Green or Greed

 

This post steers away from my usual postings but that’s probably a good thing.

I had a conversation with someone who argued that thanks to the digital age photography had become much “greener”, more environmentally friendly, thanks to the disappearance of film and the need for chemicals used in developing. I couldn’t agree or argue with his comment because I had not seen any figures to confirm or discredit his claim. I suspect he didn’t have any figures or data either but that’s fairly standard these days; just look at the way journalism is going.

I don’t know how dangerous those dark room chemicals are to the environment or in what quantities they were used in the past but I do find it amusing when such claims are made because it’s often been my impression that while many people like to wax lyrically about the environment few people seem to care enough to change their habits. Let’s face it consumerism seems to have no bounds.

One set of figures I did see some time back was the cost, to the environment, of packaging. I don’t remember the actual numbers but I do recall being amazed and I remember wondering why it was that the so-called greenies were not focusing their efforts to bringing this seemingly shameful situation to light. I’m guessing that suggesting people refrain from buying the latest gadget while their old one still works would be too much of a hard sell. And that’s unfortunate because if I remember rightly the environmental cost of packaging was far greater than all the fossil fuel burning combined.

But I don’t want to get into a socioeconomic debate about the environment and what we should and should not do and all that stuff. To be fair I don’t even know if what I read about packaging was true or some fabrication made up by some self-serving group (like brown-paper-bag manufacturers or whatever). And I don’t mean or want to get all sanctimonious about green issues; I live in the West (well technically I live in the East but you know what I mean) and am in no position to be hypocritical since I am more likely a part of the problem than the solution. Instead I want to ask questions which came to me while listening to my friend’s argument about saving the environment.

Once upon a time the bulk of photographic advancements were made in the areas of film and optics. Where film was concerned, the beauty for photographers was that you could easily partake in the new technological improvements without having to fork out large sums of money. You could buy a roll of the latest Kodak, Fuji, Agfa or Ilford film, try it out and if you liked it you went and bought some more.

Today, camera gimmicks aside, the bulk of the technological advancements tend to relate to the Charge-Coupled Devices (CCD) but unlike the old days it always involves buying a whole new camera in order to experience the new-found benefits. Seems so wasteful. So here are my questions: why can’t we have interchangeable CCD? Are there technical reasons preventing this? And if there are is anyone looking at solving the issues? The only thing I could find on the Internet was some reference back in 1999 of a Nikon camera (the D1) that was to have a rumoured interchangeable CCD. It never happened. So please excuse my ignorance on this but I would like to know what is stopping manufacturers from building such cameras. If you know, I would be most appreciative if you would tell me or point out some relevant site.

And for the record, I’d be perfectly happy if all the stuff I bought came in brown paper bags or plain cardboard boxes. Specially if that helped the long-term sustainability of forests like the one in the image above.

 

Keeping it simply small

Some time back I wrote some thoughts about keeping things simply simple. In that post I wrote about the FinePix X100 camera which I think has yet to be released. This particular camera though, got me interested once again in keeping abreast with developments in the manufacturing of cameras. I’m still looking forward to seeing the X100 camera up close but I’m liking what I’m seeing from other manufacturers, specifically in the micro four-thirds arena — also referred to as mirror-less interchangeable lens cameras (MILC), or electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens (EVIL). Whatever.

But before I continue on that topic, some thoughts about the X100. On my recent trip abroad I shot almost the entire time with a 24mm prime lens (equivalent to a 35mm lens on my camera). I did this to keep the weight and bulk of the camera down as we were doing 8 to 10 hour days of walking and sightseeing. Aside from my camera severely acting up due to the cold, shooting with a prime lens proved to be fun but there were times when I would see a shot and be unable to capture it because the prime was simply the wrong lens for the occasion. This didn’t worry me but it did get me thinking about the X100. This beautiful camera comes with a fixed lens (35mm equivalent) and after my experience with a prime I wonder if FujiPix are doing the right thing. I would really like to see this camera take off in popularity in order to encourage other manufacturers to start thinking outside the box but I can’t help but wonder if a fixed-prime will put some people off from buying it. Perhaps FujiPix should consider making this camera with interchangeable lenses. I guess time will tell.

Anyway, during my holiday I came to realise a few things about my photography. The first thing had to do with my camera; it’s heavy, it’s bulky and hardly inconspicuous. In other words, it’s not ideal as a travel camera. I didn’t have a choice though; it was that or nothing and I did seriously consider leaving my camera at home. The thing is when I am at home I am never out walking hours on end with my camera. It’s always short trips and the camera doesn’t feel like too much of a weight around my neck but since my return I find it to be a little cumbersome. There was a time many years ago when I would carry around a large camera bag filled with two SLR bodies, five lenses, a tripod, two flash guns and a bunch of other accessories. When I think back to those days I don’t wonder so much about how I did this but rather, why!? But the question is redundant, how or why doesn’t really matter in the end but one thing for sure is that those days are well and truly over for me and I have come to realise that I will need to downsize my camera gear if I am to continue making photographs. Hence my interest in the X100 and micro four-thirds cameras, in particular the Olympus E-PL2 of the PEN series. The E-PL2 isn’t out in Australia just yet but I have looked at the E-PL1 and there is much to like. I won’t go on about the technical details and functions of these cameras but I could see the E-PL2 becoming my next camera. It is small, discreet and simple. It offers small interchangeable lenses, manual controls and from what I read, good quality images even at higher ISOs.

The second thing I realised while on this trip wasn’t so much a realisation as much as it was a gentle reminder. I truly enjoy the act of photography. The pure joy of seeing. The blissful fun of making images. Admittedly, I didn’t make a huge number of images relative to the many opportunities that cities like London and Paris offer. I took a lot of family snaps but there weren’t so many occasions where I would totally lose myself in a moment of seeing. And that’s another thing I realised, or at least understood more profoundly about my photography. Photography for me is very much about being alone in the moment that I may totally lose myself so that I may become the whole. That probably makes no sense at all outside my own head but there you have it. Being with my family is an absolute joy in its own right and I’ll happily forgo photography to spend time with them but those special moments I’ve come to experience while out making images seem to be linked, somehow, to solitude. Something to explore a little deeper one day.

At any rate, where my photography is concerned, I want to keep it simply simple and where my camera is concerned I’m starting to think that I need to keep it simply small. I could go as small as the Olympus XZ-1 or the Panasonic LX-5 which seem like excellent cameras but right now the PEN cameras have all my attention as they seem to offer the benefits of an SLR without the bulk and weight. Of course, knowing me, I’ll probably just stick with what I have but who knows.

Keeping it simply simple

Most photographers would have heard or read about the new FinePix X100 camera by Fujifilm since it was announced a short time ago. It’s marketing slogan is “From Simplicity to the Extreme” which says little these days as all camera makers make some sort of claim about the ease of use of their equipment. Sadly though I find cameras today to be cumbersome. Not in their size or weight but in their use and interface design. Many years ago I used a Minolta XG1 and sadly I no longer have it but this camera was truly simplicity to the extreme. Another camera I remember using a few times was a Minolta XD11. With both cameras, a couple of dials on the top plate allowed me to shoot in aperture priority, shutter-speed priority or fully manual. I could select the ISO, set a self-timer and stop-down the lens to see the depth of field quickly and easily without even taking my eye away from the viewfinder. To put it simply, these cameras were truly simple.

My current camera, a Sony Alpha 700, is nowhere near so simple in its usability. It’s not too bad compared to a lot of other cameras out there but it’s not a XG1 or XD11. Of course I have to say that I am far more successful in capturing images with the Sony than I ever was with the Minoltas. I have far fewer misses (having said that, the original of the image on this post was one such miss). And I could possibly reduce the misses to near zero if I used the preview screen; I don’t because I like to be surprised, later —half the fun of photography for me was getting the film developed and seeing the results for the first time, always a bitter-sweet experience.

Anyway, Fujifilm is not telling us much about the X100 yet. There’s a lot of talk about the “hybrid” viewfinder but I don’t care about that. I have heard that there is no need to have the LCD screen turned on to shoot photos and that might mean no need for menus and I care about that. From the photos it looks like this camera has simple dials on the top plate and an aperture ring on the lens itself, I care about that. I like simplicity, I consider myself a simple man with simple tastes, I enjoy a simple life and I am grateful for having relatively simple needs. For me, simplicity is connected to perfection, not in the sense of achieving a technically perfect image but in the sense of having nothing getting in the way of seeing. As Antoine de Saint-Exupery once said, ”Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

I’m feeling a little hopeful that, maybe, there is a camera designer out there who remembers how worthwhile it is to keep photography simply simple.

What is it that sees?

My last post was going to be my last post. I had no intention to write more as I have so little to say but I recently had a couple of email conversations with readers that have prompted me to write at least two more posts. The first email conversation questioned the equipment I use for making images while the second questioned the relationship between my image making and my philosophy of life. I’ll leave the latter topic for another time and for now will only address the former.

There is a certain fascination amongst some photographers with gadgets and lenses and camera bodies along with brand names and technical data. It is true that there has never been a greater proliferation of gadgets than what we have available to us today.  I admit that I enjoy keeping up with the latest wizardry of camera equipment and photographic software but only from an academic standpoint. I do not feel a need to rush out and buy the latest gear or upgrade to the latest software. While I am interested in reading about new developments I fail to see how they will help me make better images. It is true that the latest gear will help me focus faster and will automatically recognise faces but none of that will help me see better.

Back to my email conversation. I was asked what camera I used and why I decided on that particular gear. The reason for this enquiry as it panned out was that this reader was in the market for a camera and didn’t like the colour and saturation levels of my images and so, wanted to avoid that particular brand. I found that amusing because my photos are generally post-processed to a point where they no longer look like the original out-of-camera shot and I always thought that this was fairly obvious to anyone who viewed them. Apparently not. I tried to explain this but this reader still wanted to know what camera I use. For the record I use a Sony Alpha 700 digital SLR camera. As to why I use this particular camera, the answer is simple and boring. I won the camera in a lucky draw competition. For what it’s worth though, my images, for better or for worse, do not really reflect the abilities of the camera due, as I said, to the post-processing that I perform on all my shots.

Of course there are circumstances where the right equipment is essential. In the commercial world of say, wedding photography, it is, I think, safe to say that an iPhone camera may not cut it. I say “may” because it is always possible that in the hands of a gifted photographer, an iPhone could deliver a wonderful wedding album. Still, a commercial shoot of the Great Barrier Reef taken with a disposable, waterproof camera would not attract enough money to pay for the camera, much less the developing. And so I thought perhaps this particular reader was thinking in terms of a particular commercial endeavour which would then explain a need for correct colour rendition. But that was not the case. This reader was interested in making “arty photos”. We didn’t get into the definition of “arty”, apparently that wasn’t as important as CCDs and megapixels.

There are many fanboys out there who will argue the pros and cons of camera gear and I am happy to accept that there are distinct differences between brands but really it’s not too difficult to know which, of all the cameras in the world, is the best camera if what you want to do is artistically render your perception of the world. The best camera is the one you have with you when you see a moment worth capturing. Be it a Hasselblad or the camera on your smart phone.

In my evolution as a photographer I once held the belief that I would only be happy with my images if I could take them using the best possible gear. Eventually I came to understand that it’s not the camera that sees. The seeing that happens at any particular moment is all that really matters. The capturing of that moment is of secondary importance and the equipment you use to capture that seeing is of no importance at all. At least as I see it.

In my final email to this particular reader, to which I got no response, I wrote the following:

You can spend a lot of money investing in the latest and greatest gear or you can spend some time simply and quietly observing the appearances around you until such a point where you get lost in the seeing and if at such a time you capture this seeing with whatever camera you have at hand you will not fail to be happy with the results.

Below are links to web sites of photographs which have been taken by gifted artists with iPhones, pinhole cameras, helgas, coffee tins, in other words non-technically advanced devices for the making of photographic images. I present them here for anyone who still holds to the belief that their ability to see and their ability to express this seeing, is dependent on the equipment they possess. May that belief be exposed for what it really is… just a thought.

Chris Keeney Photography

Andreas Wolkerstorfer

Nancy A. Breslin

Greg Schmigel - Just what I see

Chase Jarvis

Thomas Hudson Reeve

Is it there yet?

Do you wonder whether digital has surpassed film on quality yet? Watch this video and find out what they think on the Gadget Show.