In case you've never seen one, it's tiny, like a pack of cigarettes. But full 35mm quality, and great lens.
Isn't it beautiful?
I wonder if it is also beautiful to people who are not camera geeks?
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Rollei 35
Shame on me: Stephen Gillette made me want to have a Rollei 35, so I bought one on eBay. Lucky for me I don't care about how it works, and the meter does not work, so I got it much cheaper than it normally is.
In case you've never seen one, it's tiny, like a pack of cigarettes. But full 35mm quality, and great lens.
Isn't it beautiful?
I wonder if it is also beautiful to people who are not camera geeks?
In case you've never seen one, it's tiny, like a pack of cigarettes. But full 35mm quality, and great lens.
Isn't it beautiful?
I wonder if it is also beautiful to people who are not camera geeks?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Medicine for life
It appears that more Americans were killed by mistakes in the medical system in the past decade than where killed by wars in two hundred years.
And it is not limited to the US. According to the doctors' own statistics, in any country in the world where there's been a doctors' strike, death statistics fell during the strike! And then imagine how many errors are not registered as errors. Would you admit to killing somebody by giving him the wrong (or right) medicine?
This video has some quite astounding statistics.
Jerry said:
Why do you listen to and pass on hysterical, unattributed, "statistics" which are designed to sell products?
How is this better than the marketing used by the drug companies the video complains about?
This is built on the paranoia and fear mongering, not on reason, testing and science.
It could be. I hope so. But I think that if the statistics were not true, this guy would have been sued to oblivion a long time ago.
Pascal said:
I'm not going to feel targeted here, because I know you guys and what you truly mean. :-) [Note: Pascal is a doctor]
It's true that many doctors often forget the principle of primum non nocere, "first thing is to avoid causing harm". But it's not all one side's fault. It's not only because the pharmaceutical companies spend great effort in ADVERTIZING what should never have become consumption goods. The mentality of patients is also responsible in good part. Picture, if you will, a medic who says: "It's just a viral angina. Take a week's rest, vitamins, paracetamol, hot drinks, and it'll pass. You don't need antibiotics, they won't help anyway." Alas, he'll risk being confronted with the stereotypical: "What? I don't even get a prescription? What kind of lame doctor is that? I'm going to another one from now on."
It happens every day. :-(
Similarly, the fact that a definite diagnosis is seldom evident, something we learn very early on in Med School, is very hard to accept for many patients. To them, either the Doc is a fully confident god-like figure, or he's a loser. This creates a pressure in favor of misdiagnosis.
That's not to say that black sheep are not many, because they are. Heck, I always say, 1% rotten apples is more than enough to give any given group a bad rep. Immigrants, muslims, pious evangelists, citizens of any other country, the ethnic group of your choice... If one out of a hundred behave like rascals, it can be enough when seen on worldwide TV if you are ever so slightly inclined to prejudice.
And let's face it, pick any random group, and tell me honestly: can you guarantee that 99% of them are upstanding, or even just nice people? Not one bit likely. Extremist parties in the most civilized countries have an electoral core base of at least 5 to 7% visceral racists. Imagine 7% of Germans being potential rioting, jew-murdering neo-nazis. Imagine 7% of muslims being ready to slit an infidel's throat. Imagine 7% of doctors being exactly like Final Identity describes: greedy, unethical, incompetent, or all at once.
Now, imagine that this is probably a true figure, and you'll understand why there are still so many things wrong in even the most socially advanced country. 5 to 7% rotten apples, is one out of 14 to 20 people. It's not that much, but it's already a lot in any crowd, city or country.
And the proportion can grow far bigger in the "adequate" circumstances. For instance, with a charismatic fanatic telling you Right and Wrong, and peer pressure to approve of the "enlightened" person.
And it is not limited to the US. According to the doctors' own statistics, in any country in the world where there's been a doctors' strike, death statistics fell during the strike! And then imagine how many errors are not registered as errors. Would you admit to killing somebody by giving him the wrong (or right) medicine?
This video has some quite astounding statistics.
Jerry said:
Why do you listen to and pass on hysterical, unattributed, "statistics" which are designed to sell products?
How is this better than the marketing used by the drug companies the video complains about?
This is built on the paranoia and fear mongering, not on reason, testing and science.
It could be. I hope so. But I think that if the statistics were not true, this guy would have been sued to oblivion a long time ago.
Pascal said:
I'm not going to feel targeted here, because I know you guys and what you truly mean. :-) [Note: Pascal is a doctor]
It's true that many doctors often forget the principle of primum non nocere, "first thing is to avoid causing harm". But it's not all one side's fault. It's not only because the pharmaceutical companies spend great effort in ADVERTIZING what should never have become consumption goods. The mentality of patients is also responsible in good part. Picture, if you will, a medic who says: "It's just a viral angina. Take a week's rest, vitamins, paracetamol, hot drinks, and it'll pass. You don't need antibiotics, they won't help anyway." Alas, he'll risk being confronted with the stereotypical: "What? I don't even get a prescription? What kind of lame doctor is that? I'm going to another one from now on."
It happens every day. :-(
Similarly, the fact that a definite diagnosis is seldom evident, something we learn very early on in Med School, is very hard to accept for many patients. To them, either the Doc is a fully confident god-like figure, or he's a loser. This creates a pressure in favor of misdiagnosis.
That's not to say that black sheep are not many, because they are. Heck, I always say, 1% rotten apples is more than enough to give any given group a bad rep. Immigrants, muslims, pious evangelists, citizens of any other country, the ethnic group of your choice... If one out of a hundred behave like rascals, it can be enough when seen on worldwide TV if you are ever so slightly inclined to prejudice.
And let's face it, pick any random group, and tell me honestly: can you guarantee that 99% of them are upstanding, or even just nice people? Not one bit likely. Extremist parties in the most civilized countries have an electoral core base of at least 5 to 7% visceral racists. Imagine 7% of Germans being potential rioting, jew-murdering neo-nazis. Imagine 7% of muslims being ready to slit an infidel's throat. Imagine 7% of doctors being exactly like Final Identity describes: greedy, unethical, incompetent, or all at once.
Now, imagine that this is probably a true figure, and you'll understand why there are still so many things wrong in even the most socially advanced country. 5 to 7% rotten apples, is one out of 14 to 20 people. It's not that much, but it's already a lot in any crowd, city or country.
And the proportion can grow far bigger in the "adequate" circumstances. For instance, with a charismatic fanatic telling you Right and Wrong, and peer pressure to approve of the "enlightened" person.
Compact cameras, Stephen Gillette interview
Stephen Gillette, I think the photographs on your site are wonderful, especially the unmanipulated ones in portfolio two. They are the kind of pictures I want to make when I grow up.
I was interested and a little surprised to learn that you only use pocket cameras. These are rarely used for serious work due to their limitations. (And maybe it's a status thing too. The bulk of a Nikon D2x commands respect.)
I've always liked compact cameras myself. I've owned a Konica TC, a Pentax ME Super, an Olympus OM2, a Ricoh 35, a Minox 35, a Rollei 35, a Konica Big Mini, and several compact digicams. (Including a credit card sized one which barely makes pictures.)
So, question time:
Why use only compacts?
Stephen Gillette: Live preview. After decades of shooting film, and straining to "previsualize" results, the LCD offered me an opportunity to see the image, not a framed, cropped view of the real world. The world viewed through a dSLR viewfinder does not look like the image reviewed on the LCD a few seconds later. Plus, I have always been drawn to small cameras. I was hoisting a Canon 5D recently, with an impressively large optic mounted on it, and despite its stellar image capabilities, I could not imagine myself using it. It might as well have a bullhorn attached, screaming: "Hey, people, over here... "Look at me, I'm taking pictures!"
What do you feel are their most important limitations? Which of those are unnecessary?
Low-light shooting is the biggest problem for me. The world around us is a 24-hour visual cornucopia. Many images only reveal themselves at dusk, or during the night. I almost never use flash (there are no flash shots on my website). My style does not accommodate a tripod. So I must rely on the best small sensors, which to date have fallen far short of dSLR low-light performance.
For the majority of people who wish to see the world as it is when they photograph it, compacts offer viewfinders which are compromised, or non-existent. Not a problem for me, most of the time...
Do you make big prints?
I print images on paper sizes up to 13 x 19", which equates to an image size of 16 x 12 given the 4:3 image format. I have printed images up to 15 x 20" by printing panels on smaller sheets and mounting them together. (It sounds funny, and it is.) The point is that on matte paper (my preference), 15 x 20" image quality is not a problem with many of the images I create.
I am looking into printshops in the Los Angeles area using the Durst Lambda system. I have seen images taken with the 6 MP Nikon D50 and the kit lens printed with the Lambda up to 40 x 60" (!!!) that looked very good. Select images from a compact could present well at that size, too. Not every image, of course.
How do you deal with the less precise framing? It seems like your pictures are very precisely framed, but compacts either have lousy viewfinders, or just an LCD, which I personally like, but it's a tad small for really precise framing, no?
I once worked as a digital retoucher for a printing company. My monitor was a professional one, but a bit long in the tooth. It was a CRT, and the phosphors, etc. were tired. The color onscreen did not match the color coming off the press. Over time, I learned how to "see" the resulting press colors on the monitor. It was a mind thing.
Likewise, when I frame something exactly for a shot (which is 98% of the time), I translate the image I see (or am squinting at!) on the LCD into a close approximation in my mind of what the image will look like on my studio monitor. The current standard of 2.5" LCD's is almost as big as the groundglass on my old twin-lens film camera. Three inches is better, of course. The new Sony H9 has a honey of a swiveling 3" LCD. I played with one yesterday. Too bad the image-capture quality is not tops.
I have written before about my ideal (dream) compact digicam, and so have others, like Mike Johnston and Thom Hogan. What's yours?
My real-world ideal is always the camera I am currently shooting with. (Currently the Fuji F20.) If I summon up that fanciful demon of desire, I can dream with the rest of you. I would love an articulating LCD. Even better low-light capture. (Hopefully, in a very few years, this will be moot, and something like an equivalent to ISO 6400 with high quality will be the norm.) Sensor size is less important than image quality. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses, typically with less depth of field, which can reduce the all-over sharpness that I favor.
The current Olympus E-510 is actually as much a step toward my "next ideal camera" as the Fuji F50fd might be. The Live Preview is still a bit lacking on the E-510, but it does work. The low-light capability is not class-leading, but better than any compact, at least so far. And it is reasonably light and unassuming.
The Olympus "pro" dSLR waiting in the wings for announcement in the weeks or months ahead will have the articulating LCD, according to a rep I spoke with who has handled a pre-production working sample. The vibration-reduction system is said to be greatly enhanced, as well. Hopefully, the package won't be too big and heavy.
What were your favorite film cameras?
As a college student, I took one summer and hitched around Europe. I was an art major, so shortly after arriving in Paris I made my way to the Louvre, and found the statue of Winged Victory. Standing next to me was a chap taking a picture with the smallest camera I had ever seen. Not only small, but beautiful. The original Rollei 35. I followed him around for ten minutes, stealing glances at his camera, ignoring the centuries of incredible art on the walls around me. I traded in my Praktica SLR in Holland and nabbed the Rollei to bring home with me.
Like you, I have owned (or still own) a Pentax ME and Konica Big Mini, the latter having such timeless minimal design--quite the opposite of the watch-like Rollei with its prominent dials. I also have an Olympus XA. And the still-available Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm: this camera is so quiet and smooth in operation, and produces great pictures.
Sharpest of all my small film cameras was the Pentax PC35AF, an early auto-focus with an insanely sharp 5-element f/2.8 35mm lens, probably a sonnar-type design.
There, you've gone and done it. All this nostalgia. I'm sniffling into my hanky...
---
Thank you, Stephen.
I was interested and a little surprised to learn that you only use pocket cameras. These are rarely used for serious work due to their limitations. (And maybe it's a status thing too. The bulk of a Nikon D2x commands respect.)
I've always liked compact cameras myself. I've owned a Konica TC, a Pentax ME Super, an Olympus OM2, a Ricoh 35, a Minox 35, a Rollei 35, a Konica Big Mini, and several compact digicams. (Including a credit card sized one which barely makes pictures.)
So, question time:
Why use only compacts?
Stephen Gillette: Live preview. After decades of shooting film, and straining to "previsualize" results, the LCD offered me an opportunity to see the image, not a framed, cropped view of the real world. The world viewed through a dSLR viewfinder does not look like the image reviewed on the LCD a few seconds later. Plus, I have always been drawn to small cameras. I was hoisting a Canon 5D recently, with an impressively large optic mounted on it, and despite its stellar image capabilities, I could not imagine myself using it. It might as well have a bullhorn attached, screaming: "Hey, people, over here... "Look at me, I'm taking pictures!"
What do you feel are their most important limitations? Which of those are unnecessary?
Low-light shooting is the biggest problem for me. The world around us is a 24-hour visual cornucopia. Many images only reveal themselves at dusk, or during the night. I almost never use flash (there are no flash shots on my website). My style does not accommodate a tripod. So I must rely on the best small sensors, which to date have fallen far short of dSLR low-light performance.
For the majority of people who wish to see the world as it is when they photograph it, compacts offer viewfinders which are compromised, or non-existent. Not a problem for me, most of the time...
Do you make big prints?
I print images on paper sizes up to 13 x 19", which equates to an image size of 16 x 12 given the 4:3 image format. I have printed images up to 15 x 20" by printing panels on smaller sheets and mounting them together. (It sounds funny, and it is.) The point is that on matte paper (my preference), 15 x 20" image quality is not a problem with many of the images I create.
I am looking into printshops in the Los Angeles area using the Durst Lambda system. I have seen images taken with the 6 MP Nikon D50 and the kit lens printed with the Lambda up to 40 x 60" (!!!) that looked very good. Select images from a compact could present well at that size, too. Not every image, of course.
How do you deal with the less precise framing? It seems like your pictures are very precisely framed, but compacts either have lousy viewfinders, or just an LCD, which I personally like, but it's a tad small for really precise framing, no?
I once worked as a digital retoucher for a printing company. My monitor was a professional one, but a bit long in the tooth. It was a CRT, and the phosphors, etc. were tired. The color onscreen did not match the color coming off the press. Over time, I learned how to "see" the resulting press colors on the monitor. It was a mind thing.
Likewise, when I frame something exactly for a shot (which is 98% of the time), I translate the image I see (or am squinting at!) on the LCD into a close approximation in my mind of what the image will look like on my studio monitor. The current standard of 2.5" LCD's is almost as big as the groundglass on my old twin-lens film camera. Three inches is better, of course. The new Sony H9 has a honey of a swiveling 3" LCD. I played with one yesterday. Too bad the image-capture quality is not tops.
I have written before about my ideal (dream) compact digicam, and so have others, like Mike Johnston and Thom Hogan. What's yours?
My real-world ideal is always the camera I am currently shooting with. (Currently the Fuji F20.) If I summon up that fanciful demon of desire, I can dream with the rest of you. I would love an articulating LCD. Even better low-light capture. (Hopefully, in a very few years, this will be moot, and something like an equivalent to ISO 6400 with high quality will be the norm.) Sensor size is less important than image quality. Bigger sensors require bigger lenses, typically with less depth of field, which can reduce the all-over sharpness that I favor.
The current Olympus E-510 is actually as much a step toward my "next ideal camera" as the Fuji F50fd might be. The Live Preview is still a bit lacking on the E-510, but it does work. The low-light capability is not class-leading, but better than any compact, at least so far. And it is reasonably light and unassuming.
The Olympus "pro" dSLR waiting in the wings for announcement in the weeks or months ahead will have the articulating LCD, according to a rep I spoke with who has handled a pre-production working sample. The vibration-reduction system is said to be greatly enhanced, as well. Hopefully, the package won't be too big and heavy.
What were your favorite film cameras?
As a college student, I took one summer and hitched around Europe. I was an art major, so shortly after arriving in Paris I made my way to the Louvre, and found the statue of Winged Victory. Standing next to me was a chap taking a picture with the smallest camera I had ever seen. Not only small, but beautiful. The original Rollei 35. I followed him around for ten minutes, stealing glances at his camera, ignoring the centuries of incredible art on the walls around me. I traded in my Praktica SLR in Holland and nabbed the Rollei to bring home with me.
Like you, I have owned (or still own) a Pentax ME and Konica Big Mini, the latter having such timeless minimal design--quite the opposite of the watch-like Rollei with its prominent dials. I also have an Olympus XA. And the still-available Olympus Stylus Epic 35mm: this camera is so quiet and smooth in operation, and produces great pictures.
Sharpest of all my small film cameras was the Pentax PC35AF, an early auto-focus with an insanely sharp 5-element f/2.8 35mm lens, probably a sonnar-type design.
There, you've gone and done it. All this nostalgia. I'm sniffling into my hanky...
---
Thank you, Stephen.
Independent/small stores
Inspired by an article on whether 'arry Potter type bestsellers are killing the small book stores, and another on small camera stores, I wonder:
When people describe small, independent stores, with their charm and interested and knowledgeable owners, they sound great and I mourn them. But when I think back, I don't really recall any such stores! Even the smallest ones, with poor selection, don't seem to be (or have been) staffed or owned on average by people with a huge interest or great knowledge about books or photography, or whatever. So if their selection is smaller than big stores or online stores, and there's no more knowledge or help to be found, why the urgency to have them survive?
When people describe small, independent stores, with their charm and interested and knowledgeable owners, they sound great and I mourn them. But when I think back, I don't really recall any such stores! Even the smallest ones, with poor selection, don't seem to be (or have been) staffed or owned on average by people with a huge interest or great knowledge about books or photography, or whatever. So if their selection is smaller than big stores or online stores, and there's no more knowledge or help to be found, why the urgency to have them survive?
Don't hate
Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself.
-- Richard M. Nixon, in his White House farewell
This is a very important truth. Hate, resentment, condemnation, judgement, are those things tie us down and destroy our lives.
Who'd think those pearls of wisdom was uttered by a man whose administration was based on hate and paranoia?
Of course he surely had a speech writer.
Come to think of it, isn't that a failure? I would think that a person who is supposed to be cabable of running a country is surely supposed to be able to write his own speeches? I mean, school children are expected to be able to. And yet for generations now, presidents have not done it.
-- Richard M. Nixon, in his White House farewell
This is a very important truth. Hate, resentment, condemnation, judgement, are those things tie us down and destroy our lives.
Who'd think those pearls of wisdom was uttered by a man whose administration was based on hate and paranoia?
Of course he surely had a speech writer.
Come to think of it, isn't that a failure? I would think that a person who is supposed to be cabable of running a country is surely supposed to be able to write his own speeches? I mean, school children are expected to be able to. And yet for generations now, presidents have not done it.
Boom Boom Ba - Metisse , Dead Like Me
Boom Boom Ba - song by Metisse. found on the TV show Dead Like Me.
Wonderful song. And a wonderful show. If you've never seen it, don't judge it by this video! It will seem very depressing, I'm sure. But it is really funny and warm and quirky. Seriously. It's one of those shows which make me claim that the quality and creativity that used to belong only to film is now found in TV.
Michael Burton said...
I think this may be the best fictional show I've ever seen on television. It's funny and sad. The end of each episode always seemed to come as a surprise -- no neat endings -- and yet, as the final credits rolled, I always found myself saying, "What a great show!"
I think this song is first heard as George is showing her scrapbook, titled "Mysterious and Reassuring." That describes the whole show -- mysterious and reassuring, indeed.
Leviathud said...
Thanks for reminding me of such agreat show. I was able to watch it for 2 months while I took care of my grandmothers place while she was in the hospital with cancer. I dont think I could have asked for a better show at a better time. Funny, quirky and thoroughly enjoyable. I will definitly be buying it when I can.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
New Fuji cam
I'm sure everybody remembers my impressive art made with my compact Fuji F10. (OK, I'm not all that sure.) Well, a couple of generations later, Fuji comes up with a F50, which seems very promising, especially if the Image Stabilization is good. I have messed up promising pictures because the F10 does not have any.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Olympus EVOLT E-510
Olympus EVOLT E-510 review.
Sounds to me like a good camera. I like that it's compact, economical, and that it has image stabilization built into the body so it's available for all lenses. (Though some claim it's more effective when built into the lens.)
Alex inserted:
"CCD's are smaller than a 35mm negative, on most bodies I've looked at, Nikon, Pentax, and I think Cannon, there is a scale factor to apply, can't remember exactly, but its almost like a 1.2* magnification."
Indeed. More than that, actually, most cameras have around a 1.5 factor, which makes wide angle an issue with old lenses. (This is what they call the "APS sized sensor".)
The Olympus cameras has a special format (called 4/3 for no good reason), which has a 2.0 extension factor. A 50mm lens has a view like a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.
Canon 5D is currently the only camera in a reasonable price range with a full frame sensor. Which means that it utilizes the frame fully, but also that it's a bigger issue if a lens has poor corner performance.
Hot Fuzz
Hot Fuzz.
Starts as a character study.
Develops as a murder mystery.
Continues as a tight parody of most film genres you care to think of. (Oddly, no romance though.)
Ends in the most wonderfully absurd slam-bang shoot-out and action fest you have seen since Blues Brothers. I'm not kidding, it gets bigger and bigger, both the action and the comedy. It's amazing. Warmly recommended.
... Actually, there sort of is a romance, between the two main, male characters. Completely platonic, though. But it seems the film makers were not blind to it, for in a couple of outtakes, the two actors mock-made-out after scenes.
They actually put in as many movie cliches as they could, even using Roger Eberts book about them for inspiration.
It seems the film is a who-is-who of great British actors. I didn't know any of them, sorry to say. I didn't even recognize Timothy Dalton, who has a major role.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Henry Wessel photography
Thanks to Mike Johnston for pointing to this video about Henry Wessel's photography.
For some reason I was not aware of Wessel's work, but it's really wonderful. Exemplary "street photography".
The video itself is also impressive. It shows the difference between the typical U-toobe video and a professionally produced one. Even in the sheer image quality: you can view it at 200% and it's still sharp and no artefacts.
I would debate this, though:
Henry Wessel: "In the still photograph you basically have two variables—where you stand and when you press the shutter. That's all you have."
Well, you also have:
* Choice of B/W or color.
* Direction in which you shoot.
* Contrast.
* View angle of the lens.
* Aperture.
* Shutter speed.
* Focus.
* Exposure.
* Framing. (Though this is a result of a few of the above.)
* Camera format (influences sharpness etc).
Notable also that Henry uses the kind of camera that we are still waiting for in digital photography: compact, high quality build and high image quality, light weight, very responsive, fast, simple to use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)