Artikel Core

High P&S ISOs: B&W vs. Color

<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtpifLWM9cseYmF-JjzpAdkYa5GpUQXvBuG6QKcv2jlEuwfvz4Pl1A8gQnyfabsZABGJLE16Lt5eclw4avzkmquhAab46BDZdPxETOMdl9T2ZRJnKQ04YH0hKjLMXRbaZ3eLUs8ke-T04/s1600-h/tedmiso3200.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5066992764746540354" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtpifLWM9cseYmF-JjzpAdkYa5GpUQXvBuG6QKcv2jlEuwfvz4Pl1A8gQnyfabsZABGJLE16Lt5eclw4avzkmquhAab46BDZdPxETOMdl9T2ZRJnKQ04YH0hKjLMXRbaZ3eLUs8ke-T04/s400/tedmiso3200.JPG" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Ted Matsumura, Fuji F30 shot at ISO 3200 (click on image for larger version) <div style="text-align: left;">Ted Matsumura posted an interesting thought in the comments, which is that he uses his Fuji F30 up to ISO 800 in color but finds that 1600 and 3200 are practical in B&W mode. His blog is <a href="http://tedmphoto.blogspot.com/" target="_new">here</a>. I think Mitch Alland actually prefers higher ISOs with B&W P&S shooting because it gives a rougher, grainy aesthetic similar to that of 35mm high-speed films. </div> <div style="text-align: left;">Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON</div></div>

High P&S ISOs: B&W vs. Color

Ted Matsumura, Fuji F30 shot at ISO 3200 (click on image for larger version) Ted Matsumura posted an interesting thought in the comments, wh...

5:34 AM

Random Excellence

<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrjR297n4pKr1bMZSP_A-pGzcSlIMII15HjdhkvGYh3JfZDImnPEhwL0j8GRp0-KtfIhypMU6_YXgUy-IxZa158EMNhLGPJ1346di1R3WpK-U1LJ5ibzlDv1oJArIsSPCwLt6xPZDkFzM/s1600-h/sudekfunke.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5066704327627842850" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrjR297n4pKr1bMZSP_A-pGzcSlIMII15HjdhkvGYh3JfZDImnPEhwL0j8GRp0-KtfIhypMU6_YXgUy-IxZa158EMNhLGPJ1346di1R3WpK-U1LJ5ibzlDv1oJArIsSPCwLt6xPZDkFzM/s400/sudekfunke.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a><a href="http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1999/Articles1099/JSudekA.html" target="_new">Josef Sudek</a>'s great portrait of <a href="http://www.museumofnewmexico.org/mfa/ideaphotographic/artists_funke.html" target="_new">Jaromir Funke</a>, Prague, 1928 <div style="text-align: right;">(scan from <a href="http://www.exibart.it/profilo/eventiV2.asp/idelemento/27864" target="_new">Exibart.com</a>) </div></div> Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Random Excellence

Josef Sudek 's great portrait of Jaromir Funke , Prague, 1928 (scan from Exibart.com ) Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

10:55 AM

On P/S High-ISO Noise

<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer;"><iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theonlinephot-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&asins=B000GFZTQO&fc1=040404&IS2=1<1=_blank&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lc1=060606&bc1=000000&bg1=75BFFB&f=ifr" style="width: 120px; height: 240px;" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></a>In a stroke of serendipity given our recent conversations here, Simon Joinson at dpreview has posted <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/" target="_new">a primer article</a> on digital point-and-shoot noise at higher ISOs. (He calls 'em "compact cameras," probably a better term.) Conclusion? Basically that only the Fuji F10-F20-F30-F31fd series offer usable high ISOs in a compact camera, with good performance to ISO 800 and a usable (if barely) ISO 1600—and pretty much everything else is marketing hype and wishful thinking. Although it's discontinued, the best buy in this series, the F20, is still available from many retailers. At only $142, it's almost $100 cheaper than the newest F31fd ("fd" stands for "face detection," which might be useful if you're unable to recognize faces for yourself. Forgive sarcasm). That seems very cheap for a walk-around pocket camera that will give you a real ISO 800. Do read the whole article if you're thinking of getting a point-and-shoot / compact camera—it's sure to be the definitive word on the subject for the foreseeable future. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON with thanks to David Bennett

On P/S High-ISO Noise

In a stroke of serendipity given our recent conversations here, Simon Joinson at dpreview has posted a primer article on digital point-and-...

7:47 AM

Rate Your P/S!

<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj67HgcgO6EQTx8zOBVHYo0NaJkkQThbrEi_4fPcF2OBGivoxJ2-hVzWhLomWoj3EyvvqvJKhW6hvBsHcSFFydMwEVxpGKxBl9bQcjh3aqzQYG02PY_7yeeREEnbQtyPxBGqwjk4T5xlVE/s1600-h/Yashicatzoom.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5066640817946436866" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj67HgcgO6EQTx8zOBVHYo0NaJkkQThbrEi_4fPcF2OBGivoxJ2-hVzWhLomWoj3EyvvqvJKhW6hvBsHcSFFydMwEVxpGKxBl9bQcjh3aqzQYG02PY_7yeeREEnbQtyPxBGqwjk4T5xlVE/s320/Yashicatzoom.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Yashica T4 Zoom, a long-gone film point-and-shoot that <a href="http://www.monopix.co.uk/tzoom.shtml" target="_new">many photographers found useful</a> </div> Got 20 minutes to squander for zero real reason? Rate your point-and-shoot! Use the rating system in the "Building the Perfect Point-and-Shoot" post below and tell us how your p/s does. For Feature #4, award 3 points for each property. For Feature #5, a prime lens deserves a full 10 points if you ask me. How's yours do? Tell us. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON, with thanks to Peter READER RATINGS (with the "handle" of the reader in brackets): • Canon G3: 66 [Ernest Thiesen] • Canon G7: 51 [amin] • Canon S2 IS: 36 [Tommy] • Canon A80: 40 [Alex] • Canon A610: 45 [ctyankee] • Canon A640: 60–70 [paul] • Canon SD500: 52 [PleasureSean] • Canon SD 700 IS / IXUS 800: 68 [mike] -------------------------------------54 [Eddy] • Canon SD 1000 / IXUS 70: 63 [david vatovec] • Canon A710IS: 63 [Tim] • Canon S70: 61 [Tim] • Canon G5: 67 [Dan K.] • Casio EX-Z850: 49 [bob, under protest] • Fuji S5000: 36 [Albano Garcia] • Fujifilm Finepix F30: 49 [erusan] • Fuji Finepix E550: 64 [Robin P] ------------------------54 [Joshua] • Minolta Dimage A1: 64 [Seungmin] • Nikon CP8400: 65 [Dwig] • Nikon P5000: 55 [Ming Thein] • Nikon 35 Ti (film): 72 [Steve Thurow] • Olympus c-5050: 78 [Dr Hiding Pup] • Olympus 770SW: 47 [Matthew Robertson] • Olympus 720SW: 62 [Brian Auer] • Olympus c-5060: 47 [Rusty] • Panasonic FX01: 48 [Bruce McL] ----------------------49 [Paul] • Panasonic Lumix LX2 / Leica D-Lux 3: 48 [tom] ------------------------------------------------58 [Andrew Fildes] • Panasonic TZ3: 67 [Ming Thein] • Panasonic LC1 / Leica Digilux2: 51 [huzur & urmuz] • Panasonic Lumix FX8: 66 [digiTED] • Panasonic DMC-LX1: 65 [Yvonne] ----------------------------52 [ayh] ----------------------------48 [Dan] • Pentax Optio S5i: 56 [John] • Pentax 750z: 62 [kshapero] • Pentax A10: 47 [Patrick Mallette] • Pentax Optio 43WR: 45 [John Banister] • Ricoh GX100: 54 ("Strictly graded") [jobo] -------------------56 [Andrew Fildes] • Ricoh GR-D: 61 [Ming Thein] -----------------61 [Andrew Fildes] • Sanyo W31SAII mobile phone with a 1.1 megapixel camera: 29 [JanneM] • Sony DSC-W30: 53 [Seungmin] • Sony DSC-P43: 44 [Dorin] • Sony DSC-V1: 36 [cjobowlsby] • Yashica T4 Super (film): 70 [Mark]

Rate Your P/S!

Yashica T4 Zoom, a long-gone film point-and-shoot that many photographers found useful Got 20 minutes to squander for zero real reason? Rate...

1:11 PM

Unfair in the End

Paul Butzi, over on <a href="http://photomusings.wordpress.com/" target="_new">Musings on Photography</a>, recently had a couple of interesting postings about Droit de Suite (a French terms that translates as "Right of Continuation" or continuing rights). The <a href="http://photomusings.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/droit-de-suite/" target="_new">first posting</a> is from May 3rd, and the <a href="http://photomusings.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/more-on-droit-de-suite/" target="_new">followup</a> appeared on May 7th. As Paul explains, <blockquote>The basic idea of Droit de Suite is that an artist should get a share of any increase in value that occurs after the sale of an artwork. Sometimes, someone buys an artwork, and then later sells it for a higher price than they bought it. Without Droit de Suite, the profit of the sale goes to the person who bought the work and subsequently sold it. If an artist sells an artwork for, say, $500, and then the buyer eventually sells it for, say, $50,000, the buyer nets a profit of $49,500, and the artist’s share of this profit is...zero. Proponents of Droit de Suite say that’s not fair. The artist did all the work, the buyer did nothing but hold the work for a while, and yet the artist gets nothing but the original $500 and the buyer gets $49,500. Not fair, not fair! So what Droit de Suite does is this: whenever an artwork is sold, the original artist gets a cut of the sale price (for example, in France, between 1% and 3% of the sale price goes to the artist).</blockquote> Paul's very scornful of this, taking a "narrow" or strict free-market capitalist perspective on it, as if an artwork were identical to any other sort of commodity. That doesn't work for me, entirely, for a variety of reasons; for instance, the artist may have been under duress or in distress when she originally sold the art, or the initial buyer may have been duplicitous or dishonest. But that's quibbling, really. The main problem with Paul's capitalistic critique is that the artwork increases in value not entirely because of what it is, but because of who the artist is, what her significance is, the publicity she engaged in, the awards she won, and everything else she accomplished and achieved in the meantime. In other words, Cindy Sherman herself has added to the value of her 1981 photograph since 1981, even though she hasn't had possession of it. Art isn't strictly a commodity, with just material commodity value and no other kind of existence. (Artists themselves "comment" on this fact all the time, for instance when Andy Warhol signed blank sheets of paper and sold them for $5,000 each.) I would argue, however, that photographers can sidestep the entire issue altogether by investing in their own work. That is, Cindy Sherman may have sold "Untitled No. 92" for two thousand dollars in 1981 (I don't know the actual original price, so don't quote that), and now it's worth $2.1 million, but nothing stopped her from making an extra two or three copies and keeping them for herself. Had she done so, she could now presumably sell one of her own copies of the work and realize her own profits. So every time you make a print, make a couple extra, and stow them away. If you end up famous, it'll be your retirement account. Of course, nothing can really compensate artists for the value they add to their work by, um, dying. But hey, as the free marketeers are so fond of pointing out, life is never fair in the end. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON, with thanks to Mike Featured Comment by Paul Butzi: "My thoughts in response to this in <a href="http://photomusings.wordpress.com/2007/05/20/droit-de-suite-reprise/#comment-5596" target="_new">this new post</a> on my blog." Featured Comment by Tim Atherton: "...People are talking as if Droit de Suite is theoretical. It's now in place across the whole EU as far as I recall." Featured Comment by Robert: Anyone interested in reading more about 'Droit de Suite' in practice should go and have a browse through the DESIGN AND ARTISTS COPYRIGHT SOCIETY website which can be found here—<a href="http://www.dacs.org.uk/" target="_new">www.dacs.org.uk</a>. If you look in their royalties report or the annual review on the 'about' page, you will find some interesting facts about how this works in practice, and how it has worked. For example, the minimum threshold was lowered from EURO 3000 to EURO 1000, and this has led to a 60% increase in claims, which would indicate that it is not just the massively succesful who might benefit form this. "'Artist's Resale Right,' as it is known in UK, became law in Feb. 2006, following an EC directive. Sherman's entitlement for "Untitled No. 92" would have been capped at EURO 12,500, about $17,000 at today's rates. That is 0.008% of the auction price. It also only applies to 'Art Market Professionals' thus excluding Museums and private collectors—though it does apply to galleries or dealers or auction houses. "You will also see that they do a lot of simple copyright work for artists too—over 60% of which benefited photographers in the last report." Featured Comment by Tim Atherton: Good take on Droite de Suite <a href="http://landscapist.squarespace.com/journal/2007/5/21/ku-472-gardening-casualty-on-gravel-grass-and-soil.html" target="_new">here</a>.

Unfair in the End

Paul Butzi, over on Musings on Photography , recently had a couple of interesting postings about Droit de Suite (a French terms that transla...

12:08 PM

Building the Perfect Point-and-Shoot

We've done several posts here recently on point-and-shoots, a subject which is, despite all the attention, not near and dear to my heart. We have learned, among other things, that some people like the little stinkers; that the best ones are made by a company (Ricoh) that doesn't sell its products in North America; and that, in any case, no one can agree on the definition of just what a point-and-shoot is. Here, for the record, and in hard-to-read rainbow colors (sue me, I'm bored), is a description of Ten Features an ideal point-and-shoot would have, in no particular order. Feature 1: True shirt-pocket size Reason: Many serious photogs who use p/s cameras do so because they're portable and painless to pack. Feature 2: No more than 8 megapixels—6 would be better Reason: Where too-tiny sensors are concerned, more pixels mean lower image quality, past a certain point. Feature 3: RAW capability Reason: Using a RAW converter is the best way to extract more image quality out of any given sensor, and eliminates the worry and fuss of setting white balance while shooting. Feature 4: Waterproof, shockproof, and freeze-proof Reason: A take-anywhere camera should be able to be taken anywhere. Feature 5: A zoom lens of no more than 3X, 28–85mm equivalent, ƒ/2.8 or faster on the short end. Reason: Greater magnification zooms compromise on image quality, and are slower. Most photographers can do anything that needs doing with these focal lengths. Feature 6: Reasonably noise-free to ISO 400. Reason: I know, it's asking a lot of a small sensor. Still, Fuji manages. Feature 7: An articulated LCD Reason: Many tinycam users use the LCD as a viewfinder. Feature 8: An optical viewfinder Reason: Many tinycam users prefer not to use the LCD as a viewfinder. Feature 9: Anti-Shake/Image Stabilization/Whatever Yawanna Callit Reason: It's a very useful feature, especially in low light and with tiny cameras that are hard to hold. (I'm still impressed with this technology.) Feature 10: Must be fast, responsive, and very quiet, with excellent shutter lag and shutter release feel. Reason: Because this is a criterion that should be met by any camera that is meant to take pictures with. I might point out, modestly, that I've also just devised the perfect point-and-shoot rating system. Any camera can be evaluated by simply awarding ten points for any of the above features it has. Zero is worst, 100 is best. I am a genius. Modest, too. The 100-point camera described above will most likely never be made, because cameras of this type aren't made for photographers and never have been. Still, a number of existing cameras actually come pretty close on various fronts—there might even be some cameras out there that score a 50 or a 60—so there's no point in complaining. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON Featured Comment by OK-1K: "If you ask a random teenager who's browsing through Best Buy for XBox 360 games what they require from a point and shoot camera, you essentially receive the instructions that millions of dollars of marketing acumen and sampling tell the camera companies every year: 1. It has to be small, futuristic, and shiny so that it will look cool when I non-chalantly show it off to friends. 2. It has to be able to zoom in really close, just in case a girl is looking super hot and I'm too far away to see anything with my own eyes. 3. It has to be able to have enough shutter lag for me to blame my lack of photo talent on the camera. 4. It must have a flash so that people will know I've taken their picture, because otherwise they don't know to stop posing until I tell them. And I hate talking. 5. It must be able to take pictures in the dark, because I'm mostly nocturnal and spend most of my time in basements or clubs. 6. The LCD display needs to be big so that I never have to print anything and can just show people the back of my camera for 95% of what I take. The rest I'll just upload lo-res to Photobucket for my MySpace page. 7. If my parents have to spend more than the cost of an iPod on it, I'll never hear the end of it when I inevitably lose it or drop it in a pool. 8. I need it to do HD video, too. Again, just in case that hot girl is around. 9. The fewer buttons the better. I only have one belly button and that's the way I roll, so that's how I want my camera to roll. 10. And, finally, could I just subscribe to your company for an annual fee and receive the latest model every 6 months, because these things are disposable, right? "Anyhow, hats off to you Mike for keeping this POS topic rolling. I hope the powers that be read your blog."

Building the Perfect Point-and-Shoot

We've done several posts here recently on point-and-shoots, a subject which is, despite all the attention, not near and dear to my heart...

11:21 AM

A Cindy Sherman Sells For $2.1 Million

<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8VzaxdH8rFApe85HH5TBmpnQ3N9WoBHP2on940fVOHK7LCaQwnk0O0F9WpYH1EMUOXkG3s986o0wmS4kCm6D1CAB0MZ0GPEwY5M8n5S-QlYdRQxlLYDzMWDy3S6wSk7WzgSDlQbg95fc/s1600-h/cindysherman.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5065961358415176930" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8VzaxdH8rFApe85HH5TBmpnQ3N9WoBHP2on940fVOHK7LCaQwnk0O0F9WpYH1EMUOXkG3s986o0wmS4kCm6D1CAB0MZ0GPEwY5M8n5S-QlYdRQxlLYDzMWDy3S6wSk7WzgSDlQbg95fc/s400/cindysherman.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Cindy Sherman, Untitled No. 92, 1981 $2,112,000 Christie’s New York, May 16, 2007 </div> Christie's $384.6 Million Contemporary Sale The evening sale of post-war and contemporary art at Christie’s New York on May 16, 2007, was certainly dramatic, if higher and higher bids coming one after the other almost without end is your idea of drama. The sale totaled $384,654,400, a new record for a contemporary auction, with 74 of the 78 lots finding buyers, or 95 percent. Gee, looks like the bulls still rule the art market... <a href="http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/news/artmarketwatch/artmarketwatch5-17-07.asp" style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);" target="_new">READ ON</a> <div style="text-align: left;">Posted by: DAVID EMERICK <form method="LINK" action="http://www.smcm.edu/~dnemerick"> <div style="text-align: right;"><input value="David's Site" type="submit"> </div></form></div> Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "I spent part of my Thursday dinner discussing the soaring prices of photography with museum curators and collectors. The prices are keeping quite a few photographers and works out of public collections, and this is a real problem for museums. Photography departments even at major art museums don't have the deep pockets that other departments sometimes have. So they must often rely on bequests and cultvating directed donations to get such works. "To break the monotonous tone of envy let me present a slightly different perspective on the situation. Productively diversifying large investable sums is, and always has been, a challenge that's hard for most people to understand unless they're faced with the predicament. Investments in conventional and traditional instruments (stocks, bonds, mutual funds) is fine and relatively safe. But these instruments, over time, produce relatively modest returns and present varying degrees of risk. Art and antiques have, for quite a long time, been considered 'alternative investments.' Private bankers track these asset classes for their clients in much the same way that they track other assets, and they quite often represent their clients at auctions and private sales. "Spending $2+ million for a photograph might seem outlandish and arrogant to many people, regardless of the photographer. But in fact it's simply someone's investment transaction, and one that's almost guaranteed to reap a much more robust return than stocks or mutual funds. Photography actually represents a real ground-floor bargain today when compared to other flat works. In fact, today it's considered a nice beginner's investment in the art world. "So before you automatically denigrate those who participate in such sales you should realize that these are simply investments, and generally damn good ones. You should also realize that the general caricature of the type of people who buy such works is often far off the mark. In fact, increasingly the buyers are coming from Europe and China." Featured Comment by Ctein: "Wow; I gotta disagree with almost every comment posted so far (very unusual; I'm usually in accord with you guys). "First off, as an artist who doesn't sell for anywhere near the prices he would like to (or needs to, to make a living at it) I am thrilled when I see photographs go for high prices. I don't care who gets the money. Art has no, I repeat NO, intrinsic economic value. It's only worth what people pay for it. People won't pay much for my work. If someone collector decided to sell some early photo of mine at an auction and manage to get a million dollars for it , I would be jumping for joy. "It's not about me getting a cut of the sale. That's not the way the art world works. And if Ms. Sherman doesn't understand that, she hasn't been paying attention. Frankly, I can't believe she doesn't; I think, Mike, you must have misremembered or misread something somewhere. Because every artist knows collectors buy work not only for enjoyment but also for investment, with the hope that the price for the work will go up and they will make money on the purchase. The way we benefit from work that gets resold for high prices is that we can then raise our own prices. I am sure that Ms. Sherman's agent is going to be kicking up the prices for her photos substantially as a result of this sale, and she WILL benefit directly from that. The best thing in the world is for an artist to become collectible. "As for social inequity, there are lots and lots of ways that I hate what the rich are doing with their money. I hate the way they use it to bribe politicians to create even more ways to evade taxes on their stock options and dividends and tax shelters. I hate the way they drive up prices for all the rest of us; I live in one of the most expensive housing markets in the country, and if I could wave a magic wand, I would cut all the house and housing prices by a factor of four. (The fact that I lucky enough to be home owner doesn't change that.) There are schoolteachers here, for God's sakes, who can't live within an hour of the school districts they teach in, because they can't even afford an apartment. Those are ways the rich hurt us with their wealth! "But spending their money on inflated art prices? How does this harm me? How does it make the cost of housing, or groceries, or health care higher? I'd much, much rather they inflated a harmless market like art speculation than use their wealth to make the world an even more unlivable place for me. "OK, rant off."

A Cindy Sherman Sells For $2.1 Million

Cindy Sherman, Untitled No. 92 , 1981 $2,112,000 Christie’s New York, May 16, 2007 Christie's $384.6 Million Contemporary Sale The eveni...

10:54 AM