of its history, see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges
Rage Joe: And to tell you the truth the pictures Angel Adams took/made are pretty. Pretty BORING.
What is boring or exciting certainly varies between viewers. And many postcard views probably got their status from the originals of Ansel Adams and other photographers. But beyond his photos and techniques (a creative approach, a scientific application, and tons of post-processing), what I personally enjoy about Adams is the wealth of written material by, and about, him and how he actually became an established photographer. It was a time when photography was usually not considered as "art" and it's fascinating to look back and see how things changed because of Adams and his peers.
bencotto: I'd love this for my e-pl1 (i already have it for my lx-3).
Hama makes a universal add-on cable release that is basically a velcro wrap. Maybe it would work for you in a, pun intended, "pinch." I have only seen it online; no experience with it.
ralph seifer: My thought, precisely. When I saw the reference to "rangefinder" I got excited to read more about this camera.
Then I scrolled down the specs, only to be disappointed to learn that this is another one of the beautiful breed of photo devices that we old guys can't focus when it's two feet in front of our eyes and the subject is a dozen feet farther away. I guess I'm still stuck with the Canon SD700is that I bought 6-7 years ago because it came with what passes for a rangefinder. Ralph L. Seifer, Long Beach, California
Yes, call it something, but don't call it a rangefinder, which is a way of focusing, not an actual body style. (There were bellowed Polaroids that had rangefinders, for instance. Definitely not "pocketable!") I have been happy to see the increasing viewfinder designs and improvements coming from various makers. Having a choice of using a screen or viewfinder is great, although the implementation on many viewfinders is not to my liking.
I might suggest springing for some progressive lenses if your eyes need help on close focus and not on distance, should you find a camera that you like but which has no viewfinder. Even though I prefer taking off my glasses and looking through a viewfinder when shooting, it's nice to be able to use a screen for other shots, and progressives let me do that and keep everything in focus.
klopus: Anything that Lensbaby does can be easily and totally done much cheaper in post and with better quality if you use decent ordinary lens. And you don't have to toil manually in PS (though it isn't hard). There are many plugins that can simulate free form tilt/shift and selective focus. Heck, on iPhone and Android there are hordes of apps doing same thing.
The only Lensbaby advantage non reproduceable in post I see is to use movements to level architectural perspective which is main application of the classical T/S lens. Not sure if this even can be done reliably with Lensbabies since they lack precise controls and sharp end-to-end optics.
You're missing the point: the fun aspect of shooting with a Lensbaby in real life, in real time. I use an (older) Lensbaby 2.0, which is a pre-optic swap model similar to the current Muse. It's when you are looking at the world while bending the lens and reacting in the moment to what you experience, that leads you to make the photos you do. You can do lots of great things in post-, and pre-visualize what you will do later while shooting, but it is a different experience. Post is just that, post. Now is now.With the 2.0, you can also force it into a slight shift position with a strong hand, as there is nthing but air behind the lens, unlike the housing employed in the newer optic swap style.
FrankS009: Mr. Butler,Is the camera handy enough to fit in a jacket pocket for hikes or street shooting? Thank you.
The oft-used term "pocket" is very ambiguous. All my jackets have different size pockets. Can we get a standard pocket size and accompanying photos of the resulting bulge (with pancake lens and largest zoom), like the camera-in-hand photos? (I'm actually not really joking too much on this. It's so jacket and lens specific...)
Petteri Sulonen: This makes no sense to me. Why shackle themselves to the K-mount, with its long flange-sensor distance? They could've introduced a new mount optimized for mirrorless, and provided a fully-functional, electronic K-mount adapter for legacy lenses, like Nikon did with the 1 system.
What is with the term "pocketable" that gets used so often in DPR reviews and comments? My camera is protected in a bag if not in use, or around my neck/in my hand if I'm shooting. I'm much more interested in how it fits in my hand, than if it fits in a pocket.
waxwaine: I love it Tough-Macho look.IMHO the point on this camera is the exclusion of the mirror slap, wich produce little shakes affecting the resulted image keeping the venerated K mount.. GREAT IDEA!!! I consider the K-01 a serius attempt and not only an intent of a fetish camera like new Fuji's and others wl knows.
The positive aspect of no mirror slap seems to be negated by the instability of holding a viewfinder-less camera away from full body contact. However, as a tripod-mounted landscape camera, where AF style or ability is not really an issue, maybe this is a plus. In which case they should offer a green or camo model...
Heru Anggono: Carsten mentioned the importance of UV filter. I thought modern digital sensor is less susceptible to UV light and does not benefit much from UV filter. Any comment on this?
Regarding the ongoing debate about using a UV filter to protect the lens, no one ever seems to mention that you can have it both ways:
* Use it as a see-through lens cap: keep it on if the camera is out of its bag, to keep dust, grit, and moisture off the lens when tramping the outdoors. Easier to give a quick swipe to a cheap filter than careful cleanings, more often, to a delicate lens. (And you're not fumbling with a lens cap, should Bigfoot or a Leprechaun suddenly pop into view.)
* Take it off when you get serious about shooting a frame: removing any chance that an extra piece of glass is going to degrade your image through quality, reflection, or that aforementioned dust and poor cleaning.
If you are expecting to drop your camera and have a UV lens protect it, good luck. A rock can go through more than a single filter.
Thanks for the article, Carsten. I hope the edited content will show up in further installments.
Kodak has always been a real mix of the good, the bad, and the cheesy. But what got me in the press release was their "... appreciation for the hard work and loyalty of our employees," preceded by "... we have also already effectively exited certain traditional operations, closing 13 manufacturing plants and 130 processing labs, and reducing our workforce by 47,000 since 2003." How many more "loyal employees" will go, and sooner than later?
That's the way the cookie crumbles, the film fogs, and the pixels keep getting re-saved as jpegs...