Créer l'étincelle

 On parle beaucoup d'impact quand on parle d'une photographie sinon de l'œuvre photographique d'un-e auteur-e en particulier. Qu'il s'agisse d'une impression ou d'une émotion qui génère une interprétation et, peut-être, une réaction motivée par elle, la photographie transmet par son message visuel une sorte d'impulsion à ne pas rester indifférent et même totalement passif.

Il y a d'abord le sujet photographique qui en soi nous interpelle. Ensuite il y a son traitement, i.e. la technique utilisée pour le rendre sur papier ou sur l'écran bi-dimensionnel. Il y a aussi sa diffusion qui crée son public ou son audience. Enfin il y a surtout son effet individuel et/ou collectif qui détermine sa pérennité temporaire ou même prolongée dans nos esprits. 

Parmi la multitude des photographies de ce monde qu'il est bien impossible d'appréhender en nombre et en qualité, il subsiste parfois quelques images d'impact dont la pertinence, contestée ou non, ont joué un rôle déterminant dans nos sociétés humaines. Et ce n'est pas seulement dans une perspective de notre histoire récente mais aussi d'un point de vue documentaire. Ces images quasi-iconiques nous poursuivent et parfois nous hantent sans relâche et surtout nous interpellent de réagir même si parfois nous leur détournons du regard.

Le contexte d'une prise de vue et de sa diffusion joue aussi un rôle essentiel dans l'impact qu'elle peut générer. Cela réfère tant par le sujet choisi qu'en vertu de son environnement physique et thématique. La qualité seule d'une oeuvre photographique ne peut être garante de son impact même si son auteur est manifestement talentueux ou innovateur dans sa performance iconographique. En un mot, une image si exceptionnelle qu'elle paraisse  ne garantit pas sa renommée.

L'importance du partage photographique ne peut être négligé. S'il est vrai qu'il arrivait parfois qu'une oeuvre artistique soit découverte ou redécouverte longtemps après son réalisation, le monde d'aujourd'hui semble moins valoriser la recherche historique authentique pour s'attacher au passé virtuel souvent réinventé au goût du jour. Il y a donc une certaine urgence pour un-e photographe de s'assurer de la diffusion de son oeuvre et d'essayer d'amorcer une dialogue sur son impact. Bien sûr, l'univers Internet peut permettre des avenues communicantes dont la valeur varie mais rien ne peut remplacer le contact direct et physique (en personne) d'avec son auditoire.

***

Créer l'étincelle ne se limite pas seulement à l'idée du sujet photographique et/ou à son traitement mais cela englobe toute la dimension communicative qu'elle propose. C'est un effort créatif qui va au delà du pinceau, des pigments et du canevas de l'oeuvre picturale.

Photos Daniel M

What is affordable?

 It is a good question since in these present days that the electronic devices seem to be more and more expensive and that the manufacturers appear on their part to easy forget to refresh almost completely their entry-level line of products. And we are not speaking only about photographic goods here. Just look what is happening to the smartphone/tablet/computer market where the selling price level appears to upscale with every new generation introductions.

The basic argue in regard of entry-level photographic equipment availability is to facilitate the non-users or the newcomers to introduce themselves to the photographic activities. On a longer term, it implicate for some of them to further invest and upscale their photo gear. For many years it has been a general trend in the photo industry that small to big manufacturers have followed this "no say" rule without digression. But today things are changing when many of those iconic trade marks have decided to concentrate their offer to a more "niche" market that will be more profitable.  So, exit the "amateur" products except for the very basic (strip down) ones. 

It is futile to recap what is happened since the last decade but the trend is evident and many can ask rightly if traditional photography has been really became a true democratic practice when the digital age has reached its mature status. The next few years will certainly will confirm or not this assertion. Otherwise you can also question what is in fact affordable? Sure for a privileging part of our society, owning an expensive camera is possible although it is still a daring material choice to do. But for the other large segment of the total population it is still a luxury that many may avoid for financial reasons. 

Looking through the todays manufacturer offer, it is hard to find traditional digital cameras (with interchangeable lens - ILC) that will not exceed at least $600US or €600 and the selection of these products is limited. Yes, on the comparative level, this price point can be seen as similar to what we have observed fifty years ago at a time of doing traditional analog-film photography was also very expensive not only for the gear ownership but also for the operating cost. The big difference is the affordable promising times that the introduction of digital photography let us to anticipated as a cheap and sophisticated mass produced product appears to be long gone. This market peak didn't survive very long before its brutal collapse in favor of the large smartphone adoption. 

 After the popular saying that the traditional digital photo cameras were mainly addressed to the older generation, it appears that the youngest one are rediscovering the joy to use real or pseudo (dixit compact cameras w/fix optic) photo oriented devices. But will this trendy novelty really signify a return interest for photography as a distinctive visual expression even an art by itself? It has to be proven in the next years and furthermore the future decades. For the moment, it looks like a fashion phenomena for wearing a certain type of photo gear (like jewelry) and pretend to be a photographer (a kind of modern mascarade). 

***

The question of "affordability" in photography is may be more related to its place in our present society. On a personal base as for into the collective one, photography has been use to document people and its surrounding as an interpretive testimony of our times but it looks today that this activity is becoming less pertinent in our "no reflexion" changing world...

Photos Daniel M

Resetting a Design (Panasonic Lumix G95 vs G85)

 Being a big fan of the Panasonic Lumix G85 camera model since its introduction in 2016 (during the last true Photokina event in Cologne 😢), I was wondering what can be really improved with its replacement version Lumix G95 (or G97)* except for sure the image sensor definition that have been enhanced from 16MP to 20MP. Even though considering this added image definition, the Pana Lumix G95 (or G97) may not represent a strong departure from its ever popular G85 predecessor. 

What was a first turn-off in favor of the beloved Lumix G85 was the bulkier camera body of the Lumix G95 (or G97) not by a lot I agree, but sufficiently to bother you. Secondly the dial controls texture and presentation do have a different feel for the user although the push buttons of the G95 have a more positive clicking feeling and are better positioned. The top of flash pseudo-pentaprism of the Lumix G95 is triangular opposed the flat one of the Lumix G85 that give to the new model a less simpler design. 

If you looking on every angles the two camera models, it is clear that the newest Lumix G95 is bigger in dimensions compare to the previous Lumix G85. But the two models are using the same accessories including the battery pack, the electronic flash models and the battery grip. So, why the latest G95(or G97) is been the biggest? May be because it is a mystery of the electronic embarked into these model replacements. With a new 20MP image sensor, the Lumix G95 may ask for an additional space to accommodate it. 

Another explanation could be that the Lumix G95 (or G97) are manufactured with a totally different camera body. Many differences are noticeable like the larger camera grip or the re-localisation of several push buttons. As for the additionnel headphone port added to the Lumix G95 (or G97). There is no doubt that both Lumix G85 and G95( or G97) are sharing a lot of technical elements outside or inside but their configuration seems to be slightly different. Moreover the general feeling for some Lumix G85 regular users is that the Lumix G95(or G97) don't carry the same construction quality level and the same fineness of design. 

In terms of performance the Lumix G95 offers some avancements like a more definite image sensor or like some extended functionalities no present on the previous Lumix G85 (Live Composite Mode, BlueTooth, Headphone Port, etc). But except for the sensor, you can expect the same behavior from the two models, same performance for auto-focusing, for exposure metering, for reactivity in  general, for video capacity and many other similar characteristics. All these camera models (G85, G95, G97) are weather resistant which is excellent for outdoor assignations. The Lumix G85 is less energy-consuming than the G95(or G97) and have also a power indicator green light.

***

All in all, I have a net preference for the original Lumix G85** over the G95(or G97) because the latter reflect a non-desirable tendency in the photo industry to offer new versions of camera that are bigger in dimensions which is the last thing many photographers are looking for. For them, compact cameras are still a better choice to use everyday. 

___

*All these Panasonic Lumix G camera models have different nominations depending in which country they are offered. G85 can be G80 or G81; G95 can be G90 or G91; G97 seems to be universal. A new version of the G95 named G95D is using an improved rear screen.

**The Panasonic Lumix G85 may have the best optional vertical power grip (DMW-BGG1) that I ever experimented in term of ergonomic and functionalities. Its balance is remarquable especially when used with a physically longer lens or zoom optic. This combination has been slightly altered with the succeeded G95 (or G97) model.   

Illustrations: © 2020 camera decision.com

Two Styles *, One User.

 * ... of viewfinder configuration

More than only the electronic viewfinder (EVF) definition, it might be the configuration of them that will definite the style of photographic approach the user will adopt in front of his/her main subject. Most of today's EVFs are good enough to get a good evaluation of the picture focusing clarity as for the exposure accuracy. But the EVF position on the camera body can be also determinant of how you will behave yourself as a photographer. 

Since the two inventions of the rangefinder camera and  of the pentaprism reflex models, the never finished debate rages over the photo planet: What is the best system of viewfinder? No final answer has been ever found but many have concluded that each of these different optical viewfinder configurations have their own advantages and ... flaws*! With electronic viewfinders, there is no more mechanical constraint for configuring its physical position on the camera body and what you see will be what you get. So, what is the point from now?

To be more specific today, the EVF configuration can be designed according the manufacturer inspiration of the moment. It simply replicate what we use to say during the analog-film era. Some technical astuces have been proposed over time like the presence of an in-board electronic flash over the EVF or the mobile off-center EVF that is tilt-able like a waist level finder. Beside those ones, the EVF performances will stay about the same. Some of them will get a better definition, a faster reactivity or/and a longer eye point. 

The "Rangefinder Planet" (off lens centered viewfinder) very popular at the introduction of the digital photography era are phasing down a lot for the profit of the centered EVFs (like the old pentaprism reflex viewfinder). You can still have access to some models like the Sony's or Fujifilm's ones in the APS-C or Full sensor image format. In the M4/3 image sensor format category, no actual new models are available if you except some ancient stock still found through  photo dealers here and there. It is a pity considering that "rangefinder style" (or off lens centered viewfinder) cameras are preferred by many street or travel photographers for their small size body dimensions and their notorious discretion in face of the main subject. Many are hoping that OM System and Panasonic will issued new versions of their Pen-F or GX series. 

The "Reflex" category refers to the lens centered viewfinders which are perfect for action photography and are easier to apprehend in terms of final perspective and subject physical position from the context without continually consulting the EVF. Sports, nature, macro photographic assignations are often better served by this type of viewfinder. Presence of an electronic flash that pop-up a little higher is also an interesting advantage if the option is available. However these camera models are usually bigger and heavier that the "rangefinder style" counterpart but hand prehension. larger functional push buttons and dials and fully articulated rear viewing screen are undeniable advantages proper to the neo-reflex EVFs. It is also notorious perception that a lens centered viewfinder seems better suited for tripod/monopod working set-up.

*** 

In regards of these two EVF styles, I have never be able to make a definite conclusion in favor of one from the other. It may be a question of what creative mood the photographer is trying to experiment. Let's hope that these two EVF configuration options will be maintained and expanded in the future for the benefit for all the enthusiasm photographers.

_____

* Optical viewfinder flaws and advantages: For the rangefinder, it was the parallax phenomena that present a different framing than the actual taken picture especially for short distance subjects but the rangefinder cameras have a reputation to be "silent" cameras because of the absence of the return mirror mecalnisism present into the reflex models and moreover the focusing by superposed images is often see as faster and more efficient. For the pentaprism reflex finder, it was the brief moment of blackness during the very exact picture taking moment but the precision of final picture framing and the accuracy of the final subject perspective were their big advantages over the rangefinder viewfinders. 

Photos Daniel M

Fix on Prime!

 Zoom lenses have obviously dominated the traditional photographic gear market for several years if not now decades but with the smartphone overwhelming popularity, the prime optics are coming back in an interesting fashion way. It has been transposed with some new iconic camera models such as the Fujifilm X100 or the Leica Q series (and many other offers). 

 The benefices of selecting a prime (fix focal length) lens are multiple. More compact package, less weight, larger maximum aperture for better discriminate the main subject from the foreground/background (bokeh), easier way to focus with the simpler lens construction are amount the most renowned advantages compare to the bulkier zoom optics. They are also much more discrete to operate in context and are less intimidated in front of your subject. And the prime lens can be versatile as long you agree to move yourself (physically) to get different points of views.

Prime lens have also limitations as they offer a fixed perspective that depend on their own fix focal length. It has the basic consequence to be obligated on specific contexts and diverse needs to change with other more appropriated lenses like the wide-angle or the telephoto ones. That is strongly illustrated by the use of different lenses on the more sophisticated smartphone models of today. With traditional cameras it induce the necessity of interchange different prime lenses or to simple use more than only one camera body as it was the rule during the analog-film photographic era.

Many good photographers of yesterday as today will kept their photo gear to a minimum of one lens/one camera only combination. It is inherent to their own signature technique and their iconic results simply reflect their master of the medium. And keep in mind that even one camera with one lens can be a very expensive outfit. For them it is not a real compromise as they are able to get an optimum in terms of creativity and output quality with these diminutive photo equipment.

With the compact image sensor formats such as APS-C and Micro Four Third (M4/3), the selection of products is very diversified and the manufacturers like Fujifilm, Olympus/OM System and Panasonic have been very prolific over times without speaking of some more exotic third-party ones. 

A "standard" lens for a "normal" photographer. Is it possible to be so definitive in regard what would be a basic optic for everyone? No, for sure, and mainly because we don't cherish necessarily the same visual approach for our surrounding universe. And because photography is, like other media or arts, a very subjective manner that can sustain a lot of different interpretations from the technique used to the final composition of the image we want to expose and to share. The choice of a particular lens plays a major role in this individual quest. 

We can categorize the prime lenses into some "elastic" segments like wide angle, normal or standard and telephoto ones. We can add specialized optics for macro, astronomical, medical, etc. The list is long and imperfect in view of the continual introductions of new optics over time.

 A Normal View. Many lenses has been designed to replicate the perspective and the proportion similar to what we usually see with our own naked eyes. Some models of those optics have a wider angle of view nor others have a more cropped composition. To take the example of the M4/3 image sensor format, focal lengths like the 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 42.5 and 45mm could easily fall in that category. These lenses are easy to pre-visualize and to apprehend for the final recorded picture. They are physically compact and they have a good maximum aperture except may be for the very tiny ones (pancake type). They are also the cheapest available except for the F1.2 to F1.4 models. You can get from them a better deep of field control that help to discriminate the main subject from its contextual surrounding. Many classic photographers use to work with them most of time and get outstanding pictures. For others, these "normal" lenses have been a good starting point to emulate to a different category of optics.

 Reach your subject. Cropping and compression are ones of the most interesting features of the (long) telephoto lenses. Longer focal lengths of 60, 75, 90mm and more (m4/3 format examples here) are part of this category of optics. They are larger and longer in size by definition and often have a smaller maximum aperture except for the most expensive ones. They discriminate further the main subject from its context. Portrait, sport, animal, architectural details even macro photo among many others are examples of the type of photo assignments given to the telephotos. And they are not discrete and accordingly a lot more intimidating. Using the very long telephoto will ask special care from the photographer especially for its handling (stabilization) and exposure (shutter/speed selections) techniques. Focusing can be critical since the deep of field of telephoto appears to be narrowed (in fact it is the image compression that produce this effect). For all these reasons telephoto lenses are more difficult to master that it seems at first. 

 Entering the context. With wide angle (of view) optics the photographer will be incited to physically be nearer from its subject and its context. These lenses ( 12mm or smaller focal lengths in M4/3 format) are mean to be used in close range photographic situations as for panoramic purposes (that include astronomical tasks). They are not as popular as their telephoto counterparts partly because they are more difficult to master and to apprehend (visualize). Their big advantage on assignation is their smaller size and their better maximum aperture (F2.8 or larger). The wide angle optics are often associated with an apparent strong deep of field, a direct consequence of the decompression effect of these lenses. Because of that, hyperfocal setting will help the photograph to maintain a larger focusing margin that is appreciated in spontaneous photography like in travel or urban situations. You have also to consider that wide angle are subject to linear convergences if the lens is tilted from its ideal horizontal position. This effect can be as creative like as distractive. Street photographers often fully appreciate the complete potential of the wide angle optics. 

 Small is better. Macro photography is oriented to the discoverer a small universe that is rich in details and interpretations.  Macro lenses are specialized in part because only few of them are selling compare the other categories such as telephotos or wide angles. The macro optics use the be called "flat field" lenses oppose to the "curvy field" of all the others. We don't know for sure if the todays macro are still characterized by this specific factor but most of them have at least an higher definition with often a more precise color reddition. Focusing is very critical in close range of your subject and deep of field is strictly limited (almost not). Because of these constraints, the macro lenses are typically slower to operate and don't have a very large maximum aperture (F2.8-3.5). The focal length of these specialized lenses are ranging from 30mm, 45mm, 60mm to 90mm ( M4/3 format). The macro lenses with longer focal length (45, 60, 90mm)  will leave a little more space between the optic and the subject preventing that way less light interference. The shorters one can be used as "normal" lenses and the the longer ones as "portrait" optics.

 Oddy ones. That is leaving with the very specialized lenses such as fisheyes, medical purpose optics like the dental ones, super long telephotos, etc. All these represent some sort of niche photography and their functionality is reflecting their special use. Communally they are not very versatile photographic tools. A preliminary rental for a first try on may a more reasonable way to start your experiment of them. 

***

Using a prime lens will ask you a different commitment physically, technically and creatively on your part. In other words, they are fine photographic tools with further exigences but the final results may often plus value the additional effort.  Among their avantages, they simplify certains choices, facilitate your approach (no more zooming), give you better exposure and focusing latitude and they less intrusive. On the back side they limit your focal length versatility and oblige you to be more pro-active. It is up to you to become or not of their adepts. 

____

(First illustration) The Superlative Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75mm F1.8, the first real pro optic from Olympus before the official introduction of their designated Pro line of lenses.

(Second illustration) A classic Olympus OM-D E-M5 II / M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8 camera body/lens combination picture example.

(Third illustration) Micro Four Third format at its best with a light body/lens package, a fast optic and an outstanding output image definition (Panasonic Lumix GX85/G 42.5mm F1.7 Power OIS).

(Fourth illustration) The "cannot resist" Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75mm F1.8

(Fifth illustration) A "in between wide-normal" lens like the Lumix G 20mm F1.7 II give you both a contextual and a detailed picture.

(Sixth illustration) A piece of Macro with the Olympus M.Zuiko ED 60mm F2.8

Photos Daniel M: Olympus OM-D E-M1 II / M.Zuiko ED 12-40mm F2.8; Olympus OM-D E-M5 II/ M.Zuiko 45mm F1.8; Panasonic Lumix G85 / G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Power OIS; Olympus OM-D E-M5 II / M.Zuiko ED 75mm F1.8; Panasonic Lumix GX7 / G 20mm F1,7 II; Olympus OM-D E-M5 II / M.Zuiko ED 60mm F2.8 Macro

Travel light

  If you are the kind of person who wants to deplace yourself with a minimum of objects you are not obviously alone in your search to get less stuff to bring and transport with you. That said you can consider that a iPhone or smartphone is the ultimate device for communication, documentation or photographic purposes. However most of these mobile phones have functionalities that are facing certain limitations even though their different manufacturers are racing to produce new generation of products that are better performing than the preceding.

If you are more a photo traditionalist, you prefer to use a device that reflect its specialized purpose especially if you are looking for characteristics like a real viewfinder or for lens interchangeability. These technical considerations still prevent the photographer to adopt the "mobile" way of doing pictures.

Another aspect to consider is the basic discretion now asked in this controversial world. The candid era of photography is long time gone because people are more and more defiant of what photographers are intended to do with their pictures especially if you are perceive as a professional one with a big camera you enter easily in that category. Small cameras are seen far less serious (dixit "amateur") and can be operate more liberately around you in different contexts. This is not really new but the tendency have been accentuated over the years and the decades.

For all these reasons and for sure others non-mentioned here, small size camera gear appears to be the right choice for many photographers who travel or are simply documenting their immediate surrounding. With my modest experience over the years, I have learned to privilege two type of camera-lens combinations. The "street one" like the Panasonic Lumix GX85 w/G Vario 12-32mm or the Olympus Pen-F w/M.Zuiko 17mm, or the "sport/nature alternative" like the Panasonic Lumix G85 w/G Vario 12-60mm or the Olympus OM-D E-M5 III w/M.Zuiko 14-150mm II (Similar examples can be found for Fujifilm APS-C products). All these examples are using a Micro Four Third (M4/3) image sensor. In any case those camera models are smaller in body/lens dimensions than their big brothers equipped with a larger image sensor format.

On the other hand the "one camera/ one (zoom) lens" combination is not a new concept by far. It facilitates the general approach to do photography. It is better for anticipation, for handling, for operation, etc. It prevents cumbersome gear manipulations that are slowing the photographer reactivity. For the subject it is less intimidating and simplify the interaction with the photographer. Some are avoiding part of this by using two cameras already coupled with a different optic (which was very popular with focal fix lenses) but again it represent more gear to bring with you and manage on place. As same having your camera already on hand without its front lens cap make a lot of sense.*

And how about to select a good compact camera model with a fixed optic (no interchangeable lens). That may be an excellent tool for the traveller despite some technical limitations that usually are the lens factor (too slow or not enough focal length versatility) and the viewfinder system (if there is one!). But the idea of a perfect compact companion like some Fujifilm (X100 Series) or from Sony to name just a few is excellent and could be very productive from a creative photographic point of view. With these camera models, you will free to take pictures at will and without constraints. And these compacts w/fix lens will give you a lot better definition on your pictures files to play with when you choose to edit them compare with the ones taken by a mobile phone.

*** 

Travel light is a good step forward to enhance your photographic experience and to ease effectively your journey. All gear combinations can be considered as long they suit you. At the end it simply prolongs the joy to do photography.

______________________

* Using a protecting neutral filter may be the best solution to that.

Photos Daniel M: Olympus OM-D E-M5 III / M.Zuiko ED 14-150mm II ; Panasonic Lumix GX85 / G Vario 12-32mm F3.5-5.6 Mega OIS