Why are we afraid to make beautiful photographs?

I understand that it's fun to see just how minimal you can get with your gear and still pull out a recognizable image.  Recently the combination of iPhones and Instagram has given rise (once again) to the aesthetic of the "distressed" image.  It's like re-strip mining, in a sense, since Polaroid transfers already pulled up the richest lodes of the distressed movement years ago, before people got tired of squinting at the images to see what the hell they were really all about.  Before that it was Polaroid SX-70 film that was reworked during its development with the business end of chop sticks, tooth picks and other implements of art.  In the 1980's we all lived through "cross processing."  It was a groovy way of fucking up your film to get a different look.  Back then you did it through chemistry but now you can do the same amount of damage/inspiration? with the click of a button.  And, of course, there are Lomos and Holgas, and before them the seminal Dianas.  Plastic cameras that help you innovate by producing "distressed" pictorial results.  

I think every generation goes through this kind of experimentation and then, realizing that it is as much of a dodge as any other technique practiced for the benefit of the technique instead of the subject,  the real artists drop the schtick and the glitter and go on to create really original art or they move on to another hobby.  Perhaps "action painting" or bead craft.

We seem to have hit a point in photography where it's not enough to just interpret beauty.  If we photograph a woman we feel we must "enhance" her by smoothing her skin and using "liquify" filters to "thin her out."  We seem immune to the charms of beauty that is too obvious and even an inch outside mainstream constructs.  Same basic idea with men.  We've hit a pothole in the road of photography and now were stuck in the low gear of insisting that all photos of men be rim-lighted and have the "clarity" sliders maxed out.  Craggy skin tones and over the top lighting.  For every male over 21.

If you like doing all the distressed stuff don't let me stop you.  I'm not always right. You could be right.  Instagram could be the reincarnation of Leonardo da Vinci made whole for the masses.  But if you get a queasy feeling looking at one more "enhanced" portrait or one more Instagrammed snap shot.  If you start feeling vertigo at the non-stop progression of overdone HDR landscapes and city scenes you might want to join with me and ask:  "What's so bad about the reality of beauty?"

I think the appreciation of art follows the pattern of the pendulum.  A gifted artist tries a technique. The technique is antithetical to the prevailing ethos.  The technique finds popular and critical approval.  There's mass migration toward the technique and the new practitioners lack the original, driving idea that acts like a motor to power the technique.  Lots of derivative work is generated.  The technique reaches maximum cultural saturation and like fashion it goes out.  Old style.  Last year's stuff.

If the race, for the last five or six years, has been toward the grunge-ing of images and the instagramming of images for maximum nostalgic distressed effect then it seems logical that we're on our way back to the opposite side of the pendulum where beauty is consumed raw and quality is a technique that society is happy, once again, to explore.  Are we on the cusp of learning how to shoot well? Again.

How to use a tripod to gain clarity?  How to use our cameras to convey the richest manifestation of beauty instead of looking at beauty through layer after layer of dissembling electronic filtration?

Count me in.  I want to be part of the new trend.  I want to aim higher than a lame display on an iPhone or a quick hit on Twit.  How about you?  

A quick review of a lens for Micro Four Thirds. The Panasonic 14-45mm.

Panasonic H-FS014045PP 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS Micro Four Thirds Lens

I get maximum image quality bang for my bucks when I use single focal length lenses on my Panasonic and Olympus cameras but there are times when you're walking through a crowd and you want to shoot instantly.  But you have the wrong lens on the camera and by the time you get into your bag and get the lens changed out the image you were lusting after is long gone.  In those situations it makes sense to use a zoom lens.  Panasonic and Olympus make a bunch of "normal" zoom lenses.  Most of the cameras come with one in the "kit." 

I've got a collection of them.  Lately, when I get them in kits, I try to trade them for pricey, name brand camera batteries.  But I also wanted a good one so I did my research on the various web sites that do lens test (Photozone, SLRgear) and decided to try the grandfather of m4:3 zooms, the Panasonic you see above.  It's small and light but a little bigger than the current Panasonic 14-42.  The newer lens doesn't have the Optical Image Stabilization switch on the body.  The older one does (see above).

I decided I needed a better lens when I tested the 14-42 that came with my G3.  It was consistently soft at the long end and got worse as I focused to infinity.  What did I have to lose?  I waited until one of those days when Amazon.com's dynamic pricing algorithm was in my favor and bought one for around $225.  Long story compressed to digestible tidbit?  It's good.  The center is really nice and sharp and stays that way from wide to tele.  It's sharp wide open (in the center 2/3rds of the frame) and that's where I like to use it.  I spent an afternoon shooting with it on the GH2 body and it's a revelation how much fun it is to shoot with a small and light camera and lens package.  

Keeper.

Transitioning to an EVF future. And then some.

Sony a77.

I've been using and writing about electronic viewfinders for the last three years here on the Visual Science Lab.  My first real experience with EVFs was via the Sony R1 camera which, I felt, was a surprisingly prescient offering for its time.  It use a very flexible LCD finder screen which could be positioned as a wais tlevel finder and it had a low res but well implemented, true EVF.  When packaged with a large sensor (about the size of the Canon G1X sensor) of 10 megapixels and a very well reviewed Carl Zeiss 24-120mm (equivalent) zoom lens it became a great shooting camera for a certain kind of subject.  I used it extensively for interior and exterior architectural studies and many available light portraits.  It worked well in the studio for still life set ups with the proviso that I shoot with continuous light.  The low light capabilities of the finders weren't stellar and made use with flash a bit problematic.  But the sensor, which was rumored to be a variant of the sensor in the Nikon D2x professional camera, was amazingly detailed and well mannered.

Ben and I have also had the pleasure of using the EVFs in Canon's superzoom line of compact cameras, including the SX10, SX20 and SX30.  The EVF worked well in full sunlight for stills and video.  Ben and his friends have put a lot of miles on those cameras in the pursuit of their digital video art.  (Which reminds me...he promised to teach me Final Cut ProX when he had a chance..).

Recently much progress has been made with EVFs.  So much so that I found, recently, that I've been drawn to work with the Panasonic GH2 and the Olympus EP3 not so much for the nimble size and fun optics but for the instantaneous feedback of the well implemented EVFs.  Pre-chimping beats the hell out of post chimping any day of the week.

I love pulling the camera (regardless of brand) up to my eye and seeing a clear, clean representation of just how the camera would finally render the images.  The impact of exposure compensation, Jpeg parameter changes, dynamic range expansion schemes and more.  When I went back to a conventional optical viewfinder I always found myself wanting to see what the camera saw, not just the soft fall of focus caused from viewing a scene through a fast, wide open lens.  The scene might look one way with the lens wide open but have a different character when stopped down for shooting and with all the parameters figured in.  Seems like a little thing to wait to see the image on the back panel after taking the test shot but it isn't.  I also work a lot of days in the direct sun and resent having to wear a Hoodman Loupe around my neck for post shot examining of a camera's LCD screen in bright light.  Or any ambient light.  Every color cast changes your perception of color rendering...

So, when Sony announced the a77 back in August my attention was piqued.  But real life intervened.  The floods in Thailand threw a huge wrench in Sony's rollout and I finally put my hands on an a77 a few weeks ago and started an evaluation.  My first concern was the quality of the viewfinder but that faded in minutes.  The finder is great.  I love it.  But we'll talk about EVFs in depth in a future column.  My second concern was how the camera would handle situations that comprise the bulk of my paid work, portraits with electronic flash on various locations.

The a77 accepted my radio triggers and syncs up to 1/250th of a second with smaller flashes.  With bigger flashes is seems to sync better at 1/125th.  With one menu adjustment the finder shows a bright image of the person in front of me under conventional modeling lamps of 100 watts.  As the light drops (say in a dark room) the finder becomes noisier but is still usable for easy composition and feedback.  Shooting this way means that I do have to  post chimp to see the actual result.  But as I transition to shooting more portraits with big panels I can go back to the nuanced preview I like.

My first paying job with the a77 was making location portraits of doctors and the camera passed the test with good marks. 

When I went back to shoot with my conventional cameras I found that, of all the cameras I owned, they had become the least fun to shoot with.  And, at the ISOs I use (50-1600) the files where a toss up.  I made up my mind and decided that, for my "work" cameras, I would switch to an all Sony system.

I won't bore you with the details of the disposition of the previous system but I thought I'd share what I've started with in the new system.

I had amassed a collection of bodies over time.  Each had different menu set ups and the screens on the back of the cameras ranged from "good"on the back of the 5d2 to "horrible and punishing" on the 1Dmk2 (my oldest).  I had a bunch of disparate lenses and both of my most used "L" lenses were very sharp f4 lenses.  I really wanted to simplify the entire inventory. 

I wanted two identical bodies so the menus, knobs and settings would always match.  And I've signed a pact with the gods of photography to only replace in pairs from now on.  With this in mind I bought two a77's.  I read both manuals (kidding) and I set up both cameras to exactly the same settings.  Now I'm diving in and master each of the control sets and special settings.  I'm intrigued by things like the Multi-Frame noise reduction.  I want to know every control setting on the camera.

No fumbling with personal settings or custom settings that vary from body to body.

I wanted two fast zoom lenses that I could use to cover an event without having to change lenses.  I working in a lot of dust and grime last year and not having to switch lenses on a hot, dusty highway construction site would be...advantageous.  I chose the Sony 16-50mm f2.8 lens and the 70-200mm G series lens.  I've tested them at all relevant apertures and I'm happy with their performance.  

I bought the Sony HVL-F58AM flash unit and it seems to work fine.  It's flexible and it can be controlled by the in-cameras flashes on the a77's. 

I also bought a nice Hasselblad to Sony Alpha lens adapter and I'm very, very happy with the performance of the 80mm Zeiss Planar and the 120mm Zeiss Makro-Planar.  They have a different look.  I call it "authoritative bright."  It looks clinical, contrasty and clean.

In the end, all current systems are overkill for most of the photograph we do.  I do like shooting with the EVFs and I'm sure many will argue convincingly for OVFs.  I looked at aging inventory in one system and decided to start over again in an different system.  Working with new gear and a new style of feedback is refreshing and novel.  It makes shooting more fun.

I'm sure I'll hit some snags in the transition but you know I'm transparent enough to mention both sides of the equation.  I wonder if Sony marketing needs a pro user to sponsor?  

Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 Standard Zoom Lens for Sony A-Mount Cameras

Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 SSM Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Camera

LED Lighting: Professional Techniques for Digital Photographers

A quirky, fun and thoroughly enjoyable book overtly and incidentally about the hobby and art of photography.

This book is fun, smart and sly.  Click to see the Amazon Page.

My mailbox seems to be a mythical, magical place.  One day I came home to find a box full of LEDs shoved into the tiny, metal, barrel-vault construction.  One day I came home and found $45,000 worth of Phase One equipment next to my door because it wouldn't fit in my mailbox.  No signature required... Sometimes I find letters from readers from exotic places...

But last week I came home and found a nondescript but bulky envelope that contained a smallish book and a note from one of my readers.  His name is K.D. Dixon.  He is a photographer for fun and a serious writer.

His note suggested that I might like his novel about photography and called it, "A quirky catalogue of imaginary photographs, it is an idiosyncratic mix of character study and meditation--a glimpse into the life of a peculiar photo-enthusiast named Michael Quick and a questioning, if somewhat cursory, examination of his private obsession (photography)."  The book is entitled: The Photo Album.

Now, first a quick warning to my obsessive compulsive mathematician friends and non-fiction readers:  There are no equipment reviews.  No "behind the scenes" set up descriptions or diagrams.  No teeth gnashing battles between the forces of light (Raw files) and the forces of darkness (Jpegs).   You won't find principled discussions of the role of social networking in marketing your photographic enterprise.  Nor, in this book will you find any real discussions of technique.  I would also point out that while there are no color illustrations.  I hope we didn't just look 90% of the audience...

What you will find are 130+ really incisive observations about life and photography that made me laugh and smile.  Some are encapsulated discussions of the very things we talk about here, such as "why take photographs?" or why people like to take photographs of some things but not others.  There is no story line, per se, but there is an arc to the work that strings the pages together.  It's the kind of book that you can pick up, read until the sun sets or your glass of wine becomes empty, then bookmark; knowing you'll pick it up again soon and that you needn't remember the precise plot points of a complex narrative to enjoy your next dip into smartly written and questioning vignettes of everyday life through the eyes of a photographer.

There are so few books like this.  And there are so few that are written as well for photographers of a certain age and experience.  If you like the Visual Science Lab it is my opinion that you will love this little book.

I have one problem with this book.  I want to keep it and come back to it again and again.  In fact, there is one page that I'm going to use to open a talk with on Thurs.  But I also want to give it to one of my good friends who is a photographer as well.  I think he'll really appreciate the feeling of commonality among enthusiasts that this book conveys.

Hey.  It's the price of a decent lunch.  Buy a copy and see for yourself.  It's on my "Recommended for Smart Photographer Who Like to Read list.  Check it out here.

Wow. Wouldn't it be so cool to put real, German Zeiss lenses on a high res EVF camera ???

This is one of those new fangled EVF cameras from Sony.  It's 24 megapixels and seems to be pretty nice.  Especially for studio work.  Even more especially with LED lights.  All it really needed to be really functional were some authentic, made in Germany, Zeiss optics for portraits and such.  I decided to try it out with one of my favorite Hasselblad lenses, the 80mm Planar.

So I ordered a Fotodiox Hasselblad to Sony a (weird, squiggly "a") adapter.

And it came in today, right before we headed out the door to eat Indian food.

When I got back home I put the whole rig together so I could see if it worked.

If you want to do this you have to remember a couple of things.  First, this lens doesn't autofocus on any body.  It's surly enough to believe that if you want to be a photographer you can damn well figure out how to focus on your own.  Practice on a view camera for a while.  Then a 35mm style camera will seem as easy as pie.  Secondly, you have to stop down the lens to the taking aperture.

So, why is a Sony a77 such a good choice for use with all of the Hasselblad lenses?  Well...you can go into the control menu and enable "shoot without lens" so the camera will operate and shoot with then Hblad lenses attached.  Cool.  Second, on an OVF camera, once you start stopping down the f-stop the finder gets darker and it gets harder and harder to focus.  But with an EVF, especially a bright and flawless one like the one in the a77, the camera stays bright and conversant even when you stop down.  (I'd probably not focus at smaller f-stops than 5.6 for best accuracy...).

But it's still a manual focus lens.  How do you know when it's really sharply focused?

Because your a77 has focus peaking.  When stuff comes into focus you get red (you can select your own color) outlines of the areas that are in focus.  How cool is that?

I tested the focus peaking.  It works.

What does this really get me?

Well, it's a very geometrically neutral lens that works well for product. 

It has a famously beautiful bokeh so it works really well for portraits.

And the long throw of the focus ring makes it pretty perfect for 

serious video work.  If it's a focal length you like.

A quick glance in the Hasselblad drawer tells me that we have two other lenses that will 

give me fun effects with this camera.  There's a 120mm Makro Planar and a 150mm Sonnar.

The three lenses, used with the APS-C sensor give me approximately (in old, 35mm speak)

a 120mm f2.8, a 180mm f4 that focuses pretty darn close, and a 225mm f4 that's all bokeh-y and chrome looking and wildly sharp and unsharp at the same time.

Crazy thing to do?  Nope. The lenses already live here, they may as well earn their keep.  And the adapter was a whopping $60.

I've been waiting for the lens adapter to arrive so I could try out some portraits with the rig.

I also have a bitchingly professional looking compendium lens shade for the Hblad lenses so clients will think I'm much more professional than I was when I shot for them yesterday.

The 80mm is already my favorite.

This is going to be fun.

If you only see the world thru wide angle lenses it's probably best that you ignore this post.  

Nothing wide enough in medium format to even budge the needle on a crop frame...

An almost immediate edit: Now I have image stabilization for my Hasselblad optics. :-)

An interesting portrait starts with the eyes.

I went for a walk and ended up on Congress Ave.  I saw this small boy sitting in a milk crate attached to his dad's bike.  I stopped to photograph the little guy.  Of course I asked his father's permission first.  Why make people uncomfortable?  He looked right into my camera.  I like the image a lot.

I was using a Panasonic GH2 with the Olympus 45mm 1.8 lens attached.  I have no idea what the exposure was and I used face detection auto focus to get place focus.  The original was a Raw file but it needed no intervention so I guess a Jpeg would have been just as good.

Two snaps and we were done.  Love the yellow sunglasses.

A different approach to portraits.

These are 4x5 inch sheets of Polaroid Film.  They aren't the kind that buzz out of the slot in an SX-70 and automatically process in your hands, covered with a protective plastic layer.  These are the kind that each come in their own protective sandwich of opaque paper.  To do a portrait on Polaroid you definitely need a subject who hasn't seen to many "behind the scenes" videos where everyone is always moving and purring, "Pout for me baby and I'll make you a star."

These were done on a Linhof TechniKarden view camera outfitted with a 250mm f5.6 Zeiss Planar lens (designed for a 5x7 inch camera).  I shot them at 5.6 which, at this camera to subject distance meant that depth of field was measured in centimeters at best.

Here's the routine for shooting Polaroids in a large format camera.  Open shutter and compose.  Focus on your subject.  Get a loupe and a dark cloth and fine focus with a loupe at your taking aperture (lenses tend to focus shift as you stop down).  When everything is perfect ask your subject to stay in position.  Close the shutter and cock the lens.  Put a Polaroid film holder into the space between the ground glass focusing back and the film plane.  Pull the paper envelope surrounding the film into the "up" position. Get the expression you want from your subject. Press the cable release.  The shot has been taken.  Now push the paper envelope back down over the film until it locks in place.  Push the release button on the Polaroid back and slide the entire package out.  You'll feel some friction as you do so.  That's two polished rollers breaking the gel pods that hold the developer and spreading it across the Polaroid film.  This takes place within the film and paper envelope.  Figure out the temperature  and use the scale to gauge the time needed for proper development. Polaroid sheets were both time and temperature sensitive in development. When the time is reached (45 seconds for black and white, 90 seconds for color) pull apart the paper envelope and retrieve the wet print, which will smell like glacial acetic acid.  Allow the print surface to totally dry before handling or stacking.

Now you are ready to take your next frame.  Continue until you have the desired look and then switch to regular film for your final shots.

We always started with black and white because it was more exact in exposure correspondence with films and it was half the price of the color Polaroid.  It was also more consistent because it wasn't as temperature sensitive.  Once we got to the film stage we had a really good idea of how the finals would look.  At the end of a session we'd shoot one last black and white Polaroid to make sure nothing had changed during our project.

The slow pace of a four by five shoot can be a positive.  People slow down and relax over time.  The process is a slow and effective feedback loop for the photographer and his model.  And the image is the same size as the final piece of film.

There's something captivating about going through a whole box of Polaroid outtakes.

My favorite Polaroid story happened when I was shooting the Alexander Palace in Pushkin, Russia in 1995.  We were supposed to do a frontal elevation but the building had two T-72 Soviet battle tanks parked out front.  It was, after all, a secure location at the time.  I was standing knee deep in snow pleading, through my interpreter, for a solution that would allow me to shoot the front of the Palace without tanks.

Finally we had a break through in communications.  The commander had been watching us shoot Polaroids and loved them.  He told our interpreter that he would move the tanks but I would have to take Polaroids of each tank crew and a Polaroid of the commander in front of both tanks.  I agreed and we shot them quickly.  I stuck the Polaroids in my jacket to warm them up and develop them.  The tank commander and his men smiled as I handed out the three prints and, with incredible noise, fired up the tanks and backed them out of my frame.  Instant success.  Instantly.  Well, about 3 minutes......

Say what you will about the latest digital cameras but there's something about large format that's still magical.

Wisdom and intelligence are not the same. I'd choose wise over smart any day. If I had a choice.

I'm having fun today.

I put all of my Canon equipment in a big, big box and

sold it.  All of it.  Every flash. Every body.

Every lens. Even the little flash sync cords.

No more L lenses.  No more 

promotional camera straps.

Where do I go from here?

Stay tuned.

Does photography matter anymore or has it become a video game?

Have you become your own gift wrapping?

I was just reading a piece in Ad Age Digital, here,  (the daily online "magazine" of Ad Age) wherein writer, Chas Edwards tosses out a few factoids.  According to his research and the research of companies like Facebook, and a Harvard Business School study, "70% of all activities inside the social network---from "liking" and commenting to looking at friends' content or uploading your own content-- revolves around photos."

Everyday the masses on Facebook upload about 250 million photographs. (And all this time you thought it was the witty uploads of your favorite Dilbert and What the Duck links that made Facebook popular....).   The next interesting factoid is that ten percent of all photos taken in the history of humanity were taken in the last 12 months.

But what does this really mean?  On one hand I would say that all photography is local.  And by that I mean that you photograph only the things that have meaning to you.  Your kids, your hot girlfriend, your cool car, you loyal dog and your favorite coffee.  You also photograph the world around you. And this is the stuff that most people throw at FB.  But how does all your "local" photography hurdle itself over the borders and become more widespread and viral?  From my perspective I don't think 99.99% of it ever does.  And it probably shouldn't.

Is your photography relevant?  I would say that it's highly relevant to you and the people one degree of separation away from you and becomes more and more like meaningless noise the more degrees it departs from the intimate awareness of you and yours.

Some stuff has relevance because it's outside our everyday reality.  I put in that category cool shots of SR-71 spy planes in flight,  very hot super models nude, or barely clothed,  very ferocious animals that are not in captivity, and food I couldn't afford to order on my own budget.  Your list will vary depending on your gender, social class and your global mobility.  Charming photographs of Roman citizens will have more inherent interest to liberal arts majors in the U.S. who have limited travel budgets than to people in the EU who can pop down to Rome for a weekend of pub crawling or whatever they call that activity in Rome.

A person with fabulous genetic material and perfect offspring will be far less interested in photos of other people's lesser children.  A photo of a trailer park may be boring to public assistance apartment dwellers but amusingly droll to people working on Wall St.

But I contend that while there's an enormous amount of misdirected lifestyle documentation by everyone with a cellphone or Walmart acquired "family" camera, there's also a tremendous amount of photographic shooting and posting that falls into the category of video gaming.  It's currently cool to walk around with a camera and shoot stuff.  It's cool to have a blog and it's cool to upload stuff that you think will garner good feedback from as many people as you can ping on your social network. This is true whether you are a rabid amateur or a "working professional."

It's not that you really care about the images, per se.  But you really enjoy the physicality of taking them and the implied art credentialing of "having taken them" that matters the most.  It's like earning badges in Pokemon or getting weapons in World of Warcraft.

And really, don't presume that I'm looking down my nose as a professional photographer and condescending.  I'm not saying this to drive some fictive wedge between what you do and what "professional" photographers do because,  I am here to acknowledge that I do it too.  And I think that all but a handful of photographers fall into our big intersecting ven diagram.

I've caught myself unconsciously changing notions of perceived values and historic methodologies as a response to my own video game-style stylings of photography.  So this is really a confessional column as opposed to a rant or a denouement.

I've become habitual about walking around with my camera flavor of the day and taking meaningless images of pretty girls at the coffee house, "interesting" architectural details and puffy clouds juxtaposed against blue skies.  I can pretend to myself that I'm testing some technical thing or that I'm really drawn to some facet of the images I create but in the end my disposition of the final images tells the tale.

I pick the ones I know my readers will like best, post process them to taste, post them along with whatever written rant or exposition justifies their existence and then discard them.  That's pretty much it.

In the days of film or early digital good images were hard won.  Like playing a video game without any of the hacks or hints or tutorials.  It was hard work to make a good image.  No wonder so many fewer people were interested in photography.  But we felt like artists and craftsmen.  We saved every decent frame.  We cataloged them and put them in archival folders to protect them from the ravages of time and we had the conceit that they would be our solace and a source of income (as stock) in our old age.

But somewhere along the line it all became so easy.  Not the real art, that's never been easy or hard, just relatively unobtainable.  But the process of seeing and making stuff sharp and well exposed has been transmuted from arcane practice to speed dial. And the latest generation of Sony cameras will even help you with (not lying here) auto composition !!!  Now I'll pull ten images from a folder of 400 and post them.  I'll give the rest a cursory look and drag em off to the little trash can icon and flush them without a second thought.

Why should I?  I can't take them along with me to level five.

Think about it.  Really.  I went to SXSW and photographed people I thought might be interesting.  What that really parses to is I photographed people who I thought you'd be interested in because in some mentally mathematical way it accrues me points when you "like" my photograph or "RT" my link to a blog full of images.  When I accrue enough points I become a magical bridge elf or a Pixel Ninja Warrior and move to the next level of play where my earlier accrual of points gives me access to a different part of the game. (More workshops? Sell more books? )

And when the game stops for the day I go off and do something else.  But I guess the real test is this:  If it's not all just a game with multiple players and levels and point rewards tell me how many images you make that you would consider spending money to print and mount and frame and put up on your wall and (most importantly) bear to look at every day of your life?  How's that for a test?

So, if I do it and you do it and we all do it and many of the big names do it does that make this a rant or an observation on the changing value of photography?

Clients still need people to make smart and perfect photographs and that's why we can still make a living doing photographs.  But at a certain point, with enough players in the game, the uploaded materials will be an interesting buffer to the need to pay to create more.  And if the players are playing for points instead of cash the value of an individual image will have subsided to an atomic particle level.

If you read the article I refer to you'll see that marketers have decided that big, interesting images will attract eyeballs.  Now the challenge is to figure out how to "monetize" the social networking sites.  And the randomness of the images plays against the marketing but it also provides this opportunity:  With the right TOS every image uploaded becomes a bot for an app or an ad.  You upload cheerleader Suzi  because you think your daughter is cute.  The marketers know that a large chunk of a certain market will find her to be "hot."  Marketers of products which appeal to that demographic will be able to "surprint" the image with ads.  The ad might pop up after you've had a few seconds to digest the image.  You'll have to click the ad away if you want to re-access the full image.

But it would just as easy to offer an app each time the image comes up.  If the marketers have to pay for an incredibly diverse catalog of images then profitability falls.  If every freely contributed image, regardless of mass merit, can have an ad attached then you've completed the circle.  By playing the video game of photography you have provided (we have provided) all of the content and we've honed it for the marketers to appeal directly to our very narrowly defined demographic market.  You "win" the adulation of the very group who will be subject to a relentless "micro-ad" onslaught.  And when the value of an image is placed at the microscopic level will the relentless friction of that trade eventually dissolve the profit of creating primary content for payment?

I guess it's the same as it's always been.  If you don't have some sort of destination in mind then you're really just driving around, burning gas.  Could we be at a tipping point?

I've long believed that spending time shooting hones your skills.  I may have been wrong.  You may be better off grabbing space on a comfortable couch and reading a good novel.  Otherwise you might just be creating the free content that will both compete with your aspirations of being a "paid" photographer while driving mostly effective advertising messages right back at ya.

An interesting parasitic circle, for sure.

An interesting counterpoint to my Saturday SXSW shoot with the Sony a77....

After hours of deep and tranquil meditation on the question of which camera to take downtown today I decided, in a moment of instant satori, to lay aside the bulky Sony a77 and harken back to the two most comfortable street shooting cameras in my current collection, the Panasonic GH2 and the Panasonic G3.  In the instant of satori I became enlightened about many things.  One of the them was the need to use the 14-45mm zoom on the GH2 and to honor the G3 with the 25mm Summilux.  I placed extra batteries for each camera in my pocket and headed downtown with the G3 over my left shoulder and the GH2 in my hands.  I set both cameras for face detection AF and varied the ISOs based on lighting conditions of the moment.  After a few days with the Sony I felt I'd lost weight.  The two cameras and two lenses were less weighty than my one a77 with the fast 2.8 zoom.  I saw this wonderful Buddha statue in a shop on west 6th street.  I took it as a sign that my selection process was correct.

My parking karma was good today.  I found a free space just a few blocks from Whole Foods Market at 6th St. and Lamar Blvd. which I took as a sign that I should have a slice of pizza and a local IPA style beer, fresh from the taps before embarking on my personal journey of SXSW discovery.

Fortified, I set out with the intention to shoot whatever caught my eye.  I will say, at this juncture, that I ignored the G3 and the 25 Summilux entirely.  The 14-45 is a wonderful, small lens and it fits so well on the GH2.  I also upgraded the GH2 firmware to 1.1 which gives me the ability to preview all the settings in all the exposure modes instead of just at M.  Bravo to Panasonic for increasing my usability pleasure with their camera.

The Pedi-cabs are popular this year.  I could have spent the whole day just photographing my favorite combinations of cabs, customers and peddlers.