This is Moose's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Moose's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Moose
Recent Activity
That looks like a good resource, and I'm happy you've pointed me to his blog. OTOH, I imagine a book like that, in the hands of some, would be an excuse not to go ahead and make a book - reading, pondering, considering, when just moving ahead may be the thing to do. I would suggest to anyone who is thinking about making a book just do it. It's easy and relatively inexpensive to make a book with any of several on-line resources. Then, if it seems desirable, after considering the result and getting the responses of others, dive into a book about making books with an idea of what works and what doesn't in what you have done. In his review of Adornment, Colberg says "You’d imagine it must be pretty simple to make a good photobook if you have no narrative to contend with, but that’s not true. It’s just as hard." And yet, maybe you'll be lucky! I made a book as a response to an attractive promotional offer. I had a group of photos I would like together, so I tried it. Colberg says ". . . even in the absence of narrative the edit and sequence matter. The challenges of putting the pictures together are just as big, if not bigger." Well, I messed up one pair of facing images and the placement of another relative to the gutter. The publisher made a mistake in the last photo, so I got a free re-do. Other than that brief stumble, it was a great success. I've made six books since. Based a little on my own satisfaction and more on the reactions of family, friends and the occasional stranger, it appears I have a previously unknown talent for ordering images. One eleoquent friend, whose own first (prose) book has just been published calls my picture books Meditations. "I derive equal enjoyment from seeing what you could call a collection of individual pictures that somehow speak of something larger, but that mostly remain there. There is, after all, a lot to be said for that kind of photography." Has anyone learned to paint by reading a book, without exercises? This is Art. Try it if it calls, and find out what you have hidden away. If this isn't your metier, at least you haven't read a tome about it. \;^)>
Hey! I was there! Outside the police car, listening to Mario Savio via his bullhorn. Still in Berkeley
"I took that number from the counter in the camera rather than by counting files on my disk. - D-DB" Dubious and much different meaning counts for me than they used to be. I now take quite a lot of in-camera focus stacks (brackets, in Oly terminology). One press of the shutter button generates 15 or 25 (my settings) exposures, that in turn become one final photograph. As those exposures are all without mechanical shutter use, there's no shutter mechanism wear and tear. A simple camera exposure count or a count of image files give a wildly inaccurate idea of how many "pictures" I took. Fortunately, the LR catalog allows me to stack those multiple exposures automagically by time proximity and get a "real" photo count. (I still don't like LR for editing, but the catalog is pretty darn useful.)
Toggle Commented Nov 19, 2017 on Lumix G9 and Leica Lens at The Online Photographer
"Format: On large prints (prints, not screens) you see the difference" - Robert Might I suggest that it depends on the photographer, post processor and the printers, both person and device? I have seen, close up, significant crops of 16 MP µ4/3 files printed to 20x24" in Ctein's printer room. I don't think they give a thing away to FF beyond any magnification I will ever print or have printed. Can I do that? No. Can you: Perhaps not, but that doesn't necessarily mean the equipment can't. "lenses for 4/3 not that much smaller - Robert" Had you said that "some" or "quite a few" or "fast, expensive" lenses for 4/3 are not that much smaller, I might possibly agree. Even using the rather small for the time FF Olympus OM lenses, the apples to apples differences are great. OM 28/2.8 is much larger and heavier than Panny 14/2.5. Same for OM 50/1.8 vs. M.Z 25/1.8. I could go on . . . How about Leica 100-400 vs. - oh wait - there's nothing even close to comparable for FF. Yes, the giant f/1.2 lenses may be little smaller than their FF equivalents. I wouldn't know, as those aren't my kind of lenses. But I have a full complement of OM lenses other than the super fasts, had some MF Nikon F lenses (only the lovely 200/4 left), extensively used some EF mount lenses on 5D and have way too many µ4/3 lenses. There is a large to huge difference in size and weight - apples to apples. I don't know if you have real experience with µ4/3 gear. My opinions are based on many miles slogged with both kinds of gear.
Toggle Commented Nov 19, 2017 on Lumix G9 and Leica Lens at The Online Photographer
"The LUMIX G9 includes a largest-in-class Status LCD on the top, allowing users to check the settings at a glance." Ergonomics are so personal. I recently had occasion to use a DSLR for the first time in years, for a specific project. How am I " to check the settings at a glance." when I am at the back of the camera and the LCD is on the top? I disliked that design with my 5D. Now that I'm used to mirrorless, I really hate it. Why would I want to move my camera from shooting position to see how it's set? Most recently, sitting on the ground or a low stool, camera on a tripod, I couldn't lower the camera or twist it up/back, nor could I see the top without getting up, now too high. Feh! The Oly SCP provides all that info, plus the means to change any of it, right on the back LCD or in the EVF. Far superior, to me. (Yes, I imagine the G9 has Panny's QuickMenu, which isn't even close to as useful as the SCP, but doesn't require moving self or camera to read. But then what's the top LCD for, other than adding size and weight? Lipstick on a pig.) BTW, I'm neither for nor against Panny, overall. I used a GX7 alongside my E-M5 very happily for thousands of shots - and personally found the IBISs about equal, still use GM5 and ZS50 and my most used lenses are PLeicas.
Toggle Commented Nov 17, 2017 on Lumix G9 and Leica Lens at The Online Photographer
". . . I was thinking that photographers who shoot Micro 4/3 are the luckiest photographers in the world." Couldn't have expressed my feelings better myself. Came back from Bhutan a month ago. 15 days, 3,500+ stills*, 180 videos. On the Bhutan part of the trip, actually used three Oly bodies, two Leica lenses, four Oly lenses, one Laowa, 7.5 to 400 mm FL range. Fabulous photo trip. The gear was close to perfect, excellent results. Could I have been just a tiny bit happier? With the as yet imaginary E-M5 III, with the faster focus and better focus tracking of the E-M1 II, perhaps. BTW, the f1.2 lenses that set this post off are just noise to me. I seldom used even the f1.8-2.0 max apertures of the lenses I carried, 83 shots, f1.8 - f3.5. [Back to the digital darkroom, slave!!] *Counting the multiple exposures of focus stacks each as only one shot.
"Wondering, though, what others use as a stand for this kind of work. " Aside from the very expensive Leitz Aristophot and Nikon Multiphot, it depends in part on how you plan to hold the film. When I tried this approach, I used part of the excellent Olympus OM System macro gear. This illustration shows how the Auto Bellows, 80/4 Auto 1:1 lens and Slide Copier work together. As it is all a rigid piece when put together, it doesn't much matter what holds it, other than to make lighting convenient. I put it on a tripod close in front of a bookcase on which I put one of those cheap daylight balanced 4x5" "light tables", which worked very well. The Slide Copier is well built, with spring loading, so one only need refocus when mount style/thickness changes. I don't have the roll film accessory, as I have no film rolls, but the holder easily accommodates strips of film. I know there were other, similar solutions made. If you are going to put the film flat in/on some holder, you need a vertical stand. There is an essentially infinite supply of old enlargers, at least some of which can be used as copy stands, as I have done. Again, Olympus made an ideal solution. Used set on a light table or a piece of opal glass/plastic with flash below and focusing rail and/or adjustable extension tube and macro lens, it makes a solid, compact set-up. It's hard to see from the pictures how solid and precise this gear is.
" If I put the Zeiss on an extension tube . . . the sides of the negative/slide will turn to mush." When I tested my C-U/macro lenses a few years ago, the Oly 50/3.5 1:2 Macro tied for first at 1:2, but was still quite good @ 1:1; flat field and corners still good. But I would use their 80/4 Auto true Macro bellows lens, optimized for 1:1, for this, which is how I tested it.
"I would have to have been on the lookout; because I am often lost in thought, I'm not always alert." "I don't know about you, but as I go about almost every day, I see far more photographs than it's possible to even try to take." Put together, those statements seem self-contradictory, but I understand. \;^)> What I've found is that I tend not to get lost in thought when walking - if I have a camera with me. (Otherwise . . .) Especially if it's a "real" camera and in hand or around my neck. Cell phones don't work, and a camera in a bag or pouch are less effective. I "SEE" more with camera in hand. OTOH, seen with camera in hand, ready to take advantage, most of those ". . . far more photographs than it's possible to even try to take." reveal their flaws as actual photographs. In the face of actual picture taking, the fantasies collapse, and the number of actual shots available is manageable.
You have missed a crucial, at least to me, aspect - dust, dirt, scratches, etc. The better dedicated film scanners, and even some flatbed scanners with illumination and holders for film scanning, have an IR channel which allows automated dust removal. This is, in my awed opinion, MAGIC. No spotting!! It does not work with silver based B&W film. It didn't work at all well with Kodachrome until recently, when both SilverFast and VueScan figured out how to do it. I have the equipment, copy stand, slide/film holder, macro lenses etc. to do it your way. I've tried it; I didn't like it. I have one imaginary friend* who digitized several thousand slides with a similar set-up, using flash under a glass holder with stops for slide placement and a macro with sufficient DoF to avoid individual focusing of each slide. Needed only when changing to different mounts. He was happy with the speed and perhaps had cleaner film/technique than I. He had also had a lot of trouble with his Nikon scanners, including subtle halo/auras around highlights that cleaning and Nikon service couldn't correct, and gave up on them. OTOH, Tiny Manley, a moderately well known Leica photographer, who has done stock all her career, is still scanning some of her 10s of thousands of frames of B&W film and slides. She uses Nikon scanners with auto feeders with success, although is also a little bothered by the halo problem. As to software and old computer/OSs, it's true most software that came with scanners is defunct, but VueScan is inexpensive and with excellent support. Yes, there may be a moderate learning curve foe some uses, but the results are excellent. It comes with it's own scanner driver that supports practically any scanner ever made. BUT, Windoze only, which is fine for me. Personally, I use a long discontinued Canon 4000FS film scanner (with back-up). It has much greater DoF than the Nikon, Minolta, etc. scanners and a more diffuse light source than Nikon, which doesn't exacerbate scratches. Yup, slow per frame, and only sticks of six frames or four slides per batch - BUT - will do those unattended with VueScan while I do other things. * Known for years on the web, but never met in person.
"Does anyone have any opinions about the Microsoft Surface Book 2 released today?" When I shopped for a 13"-ish portable just a year ago, there were a handful of very similar products from various makers. The then MS Surfaces were competitive, if not best of breed, but rather pricey. I ended up with an HP Spectre, as equal or better in major performance measures, significantly less expensive and slightly better matched in little details to my needs. It folds into a tablet, for example, rather than coming apart, which may matter to some. Like the Spectre, the Surface requires a dongle for Ethernet connection. It adds an SD card slot, but it doesn't support UHS II, so I'd be using a reader in the standard USB 3.0 port anyway. To get more than one USB 3.0 port requires a dongle. Just samples of how little details may matter a lot to some users. The HP has turned out to be an excellent machine; I have no second thoughts. Lovely touch screen, fine keyboard, etc. I imagine the situation to be much the same today, just with slightly more powerful processors. Being an AppleHead, you may not fully realize that all these different makes look and act just the same on screen, as they all run Win10. Win runs no differently, no better, no worse, on MS's hardware than anyone else's. They are also generally closely matched in performance in matching models. My choice ended up being driven as much by small details as headline processor/memory/SSD specs.
Toggle Commented Nov 10, 2017 on Blog Notes at The Online Photographer
". . .if you could comfortably afford a medium-format digital camera . . . " Yes, although I can think of many better uses tor the money, it wouldn't be a hardship. " . . . would you want one?" No ". . . Or do they just amount to another siren song?" No longing calling to me from the Rhine . . . I've never been attracted to gear that doesn't accomplish something I want. There was a time, long ago, when it seemed that I could only do certain photographic things with MF film. At that time, the cost was prohibitive. That time is past, not because what I want to accomplish has diminished, but because the capabilities of digital have improved so much. The long effective focal lengths of µ4/3, and esp the amazing IBIS, focus bracketing and HR Modes of Oly's latest OMD models, actually go beyond anything I had imagined back then. They fully meet all my straight photography needs. I can't imagine any reason to lug around a larger, heavier camera with fewer, less long and wide, slower lenses. I do use a FF mirrorless, an original A7, for my alternate photography, because the various old and odd lenses were almost all designed to cover FF and do their stuff better on it. I just did some color rendering testing of old Oly E-1 and E-300 DSLRs. I couldn't believe how difficult they were to use after converting entirely to live view mirrorless a few years ago. What a pain!
Toggle Commented Nov 7, 2017 on Thought Experiment at The Online Photographer
"@ Moose - how did the photographer ensure that everyone (bar possibly one woman) has their eyes open?!" "And Moose, thank you for posting that wonderful wedding shot — just fantastic." I'm not THAT old. I was 3 1/2 at the time, and living on the other side of the continent. Not my shot; I'm just another appreciator, passing it on. What tricks of the trade got everyone looking at the camera with eyes wide open and lit so evenly, I don't know. I am glad you folks enjoyed it and that I got a chance to copy it.
". . . he shoots in 10x12, 7x17, 16x20, and 20x24 . . ." 7x17 was a "Banquet" camera, designed for that specific purpose. Not my original, and once removed from the contact print I copied, but I thought it would be fun to see what they were primarily used for in their heyday. A much larger version may be seen here. This is of Carol's Aunt Annie's wedding. It's technically amazing for the DOF and sharpness right out to the corners. It's also an amazing photo because of the great wealth of characters captured having a great time in Brooklyn shortly after the war. This sample from about half way from center to corner also happens to feature Carol's parents. (Tripod on Annie's kitchen table after lunch, books on the corners of the print, 5D and 90mm macro lens.)
"I think the snake in Eden was Satan, and hence singular, no?" Weeeell, that's certainly a common belief among many Christians. OTOH, the Snake, otherwise unnamed, is in the start of the first book of the Old Testament, and a connection with Satan is not made until the last book of the New Testament. If you believe that John, a cranky, angry exile on Patmos, is a Divine authority, sure. If not, it's far from clear. Without the Snake, the whole story of our human lives doesn't ever happen; in that sense, it's role is ambiguous. Whether that means we would all exist, not just Adam and Eve, in an Edenic life, depends on which non-bibical back story you may subscribe to.
"While modern lenses typically strive to achieve the highest levels of sharpness and clarity, the Thambar-M 90mm ƒ/2.2 is all about 'the look.' The Thambar lens is known for its ability to capture portraits with a signature aesthetic that cannot be reproduced in basic digital post processing." This would be interesting to me, if it weren't so costly, and if I had a camera to mount it on. I walk two sides of the photography street, conventionally sharp, clear, with lots of fine detail, deep DoF, etc., and various forms of soft and abstract images. For the latter, I have a small menagerie of soft lenses, mostly used on a Sony A7, as they are all designed for FF. Some are intentionally so: LensBaby Velvet 56/1.6 Holga 60/8 Minolta Varisoft 85/2.8 SIMA Soft Focus 100/2 LensBaby Sweet 50/2.5 LensBaby Soft Focus 50/2 Other LensBaby 50/2 optics. Early fast T-Mount lenses, pre computer aided design, unintentionally soft at wide apertures: Tamron 28/2.8 Super Lentar 35/2.8 Sankor 135/2.8 Lentar 200/3.5 Looking at web images, I don't see anything from the Thambar that seems unique, compared to what the above can do. There might be more to see with larger images, of course. The Minolta is interesting in that it has a ring that adjusts the amount of spherical aberration for some control over softness separate from the aperture ring, although I've not so far much liked the results. Nikon tried the idea of a soft focus 105/2.8, but abandoned it before production, as they couldn't get the effect when stopping down that was desired. This raises a major problem with all these lenses; softness declines with smaller apertures, generally entirely disappearing by f8-11 (including the Thambar). Thus, combining soft focus with large DoF, as is achieved with some LF lenses, is impossible. Nikons's solution was to stop the lens project and develop special Soft filters. There's also a problem with "sink strainer" apertures as (first?) seen in the Rodenstock Imagons (and in LensBaby Soft Focus aperture disks). Specular highlights become large images of the aperture, in bright color. An interesting effect, but seldom actually desirable. Another problem is bright conditions, where very high shutter speeds and/or ND filters are needed to maintain the wide apertures where soft focus obtains. What DOES intrigue me is the filter with blacked out center. I see at least one 1A filter with black center in my future.
UHS-II cards make a huge difference for sequential shots on my Oly E-M5 IIs. For focus bracketing, the even with the fastest UHS-I cards, the buffer fill at about 10-11 shots, and the exposure rate sloooow waaaay down. As I generally shoot hand held and often things that move in even a slight breeze, this was often fatal. With faster UHS-II cards is seems that writing to the card is as fast as images are produced, and I have yet to fill the buffer. ---------- "But I notice it when downloading to the computer: the UHS-II card is definitely much faster." And that's with a regular card reader, I'll bet. You should see the images fly off a Lexar 2000x card using their UHS-II reader - WOW. ---------- "I guess it's obvious which kind I prefer." I have and use those, but little lately. IMO, they are designed backwards. I have for decades had a Millers Falls metal bodied tape where a button on the side releases the tape to rewind. Pull it out and it stays there automatically, 'til told to come back. But I've been unable to find a replacement for the beat up tape itself. Now, glory be, there are new well made tapes that work the same way, Komelon SelfLocks. Nirvana.
Toggle Commented Oct 19, 2017 on Missing at The Online Photographer
"The picture above, for instance, is dead sharp in the middle of the shoreline and a bit unsharp on the edges, both north and south." The camera is not square to the shoreline. Are you sure that this is not, at least in part, DoF? DoF softening that would never have been noticed in prints of any reasonable size from 35 mm film can show up with high MP sensors viewed at 100%. As you say, testing can be a tricky business. [As I say, I just decided to bail and get a lens that the camera's IBIS works with, to better get a handle on that function as I would personally use it. That's all. --Mike]
Monochrome images are highly artificial abstracts of the visual images we see. Grain and noise are technical failures of the imaging device/system. Shallow DoF is an artifact of our imaging systems, not how we actually "see" 3D things. Many photographers decry the loss of these inaccuracies. Perhaps the kind of images you describe depart from "reality" in different ways than the above. Deciding which is more real is more a matter of taste than anything measurable. My personal take is that yes, my "straight" images and those of many others with contemporary equipment and software are truer to the original subjects than before. It seems to me that this distinction is also in a sense a matter of taste. If Picasso tells something about at least some of his subjects that some people find to be "truth", then literal accuracy of reproduction is not particularly important. Some people find my abstract images to contain something important, something that moves them, even though the original subject is often unknowable.
Such an interestingly different take than my personal experience. I suppose that is in part because you are in the position of observer of the behavior of an amorphous group of other photographers via the anecdotal info of reviews, blogs and forums. I really don't understand the complaints about the relatively short life span of digital cameras. For me, it's always been about what I could do with a camera that determined when I switched. A prior camera went on the shelf due to functional obsolescence, not wearing out. Nikon F yielded to the much smaller, lighter OM-1. OM-1 was largely replaced by the TTL-OTF AE of the OM-2n. My long run with the OM-2n yielded to the spot metering of the OM-4. I feel that I haven't changed in this regard, but the rate of additional capabilities in digital cameras has shortened the functional life of my cameras. My first digcam was a Canon S110, a 2 MP P&S. That showed that digital was for real. Stephen Sharf was kind enough to lend me his D60 for a few days. That proved to me that adapted OM mount lenses would work well on a DSLR. Next was a Canon 300D/Rebel with firmware hack to make it in effect a 10D. As I became more adept at digital and post processing and ran up against the limitations of WA on APS-C back then . . . I bought a 5D, which met my needs, in spite of the release of many other cameras, for 5 1/4 years. Feeling the need for a larger LCD and live view, I bought a 60D. Although I got many good images with it, I never really bonded with it. Fortunately, Oly came out with the E-M5. Almost instant affection. After about 10 months, I realized that my personal aversion to changing lenses in the field was making me miss shots. I had just acquired an E-PM2 as casual camera, which also appeared to meet my minimum requirements for serious field use, so I started carrying two cameras, with 12-50 and 75-100 zooms. As the two camera experiment became normal practice, the limitations of the E-PM2, intended only as an experiment anyway, led me to try the new GX7. It happily worked side-by-side with the E-M5 for about 14 months. Then came the E-M5 II, announced Feb. 5, 2015, my first shots Mar, 4, 2015. Headline addition was the High Resolution Mode, but IBIS was improved and there were other operational and ergonomic changes for the better, too. Did I like it? A second one replaced the GX 7 10 weeks later. Then came the really great innovation, with Focus Bracketing in a 9/15/15 firmware update. A new camera without buying one!! Now, with a once in a lifetime type exotic photo trip starting this month I was willing to consider switching to E-M1 IIs. After much research, review reading, image comparison on DPReview's studio subject comparator, and consultation with someone more expert at IQ comparison than I, who had just bought an E-M1 II, and was deciding whether to keep it, I decided that the E-M5 II is actually a slightly better camera for me. Once again, New, Better, Shiny didn't prevail. Model-----------Start---------End--------Years----Shots----- S/Yr 300D--------7/15/2004----5/28/2006----1.87---- 2,378 ---- 1,273 5D-----------5/17/2006----8/10/2011----5.24---- 12,773 ---- 2,440 60D----------4/30/2011-----8/9/2012----1.28---- 6,024 ---- 4,708 E-M5--------7/31/2012-----4/2/2015----2.67---- 12,345 ---- 4,621 E-PM2-------5/17/2013--11/14/2013----0.50---- 4,335 ---- 8,742 GX7--------11/15/2013----1/27/2016----2.20---- 2,378 ---- 1,081 E-M5 II A----3/4/2015----9/15/2017----2.54--- 12,974 E-M5 II B---5/12/2015---9/15/2017----2.35---- 8,670 E-M5s combined---------------------------------- 21,644 Of all these cameras, the only one I was glad to have an excuse to put behind me was the 60D. Perhaps not a mistake, as I don't know what else I might have done, but the closest. All this detail is in aid of providing an anecdotal example of someone who isn't following the scenario you paint, but is, for practical, photographic reasons changing cameras pretty often. I can't believe I'm not alone. An awful lot of what one hears on the web is just empty blather. There are also lots of people who buy, sell and talk about cameras and lenses a lot, while hardly doing any photography. In answer to your indirect question, my history has been something like 2.5 years per primary camera. As to the direct question, I expect an E-M5 III in a year or so, fall/winter 2018, as Oly has announced a slowing of the rate of product introductions. I don't anticipate any other cameras from Panny or other brands that would change that, but who knows? That would mean a run of 3.5-4 years for the E-M5 IIs
"You're buying eight drivers . . ." More is better? Back when I paid close attention to this stuff that was seldom true of multi-driver speakers. The effects of wave interference between a line of identical drivers are notoriously tricky. How good can the drivers be, for that price? I suspect this is another case where it isn't true. The proof would be in the listening. I'll stick with the four drivers in my pair of B&W Nautilus 805s. I see the latest version is even more expensive, 'cause it has diamonds, apparently. But leaving that aside, imagine what it costs to make that incredibly rigid box, with no flat surfaces other than the back to create resonant frequencies. A speaker is also not all about the drivers.
Well, darn! I thought I already had it, maybe even them. Tomorrow, who knows; now, they're in the bag. The camera to come doesn't take pictures. I'm about to head out on an exotic photographic adventure. I've spent a lot of time trying to think of a camera or cameras that would better serve me. Couldn't. There is no perfect camera. There are cameras that do some things better than what I have, but do other things less well, or are in other ways less suitable. It's all about balance. Your "real secret of having great equipment, by the way—use it hard, long, and exclusively, enough that you really get to know it inside and out" is a factor, too.
Oh dear, sorry about your mom, that sounds rough. I don't even know what to wish for you, other than the strength and balance to carry on gracefully through this time. I found those as primary care giver for my mother, but it may have been easier, as her slow deterioration was all physical until the very last few weeks. Even then, it was not dementia or Alzheimer's, just what might be called a loss of interest in the doings of life. Blessings
Toggle Commented Aug 28, 2017 on He's Baaaaa-ack at The Online Photographer
Where do I get an intern to keyword all my images? \;~)> A couple of ideas I haven't seen in the comments so far, both using the power of the LR catalog system*: Geocoding - I have been religiously geocoding shots taken away from home for years**. The Maps tab in LR may then be used to find and select all the images taken in any place. I suppose if I were a portrait photographer . . . But most of my work is outside, and moving. This has been a life saver. Metadata - LR allows selecting images based on EXIF data, date (including ranges), camera, lens, focal length, and so on. That often allows finding that elusive image I didn't keyword. Combining the two functions, I can, for example, select all the shots from one small part of a particular botanic garden, in all different visits, then use metadata to select from those by date. ================= * No, I don't like or use LR for editing; I'm a PS guy. That doesn't mean I can't use it for other things. ** I used an i-gotU for years, then mostly iPhone apps, now Garmin Trex 401, for the greater sensitivity, for accuracy under tree cover, etc. LR will do the tagging from GPX file, but I prefer GeoSetter (free).
I seem to have inadvertently stumbled across a Bokeh Monster for µ4/3. I have ambivalent feelings about swirly bokeh images. Some are quite attractive, but, like anything hot, it's been overdone - "If swirl is good here, with this subject, it's good for everything." All the "officially" swirly lenses are designed for FF or larger film/sensor sizes. For good or ill, much of the effect is lost on crop sensors. They are also rather long focal lengths for smaller sensors. Although bought with other ideas, this no name CCTV 25/1.4 lens swirls with the best when wide open. That does require an ND filter in direct sun. Best of all is the price. Rather than trolling for myself, I bought a Fotasy package from of lens and C-mount to µ4/3 adapter for the princely sum of $28, with Prime free 2 day shipping and no tax. Swirl away, MFTers!
Toggle Commented Aug 19, 2017 on New Old New Lens at The Online Photographer