I posted so many blogs today on my "image only" blog that Google demanded I prove I am not a robot. More difficult than I thought....

http://bettervisualstuff4ads.blogspot.com

I'm building a blog site that's different from this one. It's all portraits with captions as titles. No comments, no feedback, etc. I've put up the first 50 today and you can go see them at the link above.

I'm building that blog so I can send clients there to look at work I like but without the usual commentary from me or anyone else. It's a fun experiment since I also get to use the dynamic views offered by Blogger.

Drop by and see what you think. Comments here remain open.

The disconnection between what we see online and what we see in a big print.

©1995 Kirk Tuck

It's so hard to have conversations about what we show and see on the web. Sometime in the future, when everyone has a Retina screen and everyone's computing machine auto-calibrates that screen and we all adjust the rooms we sit in while viewing on screen artwork to the same basic parameters, we'll be able to have meaningful conversations about technical issues with imaging. And by extension more in-depth discussions about aesthetics, but right now? It's all a crap shoot. 

This is an image I shot in Rome with a Mamiya 6x6 camera and their amazing 150mm lens on Kodak 400 CN film back in 1995. When I got back home I headed into the darkroom and worked and worked on getting a perfect print of the image. I exposed so the highlight areas had plenty of detail and I dodged at least a dozen prints to open up the shadows and get detail into the dark area of the young woman's hair just to the right of her face. I also dodged and dodged to get more discernible detail from the trees that line the steps in the background, in the upper middle and right side of the frame. I'm looking at a final, vintage print of the image right next to my desk. It's 24 by 24 inches of double weight fiber paper and it has an apparent depth that I can't adequately describe with words. 

The web image is made up of infinitely fewer points of information. The whites are on the verge of blowing out and the trees and hair shadows go to black way too quickly. But, frustratingly for me, the web image is the only venue most people will have to look at an image that I really love. I love the actual print not only for the visceral sensuality of the young Russian woman's look but equally for the complexity of tones and the sense of depth I see everyday when I walk into the studio and look at the print. The web representation is like placeholder or an avatar for the image on the print. A thumbnail representation of the original intention. 

In art history classes I had been shown a large number of Caravaggio paintings via projected slide copies of the original paintings. I understood intellectually what my professors were saying about chiaroscuro and the dark to light translations but I didn't really have an affinity for the painter and his work. The slides were generally copies of copies and didn't deliver the power and detail of the actual work. A few years later I had the opportunity to see a good collection of Caravaggio paintings in Florence and I was spellbound by the work. I went back to the gallery again and again to soak in the work. The work itself was worlds different than the slides we looked at in representation. 

Last year I confronted for the nth time just how big a disconnection there is in our lives between the screen image and reality. I heard that there was going to be a show of Arnold Newman's work at the Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. It was a comprehensive show of his work; hundreds of prints perfectly presented. I spent some time re-acquainting myself with Newman's work in the books I own of his images and also on various web sites. In fact, even though Arnold Newman had presented a slide show of his work to my ASMP chapter here in Austin back in the 1990's I don't think I had ever seen an actual presentation print of his in person. Photons bouncing off the front surface of his paper prints and hitting the rods and cones of my own eyes unimpeded by layers of technology, current or primitive. 

When I went to the show I was stunned at how wonderful the actual prints were. Not just the content of the prints or the composition but the prints as objects themselves. They were remarkable. It had nothing to do with relative size because many of the images were shown as 8x10 inch prints. But the prints were engaging and captivating because they possessed what seemed to be an almost infinite range of tones and effortless transitions between those tones. The heart of the work was more than just good printing or prints as jewel like objects. It was the combination of a artist so far beyond the need to overthink technical details that he was able to concentrate almost solely on the engagement with the people in the prints coupled with a time in our culture when people could take time to make images in an unhurried and thoughtful amount of time. A luxury of temporal space in which to come to know the subject and thoughtfully interpret the subject. 

I still have the memory of just how wonderful the prints were and how different they are from our experiences of seeing things on the web. Yes, the web is flatter and more people can experience an artist than ever before but the experience is diluted and reduced. 

If you've grown up with photography being exclusively a web based construction it might really be an amazing and wonderful thing to go see real prints well displayed. In Austin the logical thing is to go see shows at the HRC or the Blanton. But everyone would be well served standing directly in front of actual art as many times in a year as they can. A trip to NYC will give one ample opportunities to see a wide range of photographic shows and collections. For about the price of a decent new camera body one might just have an eye opening and transformational experience that adds new levels of awareness in their own pursuit of this most curious art form.

What one sees on the web is not what one sees in real life. In art this is a critical thing to understand. 

Off the topic of photography. Working on that pesky freestyle stroke.

The heck with cameras and silly arguments about megapixels. Let's talk about something more important: good freestyle technique! Practicing a stroke incorrectly, day after day, makes that stroke harder to correct down the road. Today is a good day to start working on better technique.

I've been swimming for a long time and I'm here to tell you that your impression of your arm position and its actual position in three dimensions can be completely different. Case in point, I thought I was placing my arms directly in front of me on my freestyle recovery and had been practicing that way for years. A month or so ago one of the coaches stopped me mid-set and told me that I was "crossing over" way too much. That meant that if you drew a line from the top of my head down the center of my body my arms were crossing over that center point in front of my head as I placed each hand in the water. Crossing over reduces the efficiency of your stroke because a certain amount of your catch and pull is spent pulling your body left and then right instead of having all the power of the stroke pushing water back in the direction of your feet. That side to side wiggle is just lost energy and requires even more energy to keep pulling your body back to center.

If you want to see just how much you are crossing over a good drill is to have a fellow swimmer walk backwards in front of you in the pool holding a kick board at the center point of your head. (The board is held perpendicular to water instead of its usual flat on the water position). As you stroke, if you are crossing over, you'll repeatedly hit the board with one or both of your hands. That's a sure sign that you are crossing over.

The cure is to swim wide. You have to swim with the feeling that your arms are entering the water much wider. And even better is to tilt your head back and watch your initial entry to make sure you are getting wide enough. Over time what felt awkward will become normal. (don't keep tilting your head up, you don't want to affect your overall balance in the water...).

Another thing to consider is that the pull of the stroke, from the entry to the final push at the top of your thigh, needs to be more or less a straight line with the intent of anchoring your hand in the water and pulling your body past that point. Moving your arm in a wide "S" curve during the front end of your stroke takes time and uses unnecessary energy to move the body laterally. Every unintended lateral move has to be corrected by use of power expended in the opposite direction.

A quick catch, following by a pull with a high elbow position, and increasing speed and power at the end of the stroke is the optimal way to swim freestyle, provided you don't waste energy and mess up your body position by crossing over.

When you are working on correcting or fine tuning a stroke you may find it uncomfortable at first. The key is to drop down a lane and swim with slower swimmers so you can concentrate on technique instead of speed and endurance. Trying to do a stroke correction while maintaining training at a high level is a recipe for failure as you'll get tired and allow your stroke to fall apart. When the workout is tough most swimmers working on strokes revert to what's familiar and that's exactly where you don't want to go. If you normally workout in a lane that repeats 100's on 1:15 you might want to drop down to a lane that repeats on 1:25 so you have the energy to focus on your course correction. 

And now a photographic tie-in: It's helpful, when reconstructing your freestyle, to see what your stroke looks like both when you are doing it right and when you are doing it wrong. Get a friendly swimmer or coach to video tape you swimming toward the camera. Best to get your person to stand at the end of your lane and for you to swim toward them so you can see clearly your arm entry and catch. Watch the footage pool side and then hope in and fine tune it.

I spent the morning workout really concentrating on my stroke technique. I've been at it for a month. It's feeling easier and more efficient every day. It was wonderful to be in the pool early this morning and to watch the sunrise as we swam. Coach, Tommy Hannan, (Gold medals at the 2000 Olympics) was on deck and coaching with gusto. It's a great day to be a swimmer.

Another Project Just Now Published. A story about a collector and her home in Fredericksburg, Texas.

I first started working for Early American Life Magazine in 1981. I got a call that year from a very nice editor from Harrisburg, PA. She'd been referred to me by one of the people working in the art department at Texas Monthly Magazine. The EAL editor gave me the assignment to make images for their magazine all over central Texas, but mostly around Fredericksburg and Roundtop. It was my first major magazine assignment which entailed shooting 4x5 inch sheet film on locations. It was also my first marathon length shoot using big studio electronic flashes outside the studio. I was nervous but when I picked up the editor in my old Chevy pick-up truck at the Austin airport she assured me that everything would go well. 

We had a blast, I got my first national magazine cover from that first assignment and came home with a fistful of beautiful 4x5 inch transparencies. I went on to do about a dozen more multiple day assignments for the magazine and scored three or four more cover shots. It was a good relationship and one that lasted for well over a decade and a half. Eventually the magazine was sold to a new owner, they moved to a new location and I resigned myself to the possibility that the new publisher and staff would have established relationships with photographers in Ohio, where they are now headquartered. 

I was pleasantly surprised, after a number of years, to get a call and an assignment from them near the end of 2013, shooting images at a restored historic home outside of Fredericksburg, Texas. The assignment went well and led to another assignment last year to photograph the home and collections of antiques expert, Edyth O'Neill. 

It was a warm day in late Spring when I packed up the Honda and headed an hour and a half west from Austin; back to Fredericksburg, Texas. I brought an assortment of lights which included a lot of small LED panels and I brought along two camera systems. The main system was the GH4 with assorted lenses and the second system was the Sony RX10 camera with its fixed zoom lens.

I started the morning with interior images, using the Sony RX10, and never shifted to the micro four thirds system. The combination of sharp focus at wider apertures and very clean files at ISO 100 were enough for me to get the images we needed. The combination of the variable color temperature LED panels and the wide depth of field and great optical performance of the Zeiss lens on the RX10 camera allowed me to move through the house and capture at least twenty five different angles/set-ups in the six hours I spent there. The EVF was very effective in giving me a clean view of what I was shooting in areas with high ambient light levels and the LCD was great for everything else. 

Contrary to my usual practice I used the camera in the Jpeg mode and not the raw mode so I could make use of the sophisticated, built-in HDR system to bridge the gulf between high and low tonalities in a way that would provide a usable files for the magazine. While it may seem counter-intuitive to use this small sensor camera for a national magazine assignment it's really just what the doctor ordered for this kind of editorial work. The lens is superb and when the camera is used on a hefty tripod and you use continuous lighting judiciously, you get files with tons of detail (20 megapixels worth) and a nice, long tonal range. Couple those benefits with the wider depth of field provided by the smaller format and you can get away with things you would never be able to achieve easily with much bigger cameras. 

The magazine used 16 of my images on five spreads and the reproduction throughout is very, very good. The client was very satisfied with the work and the files. When I got the magazine I went back to my archives and compared the images in the current publication with some done over twenty years ago on 4x5 inch sheet film. There are some differences but the lighting style is consistent and in print any quality differences are well nigh invisible. Fun to be able to compare how we did it then versus how I do it now...

If you are interested in early American life; the crafts, the furniture, the homes and so much more, you might want to look into Early American Life Magazine. The writing and research standards are very high and the geographic reach nicely diverse. It was fun to flex a different part of my photography brain. I found myself liking the challenges of architecture again. 

The End.

Here's a project that I shot just before the holidays. I did the images for the website producer.

ART MASTERS WEB SITE  I love to share work once the clients have gotten everything squared away and have publicly published the work. I shot the images for this site for my long time friend and continuing client, Lane Orsak, who owns Creative Marketing Consultants. (nearly every image on his site is also one of mine, which speaks volumes to customer loyalty. And makes me happy).

We spent one day shooting at the offices of Art Masters and my main job was to make people who don't spend any time in front of a camera feel safe and secure there as we pursued made images of them that would help illustrate their business.

I shot  with a Nikon D7100 camera and a little bag full of Nikon lenses. I lit almost every photograph but I tried to make every image look unlit; natural. All the additional lighting (in conjunction with fluorescent ceiling fixtures) was provided by Fotodiox battery powered LED panels. I used four of the smaller 312AS panels and one 508AS panel. The big panel had two layers of 1/8th plus green filtration on the front to effectively match the unfiltered color of the other four panels. All the panels lasted for every set up over the course of six hours without the need to change batteries, which makes them a very efficient lighting tool because it obviates the need to run cables or nurse them along too much. The 312AS lights are small enough to allow me to just balance them on the top of a bookshelf or on the floor, if need be.

Working with a professional like Lane makes shoots very straightforward and productive. He had a list of images in his head that he could share with me as we went along. Even though he knew what he needed he was very open to us just playing around with different angles, set ups and expressions to get the best material we could. He also has an eagle eye for details so he helped make shots better by un-wrinling stuff that shouldn't be wrinkled and removing background clutter that might confuse the viewer's eye.

We had a great time shooting the images and working with the clients. The post production on the images Lane selected was very straightforward. That's because we were careful to do custom white balances as we changed from scene to scene, and I metered carefully in manual mode as we shot.

We talk about doing the work here a lot. But this is typical of the day to day assignment that sustains the business and makes the job ultimately enjoyable. Gear is fun and good but a great client is priceless...

Everything about art is a process. In photography---even more so.

Cronut Inventor

Dominique Ansel

At work in  a kitchen in Austin, Texas

©2014 Kirk Tuck.

We spend time finding our subjects. We spend time figuring out what the composition should be, how to deal with the light, how and when to shoot. How to process. How to display or share. It's easy to let the process create its own roadmap for you. The nature of art is to fight against the comfort zone enough to make the images work. 

Sometimes we fail and sometimes we succeed and sometimes there is middle ground. That's the nature of doing a process that's always open to interpretation. 

Why I think the EM-5-2 might be an important tool for photographers who also want to be videographers.

After the announcement of the new Olympus EM-5.2 I wrote a piece about the two things I thought were important to photographers and videographers in the new camera. For people who are only concerned about still imaging it was that the new high resolution setting could provide fully accurate color. I didn't really see the enormous files as so much of a benefit as much as the nice work around of the bayer pattern of color interpolation. Pure colors means no aliasing and wonderful tonal separation. That's a distinct plus in the realistic rendering that so many want. But the thing that makes the camera a potential boon to videographers (now that the camera has a more detailed and robust selection of bit rates....) is the potential to do much more hand held work with the camera instead of always trying to tie the camera to a tripod or to some sort of (cumbersome, and largely ineffective) handheld stabilizing rig.

Of course the remarkable stabilization in the camera works beautifully for still images but the potential for moving video and smooth hand holding is huge. If the rolling shutter effects are engineered out this camera should be able to do some pretty amazing stuff. At least that's what I talked about at first blush.

But then I thought about it and realized that I had never really tried using the Olympus EM5s I already have for any kind of video. I just took everyone's word for it and assumed the internet was well informed and that the EM5 was a dud for video. I bought a GH4 to use instead of the EM5 for video and never really looked back. And that was a big mistake.

So yesterday I grabbed an EM-5 and went toe-to-toe with conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom also states that if you want to minimize the appearance of camera movement in handheld video you are always better off with shorter lenses. I put my 60mm Sigma lens on the front of the camera, left all the conventional rig stuff, at home and headed over to the graffiti park to make some video. It's a test. Only a test. But it showed me that even the older EM-5 could actually shoot decent video at 1080p 30.

This test is meant to show one thing. It's meant to show that the image stabilization in the EM series of cameras can provide a very stable platform with which to shoot handheld video. I've been shooting black and white with these cameras lately and decided to keep doing so for this test. There's a long sequence of people going up and down the wall followed by a much closer shot of two women sitting at a picnic table, watching the crowd and smoking. Finally, I added some footage of a movie truck rushing by. What I hope I've shown is the stability of the system for handholding. It's a major benefit for still photo and video shooters.

With the addition of much more sophisticated video files I think it makes the new EM5.2 a very capable second camera in a narrative project. And for not a lot of cash out of pocket. Not every advancement has to be high ISO noise abatement or megapixel increases to work for at least some of us....

Untitled Project from Kirk Tuck on Vimeo.

Handheld in the late afternoon. 60mm Sigma lens. No tripods, monopods or shoulder mounts were harmed or even disturbed in the creation of this short piece. This is not an art piece nor is it for any client. It's just what we used to call a test.

I'm very encouraged by the new Olympus EM5 Mark 2. It seems to be a well thought out upgrade but it gives a certain comfort to current EM5 owners as well. I'll explain.

Image from the Olympus website. OM-D EM-5 Mark II

I'll get to the last point first. I dug through everything I could find about this new camera on DPReview (where they'll had the camera for a good while...), the Olympus websites around the world and in conversations with people who were familiar with the camera in advance of the launch. The one little nugget that I came away with was this..... for all intents and purposes the image quality from the sensor in the new camera is identical to the image quality in its predecessor. There might be slight tweaks or changes in output but nothing that can't reasonably be matched up in post processing. 

That means no matter how much the reviewers salivate over the new and improved model the people who are only concerned with the quality of the images they get out of their camera system won't have that nagging feeling that they could do better if they just spent a bit more money and jumped onto the newer boat. When it comes to conventional file quality they'll all be docking at the same time. That's a big deal because it really means that the usability of our existing camera purchases is quality equivalent and it assuages the fear that somehow the latest technology has once again left us behind (not that it ever really did). 

So, Olympus upgraded the OMD EM-5 and created a camera to compete in 2015. To their credit they didn't make wholesale changes that would affect the feel, haptics and usability of the camera for current EM-5 users. All the stuff they added (with the exception of wi-fi) makes a good camera even better and also introduces things like a high resolution/sensor shift feature as well as seriously upgraded video capability.

The feature that first caught my attention was the multi-shot/high resolution/sensor shift mode. I think when reading about the 40 megapixel files people will get excited but in reality only a very few will consistently make use of the feature and probably for the wrong reasons. Most people will play with it and then go back to conventional camera settings for the basic reason that it requires the camera to be locked down on a good tripod, aimed at a subject that won't move (at all) for a while, and can only be used at f8 and under. This feature works by taking eight exposures and moving the sensor between each exposure. That takes time. And it generates 100 megabyte raw files. Ouch. 

While everyone will focus on the perceived advantages of the increased resolution I think the color engineers had a different benefit in mind. Here's why: the first four exposures have the camera sampling each color at each sensor element. That gives you 100% accurate color instead of Bayer interpolated color. That's what the Foveon fans react to in their cameras. It's the accuracy of reading all the colors at all places that makes the color magic. It also eliminates aliasing and weird color shifts. And even within a 16 megapixel output it means more accurate fine detail. While landscapers and studio still-life shooters will credit the higher res of their files in their assessment of quality it's probably really the true color nature of the files that subconsciously makes their brains happier when they see these kinds of files. 

While this technology has been available in brutally expensive, medium format Hasselblad bodies it the first time it's ever been available in a consumer body. And a consumer body at such a comparatively low price point!!! Would I use the feature? Every time I put my camera on a tripod and shoot product for clients. The consideration in this kind of work will also be whether or not the lenses are up to the resolution task. But I would argue that the pure color without artifacts is the more important benefit so if you like what the lenses you have for this system do now you will still enjoy the real benefit of the feature. Good job, Olympus!!!

Moving on there are lots of other features that I don't really care about. I don't think any of us will see a difference between 9 frames per second and 10 frames per second. While the 1/8000th of a second is nice to have the 1/4000th of a second top speed of the previous camera was rarely an issue. Wi-fi? Yawn. If I can't use the camera to get my e-mail and stream Angry Birds then why would I care if it has wi-fi? Just more stuff to suck the juice out of batteries... And I can never get my wi-fi to work in the Sonoran Desert or in Big Bend Park so who cares. Oh, that's right---now wi-fi is critical for firmware upgrades.  Sure.

Here are some features I really do care about on the camera in general (we'll hit video in a second): 

The new camera takes the same battery as the previous model. I just stood up next to my desk and cheered. You see, I have four of the older camera and probably eight of the batteries for it. Now I can consider the new body without the agony of buying a couple more $50 batteries. You will need more batteries though since the camera is now rated for 300 shots instead of 360. That's the wonderful wi-fi's fault, I'm sure. 

I like the flipping and tilting screen. I wouldn't care if I just use the camera for stills because the new EVF is supposed to be at least as good as the one in the OMD EM-1 (which is incredibly good) but I do look at cameras like this for video as well and sometimes that screen mobility is just what the director ordered. 

Both screens (the EVF and the rear screen) have been much improved for resolution and I presume response time. 

So, to recap the photo benefits: Better screens, higher shutter speed, new high res mode, same batteries, same great imaging and color, same camera handling. These are all good. And they are somewhat compelling reasons to upgrade if you use your camera in a day-in, day-out professional capacity. But as I mentioned, if you are shooting for image quality then you may be happy right where you are (presuming you own the original EM-5). 

But to paraphrase Rene Zellweger in the movie, "Jerry MacQuire,"  "You had me at video...."

I know that many here don't give a rat's ass about video but I do and I think a few VSL members do so let's talk about where Olympus really updated this camera. It's mostly in the video capabilities. And I can tell this was top of mind for them when I look at the accessories. But we'll get to that in a second. 

Looking at the specs the number one thing Olympus did to upgrade the EM-5 into an EM-5 type2 was to vastly improve the codecs available to video shooters. Most importantly then increased the bit rate of the files and offered a "All-I" codec that takes up a bit more space in memory but makes editing easier and better.  Instead of shooting a around 20 mbs one can now shoot at 60+ mbs. I'm sure the quality difference will be obvious to all. If you need even more imaging quality in video the camera is set up to output uncompressed and clean video from the HDMI port into a 4:2:2 space. That means you get files that you can do a lot of work to in post processing without having them fall apart on your screen like and Oreo cookie that's spent too much time dipping into the glass of cold milk. 

Another new feature is a dedicated microphone input that doesn't foul the EVF. There was an adapter that fit into the original EM-5 accessory port but the cord management was blah and the connector stuck into your forehead if you tried to use the EVF for anything. In addition to the dedicated microphone input you can also adjust the audio levels manually----even during recording (Hello Nikon!!!! ever shot video with your own cameras???). 

One port that's missing on both the old and new models is a headphone jack. This is the reason I say that Olympus designed the new camera to be a much improved video camera. Not because of the lack of a jack but because the jack for the headphones is now built into the part of the two part battery grip that is closest to the camera. That moves the jack and the cable out of the way for the operator and means that if (when?) you take a hit to the headphone jack and break it the solution is to just buy another grip part; you won't have to send away the body for surgery. The grip system is now available in two configurations: you can buy just the piece closest to the body (with the front handle and control wheel) to gain the headphone jack while using the bottom part (the house of the extra battery) from your existing set-up. This, plus the continuity of the battery type, tells me that Olympus is learning to really value their current customer base. 

The next feature on my list to praise is the focus peaking during video. That's a wonderful thing for people who like to use manual lenses and do focus pulls during video. 

But considering that there are better video cameras out there when it comes to set up options, more varied and powerful codecs and the ability to do 4K (hi! Panasonic GH4) why would someone actually want to buy an Olympus EM5 2 to create video? The best answer comes right down to the awesome image stabilization built into the camera (and across their system of cameras). I've experimented with handheld video shooting using the existing EM5 and while the overall image quality isn't on par with other cameras there are lots of situations where being able to use the camera as a handheld unit with really good stabilization allows it to shoot images that are smoother that other cameras planted on handheld rigs. Sometimes just getting the shot is more important that trying to make the technical parameters of the file perfect. The new unit ups the ante by giving us a reasonably good (much better than before) video file while giving us the enhanced mobility with smoothness. 

It's like having a mini-SteadiCam in your hands but without the ruinous costs, months of training and enormous weight to deal with. I'm predicting that many sliders and jibs will lie fallow while a handheld craze sweeps web video. Mostly based around the handheld advantages of this new camera. 

In the end it all boils down to this: Do you need this camera? If you are happy with the still image quality of your EM5 or EM1 I would say no. They'll continue to provide great still images that are close to what the new camera provides (if not identical). If you plan to shoot exclusively video and use this as your primary video camera I would also say no. The Panasonic is a better moving image file generator in every respect except image stabilization (and most people who do video all the time know that the tripod is still the ultimate image stabilization tool). 

So who's going to end up buying this beside people venturing into the system for the first time (as opposed to upgrading...)???  I can see the owner of a Panasonic GH4 who shoots a lot of video adding this camera as a "B" camera. You could use it concurrently for second angle to the primary camera or you can use it instead of the GH4 when you want to imitate SteadiCam shots and create very smooth handheld moves with footage that matches up better than footage from the last generation. 

If you are primarily a still shooter and use the Olympus cameras as you primary tools this body goes a long way to move your further into the (profitable) video world by keeping you in your system of lenses and accessories while adding more audio solutions and better imaging quality (for video).  If you currently shoot primarily with an EM-5 the new camera becomes your primary camera and the older camera becomes your back-up. 

The beauty of this entire class of cameras is the combination of high image quality with high portability. The ultimate market for this camera is the photographer+videographer who is constantly traveling and documenting, interviewing and intercutting stills and video into programming. You can fit a production studio in a small case. With two really good f2.8 zooms that cover a huge range, along with a couple of microphones, a set of headphones and sack of batteries you can carry everything on to even the smallest commuter planes and be able to hit the ground and work---in both media. And you could do with the effective minimalism of a one person crew. 

Which finally begs the question----Will I buy one? You already know the answer. Whether I buy it the day it's available or wait until the middle of the product cycle I will get one. Why would I want one with all the other stuff I have floating around here? For the same reason I currently have four, nice shiny original EM5's----they punch far above their weight, are fun to carry and use and now I can add adequate video with handheld capability for those times when I want to be mobile, responsive and unencumbered by rigs and fluid head tripods. 

The interesting thing one quickly figures out in video production racket is that the "one camera" mentality of the still photographer is inefficient in the motion realm. Multiple cameras make good business sense. Not just as back-ups for each other but to use concurrently. And not all of them need to be of the ultimate quality. The primary camera should be great but second cameras that are moving can be "just good." I'm hoping that in the real world the video from the EM5-2 will be really good.  Shooting multiple angles during one take means getting a lot more done in a day. In the old days where shooting all revolved around one camera a crew needed to do multiple takes to get reaction shots, wide shots, establishing shots and close up shots. They also need to get cutaway shots. With only one camera it required moving from angle to angle and doing the scene over and over again. It sometimes becomes a continuity nightmare.

The last couple of times I did video interviews I used one camera on a tripod to the front of the interviewee, one camera 90 degrees to one side on a slider and a third from a rear angle. In post production I could go from camera to camera in editing and it worked really well. With a camera like the EM5-2 I would lose the slider and have the second camera operator shooting handheld. The more assets you have when you fire up the editing software the better. That's why we have (and use) more than one camera.

If you don't have a camera and you are a candidate for m4:3 format equipment you need to look long and hard at this one (the EM5-2) and the GH4. They are both incredible tools. They each do something different. It's okay to own both. 

If you want more info there's a good video from The Camera Store TV: Right Here


Added in the afternoon: Think maybe this time around Olympus is interested in video? Check out this commercial they made for the video side of the camera, it rocks. Olympus Action Commercial

Added at four in the afternoon:  A really good review of the camera as a video production tool by an Australian Cinematographer who mostly does feature films. He's a long term Olympus fan and he's got good samples to show. John Brawley's Blog about the EM5-2

A quick advertising note: Craftsy is offering a bunch of course at up to 50% off. It's a good way to learn new stuff. You might want to browse their photo offerings. I'll be looking at the cooking classes.....   Here's the link!

First Blush Review of the Nikon D810. Like.

Nikon D810.

The Nikon D810 is currently the best all around digital camera on the market. According to DXO the sensor inside is the highest performing one on the market (excepting the newest Sony medium format sensors, maybe...). The camera is rugged, designed to be weather resistant, uses all Nikon lenses sold since 1977, functions in automatic modes with older manual focus lenses and is available for around $3300.

Why did I want one and what am I doing with it? Hmmm. (warning, long explanation) When we hit the times of the great recession the downturn in the economy hit photography businesses harder than it hit the traditional occupations of the middle and upper middle classes in the U.S. If you had a real job and were not laid off chances are your salary did not drop even though your fear quotient may have spiked. Your direct deposit from your employer hit your bank account each month and maybe you defensively saved a bit more and spent a bit less money. You were cognizant of the pain in the general workforce. You became more practical.

As freelance photographers came to grips with the sliding economy they started to realize that, to some extent, their services and products were discretionary. A company could go on using their CEO portrait from last year or the year before. If cuts were to be made it would be in the budgets usually dedicated to external suppliers who delivered discretionary items. The heat, light, water and basic salaries of the internal workers needed to be paid for the company to continue to exist. 

Revenues for freelancers plunged as ad agencies, corporations, brides, car dealerships and just about anyone else who could pulled up the drawbridges and opted in to the siege mentality. We were like lepers or people with the black plague soliciting at the gates. In the darkest times of the great recession we had quarters where our income was reduced by half. We even had a quarter with no income. None. Zero. It was a very scary time but it was also a time of fast changes in the camera market and we were desperately concerned about being left behind as products changed and improved. We needed to be able to compete if the market offered a chance.

When I started in the business the income of a good corporate photographer, after successfully launching, was very good and the expectation was that the income would grow, month after month and year after year. Part of the model of success was that we used the very best gear and that cost a lot of money which created a lot of barriers to entry into the field. At the top of the great recession the barriers were gone, the technology was egalitarianized and there was no longer a need to own the very best gear. Especially in a market where nearly all of our output was destined directly for the web at tiny sizes and high compressions. 

While I kept my hand in the game with cameras like the Canon 5D mk2, the various (three different) Sony full frame cameras, etc. I economized where I could and made ample use of elegant, capable and less expensive, smaller format cameras. Most notably the Olympus and the Panasonic lines. But I had grown up with full frame and larger cameras and I've always liked the way various medium telephoto lenses on those bigger formats drew for portraits. 

The economy made a good recovery for me in the last two years. Clients got braver, stock valuations rose dramatically and the purchase orders flowed more smoothly and reliably than they had in the previous five years. Clients were no longer demanding to do everything on the tightest imaginable budgets. They were (are) cycling back in some sectors to the idea of higher quality as a brand signifier, higher production values as marketing differentiators. And as a supplier to them I've learned to read the tea leaves and turn on a dime. Which often makes me the target of brand loyalists who presume that I should just buy a damn camera brand and stick with it through thick and thin---like a marriage. 

But we don't run the business to please one of the brand camps. We run it to make money while doing work we really enjoy. Which brings me back to why this camera and why now.  The bigger clients have come back to roost and they are back into the pre-recession habit of demanding the best. They are also willing to pay for the best because unlike local clients they are comparing prices internationally and with those comparisons come comparisons of every facet of the production business. 

The D810 isn't the "best camera in the world" it's the best, reasonably affordable, high performance camera in the world. My psychological damage from the last downturn precludes me from being comfortable enough to rush out and buy a Phase One or the Leica S2 that I would really like but I've conquered enough of my fear to be able to spend more and get more than I did several years ago.

Several of my current clients are heading back to trade shows and returning to producing high end print collateral, point of purchase posters and the like. They don't care about the religion of the format wars they just want to pull the largest resolution files they can get into InDesign and not have to do extreme interpolations to get where they need to go. To a certain extent all of the 24 megapixel cameras are a move in the right direction but the 36 megapixel camera is in a different class and the files are demonstrably more detailed for those kinds of uses. I sweated bullets delivering multiple files destined to be 24 by 36 inch posters last Summer using the Panasonic GH4 and its 16 megs. In late Fall, when a similar project arose I decided not to use the Nikon D7100 (24 megapixel) camera I had in hand but to rent a medium format, 40 megapixel camera for the project. What we accomplished with a Panasonic GH4, with sweat and technical brinkmanship we accomplished with ease in the final delivery of files that started out nearly three times as big from the MF camera.

Late last Fall I began testing the Nikon D800 to see how close it would come to the medium format cameras and I was pleased to find that it was within striking range for my uses. Tightening up technique on my part would narrow the distance even more. 

I'm a month into owning and using the D810 and here's what I've experienced so far: The camera with good lenses is as big and heavy as I remembered full frame cameras being. The files are enormous and converting a file folder full of raw images takes a lot of time even on a fairly fast computer. From a workflow point of view I'm still inclined to grab a 16 megapixel camera whenever I know we won't be going really large. The workflow is just so much faster. 

But when we need quality I grab for the D610. If we need more image quality I fire up the D810. While the cameras are larger and a bit unwieldy for a guy with small to medium sized hands the quality of the files makes up for the clumsiness of the package.

Recently I used the D610 and the D810 to document the dress rehearsal of "Peter and the Starcatcher." It's a play/musical at Zach Theater. I was delighted with the performance and more than one blog reader wrote to ask if the lighting had been totally different for this play (no) because the images were the best they had ever seen in all the years that I've been posting live theater stage shots. 

The two main differences that I saw had to do with how well the cameras nailed the white balance (really good flesh tones that did not require much correction in post) and how much sheer dynamic range there was in the files. The highlights in scenes were much less prone to blow out and the shadows were more detailed without the attendant encroachment of noise.  That was one test with about 450 images shot on the D810. One thing I did notice is that at 3200 ISO the D610 handles shadow noise better than the D810. 

The next shoot I did was different. All the variables were removed. I used the D810 on a tripod and I used studio strobes in soft boxes to make a series of images of three actors for an upcoming play. The combination of the hefty tripod and the brief exposure of the flash, along with a custom white balance and calculated exposures at an ISO of 200 was eye opening. From a three quarter shot of three actors I could zoom into a part of one actor's face before I hit 100%. And at that magnification the file was relatively noise free and highly detailed. It was amazingly good. And in the least compressed raw file at 14 bits each individual file was also 72 megabytes. Again, a trade off that is not always practical or necessary. 

In the end I've come to understand the D810 (at least here in the early days) as a substitute for a medium format camera. In this analogy my Olympus EM-5 cameras are like the 35mm film cameras of yesteryear (the film years...). They are the cameras of reportage and journalism because they make high quality files and can be carried (comfortably) everywhere. Not every file will need to go up past 16x20 inches. Not every situation will allow for large, intrusive gear. It's nice to have options. 

Finally, I spent yesterday testing the video on the Nikon D810. There is one thing I already know I dislike and that's the way the audio is set up. You can use external microphones and you can even set manual levels but you can't change the levels while you are recording. That's too bad because sometimes you really need to ride the levels with vitriolic speakers in sessions.

At the highest quality settings the video from the camera looks good. I experimented using the Flat Profile which is engineered to be something like an S-log profile in a professional video camera. Flat produces files with lots of dynamic range but they look flat. You have to interpret them in whatever editing software you use. It takes a little time to get right but the files look very good and very natural when you take the effort. The files straight out of the camera are the usual 24 mbs AVCHD variants but the camera is set up to output uncompressed files via HDMI for people who need higher imaging quality in video. The low budget fix is to buy an Atomos Ninja Star digital recorder and capture the uncompressed signals onto Cfast memory cards (a new video standard memory solution). You can set the Ninja Star to record them in three different variants of ProRes which is the editing file format of choice for Final Cut Pro X. While the uncompressed files take up more space on the CFast card (you'll need more storage) they don't need to be converted to be used in editing so it makes the editing process easier and faster.

The GH4 produces a sharper looking video file and has tons more options to use. It's the better camera from a set up and use point of view as well. The Nikon drags one right back to the age of putting a loupe over the screen to see what you are getting in live view. With the GH4 you have an EVF that tells all. At lower ISO settings the GH4 is the best choice in the lower priced video arena. The only parameters where the D810 wins by a clear margin is that it has less noise in higher ISO settings and the depth of field control gives one more options. While I am not a proponent of having just a narrow slice of stuff in focus with everything else turning to anonymous mush one of my friends to whom I sometimes lend the GH4 had a heck of a time sloughing off enough focus to do an interview and drop the screen of a monitor that showed in the background far enough out of focus to obscure some information on the screen. He was restricted to shooting in a tight space and a bit less DOF would have been aesthetically more appropriate. That might have been a time and place for the larger format camera.

I am not Philip Bloom and I don't work in the rarified atmosphere of feature films or narrative television programming. I'm okay with the idea that most of my video productions will be consumed on the web at a compressed 1280 by 720. With that in mind the D810 is a good production camera for industrial work and the inevitable interviews. That being written I am also looking forward to see what kind of progress the people who create hacks for various "hybrid" cameras will do with the Nikon cameras. There is a site called, Nikon Hacker, that is publishing hacks for various Nikons that vastly increase the video bit rate of the cameras with attendant increases in image quality. I'm looking forward to the day when they have a safe D810 hack that doubles the bit rate. And I'm hoping even more that Nikon will do the hack themselves in the firmware. I'd rather have strong, mature 2K than quick and dirty 4K but I'm sure the next generation of all the cameras will deliver 4K just to keep achieving parity. 

So, here's my list of what I like about the Nikon D810:

1. Flat Profile. Cool and it works well. 

2. 36 megapixels of good imaging, no AA filter. Files that clients love.

3. Nice finder.

4. Quiet shutter (thank God!).

5. Good rear screen. 

6. Amazing auto white balance.

7. Feels very rugged.

8. Fairly priced. I'm happy this sensor and camera performance came in a  "non-pro" body. The last pro body I bought from Nikon was the D2xs at nearly $6,000. The D810 is clearly at least twice the performance for half the cost. 

9. The movie mode is very uncomplicated which means less to set wrong in fast moving situations.

10. Works with a big range of my existing Nikon lenses (nods to the 105 f2.5, the 25-50mm f4 and all the wonderful micro lenses).

Here's what I am less happy with:

1. It's heavy and big. But I knew that going in. 

2. The files are huge and require a lot of processing power and storage to use. But I knew that going in. 

3. I miss the feedback and information of a good EVF.

4. I am reminded every time I use it in the street (not on assignment) that it is obvious, intimidating and big. It screams: "Baby boomer with bigass camera." Instead of: "Cool guy with small camera."

5. I wish there were more codec choices in the video. Would love an "All I" format...

6. Um. What slow witted audio designer decided that we wouldn't need to adjust audio during a take? Fire him. Get that Sony guy who put the rotary control on the front of the a99 to do one of those.

7.  Buying new lenses. 

8.  The battery life sucks compared to the pro Nikons (and even to a well broken in Panasonic GH4 battery. In fact the Nikon SUCKS down battery juice in video to a startling degree in comparison).

9.  Bigger format means bigger and heavier lenses.

10. Ignites desire for Sigma Art lenses or Zeiss Otus lenses. 

Here's my advice: If you are a working professional with clients who like traditional imaging then you might want to have one of these around for demanding projects. Or stuff where you and the client really want to drop backgrounds out of focus. Get one if you are a Nikon user and you want to upgrade from a DX camera to a full frame camera. Get one if you are a medium format shooter and need to downsize because your clients are no longer willing to pay for the benefits derived from the larger format and you still need to make money. 

Don't buy it if you are happy with the camera you are shooting right now. If you are a portrait photographer only you'll do just as well with a 24 megapixel camera like the D610 or the D750. If you are a Canon shooter you should seriously wait to see if the Canon rumors are correct and their new 50+ megapixel camera is coming soon. It's supposed to be a direct competitor to the D810 and you probably already have lots and lots of their very good lenses. Don't buy one if you are shooting Fuji or Olympus or Panasonic because you like the smaller sizes and the amazing range of lenses. It's the opposite. 

Finally, if you are mostly a video shooter don't buy this camera unless you've already got your GH4 for day to day production work. Once you've mastered that camera then consider the big Nikon for DoF control and some high ISO work (although the D750 would be a better choice for lower noise...).

I bought the camera because I'm 59 years old, the recession is over and I wanted to shoot with a camera right now that no client can object to. That's a whole different metric than shooting with a camera for one's personal enjoyment exclusively. It's a business decision and every business decision has a psychological component. I can't be more honest than that.