The need of photographing

Why is it pertinent today in this all-video world to made photography? The question seems to raise when you are looking to all these photographic reviews done over the Net in vlog formats oppose to the traditional blogs. I am not arguing the pertinence of using video to illustrate a review of anything. For sure it can be more captivating to watch a live performance than to read a lengthiness text filled with several paragraphs of fine characters.

But what about photography versus cinematic imagery? The debate isn't new since the creation of cinematographic devices by such the Lumière brothers. And since those past times the two visual media have been coexisted almost flawlessly. In fact what is photography? A fixed moment in a fixed context with a fixed subject. A kind of instant freeze by the camera on a material or a virtual support. So photography is a very selective exercice in space and time. And that picture is available to be analyze throughly by our brain bit by bit a thing almost impossible when you look at animated picture. And that selectivity is done on place (opposed to a latter pick taken on the stream of animated pictures) at the exact moment we have chosen to register the picture.

Life is an endless decisive moments chain which imply an array of interactions impossible to really apprehend in their totality as nobody is truly omniscient. So we always are selecting part and fraction of that chain of facts, events, emotions, etc. We can say that we are constantly photographing fragments of our reality. Our memory of the flux of life is a king of home-brain-made assembly of fugitive moments that leaves perceptions translated by interpretations.

So doing photography is meanly an intuitive habit that everybody is doing implicitly. It is when we try to reproduce that human reflex on an external support that will be available for our fellows that photography is becoming a medium more difficult to master. In that case technical limitations can be overwhelming to the profane who is trying to mimic his visual interpretation of the subject with a bi-dimensional (2-D) representation. Limitations are the kind of bread that every photographers have to consume to be able to express their visual perceptions.

But the point stays true. Photography is one of the best representation of the human mind selectivity and stays as pertinent as it was on its first days. The real challenge today is to encourage the photographers to complete the entire circle of producing photographs on print support to really finalize the process and allow a better preservation of the picture for future generations.

Digital Black & White Photography

Since the invention of modern photograph black and white representation have played a key role into the evolution of the medium. For sure color reddition have been preferred over time for its own added pictural information that eventually partly if not almost completely submerge the black and white (B&W) image reproduction. But suffise to mention that still today color processing is using multi layers of B&W sensitive areas with added applied color to the get the final result.

But the real question for the photographic enthousiasms of this world is that black and white stays a pertinent way of recording and later diffuse an image output? Because the digital media photo output is now so cheap and easy to obtain that  can be very simple to skip the choice between color and B&W reedition and rely in post-processing to make your final decision. So why working in B&W during your picture taking session? Is it redondant? Yes and no because even if it is true that the post treatment possibilities offer the final choice it remains impossible to modifie certains basic photo parameters after the fact like your picture taken position (angle of view) or the moment of the exposure. Those critical element depend on the initial selection done on the very premises of the subject.

I wont argue here the virtues of every way of doing photography because in fact they are all justified by the creativity involved in every different processes experimented by the auteur. My point is the following. With contemporary digital camera there is a big new window opened for the B&W photographs in a way that you can actually previsualize your result on screen before the final picture taking action. And that the most interesting aspect of it. No more imperfect (at the most) polaroid tests on the spot to rely. What you over your back screen or electronic viewfinder or your external screen is the "real" visual output. And the technical advancement give a capital advantage to work your B&W output right on the spot something ever dreamed during the traditional film photography era.

Doing black and white pictures
As for many others picture reproduction techniques doing B&W photography have its own requirements and limitations. A beautiful color scene doesn't always be translated in a magnificent B&W picture. Sometimes yes sometimes definitively not. Because in part of the fact that the color palette offer psychological contrast (between the colors) that BW gray scale is not able to reproduce totally or simply not at all. So different gray patches will blend each other and the final results will be dull and the image information will be difficult to decode. So as you can presume contrast is a key point in B&W photography.

As for any photographic processes the exposure (the light levels distribution) is another critical aspect to consider. Because your own eye has a very larger dynamic light perception between the highlight and the lowlight it has been always a challenge to produce image captor that can be able to mimic human eye perception. Today our recent image sensor have revolutionized that frontier limitation at a point never dreamed a few decades ago. But still the exposure factor is another key to faithfully master in order to get the full palette of gray tonal you need. On the opposite side you can always redirect you exposure setting to discriminate voluntary part of the gray scale you don't want to register as for example in creating silhouette subjects.

Toning voluntary or not B&W photograph is not a new feature in photography. In the past during the film photography era many paper supports were generating different white tonal renditions from cool to warm as for paper chemical developers that were able to "tint" the silver oxide of the black and gray areas of the picture. Those possibilities have been incorporated in the inboard camera image processors or/and the post processing image applications. It is up to you to decide to register an already (tone) altered image or to wait et the post processing stage of it.

B&W photography enhance graphic value by concentring the attention of the looker on the lines, on the forms and the texture of the subject. Tridimensional perception in B&W depends greatly of the composition of your picture. It rely also on the previous visual experiences of the people who will look at it. So selecting, positioning and exposing your main subject are important tasks to fulfill in the creation of a B&W image that will show impact and got a story to tell. Foreground and background will contribute to let the eye to prior focusing on the first glimpse then to voyage over all the picture but they can also play as a distraction of the main message of your picture.

The expression of your main living subject will create a major impact to the first perception of the image because as human we will be attracted especially in B&W by the "face" of the subject. So interaction between the photographer and its model or subject is basically what we apprehend at first. Eyes, mouth and facial expression may be the most difficult photographic aspects to master a spontaneous or not portrait.

(Partial B&W photography and special effects)
Another interest optional feature present in some digital photographic camera is the possibility to remove the entire color palette in profit of only one selected. In that way we create a kind of B&W picture with added color. These studies can be interesting if you carefully compose your image and most important don't forget to still focus on the impact and story of the subject. An array of different "special" and easy photographic effects is now available in digital photography. The danger is that you can distract your auditoire from the main subject as many people can simply skip it.

Finally I cannot emphasizes more the importance to explore the medium. Your (documented) research will help you to raffine your quest of a better picture that will suit your own visual expression. Because at the end B&W photography is just another way to communicate your perception of your living surrounding.

The Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Power OIS: the indispensable.

It was a bit of a surprise for many of us when the new Panasonic Lumix GX9 has been presented in Canada in combination (only) with the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Power OIS. At that point we were anticipating a different lens combo match with may be a smaller size zoom lens or even a fix focal length optic. But Panasonic not only maintain this combo-offer but have issued a new one with the introduction of the newest Panasonic Lumix G95 (G90) leaving no doubt about the sustainability of the Lumix G Vario 12-60mm Power OIS standard zoom lens.

I have already did a short french review of this enduring standard zoom lens because I have always thinking that it has been underrated very often especially with the apparition of the newest Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 12-60mm F2.8-4 Power OIS as an high-end alternative.

The first important think to mention about the Lumix G Vario 12-60mm OIS is its very low price point if you decide to buy the combo kit. And honestly you are not loosing anything because the optic can be used either as an A or B lens option in your camera kit. It is light, weather resistant and the stabilization function is efficient when you need it. Its overall size is small considering its focal length variation. Its major drawback is its modest maximum aperture that will prevent you to get shallower deep of field and ask you to use higher ISO setting in low-light situations.

The ergonomic of the Lumix G Vario 12-60mm OIS is good. The zoom ring control is large and easy to identify. The focus control ring is narrower and offer a moderate resistance without any turning limit (which is not really ideal for manual focusing). The filter accessory size is 58mm and the dedicated (plastic) bayonet mount lens hood (reversible for stocking) is included with the product package.

Having the possibility to use a wide angle of view of 84 degrees (for a 12mm focal length in MFT image sensor format) has been always an advantage cherished by many photographers. At the other end the 60mm focal length correspond perfectly with a good portrait vocation although the F5.6 maximum aperture wont win for sure a first price of the shallowest deep of field.

Optically the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Power OIS is a very decent performer. Over the years and working with different copies, I have been surprised with its constancy all along its different focal length range. Using it with the latest Lumix MFT camera models it demonstrate its ability to produce  high quality image output even with the newest 20MP image sensor. Contrast is good, color rendering is faithful, aberration and distortion minimal if not unnoticeable (thanks to the in-board camera optical correction system), flare resistance very good and focusing accurate edge to edge. Sure more "pro" lens models can produce crisper results with a larger maximum aperture (shallower deep of field) and their higher optical resolution but the Lumix G Vario 12-60mm OIS can deliver on its part of good to very good pictures.

With a weight of 210g the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Power OIS zoom lens correspond really to the compact definition of the MFT image sensor format system. As an everyday, travel, casual or creative camera lens, it can be a faithful companion of many if not almost all of your photo sessions. It won't fit into your pocket but it will slip easily into your satchel or into your bag almost discreetly. In all it represent an easy recommendation to combine the Lumix G Vario 12-60mm F3.5-5.6 Power OIS lens with your next Panasonic Lumix ILC buy.

Que reste-t-il de nos amours?

Que reste-t-il de nos amours

Que reste-t-il de ces beaux jours
Une photo, vieille photo
De ma jeunesse
Que reste-t-il des billets doux
Des mois d'avril, des rendez-vous
Un souvenir qui me poursuit
Sans cesse

- Chanson de Charles Trenet composée par Léo Chauliac

J'entends cet air indémodable repris par plusieurs artistes à différentes époques depuis sa première sortie en 1942-43. Car en ces jours bouleversants où plusieurs manufacturiers d'équipement photographique non seulement ne flirtent plus avec le format numérique 24 X 36mm dans la catégorie des appareils dite 'sans mirroir" mais s'y engagent carrément, tous les passionnés d'appareils plus compact (dont je suis) se désolent de cette apparente trahison au profit du profit!

Bien sûr à court et moyen terme, i.e. de cinq à dix ans, il y a une certaine continuité à prévoir pour les tenants des formats APS-C, M4/3 et même 1" mais serait-ce suffisant si l'effort des fabricants se consacrent surtout ailleurs? Heureusement les nouvelles et le passé récent nous rassurent tout de même. 

Pour un et Panasonic et Olympus continuent de présenter des nouveaux produits, appareils et objectifs, dans le format MFT. Idem pour Fujifilm dans le format APS-C. Mieux encore Nikon et Canon promettent de faire de même dans ce dernier format (APS-C). Et donc il y a lieu d'espérer car les appareils photo numériques compacts ou plus compacts recueillent toujours la préférence de beaucoup de photographes. Leurs principes de base sont connus: légèreté, faible encombrement, prix modéré, allure discrète et bonne qualité de fichier de l'image enregistrée. Et pour le moment les appareils et les objectifs de format 24 X 36mm peinent toujours à offrir cette combinaison de critères incontournables.

Alors il faut (absolument!) garder la foi envers cette philosophie du plus compact numérique de qualité supérieure surtout vis-à-vis les "phone-photo" qui sont aujourd'hui les "instamatics" numériques de notre société mais dont la finesse d'image reste inférieure à un véritable appareil numérique dédié à la photographie.

Que reste-t-il de nos amours? disait la rengaine, encore beaucoup de beaux jours pour nous les passionnés de la photo portable, discrète et universelle.

When compactness is no more the flavor of the month (year, decade...) ?

I must confess that I was not thrill at all with the advanced announcement of the Nikon and Canon mirrorless 35mm digital cameras-lenses systems. I had a strong concern about the will of these manufacturers to offer real compact mirrorless system. And I was not the only one with that fear of incomprehension from them to the very basis concept regarding mirrorless design.

Now that we are looking at Nikon and Canon answers to an anticipated decline of their customer bases it is not surprising that they simply import the D-SLR bias into theirs new model proposals. Big, somewhat already outdated and by far expensive photo devices couple with with very traditional bazooka lenses. Is this innovation? Certainly not. Is this photo equipment interesting alternative for passionate photographers who like now to travel and shoot lightly and be less intimidating for their subjects? For sure not!

So it is a profound disappointment for many of us who like photography as a visual expression of the everyday life. And so I must salute the courage of those other manufacturers who seem to be maintain the stand of compactness of mirrorless system like Olympus, Panasonic and Fujifilm. For Nikon and Canon all hopes seem to vanish in their D-SLR profit reassignment...

Can bravery save the APS-C and MFT formats from 24X36 digital sensor format standardization?

Source: Wikipedia

Some recent announcements less spectacular may be more significant that we think, One of those is the forecasted new Panasonic GH camera that will be offered in 35mm sensor format. That future sight is not really pleasant for the APS-C and MFT perspectives on a long term. Actually only higher price point can prevent a strong (and fatal) migration to what it seems the new (!) digital sensor size standard of 24X36mm but already Nikon have clearly stated its intention to extend their camera line-up to less expensive models as it is also intended for their lenses.

So in my view it is a turning point for the traditional photo industry. The manufacturers can produce now bigger image sensors like the 24X36mm ones with virtually unbeatable characteristics especially   for low light sensibility and reduction in noise. Versatility is another important element in a sense that you need only one type of sensor to fulfill all different tasks. Adaptability is another factor but less revenant that many thinks in fact.

In reality the development of mirrorless cameras is just beginning in that future new standard. Many advancement in terms of design and feature will appear during the next 5 or 10 years to go. Obviously development ressources will be allowed mainly in that direction. For APS-C and MFT sensor format we may now see the last efforts to raffine theirs products for players like Panasonic, Olympus or Fujifilm.

With the introduction of 24X36mm mirrorless models from Nikon, Panasonic and Canon, Olympus is becoming the last player of smaller system size and we can understand that they will inevitably move in the upper direction if they want to survive and not be too marginalized, The APS-C and MFT format recent story was (and still is for a moment) an exciting time that many of us have participeted with enthusiasm and commitment but I can see now that we will one day or another adopt the (re)new 35mm standard.

2013: Olympus introduced the first OM-D E-M1!

With the new official entries of Nikon and forcoming Canon into the professional mirrorless world  in the next months (end of 2018 or beginning of 2019), many reviewers were anticipating the apparition of big camera body assorted with mammouth lenses which will contradicte the very essence of the mirrorless camera evolution. In fact the newest rumors feed by the concerned Nikon and Canon confirm this very fact.

When I have learned that Mike Johnston of the famous "The Online Photographer" web site have decided to renew with the Panasonic GX8 model I was not overlay surprised. The present "plateau" of the mirrorless evolution seem to temperate most of the recent past enthusiasm of the photo passionates on the web.  In fact the excitement is shifting from the equipment mania to the pleasure to do photography with always exciting products.

Why speaking of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 (original version) in 2018? Five years after its official introduction in 2013, the OM-D E-M1 has been surpassed technically in many ways by more recent models such as the E-M5 Mark II and others Mark II versions of the E-M10 and E-M1. But productivity (or creativity) has not a direct link with the technical performances of the camera model. Proof of that has been demonstrated over times by many renowned photographers. The fact is you are better to master the use of your camera instead to exchange it for a more recent model because the learning curve of the novelty can differ you to produce satisfactory and repetitive image output.

The evolution of hardware is not a guaranty of evolution of the essence of photography as a visual art of expression. And we are not speaking of a "coming back" (like saying "things were better in the past") but more likely a choice between devices, techniques and outputs that suit our expectations. In saying that last remark I don't want to prevent also the manufacturers to poursuit their research to innovation which is always a good thing to do in my sense as long they can preserve in their line-up the models that are still in demand (that is another debate...).

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 first version was a great effort from Olympus to seduce the professional market  (or part of it) to migrate to the M4/3 or MFT image captor format. The success of their OM-D E-M5 model was so good that some very serious photographers already start to use it on a professional level  for studio purpose, wedding and photo-reportages. Sure the E-M5 was not a camera model that was initially designed to sustain the intensive work pression in those fields and Olympus wisely extended its line up to offer a more rugged device. When I saw first the E-M1 I was impress by the solid feel of the model compare to my OM-D E-M5 that I was using at that time. It remind me the same feeling I have experimented with previous film professional models such as Nikon F3 HP or Leica R4 or even Olympus OM-2.

By the MFT standards of the moment (circa 2013-2014) the Olympus OM-D E-M1 was a bigger camera compare to the previous Pen series and the original E-M5. Sure everybody has understood the technical constraints to built a "Pro" oriented model with weather seal and stronger dials and others operational mechanisms needed to do so. But the fact remains that it was a bigger photo device in dimension and heavier to hold. However direct comparaison with APS-C competitor equivalents such as the Nikon D7100 prove the compactness of the Olympus package (OM-D E-M1 body + HLD-7 vertical grip). Moreover it appears more equilibrated when you combine the E-M1 with the M.Zuiko Pro lenses as for the 12-40mm & 40-150mm F2.8 for example. On a long term it create two design tendencies between the Premium lenses and the "Pro" series which were obviously bigger by design nature. Later in 2014 Olympus has completed its OM-D offer by adding the amateur E-M10 model into its line-up (entry level - intermediate - pro).

The original E-M1 camera was an impressive step ahead from the first E-M5. Better ergonomics were certainly a good part of it as for a clearer electronic viewfinder (EVF) with more eye relief. Because of its permanent right hand grip (oppose to the optional OM-D E-M5 one) the camera body stay firmly on hand in a very confortable and secure way plus the fact you are gaining more space for the different control buttons and dials of the device. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 interface is very complete and it can be personalized at will if you care to do so. Many specific direct functionalities are already configured into the E-M1 but permutations are possible if you invest time and interest to learn from the camera. Tutorials are available over the Web to help you to master the model. No serious photo gear reviewers have really contested the ability of Olympus to design and produce a "pro" camera. Since the venue of the OM camera series back in the nineteen-seventies they had developed a more compact signature alongside with electronic innovations and the actual OM-D series inherit a lot of that thinking.

The original Olympus OM-D E-M1 won't surprise the new user with its pseudo SLR architecture positioning the EVF at the same axis of the optical taking lens.So it gives you a very predictable camera especially when you are doing action photography including news, travel, urban or even sport. If you are working with a small Premium lens or a regular M.Zuiko one you may find that the Olympus OM-D E-M1 is a fairly compact camera assuming you don't add the optional HLD-7 vertical grip (even if it is still more compact that many D-SLRs with vertical grip). But it is not as discrete compare to a "rangefinder" style model like those offered into the Pen series and it won't definitively fit in your pocket even the largest one.

Many features were imported from the original OM-D E-M5 to accommodate the E-M1 users. If you are familiar with the Olympus complex interface way you should be able to mastermind most of the critical operations in a rapid pace. Newcomers to Olympus OM-D products have to invest time and intellect to learn the multiple options of the camera. At first don't be confuse and rely on the short OK menu option to get to the principal parameters of the E-M1.

If you stay in the comparaison with the first Olympus OM-D E-M5 it is easy to notice the added robustness of construction of the "pro" E-M1 including, the body, the function buttons or dials. You feel more confident to use the E-M1 in adverse conditions alongside with a lens that got the same feature of resistance. On still photographic point of view, the original Olympus OM-D E-M1 can stand even today high quality standard image results. Video is another story but as usual I am not really concern since I don't produce any.

The electronic viewfinder (EVF) can be qualified within the good average of today (2018) standard. It is not outstanding compare to the replacement version of the OM-D E-M1 Mark II. The eye relief is good also but on the limit for eyeglasses wearers like me to be able to see the entire picture at glance. There is a subtle light greenish viewing cast that can be detected but other than that you can rely on the EVF to get a good appreciation of your final result registered on the native picture file.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1 is very fast to wake up after the camera put itself on standby which preserve your battery pack. You won't be able to totally shut down the LCD viewing screen on the back if you want to use only the EVF (with the eye detection on) because it remains a kind of very dark blue screen. Since you cannot pivot back the LCD screen like the Mark II the battery pack endurance will be affected in some way. The tilting back screen stay a nice option for retro-macro-waist level-crowd level work.

The optional HLD-7 vertical grip is an intelligent add-on for the Olympus OM-D E-M1. For people that are producing critical vertical framing like in portrait, sport, nature the accessory will give a better handling and an extended battery life (along the possibility to change the exhausted one on the grip first in a 3-pack rotation). (Small trick: by removing the battery pack from the HLD-7 grip the combo will be a bit less heavier). Finally you have to be aware that the function buttons and dials as the shutter release button may be activated inadvertently if you don't lock the grip controls.

Flash system rely on the Olympus ou dedicated third-party flashlight devices beginning with the very diminutive unit furnished with the camera that can serves as an emergency unit for fill flash or command   unit in a multi-flash arrangement. I am not really fund to use a direct flash on camera that literally kill the light ambiance and is often unpredictable. The Olympus OM-D E-M1 can deliver you very decent image results up to ISO 1600 which in my sense is mostly sufficient in many low-light situations.  For sure in that case a faster lens (with a larger maximum aperture such as F1.8-1.7-1.4-1.2) will be strongly appreciated. Since the beginning of the M4/3 format, many independent flash manufacturers have decided to extend their flash system possibilities offered for the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

A standard lens or a transtandard zoom lens for the E-M1 is a very personal choice. On many publication you will see most of the time the combination of the E-M1 coupled with the M.Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 Pro which is mimicking the Pro D-SLR usual kit (Body + 24-70mm F2.8 lens for the 24X36mm image sensor format. Since the M.Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 Pro is a bigger and relatively heavier zoom lens the HLD-7 vertical grip may be required to get a better balance between the camera body and the lens. Some reviewers have proposed more modest lenses such as the M.Zuiko 14-42mm (basic) or 12-50mm (Splash-proof) zoom lenses or a Premium lens such as a 25mm or 17mm F1.8. These optics are smaller and lighter than the Pro ones but often in a less quality construction and sometimes with less optical quality. At the end it remains that the combination of the Olympus OM-D E-M1 camera body with the M.Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 Pro lens appears to be the most appropriate one except for the compactness factor.

Five years ago the Olympus OM-D E-M1 introduction confirmed the serious of Olympus into its involvement in MFT format. Moreover the forwarding presentation of their M.Zuiko Pro lenses has offered a complete new alternative for professionals that are looking for a serious MFT system available.

Doing film photography with the Olympus OM-2n / En argentique avec l'Olympus OM-2n

A personal tribute for the 100th anniversary of Olympus / Un hommage personnel pour le 100ième anniversaire d'Olympus

(Le texte français est présenté à la suite de la version anglaise)

Once upon a time there is a fondamental uncertainty of doing photography because you never have been guaranty to get good picture results at the end. It was part of a technology that was involving in fact many different sciences such as optical physic and specific chemistry. Over that you can add the influences of external factor like temperature, humidity and time of conservation. So doing film photography was a kind of gambling even if you know most of the rules involved. Repetitive results were hard to reach and require deep experience of the medium and strong discipline of application.

But it was fun, creative and rewarding for the most persistent and talented photographers. Moreover the still film cameras used at that time were very distinctive between the manufacturers and their different models. Each combination of photograph-equipment-technique observed during that era was offering its original signature. Today the limitless of the digital age have erased most of the bias of the film era.

I don't like to go back on something most of the time since I have discoverer in many cases it conduct you to reproduce flatly the past without no new true personal advancement. So bring back the film era to my agenda was asking me a different reflexion. Instead of redo the past simply I have decided to address this challenge like a complete new venture like a new photographic technique. For sure I cannot simply ignore all my past amateur and professionnel experiences working with traditional film. But I concentrate myself to the picture taking aspect of doing film photography. All negative once developed were  scanned and then digitally post-treated. In fact I didn't want to reintroduce myself to darkroom work since I can easily reproduce many of the traditional manipulations through an actual image post-treatment software with a much lower cost, less time involved and a far more ecologic way of doing.

Choosing a still camera was another challenge. I didn't want to spend a lot of money with some classical cameras of my past like the Leica M4P or M6 or the Nikon F3 HP. So I have selected an Olympus OM-2N equipped with a standard Zuiko 50mm F1.8 lens which represent a very compact 35mm model for that time doted with a good internal exposure meter. The OM-2N give you the choice to work fully manual à la OM-1 or in a semi-automatic aperture priority mode. Focus should be done manually in every circonstances so prefocus or using hyperfocal aperture setting can be a good help.

Using a film camera will ask you a strong sense of anticipation in many ways. Selecting and positioning the subject, analyzing the light, adjusting the exposure parameters like shutter speed and aperture and knowing their respective effect like the deep of field or the panning of the action without not forgetting the choice of the film (Type, ISO, Processing) and further choices have to be done in film photography. With time some decision reflexes can help you to mastermind these technical tasks with more ease.

Slow down the pace
This is may be the best advice that you can follow in traditional film photography. Since most of the operations are done manually, it is easy to get foul by a missing or wrong technical choice without knowing it until the the film processing (when it is too late!). With film you are becoming a technical decision maker on photographic aspects that are automatically treated with digital cameras. That safety doesn't exist anymore. A bit like a painter who select its canevas, its brushes, its colors, etc.

Analyse your subject
Its position (posture), its relative distance from you and its perspective, its color or its gray tonal distribution and contrast, its deep (using the deep of field phenomena), its context and attitude if necessary. The subject is the purpose of your creative expression through photography. So it needs to be properly explored and experimented. And be persistent to redo your subject as long it is possible to refine your photographic research.

Evaluate your results
You have to progress since film photography is asking you a stronger learning curve to be mastermind. The only sure way to do this is by evaluating your picture results and be critical. Is the final image correspond to your expectation? That can be hard sometime to comprehend and move ahead again with a proper attitude. Technical errors will be on your own responds. So you have to understand and manage them.

Do some prints
The final act of film photography is producing a print of your final image. That is the classical essence of the medium since its very fondation. Doing prints and especially larger one can be the most rewarding fact about doing film photography. Don't prevent yourself to print in anyway your pictures ... and showing it. At the end and on a much longer run photographic prints may be the last living témoignage of the subject because most of the digital forms of archives tend be obsolete in a fast rate. Over the past two centuries photographic print proof to be more reliable than any other image representation.

Film photography will never be a substitute of the modern digital photography that supplement it in a world of instant and multilateral communication. But film photography stay a art creative technique that deserve to be preserved and cultivated.

All film pictures presented here were taken on Ilford XP2 Super 400 film (C41 Process) with an Olympus OM-2n camera & a Zuiko 50mm F1.8 lens. The Olympus OM-2n is a fairly primitive camera by today photographic standards and has been technicaly surpassed in every senses by even basic ILC models. Its approximated exposure metering system reveals some basic propension to falsely interpret a more critical lightning situation. Manual focusing is accurate although it requires a good eye appreciation through the excellent optical reflex viewfinder but with a limited eye relief. Film advance is classical performed with a smooth wind lever and motorization is only offer as an option. Front shutter speed ring is a particularity of the Olympus OM system and can be at first a bit misleading. The grip (without optional winder) is simply non existant compare to the modern design. If you are familiar with digital photography you may need to train yourself to work with this type of camera before really get use to have satisfactory results.

Here are some advantages to use the Olympus OM-2n film camera. First the OM-2n is doted of a very good and luminous optical viewfinder that it is a real pleasure to do focusing with and to appreciate your deep of field. Secondly it is very easy possibility to select your exposure fully manually or to choose the automatic option. That way you don't omit to check your selected parameters (aperture and shutter speed). The film advance is very smooth to operate and the lever can be positioned beside your thumb for fast operating. Indications inside the viewfinder are minimalist giving you a plus/minus signs for exposure control in manual mode and s shutter speed scale with a pointing needle in the aperture priority mode. A flash confirmation light is also part of the info available.

Shutter speed and aperture (on lens) control rings are located surrounding the taking lens. You have to get the habit to check these parameters visually prior to look into the viewfinder. After a certain time you may memorize the value associated to the position of those control rings. In a whole the Olympus OM-2n is a very simple camera to operate once you have assimilated the fondamental of its use.


Working for several years with electronic products I am amaze to find a photo device like the Olympus OM-2n that is still able to fulfill the bill and delivers very decent results surely at the level of many more modern digital products. Sure the technical limitations are obvious in particular in regard with the exposure latitude and the very narrow capacity of color adaptation if any (Sorry but no automatic white balance). But using a black and white film such as the Ilford XP2 will help to exploit many interesting possibilities.

En argentique avec l'Olympus OM-2n

Parler du film traditionnel (et argentique) relève maintenant d'un faux débat qui tente d'établir une comparaison dépassée des vertus réciproques du support argentique versus le numérique. Car ce débat est inexistant puisque dans la vie de tous les jours le numérique a supplanté largement l'argentique par ses avantages inhérents au monde actuel de la communication multilatérale et instantanée. La photographie numérique est maintenant une norme universelle médiatique qui rappelle l'évolution rapide de notre technologie d'expression et de diffusion.

Alors qu'en est-il de cette vague à caractère nostalgique qui prône un retour à la photo argentique? Deux éléments surtout: un souvenir tenace évoquant une époque révolue qui a culminé il y a maintenant plus de trois ou quatre décennies déjà mais aussi une curiosité légitime de découverte de ce médium d'expression si à contresens de la photographie numérique actuelle. Par une sorte de déni de l'automatisation et de l'intelligence artificielle d'interprétation technique, la maitrise de l'argentique est une forme de ré-appropriation de la sélectivité créatrice de l'image fixée.

Cependant il ne s'agit pas d'un exercice facile particulièrement sur le plan technique. Son apprentissage peut être difficile surtout si l'on recherche une latitude similaire  celle de la technique numérique. Car l'argentique impose de limites frustrantes en particulier pour ses nouveaux adeptes. Elles peuvent s'apparenter à celles imposées par d'autres média artistique comme la peinture ou la sculpture. Enfin il y a une certaine forme de credo concernant la maitrise de l'argentique qui renvoie à des recettes de certains anciens photographes reconnus et qui regroupent des cercles d'adeptes qui peuvent restreindre la pratique plus créatrice de l'argentique.

Notre point de départ reste le support argentique d'enregistrement de l'image initiale. Ce support assimilé fréquemment au film (acétate) possède des caractéristiques uniques et non modifiables de sensibilité et de palette de couleur ou de tons (noir et blanc). Il est donc invariable ou quasi-inflexible. Sa manipulation implique des préventions d'exposition accidentelle à la lumière ou à d'autres types de rayonnements, aux températures et aux niveaux d'humidité extrêmes. Enfin si l'on exclut le cas du film inversible pour diapositive, le résultat final du traitement du film propose un négatif de l'image fixée. Il y a donc un processus d'inversion nécessaire à la permutation de ce négatif en version positive similaire à celle de notre vision habituelle.

Tout ceci indique bien les caractéristiques inhérentes du support argentique et son relative manque de latitude surtout en comparaison avec les capteurs numériques modernes. Mais toutes ces contraintes contribuent fortement à créer une signature typique du photographe qui l'emploie. Car aux choix initiaux du sujet, de sa position, de sa profondeur, de son expression s'ajoutent la sélection du point de focalisation, du temps de pose et de l'ouverture du diaphragme de l'objectif qui sont autant d'éléments discriminants de l'image finale fixée sur pellicule. L'improvisation et le hasard occupent une part moins grande dans leur contribution du résultat enregistré.

Aujourd'hui la photographie argentique prend toute sa place à titre de technique particulière de création et d'expression artistique. Ce n'est donc pas un retour vers un passé révolu mais la continuité d'un art visuel bicentenaire.

(Source: Ilford Photo)

Toutes les photos argentiques présentées dans ce texte ont été réalisées sur film Ilford XP2 Super 400 (Développement C41) avec un appareil Olympus OM-2n et l'objectif Zuiko 50mm F1.8. Étant un utilisateur régulier d'appareils photo numériques à objectifs interchangeables de la marque Olympus comme les OM-D de différentes versions il est facile de réaliser tout le chemin parcourue entre la série OM argentique d'il y a trois ou quatre décennies et la production numérique actuelle. Les différences sont énormes et déterminantes pour l'efficacité et le facteur réussite entre ces deux types d'appareils. L'Olympus OM-2n reste un appareil photo assez primitif dans son mode d'opération malgré la présence de certaines innovations pour l'époque comme la lecture de l'exposition OTF en mode priorité ouverture et la lecture TTL en mode flash électronique. Sa visée optique réflexe est très lumineuse mais le manque de relief oculaire est un peu handicapant pour l'appréciation complète de l'image captée.

Au début des années 1970 l'apparition de l'Olympus OM-1, d'abord appelé M-1, a causé une commotion en proposant un véritable appareil photo 35mm à visée réflexe et objectif interchangeable plus compact et plus léger doté d'un viseur plus lumineux. À peine deux ans plus tard l'OM-2 fait son entrée en proposant un mode automatique (priorité ouverture) et un système flash TTL dans un même volume réduit. Les concurrents ne pourront réagir qu'avec un certain retard à cette nouvelle tendance à la diminution des boitiers. À l'époque le tarif nord-américain d'un modèle Olympus OM-2n dépassait les $500CAN qu'on peut traduire en dollars de 2018 à $2375. Il s'agissait donc d'un équipement de très haut de gamme. Aujourd'hui on peut se procurer le même appareil en bonne condition pour environ $150CAN y incluant l'objectif F.Zuiko 50mm F1.8

Une check list bien commode:
Ton film est-il bien amorcé dans la bobine de réception de l'appareil? (Y a-t-il un film dans l'appareil incidemment?!)
Ton indice ISO (ASA/DIN) est-il bien réglé?
Quelle est ta vitesse d'obturation?... et ton ouverture sur l'objectif? ... et surtout ta mesure d'exposition confirme-t-elle la pertinence de ces choix?
Ta mise au point est-elle bien choisie pour ton sujet? ... et ta profondeur de champs, est-elle suffisante ou trop grande?
Ton appareil est-il tenu de façon stable à la main ou sur trépied? Ou bien ton mouvement de suivi du sujet est-il suffisamment fluide?
Ton déclenchement s'effectue-t-il en douceur?
Enfin n'oublies pas d'avancer ton film à la pose suivante après ta prise de vue!!!

En guise de conclusion
Certains lecteurs pourront se demander si l'Olympus OM-2n aurait pu être mon choix professionnel sachant que j'utilisais les appareils Nikon F2/3/4 ou les Leica M4P/6 à cette époque du film argentique. Rétrospectivement peut-être car même aujourd'hui je reste impressionné par la qualité du design et de construction des boitiers et des objectifs Olympus OM, l'étendu du système OM et la finesse des résultats obtenues. Malheureusement la norme professionnelle de cette époque pour la gamme Nikon prévenait une plus grande disponibilité du système Olympus.

Shallower deep of field does it mean more creativity in photography?

The deepness of ... ignorance

You can ask because it is part of a great controversy between the users or defenders of the different sizes of image sensor on the digital market. Am I doing better photography because I have a shallower deep of field ? What is that folly's argument regarding creativity in photography? I can no more stand the endless discussions about that specific feature into numerous photo internet forums. At a point I am asking myself if somebody there is doing actual pictures at all!

So no fantasy for my part talent will surpass technological limitations or characteristics of the photo equipment. Better than that technology bias will create ultimately specific author signatures as it have been observed in the past. Please do your classical and learn from that. I am so tired by false debate regarding shelled deep of field as the nec of ultra in photography productivity.

Please behave yourself and leave to manufacturers the task to defend their product. Simple like that. And as I repeat every time "Full Frame" is a photo technique available in every size format. If you are not able to produce good picture with a smaller image sensor size I doubt you will be capable to do so in a larger mini format such as 24 X 36mm or even with a medium format.

Stereotype pictures or subjects have always be part of our world of photography. It doesn't give you the ability to be an outstanding photographer. That is part of your own capacity to produce original picture without a particular relation of the photo equipment used to do so.  Stop the non-sense about digital image sensor. Speak about your subject and expel the technical excuses. Pseudo finest photo equipment will not save your incapacity to create original provocative image. Simple like that.

Yes I am tired of pixel peppers and photo trolls that are literally polluting our Internet universe. Please stay home and leave the fragile real creators to experiment and to expand the photo medium. That is real photography is about.

Le contexte en photo

Existe-t-il une photographie sans contexte sous-jacent? C'est peu probable j'en conviens mais existe-t-il une photographie dont le contexte est le sujet même de l'image présentée? Assurément et nous en avons la preuve dans la découverte de l'oeuvre de plusieurs grands photographes passés et présents. Et nous parlons ici du contexte au delà du simple exercice d'atmosphère induite dans l'image. Car le contexte plus qu'un élément de l'histoire est aussi l'histoire en soi.

La photographie contextuelle bien qu'en prise directe de la réalité reste l'interprétation de son auteur qui en définit les règles d'inclusion ou d'exclusion, les arrangements dans sa composition et les moments choisis de son exposition par la sélectivité volontaire de sa luminosité. Parle-t-on d'une photographie spontanée et automatique? Certainement dans certains cas mais aussi d'une recherche élaborée dans d'autres.

Bien sûr il existe aussi un art de la mise en scène qui n'exclut pas la recherche d'un contexte. Une pure abstraction sans attache ou référence serait difficile à concevoir même à imaginer. Nous dirons donc qu'il y a un contexte dans la plupart des efforts de créativité photographique (comme dans la plupart des arts visuels d'ailleurs). Il y a un contexte dans l'image mais aussi hors l'image qui découle de sa diffusion même et de son support de représentation.

Comme photographe nous sommes aussi en contexte consciemment ou inconsciemment Une sorte de prise de parole en image fixée. Si nous savons déjà que le contexte participe à la création de l'oeuvre dans le choix du sujet et son traitement, nous pouvons proposer une interprétation volontaire mais parfois implicite du propos de notre image. En quelque sorte nous exerçons un contrôle sur ce qui participe à l'image et nous voulons exercer ce contrôle encore plus strictement dans notre environnement de création nous pourrons même pousser cet exercice en adoptant un mode d'opération propre au studio traditionnel. Les paramètres d'inclusion ou d'exclusion des éléments du sujet sont strictement sélectionnés dans ce contexte.

Mais il y a aussi l'aspect documentaire spontané de la photographie qui pour sa part n'exclut pas l'improvisation du sujet et ouvre la porte à l'inclusion involontaire d'éléments du sujet qui pourront ou non enrichir ce dernier. La composition de l'image photographiée et l'interaction avec le sujet sont donc les exercices-clés qui détermineront le résultat final de l'oeuvre. Évidemment le post-traitement de cette image fixée peut participer à cette composition finale si tant est le souhait de son auteur ou encore sa technique privilégiée jusqu'au photo-montage un art qui n'est pas le propre de la photographie numérique seul mais qui existait bien avant.

Enfin la valeur intrinsèque d'une photographie peut dépendre parfois largement de son contexte de prise de vue aussi bien que de son propos ou sujet. Sa qualité documentaire est vivement rehaussé par la nature de son contexte implicite. D'une image au traitement à priori banal peut résulté d'un témoignage visuel révélateur et important issu de son contexte. C'est pourquoi il ne faut pas systématiquement éliminer de ses archives toute image d'abord ignorée ou disqualifiée de son usage initial anticipé.

Nous dirons donc que le contexte participe à l'oeuvre photographique tout comme son sujet ou sa technique.

Mais où sont rendus nos photographes?

Bien sûr je parle de nos photographes traditionnels utilisant un appareil photo numérique (dont c'est la vocation première). Car depuis quelques années ou bien l'intérêt semble avoir diminuer ou bien la présence des photo-phonistes en a intimidé plusieurs. Même dans plusieurs lieux touristiques les photographes de voyage (en excluant les tenants de l'instantanée selfique ) brillent par leur absence ou leur discretion totale.

Avec les appareils photo numériques compact il ne semble plus y avoir aucune véritable restriction à se balader avec sa caméra et à satisfaire sa soif d'images. Donc du point de vue strictement technique et ergonomique l'utilisation des appareils photo numériques actuels ne devraient pas freiner la motivation de ses usagers. Alors qu'en est-il?

Premièrement il y a cette image déformé par la pseudo actualité Web qui décrit la disparition prochaine de l'homos photographicus classicus, une espèce en voie d'extinction rapide et inévitable. Or la vente d'appareils photo traditionnels reste assez élevée un peu partout dans cet univers de consommation moderne. C'est la proportion des acheteurs qui diminue par rapport à notre croissance démographique actuelle. La visibilité des utilisateurs s'en trouve affectée par conséquence.

Deuxièmement l'activité même de photographier fait l'objet de nouvelles limitations imposées formellement ou fortement suggérées socialement. L'ère du photographe candide est bel et bien révolu et notre crise contemporaine de paranoia collective dope tous nos contacts sociaux à l'exception de nos proches relations personnelles (et encore ...).

Troisièmement la diffusion formelle ou informelle de notre production photo prête à de nouveaux obstacles. Alors qu'on se proclame de l'ère des communications sans frontières, celles-ci réapparaissent sous de nouvelles formulations. Une espèce de censure collectivement acceptée, tolérée et même encouragée habite maintenant notre conscience sociale.

Quatrièmement où en est notre besoin de documentation et d'expression visuelle pour un espace-temps qui excède l'instantané éphémère? Il faut s'interroger sur notre soif d'images et de contemplation car s'agit-il aujourd'hui de se contenter d'une impression visuelle fugace au détriment d'une observation plus réflective sur notre univers, telle est la question pour ce monde de consommation effrénée et sans grande motivation profonde.

Bien sûr tout n'est pas si sombre sur la planète Phototus et beaucoup de passionné(e)s se transmettent le flambeau de l'image fixée dans le temps et les intentions. Et cela n'est pas négligeable à l'heure ou on défend même aux élites intellectuelles, artistiques et autres le droit à la différence, à l'expression et à la dissidence. Car c'est ce courant malsain du plus petit dénominateur commun en tout qu'il faut à tout prix dénoncer, débusquer et limiter dans ses effets pervers.

Aujourd'hui il faut à tous les photographes faire de nouveau preuve de courage, d'audace et de persistance pour préserver et enrichir l'expression photographique de ce monde. Mais la récompense d'une image fixée provocante, originale et réflective reste notre plus grand gage de pérennité.

The digital photography equipment "plateau"

That can be a very controversial statement but many signs have appeared since the last few years that digital photography equipment development have in fact reached a plateau. First the manufacturers have pace down their previous and frantically rate of new product introduction. Secondly the technically changes are more subtile and for some model almost inexistant. Third ;-) many photobloggers have retrofit their own camera bag with less spectacular and  less recent products (which my case obviously...) And finally it seems that the next Photokina edition will be quieter than expected.

Is it the end of traditional digital photography? Absolutely not but it is surely the end of the web domination by the pixel peepers replaced by the real users that are loving to do photography. Suffise to look at the different "photo" forum to see that those insatiable trolls are now turning around finding anything to bite.

What is highly interesting today is the new commitment of the big photo web sites to the learning and experimentation of the fundamental of photography articles and helping more and more to diffuse it. So equipment discussion is leaving place to a more cultural interaction of the medium.

There will be always a place for photo equipment reviews and their use illustration but I hope that it will be more related with real picture taking situations and be more oriented with final image results on an artistic point of view. At the end the subject is the essence of photography and the real purpose of the medium.

Good photo!

Hors-propos: Y a-t-il une photo après la caméra?

(Sous le thème: Y a-t-il une vie après... ?)

Malgré plusieurs expériences de photographie au cours des années, je me demande parfois si la passion de l'image fixée peut toujours s'articuler autour du binôme photographe et appareil photo. Bien sûr le sujet photographique reste l'élément décisif de l'image produite mais sans le binôme qui le choisit, l'interprète, l'enregistrement et le restitue à sa manière, qu'adviendrait-il de l'oeuvre?

C'est peut-être un peu la lassitude d'avoir vu, essayer, aimer tant de modèles et de technologies qui ont marqué la photo traditionnelle argentique et numérique qui crée cette amertume de vouloir revivre une passion de façon plus simple, plus modérée, plus libre. Car toutes ces sophistications et toute cette évolution ont en quelque sorte restreint notre pouvoir d'émerveillement et de créativité innocente des débuts.

Et ces reproches je ne les adresse surtout pas aux artisans-techniciens novateurs de l'outil photographique car ceux-ci et celles-ci ont bien rendu leur passion créatrice au delà des frontières prévisibles de la conception initiale de l'équipement photographique. Non ce reproche je l'adresse à nous photographes qui avons déplacé notre centre d'intérêt du sujet de l'image à celui de l'appareil en croyant naïvement répondre à de nouvelles parfois farfelues exigences techniques minimales.

Car il est là le drame d'aujourd'hui: quelle est la valeur intrinsèque du propos de l'image dans la photographie? Est-elle seulement rendu l'expression d'une performance technique d'un sujet stéréotypé? Son analyse se limite-t-elle à un point de vu réducteur de maitrise des paramètres technologiques? Le débat est ouvert mais plusieurs le refuseront à tout prix en vertu des perspectives déstabilisatrices qu'il engendre.

Ailleurs dans ce vaste univers dont la micro-planète des fana-photos fait partie, la photographie comme mode d'expression utilise déjà un nombre incalculable de plate-formes de diffusion qui s'amalgament à notre contexte culturel. Ces manifestations de créativité ne sont pas évidemment répertoriés dans les catalogues d'exposition des "grands" critiques traditionnels de l'art photographique et d'un certain sens c'est bien et significatif que cela leur échappe finalement. Car pourquoi brider le changement alors qu'il faut plutôt le faire fleurir vers des lendemains qui seront nous surprendre, nous choquer parfois ou nous émerveiller à l'occasion.

Y a-t-il une photo après la caméra? C'est au photographe d'en faire inlassablement la preuve que le sujet transcende toujours la technique et reste le message essentiel de l'expression visuelle.