Ask Brooks

Archives

Do you have any thoughts on software that would help organize /manage a small photo archive of a professional photographer that recently passed away? We would like to safely scan and catalog the largely B+W collection and negatives as well as some Kodachrome slides.  As well, any thoughts on safe scanners for the photos (some vintage mid-20th century), negs and slides would be appreciated.

— Lipa Roth

I'm not a preservationist, but I can say that if I were faced with this challenge (which I sort of am, as a working photographer), I'd turn unhesitatingly to Adobe Lightroom as the archiving software and not blink an eye at scanning the exigent materials with my Epson V700 scanner.

Having said that, however, I would not dare to propose these as "the best" for the simple reason that in order to make such judgments, I would need to have experience with their alternatives and competitors. This is one of the problems we face in today's world filled with so many choices. When faced with our own decisions, we shop, we compare, we select, we use — and if we are happy with the results we are getting we don't go any further until we need to.

For example, I've not used Apple's Aperture software, but I know lots of people like it. I cannot, therefore, offer any valuable opinions about the relative merits of Aperture versus Lightroom, or vice versa. All I can say with any integrity is that I'd be happy to embark on a project like yours with the equipment I own. This isn't an ultimate answer, but hopefully the testimonial helps a bit.

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!

G1 and Legacy Lenses; Next Camera

After much researching and considerable vacillating re: the pros and cons of the various, smaller digital cameras available, I purchased Panasonic's Lumix G1. I know you own this camera and have extolled it's virtues, especially it's fine quality lenses. Have you any experience with using any legacy 35mm lenses via one of the adapters that are available for this camera? If so, please share your experiences with using such lenses. And, what do you think your next digital camera might be?

— Marty Knapp

   

I haven't used any of the adapters with legacy lenses, so I can't offer any testimonials one way or the other. I like the theory, but without hands-on experience, I'm not qualified to comment. Can anyone else comment on their experiences and help Marty out?

As to my next camera, I can say this: I do not change camera systems lightly. For 20 years I used the same Arca Swiss monorail. It took me months of analysis to let go of it. Once I am comfortable with a set of tools, I tend to stick with them. Quite honestly, I'd much rather be photographing and doing my artwork than researching a new camera, testing lenses, et al. So, it's a big commitment for me to change camera systems and I dread it. The Panasonic G1 does what I need it to do. Unless I radically change my image making needs, I'll probably just stay with this setup until it dies.

But, you might say, what if technology forges ahead and some newer model has lots of yippy-skippy new features? Oh, there is no doubt that this will happen. However, new features probably won't influence me. I reverse engineer my camera needs, so new features aren't persuasive; new artistic vision and sometimes a new type of photography project will be a greater motivation for me than new buttons.

I should note that the G1 system is my seventh camera system in four years. I'm ready for the pace to slow down. Why so many? With each step along the way, the new camera gave me better images than the previous generation. This mostly had to do with improved sensors and more pixels as digital technology crept closer to film standards. With each step along the way, I felt the move to a new system more closely approximated what I could do with film. However, for me anyway, the curve has flattened and for the prints I make, I don't think I would see any improvement in image quality with additional pixels or sensor improvements. I think we've arrived. We'll see.

I remember when office printers progressed from daisy-wheel to 9-pin dot matrix to 24-pin dot matrix to 300dpi Laserjets and finally to 600dpi Laserjets. Wow, what an improvement! But, have you noticed that once the technology reached 600dpi, it had reached a plateau and didn't progress much beyond that. Sure, there are some 1200dpi Laserjet printers, but for 99% of us, 600dpi was enough — and enough was as good as a feast.

In my younger years, I observed the same thing with audio gear. Early stereos in the 1970s had an ear-assaulting 5% THD (total harmonic distortion), which improved with time to 1%, then 0.5%, then 0.002% and then THD disappeared from the audio scene. Once the threshold of human perception was reached, manufacturers stopped touting tech measurements. It ceased to be persuasive that one stereo had 0.002% THD and another had 0.001% THD; no one could hear the difference. Manufactures started stressing convenience factors. In stereos, we saw remote controls, 5-step EQ features, multiple CD disc changers, etc. Use issues started to trump raw technology improvements.

In computers, the CPU clock-speed race similarly has peaked. Now all the news is about lightweight netbooks, the iPad, bigger monitors, surround-sound audio systems, and video capabilities. The differences between a 2.8GHz and a 3.1GHz CPU are lost on most end-users.

Similarly in cameras, I believe we are at — or close to — the technological threshold of human perception. Do we really need more than 25 megapixels? Do we even need that many? Sure, some photographers do, some specialty needs do. But for a lot of us, all that extra data is just filling up our hard drives without making better photographs. Rather than see dramatic increases in pixel counts, I suspect we'll start to see more and more creature comfort features. What will these be? I don't know, but the ease-of-use issues will start to be pushed more than image quality improvement issues. I'd bet big money on this.

Asia trip equipment List

I listened to your podcast about what worked and what didn't during your recent trip to China. I was writing as fast as I could to capture your equipment list. Could you provide a complete list?

— Mark

Sure. But do keep in mind that my list was developed for my intended photography. Your needs might be different if you plan on making images that are different than mine. Be that as it may, here's my list you can use as a place to start.

• Panasonic system
  • Panasonic G1 black body
  • Panasonic G1 blue body
  • 5 batteries
  • battery charger and AC cord
  • 7-14mm lens
  • 14-45mm lens
  • 45-200mm lens
  • 4x 16GB cards (1245 RAW x 4 = 4,980 exposures)
  • 4x 8GB cards (622 RAW x 4 = 2,488 exposures)
  • Polarizer
  • Cokin graduated neutral density filters, Cokin holder
  • Instruction manual PDF on the ASUS netbook
• Misc Photo
  • Rocket blower
  • Lens cleaning solution
  • Handkerchief
  • Stub handle
  • Carson Monocular
  • Bubble level
  • Feisol CT-3402 Tripod
  • Manfrotto 685B Monopod
  • 484RC2 Ball head
  • 486RC2 Ball head
  • Flashlight
• Computer
  • ASUS 1000HE netbook
  • Western Digital Passport Backup hard drive
  • power cord
  • padded case
  • Bluetooth mouse
  • USB to mini-USB cord
  • Ethernet cable
  • 8 GB Thumbdrive
• Audio recording
  • Olympus DM-520
  • AAA batteries
  • Lapel mic for interviews
  • Table top mic stand

BTW, I started this list about 6 months before my trip and kept adding to it and deleting items from it as I thought about it more and experimented in some test run days of photography before I left. Weight was one of my biggest concerns, especially with my bad knee. I would have loved to include a few more items, but didn't as I pared down to the essentials.

Why two cameras? First, a backup in case one of them died. It happens, you know. Digital cameras with all their complexity are perhaps more at risk than my old view cameras. Also, having two camera bodies meant less in-the-field lens swapping, so a reduced risk of dust on the sensors.

Five batteries might seem excessive, but I used four of them on the same day several times. Same with the cards — light-weight insurance against card failure. Plus, they would provide extra storage at the end of the trip if I really needed it.

The Carson Monocular might seem like an odd addition. My troublesome knee meant that I didn't want to walk "way over there" unless I had a reasonable expectation that I'd be glad I did. I had to manage my foot-travels judiciously. I spent a lot of time researching this piece of equipment and found this one to be simply superb. Lightweight, great 20mm eye-relief for wearers of glasses, tripod mount on the bottom was very handy in concert with the monopod, very close focusing if needed.

Hope this helps!

Tripod and monopod

In your travels to Asia, were there any situations that you regretted not having a tripod? I can't seem to walk out the door without at least a small Slik travel tripod. You mentioned some very impressive results from the monopod, but on your next trip will you be going back to a tripod?

— Dan Kehlenbach

Actually, I carried a Feisol carbon fiber tripod with me in Asia. I love their tripods (this is my second one). As I reported in my podcast about that trip and what worked and what didn't, I never used it! Not once. The Manfrotto 685B monopod has become my standard stabilization tool for the Panasonic G1 camera.

Will I take the tripod on my next trip? Probably, but it's not a certainty. Wow, five years ago I would not have predicted this statement in my wildest dreams.

Weight is a factor. And, of course, what I'll be photographing comes into play. For example, all the work I did at Fort Worden required exposures in the 5-45 second range. Tripod territory for sure. For panoramas and stitched images, I'll still use a tripod. In Japan and China however, I rarely needed shutter speeds longer than 1/6th of a second and was comfortable using the monopod and image stabilization in the camera. In those few occasions that did require longer shutter speeds, I simply propped the monopod against something — a chair, a doorway, a fence — and used the timer to release the shutter. It worked just fine and the photographs are tack sharp.

I did learn one thing that I stupidly needed to learn. Although I could hold my camera on the monopod still for 1/6th of a second, that doesn't mean the image will be sharp if the subject is moving. Duh! I lost some shots for this reason. (I'm now in the market for a powerful, small, and battery-compassionate flash unit.)

There are two keys to the monopod concept that have made me a confirmed fan. I'd used monopods over the years and hated them. Too slow, too much hassle for the benefit. And then I learned about this Manfrotto — the 685B — which works like a dream. Michael Reichmann talked about it over at Luminous Landscape. Simply pull upward to the height you want; use trigger-release to collapse. No twisting and tightening multiple joints to extend or collapse. A wonderfully engineered tool.

The second key was the addition of a ball head with a quick release. I'm using both the Manfrotto 486RC2 (my standard) and its smaller cousin the 484RC2. The quick release plates are so convenient for swapping cameras. The single level control for the ball head is fast and easy. Combined with the aiming flexibility of the monopod itself (tilting, swaying, and rotating at will off its single-point foot) with the universal positioning capable with the ball heads makes composing images a snap. On the occasions when I didn't get the verticals or horizontals exactly plumb, I could fix it by cropping or even pixel stretching in Photoshop.

Like I said, this world of monopods is all new to me so you old long-time users are probably smiling now that an old geezer like me is finally catching up to you in this knowledge. Old dogs can, I guess, sometimes learn new tricks.

Zeiss G lens help

10 years ago, before the digital revolution in photography really hit the streets, I used a Contax G-2, with 4 of the Zeiss G lenses for 35mm work.  I loved that camera and the image quality that it produced.  But now it is on the shelf [with all of my Pentax 645 & 67II bodies and lenses!]...no market for that gear anymore.

 Is there a digital camera body that will accept the Zeiss G lenses? 
If you could let me know, I would appreciate it a great deal.
 If you don't know, could you refer me to someone who could help me?

 — Doug

   

I wonder if there is an adapter for the Panasonic G1 that might work? There are G1 adapters out there for lots of other lens mounts, but I'm not sure about this one.

Anybody know?

What camera do you use?

What camera(s) and Printer(s) are you using now days, and why?

— Jay Moynihan

I believe I heard you say in one of the post Japanese/China trip podcasts that your current photographic instrument is the Panasonic G1. Are you happy with the Panasonic at the 8X10" print size level? What doesn't the camera do that is important to your photography? Is there a particular lens that you feel is superior or any to avoid?

— Dennis Mook

   

Over the years, I have been asked this question more often than any other. I'm always slightly amused by it because the very question itself implies that the magic of photographic image making lies in the mechanical device used to make it. Of course, this is simply not true. I've said elsewhere that we would do well to remember that Edward Weston made all those wonderful images with a camera and lens that were incredibly primitive compared to anything we have available to us today. And he did pretty well, I hear.

And, let's remember that the choice of equipment is entirely a project of reverse engineering. What is the nature of the photograph you want to make? Giant wall art prints require a different choice of camera equipment than, say, a web gallery. Fast-action sports photography might imply a different choice of camera than, say, contemplative landscape work. So, my choice of camera is based on the images I choose to make — which is one of the chief flaws I see in so-called "camera reviews" so prevalent on the Internet these days. Does it really make sense to make "comparison shots" of the same subject with all cameras? That would be like playing the same piece of music with all kinds of instruments as a comparison of the instruments. Whether your test music is Stairway to Heaven or the Moonlight Sonata will make all the difference as to which instrument sounds best.

The answer to which camera I use is really not an answer about my camera at all. Because the camera I use is a function of the photographs I make, these questions are really just a shorthanded paraphrase for a much more pointed and detailed question: In order to make the images you do, which camera have you chosen to use that increases the odds of success? Whew. But, at least that's a question I can answer without hesitation.

Answer:

• My projects these days tend to be multiple prints rather than single images. I need to be able to process lots of images. I prefer working on the computer rather than in the wet darkroom because of the flexibility, control, and repeatability of printing in volume. Hence, I shoot digitally rather than on film.
• I make small prints — typically in the 8x10" range. My primary form of artwork is the handheld folio. I can't remember the last piece of work I did that was destined for the wall that was larger than 11x17". 10 megapixels are plenty, 12 a bit better because I can do a little cropping if needed. More than that is wasted for my work. Excessive pixels just slow down everything and make larger files.
• I want my prints to be tack sharp — mostly. Good lenses required. Image stabilization has become indispensable.
• I want my prints to be smooth, grainless, like my eyes — mostly. Digital cameras with larger sensors help.
• I have become quite comfortable with composing quickly, but entirely visually. I tend not to "previsualize" in my mind's eye but rather with my physical eyes, Zone System be damned. So, I prefer to see my image on a large screen like I did for decades with my view cameras. Eye-level finders are almost useless to me, used only as a last resort.
• Knees, back, shoulders, and bifocals demand that any camera I use today has a swivel-capable LCD viewing screen. Creature comforts do count. Light weight helps.
• For purposes of post-processing, I shoot only RAW files in the field. Cameras that don't create RAW files are valueless to me.
• So, taking all this into account and comparing my needs to the current crop of new cameras as well as the broad-scope of available used cameras, last summer I settled in on the Panasonic G1. It has performed beautifully against my rather narrow range of requirements and dictates. Before that, I used a Sony DSC-R1, which also performed beautifully but not as well as the Panasonic. Before that a Fuji s7000, which performed beautifully but not as well as the DSC-R1. After the G1 will be something even better, I'm sure. Or different, if my needs change. I'm not married to my equipment any more than I'm married to my keyboard, my toaster, or my television. Tools — even great ones — are just tools. Do we care what kind of hammer and chisel were used by Michelangelo to carve the statue of David? (You're supposed to laugh at the comparison of my aspirations to his accomplishment.)
• In fact, I have two G1s. I currently carry three lenses, typically a 14-45mm on one camera, a 45-200 on the other camera (I don't have to changes lenses in the field so often this way, the risk of dust on the sensors, you know), and a 7-14mm I can pull out for either camera if I need to. These are all Panasonic lenses that I've tested and found to perform in excess of my needs. They are all tack sharp, at least if I use the right apertures. They are fast enough for my subjects. They are light weight, within my budget, and work. In short, they are sufficient. Perfect? No. Life is a compromise, even in the world of artmaking. They are demonstrably not the best lenses mankind has ever made. I don't care, because they make the images I want to make. Someday they won't and I'll get different lenses. Or a different camera that can use those new lenses. I love eBay.
• I also carry a Panasonic ZX3 for HD movies and snapshots.

What would I like to see in a camera that the G1 doesn't provide? Artificial directional light as bright as the sun. Antigravity transport. Smooth, noise-free images at ISO 32,000. Bokeh up the wazoo when I need it. Autoinspiration and automotivation buttons. It would be really nice if it had an espresso dispenser built in for those cold, cold mornings when the photography is best. In the meantime, Panasonic G1 it is. Ask me again in 6 months.