Ask Brooks

Panasonic lenses

I just purchased a Panasonic GF1. What lenses do you use, like, recommend, etc? I find myself photographing

(predominately) in the following situations (in order of importance):

   

1- Low light, hand-held (indoors, in places like museums, etc., where lights are low and tripods are verboten.)

2- Wide angle of view (currently with my 1ds Mark III (full-frame) I find myself using a 17-35mm lens about 60% of the time.

3- Macro (ideally, 1:1)

   

The choices should probably be obvious, but I note that there are several non-Panasonic lenses that will work on the camera with an adapter ring and that some appear to be designed for "regular" 4/3rds (as opposed to "micro" 4/3rds). As a newbie to 4/3rds, any insights would be most welcomed. After ordering the camera and lens, I began to think that the lens choice I made may not have been the best one, given the criteria listed above.

— Hunter

   

   

I have four lenses and use them all. Remember that the "35mm equivalent multiplier" for micro 4/3 is 2x:

   

1. Panasonic 14-45mm kit zoom [28-90mm equivalent on a 35mm]
   I use this one most often. Starts to show serious diffraction at f/11, so I tend to use it no higher than f/9. Tack sharp, especially with the OIS turned on when using my monopod. Caution: I seem to recall that the kit zoom on the G1 is a different lens than the 14-45mm kit zoom on the GF1.
2. Panasonic 7-14mm wide angle
   Expensive ($,1000 or so), but wow is wide really wide with this one – even wider than your 17-35m on your Canon. Because Panasonic has elected to do optical corrections in the RAW file, it's distortion free when the axis is level to the ground. Whatever barrel or pincushion distortion you'd expect to see is removed (well, at least reduced) digitally in the RAW file. Some purists protest this as cheating, but I really like it. I find I don't use the 7mm setting all that often, but at about 9-12mm it really shines and I use it a lot. This lens does not have OIS – not really necessary. It does auto-focus. It has a built-in hood in the front design that makes it not able to use filters, at least without some sort of jury rigging.
3. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens
   This is a real sweetie. Very fast. I shot all the videos for the latest workshop with this lens on the GF1. At 20mm (40mm eq.) it's just wide enough for everyday use. I've not used it very extensively in low light situations, but in the few occasions I have it's been great – especially if you are willing to do a bit of noise reduction, if necessary. Auto-focus is very fast with this lens.
4. I also have the Panasonic 45-200mm zoom [a whopping 90-400mm(!) eq.]
   I am surprised how much I am using this lens. Maybe not half my images, but probably a third. Especially useful over in the shipyard. It has gained a bit of a bad reputation from some who opine it is not sharp. When pressed, you'll find they are using it hand-held at 200mm at 1/30 with OIS on and finding it soft. Of course it is! OIS is good, but not that good. I've found it to be very sharp even at 200mm when used on a tripod with the OIS turned off. Best if used below f/9, just like its cousin above. Even at eq 400mm, its quite nice.

   

If you haven't run across this info, be sure you know that when you use any of these lenses on a tripod that you TURN OFF the OIS. OIS used on a tripod actually loses sharpness!

Pinwheel marks on prints

I'm having some issues with an old Epson R1800. The printer is leaving roller marks in my prints when I print on either Hahnemuhle Fine Art or Harman Glossy papers. (The little pin wheels.) It's driving me crazy to the point of maybe getting a new printer, but not giving up just yet. Any helpful insights would be a great.

— Christopher Bell

I know exactly what you are talking about. We've seen this, too, especially in areas of solid darks like night skies. It manifests as a regular series of tiny, white, regularly spaced dots. It took us a while to figure out that they are positioned on the page right where the ejection rollers are and the white dots are spaced exactly as are the spokes in the wheel. We call them "pizza marks" because the roller wheel sort of reminds us of a pizza cutter.

In our Epson 4880 printers, we can eliminate them simply enough by manually raising the ejection bar before the paper starts to touch it. We simply push up on the bar and it pops back into the resting position. Pizza marks gone. We only do this on prints that have solid blacks that will make the marks visible. Unfortunately, we have to do this with every single sheet we print that has those tonalities.

Whether or not this simple resolution will work with your printer is a matter of experimentation. Are the wheels on a bar? Can you reach the bar? Will it allow you to lift it up while the print is ejecting? You'll have to experiment with your printer.

The real question is why the manufacturers haven't addressed this troublesome aspect of their products.

Comments on why my work was rejected?

My submission to LensWork was recently returned, unpublished. Would you mind telling me why you decided not to publish my work? I'd love to know so I can learn from the experience.

— a common question

I wish I could add comments to the work we choose not to publish, but it's simply too overwhelming of a task to do so. We review hundreds of portfolios and as you can imagine, the process of commenting on each one of them would be more than a full time job.

In terms of something along the lines of "critique," I might suggest that workshop programs are a better format in which to solicit that kind of feedback. I found them incredibly useful in my photographic career for the honest and candid review I receive from the workshop instructors and fellow participants.

That said, I've often thought there might be some sort of opportunity for someone out there to offer print commentaries for a fee — sort of a remote review process either via recorded comments or via something like Skype. I'm surprised someone isn't doing it. It could be a great service to the photographic community and a lot less expensive for the photographer than attending a workshop or a review even like Houston FotoFest.

Of course, whoever offers such commentaries would need to be someone whose opinion would be sought by would-be reviewees, but there must be someone out there who has the time to do so — perhaps as a semi-retirement project. Maybe I should file this one away for my post-LensWork days . . .

A bit of cross-marketing

Forgive the bit of "cross-marketing," but I've started yet another blog that might be of interest.

http://dakotacreek.lenswork.com

   

A few questions . . .

I don't know if you remember me but I am a LensWork alumni (#54) - the alphabet project. I'm working on a new "green" version, letter forms found in nature. I devour your words, blog, pdf's, podcasts, books, everything — and I'm always hungry for more. May I ask you for some insights?

• What are your feelings about entering competitions?
• How do you feel about photographing the same things or rather in the same places over and over again?
• Do you find more inspiration in a totally new environment?
• Who do you photograph for? Yourself? If so why show your work to others? And, if a photographer does show his work what are the pitfalls of searching for ego builders? 
• I once exhibited with an artist who's major aim was for fame, she manages to sell her work easily, I must confess of fame and money I would like to sell my work rather than become famous from it, what are your feelings about fame or money (or neither?)

  — Abba Richman

This is one of the things I really love about my work as a publisher — getting to know so many nice and creative folks. Abba's project was fun to publish; some of his photographs of shapes found in the world that look like letters of the alphabet where quite hilarious and inventive. Very fun.

Let me see if I can respond in any way that might be useful.

Competitions: I think they can have a purpose early in one's career, if for no other reason than to give us a reason to complete work and go through the submission process. I get nervous about money, though. The kinds of competitions that charge you an entry fee for a few images and then award some winner a pile of cash need careful examination. I've looked at these things for over 20 years now and I'm yet to find one that distributes back to the "winners" more than a fraction of what they collect. They may masquerade well as contests for the benefit of photographers, but they are huge profit producers for the contest sponsors. Also, I'm yet to hear a photographer report that being in a contest was a career-launcher for them. Maybe for the Grand Prize winner, but for the rest of the folks, it's not all that beneficial. So, I guess, I'm luke warm at best; not enthusiastic, that's for sure.

Photographing over and over: Yes, do so. Your first reaction to a subject may be your very best, but rarely. How will you know unless you do more? Give yourself permission to dig a little deeper and see if you can move beyond the kneejerk composition or way of seeing. Listen; allow time to be a part of your process; be open to what the subject reveals; give yourself permission to experiment; accept failure as part of the process; try to see differently, not just repetitively; angles, lenses, exposure, depth of field, shutter speeds, light, angles of light, your very emotions — how many variable are there to explore? Is it reasonable that the very first combinations will plumb the depths of possibilities? Go back, go back, and go back again. You'll know when you're really done after you've been through a few projects and come to know your own creative process better. Besides, editing is the most creative part of the process that too many photographers undervalue. I say this as an editor and publisher.

New environment: Sure, habit alone makes it a challenge to see what is close to home. The problem with this is that travel is so serendipitous. It's exciting to see new places, but access is problematic; being there when the light is fabulous is dicey; the lure of whatever might be around the next bend is seductive; and time constraints can be restrictive. On the other hand, when we pack the car with camera gear and head out, we are at least divorced from the distractions of everyday demands. Just being there — anywhere — with a camera will increase the odds of making interesting images compared to sitting as a couch potato with the camera in the closet.

Audience: I photograph for myself; I make prints, PDFs, web pages, etc for others. When I'm out in the world photographing, I never consider the audience. Ever. But, back in the darkroom or in front of the computer when I start producing something that I hope others will want to see, I do find it useful to try to look through their eyes in an empathetic sort of creative process. Why produce a book no one wants to read? Or, a website that turns people off? As to "ego builders," anyone who says they don't value compliments from an audience is lying to you. The trick is to maintain a measure of equanimity when either compliments or criticisms are laid at your feet. As a publisher, I've learned that people's opinions are interesting, but just opinions. It's always an entertainment when I receive emails that compliment or criticize our publications. Every writer crafts their email from a position of absolute authority — "You're brilliant!" — "You suck!" — and they are often next to each other in the email inbox. During the early years of LensWork, my ego was dashed and raised, raised and dashed with every new comment. I remember the same thing in my early years as a photographer. As I've aged, I've come to a point where such comments don't have the same effect to swing my emotions with such vigor. Listen, absorb, find the nuggets that can be useful in helping your work, but don't let them rule (or ruin) your creative life.

Fame and money: Both are results, not goals. Do your work. Do your best work. Dig deep and create with all your soul. You may become famous. You may not. You may get rich. You may not. These are non sequitur to the creative life. If you really want fame and fortune, become a celebrity, a politician, or enter the business world. Producing photographic artwork is a poor way to pursue any of these.

Sorry for being so long winded, but you asked — and some great questions, I might add. Thanks for allowing me to add my thoughts to the discussion.

Why put text on folio images?

On the topic of folios, I think it is a great idea and I think it is gaining popularity. I have to say though that I find the artist name and other lettering on each image rather off putting. In a way I am surprised of your design choice, given your usual ethos of the humbleness and modesty of the artist. It reminds me of cheapo Ikea or office "motivation" photo posters or even banner advertising. In a way it is advertising for the artist really, which for me introduces a branding or commercial aspect and takes away from the image itself. I believe that the artist name and info belongs on the back. If one were to frame the prints, surely the text would/should be cropped out.

— Dirk

Thanks for the feedback. I understand your comments, but there are several reasons we include text on the folio images:

1. Should an image ever be separated from the folio for any reason, it would lose its identity and origin.
2. We think of folios as something between a book and original artwork; text in this context seems okay.
3. With so many photographers producing their original artwork using the same technology (pigment prints) that we use, we feel it is important to distinguish our prints as being something different from their originals. Since these are not signed by the photographers, this text seems an acceptable way for them to be identified.
4. The common text on each image ties the various images in the folio together as a whole.

As you say, should someone choose to mat the prints for framing, they can choose to include or exclude the text components — and we do the layouts that way on purpose.

As to text on the back, this is possible and we do hand-write titles on the back of the Chiarenza folio, for example, but generally prefer the text on the front as part of the design. Besides, typeset text is more readable than my lousy handwriting! Besides, if the text were on the back, matting with the text visible is no longer an option.

I do appreciate your thoughts about this. I fact, in some of my personal work, I do folio images (originals, in this case) without the text, so you can see I do agree with you in some cases.

Comparing analog to digital

Do you believe that digital black & white has now reached the quality of black & white film?

— Mark Olwick

This wins the award for the most succinct question of the decade. I wish my answer could be as clear and straightforward.

Yes — assuming you are talking small film negatives and relatively small prints.

No — if you are comparing large format negatives (4x5 or larger) and/or large scale prints.

There are many who will disagree.

For me, it all boils down to reverse engineering. In my work, I tend to be interested in photographing images that look best in a small scale — typically hand-held work in the 8x10" print size or even smaller. I simply do not make large prints. A really big one for me is 11x14. With this as my criteria for prints, digital capture has plenty of resolution, detail, and all the technology I need. With today's papers (as of about late-2007 or so), I'm very happy with the prints I can make, too — relative to detail, texture, black densities, etc.

So, with all these caveats in mind, yes, digital b/w has now reached the quality I used to achieve with film and gelatin silver prints. I would compare any of my results from 2¼x3¼ negatives on gelatin silver to my current images made with digital cameras and printed on Epson printers and call it a pretty even horse race — if the prints are the hand-held size I've always made.

In fact, in some regards digital has exceeded my analog efforts — in areas like tonal versatility (so many brown tones to choose from!), ease of production and reproduction, physical comfort for the producer (me!), and fine control and finesse of image manipulation (i.e., dodging and burning and the like in the process of making a final print.)

I am incredibly lucky that my interests in printmaking do not motivate me to create large scale prints. If I wanted to make 20x24 or larger prints, I'd be hard-pressed to forego an 8x10" view camera. The detail and tonalities possible in such large scale negatives are to drool over when making large prints. There is just so much information encapsulated in an 8x10" negative that a digital camera has a hard time competing with it.

Having said that, there are digital solutions that people are using that make some pretty spectacular results. Stitching images comes to mind. Large format digital sensors are pretty amazing if you have the bank account for them. Large format Epson printers make giant prints that are pretty special. I don't have any personal experience in using any of these tools because they simply do not match well with my interests in making prints, so I'm not really qualified to compare digital to analog with any authority. But from the results I've seen of others work, I'd have to admit that there is some very nice work being done digitally in large scale prints. Comparable? I'm not even sure how to begin such comparisons.

What I do know for sure is that any equipment handled with the knowledge and care of a meticulous craftsman is better than better equipment in the hands of the sloppy and careless. Can one make great photographs with analog equipment? No doubt. Can one make great photographs with digital equipment? You bet. Can the exact same equipment and tools make lousy photographs? Far too often, and far too easily. Can one choose any tool to make any kind of photograph? Well, that's a question that is far too prejudiced by the type of final print and result one wants to make to be a meaningful question.

Sorry my answer is not as precise as the question, but it's simply too complicated an answer to distill into a simple yes or no.

B/W Conversions

 

I don't believe I've ever heard you discuss your process for digital B&W conversions. Is there a favored tool, or is it simply Photoshop/Lightroom, or both?

Andy

Short answer: Lightroom (mostly), Photoshop (occasionally)

In particular, the invention of the real-time grayscale mixer (the "color sliders" in HSL/COLOR/ GRAYSCALE panel of the Develop Module) is perhaps the greatest tool of all in Lightroom. No kidding. For us long-time b/w photographers, it's like having every Wratten filter ever invented at your instant disposal. As Arnold would say, "Unbeeweevoeboe."

The same basic tools are available in Photoshop in the RAW workflow, but I much prefer the non-destructive workflow in Lightroom. The only thing I wish I could do in Lightroom that is available in Photoshop is the Invert command (Image/Adjustments/Invert). (Perhaps one of you very clever folks out there can tell me how to do this in Lightroom?)

With my abstracts in the Wakarimasen project, a number of those images are tonally inverted which required a trip to Photoshop. Curiously enough, I simply inverted the color image in the RGB file and then, back in Lightroom, converted it to b/w with the grayscale mixer from this weirdly inverted color image. A strange workflow, but it worked.

I used to use Russell Brown's b/w conversion Photoshop action, but I've found such convoluted approaches simply unnecessary now.

BTW, here is a tip I find not everyone is aware of: If you can't get quite the right b/w conversion you want with just the grayscale mix sliders in the HSL/COLOR/GRAYSCALE panel, you can also tweak the white balance TEMP and TINT controls in the BASIC panel independently of the grayscale mix sliders. Very handy. If there are limitations to the b/w tones you can achieve in an image, I'm not aware of them.

Finally, don't be surprised if the result of aggressive color movements creates some blotchiness. On some occasions, after I've done the grayscale sliders, I'll take a converted image into Photoshop where I can run Noiseware Pro on it to eliminate some of the exaggerated "noise" created in the process. Alternatively, sometimes I'll paint in a mask in an area in Lightroom to weaken the color shifting affect. So much flexibility it almost makes me sneeze.

Selling PDFs of our photographs

I'm a subscriber to your magazine and to your podcast, and I recently purchased (and am thoroughly enjoying) your PDF Publishing visual workshop. Someplace within all of the "Brooks-talk" that I am ingesting, I heard you say that you had some particular perspectives on pricing PDF folios for the market. Is there a blog post or podcast episode where you are sharing this particular perspective?

— David

Thanks for asking and for enduring all that "Brooks-talk"! Actually, there is a section in the new workshop, Finding an Audience for Your Work, that includes this information.

The short version is this:

• I don't believe people are willing to pay for entertainment-type content delivered via the web. At least I haven't seen any examples that leap to mind as rousing successes — the single exception being music via iTunes or Amazon.com. Newspapers have tried it and failed. Magazines have tried it and failed. There is simply too much precedence of web-delivered content being free — think YouTube, Hulu, the various news websites, somewhere in the range of 4.8 trillion blogs, etc.
• I'm not aware of many photographers offering PDFs for sale over the Internet. William Neill comes to mind, but I don't know whether or not his offerings have really sold. (There is, of course, a difference between offering and selling.)
• Basically, my observation is that people are only willing to pay for something if it involves the shipping of molecules. (We'll pay to have a newspaper shipped to us, but not for access on the web.) So, if you have a PDF you want to sell, better to ship it on a CD or DVD than to try to charge for it via web delivery.
• But this implies a very telling thing about photographic PDFs: they can be pretty reasonable file sizes in and of themselves, so why not distribute them over the web? If the only reason for putting them on a physical device like a CD or a DVD is to sell them, it seems a bit snake-oilish to me.
• There must be a solid and convincing reason a product like a PDF must be on a disc. For example, LensWork Extended (which are molecules in the form of a DVD, shipped to subscribers) typically have 2-4 gigabytes of data per issue. This is far too much to transmit via the Internet, particularly when you consider the total bandwidth we'd need for all our subscribers. Disc shipment is the only alternative.
• This implies that as photographers, we had better be willing to produce something of substance — of meaningful substance — that requires this much volume or there is simply no reason to put it on a disc and ship it. In the case of LXT, that substance is in the form of the number of media monographs as well as the audio and video components we include with each issue.
• If the small PDF doesn't require a disc, my advice is to either send it into the world for free (like I do on my website) or build enough content that it actually makes sense from the consumer's point of view to pay for it and have it shipped to them. Notice on my website page for the Uchiwa-e project, the free, downloadable PDF does not have the audio or video components, but the disc version does.
• For photographers, what about a print + disc offer? Or a folio + disc offer? This is where we need to get creative about what we offer. Make it make sense to ship something.
• In short, offer consumers something they think is worth it and they will pay for it. It's called the free market — where exchange of cash for product is a win for both parties. Try to offer for sale something that people don't value and they simply won't buy it. The [new, digital] world is no different than it's ever been — we have to earn whatever income we make by providing something of value in exchange for it. And in my observation, there is just too little of value in a simple PDF of images for folks to want to cough up the cash. So, we have to get creative as to what we offer to be sure our audience agrees with us that what we are selling is something they are willing to pay for. At least, that's my take on it.

A friend of mine recently sent me this quote, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

"Businesses planned for service are apt to succeed. Businesses planned for profit are apt to fail."
Nicholas Murray Butler (President of Columbia University)

As photographers and artists, we need to spend more time thinking about how our products offer service and value to those we hope will purchase them.

The Return of the Native

With apologies to Thomas Hardy, I'm back.

It's been an exhausting couple of weeks that I am very glad are behind me. Maureen's father passed away on the 5th and the funeral was the 11th in Eugene. In the midst of this, we've been working on the new preview videos, madly recording the new Visual Workshop, and wrapping up LensWork Extended #88. Sorry the blog got the short end of the stick for a while and for the absence.