This is Jim Bullard's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jim Bullard's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jim Bullard
Recent Activity
Touit? They got around to it?
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2016 on It It at The Online Photographer
I'd want two systems, one of which would be lighter weight for hiking with. For that I'd go with a Panasonic GX8 and an all-in-one zoom lens probably the Tamron 14-150mm. I'd replace my Canon 7d (original model) with an 80D. To go with that I'd want a macro lens and a couple of zoom lenses. I'm not hung up on primes. Modern zoom lenses are more than adequate unless you are a pixel peeper, more interested in what the camera/lens combo can render than in what the photographer saw and wanted to share with you.
Toggle Commented Aug 9, 2016 on Start Over, Begin Again at The Online Photographer
Jay is (IMO) the Yoda of photography, a Jedi Master.
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2016 on 190 Bowery Update at The Online Photographer
They might have been turkey vultures waiting for you and Butters to keel over from heat exhaustion. ;-)
Toggle Commented Jul 18, 2016 on Wild Life at The Online Photographer
I'm with you on the square sensor but I'd want more than 9MP. I'd be looking for 4-5K pixels each way sot that cropped images would still be decent sized. An interesting small camera that has a APS-C sensor is teh Canon EOS M. Yeah, I know. The reviews all hated it and I confess that there are some things about it that I don't like but the sensor is the same sixe (physically and in pixels) as my Canon 7D (the original) but IMO the EOS M produces better images. The M series lenses are excellent. The only kludge is the controls. Not the most user friendly, at least for this user. I would like to buy either a Panasonic GX8 or a Canon M3. I like the look of the GX8's built in EVF but teh files I'm getting from my original EOS make me wonder if I shouldn't stick with teh APS-C sensor.
Toggle Commented Jul 6, 2016 on The Ideal Sensor at The Online Photographer
I like your in-house style for the term. The one I see most often is "MFT" ubt being the age I am it brings to mine the old ads with LSMFT (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco). That brings up another problem. Our penchant for acronyms means that now even the accepted accronyms have multiple meanings and depend on the context for the correct meaning.
Toggle Commented Jul 6, 2016 on Micro 4/3 at The Online Photographer
The "brain compensation" is the reason that you can get laser surgery to have one eye for distance and the other for close up (reading) and it works. I thought it would give you a headache but a friend who had it done tells me it works fine. As for how do you know your pupil distance, take a small (metric) ruler and hold it so that it is just below your pupils when you look in the mirror. Put the 0 end under one pupil and read the measurement under the other pupil. Alternatively use a strip of thin cardboard and make a mark under each pupil as you look in the mirror and measure the space.
I have a friend who is obsessed with getting everything "tack sharp". I don't get it. It isn't natural (realistic). We don't see that way. Hold your arm out straight and spread your fingers out. Now stare at your thumbnail and, without shifting your focus from your thumbnail, ask yourself "is my little finger sharp?". The answer is "No!". We see only a 3° circle sharply. Everything else is peripheral vision and is fuzzy. The farther out from the 3° circle it is, the fuzzier it is. So why do we think we see everything sharply? It is because our eyes are constantly moving from one area of interest to another and our brain remembers. That is an advantage and a disadvantage. The disadvantage for photographers is that unless we consciously look at each of the less interesting bits in front of us we miss seeing things we'd rather not have in our photo and then we have to Photoshop them out. Personally, as a guy who learned on large format, I kind of like fuzzy backgrounds for a lot of subjects. It just seems like a more natural way to see the world. Total sharpness is too mechanical, less human.
1) It is true that dogs aren't people. On the whole, they are better than people. I've only found one human as loyal as a dog. I'm sure there are some but they are less common than they are among dogs. 2) Thunderstorms are a problem for dogs too. I used to sit in the middle of the floor with our two dogs during bad thunderstorms with one arm around each of them to calm them and recently it has been discovered that (at least for a lot of dogs) that a compression vest will calm them. You might try that for Butters. A brand called Thundershirts is available on Amazon. I'm sure there are others. Good luck with helping Butters get through the 4th.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2016 on Remember the Dogs (OT) at The Online Photographer
Fox Talbot used waxed paper negatives so I think naming it for Jim Galli is a bit late. I'm sure he's having fun with it (I did several decades ago) and he is probably a nice guy but he's late in the game for naming rights.
I've had a Miata lust for years but it isn't like yours. I also had a sailboat lust for many years like Arlo in the comics but in reality neither suits me. I don't like boating on big open water and a Miata doesn't really suit my lifestyle. I guess the attraction is an image thing. I live near and spend a fair amount of time in the Adirondacks so a soft top Jeep would actually be more my speed and no, I don't own one. I looked at one (yellow with a V6) before buying my very first car but decided it wasn't practical and unless I have a truck too it wouldn't be practical now either. OTOH of all the vehicles I've ever driven, the one I most enjoyed driving was a van. One of the old ones where the driver's seat is over the front wheel. Crazy huh? "If I was a rich man..." I'd have a garage with about a dozen vehicles to choose from depending on my mood.
"I tried to get the ball and the plane both in the shot, but by the time I'd worked out the framing—just a few seconds—the plane had left the picture." Here is a bit of advice I used to give when teaching photography many, many years ago: "A picture is worth a thousand words but all thousand words need to be about the same thing". I use my smartphone for note taking all the time and have occasionally used it as a 'real' camera but it doesn't offer the kind of control I require for most photography. But then, I learned on sheet film cameras with manual controls over every aspect of the process, so perhaps I'm just a control freak. I don't like equipment making decisions for me. As always, to each his/her own.
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2016 on iPhone Apocalypse at The Online Photographer
An aside to your comment that you can always tell paintings that were made from photographs: Some artists are capable of "photographically accurate" draftsmanship. Check out the drawings and watercolors of John Ruskin. He generally drew from life (3D) but on at least one occasion he hired a Daguerreotypist to accompany him in his travels and some of his work may derive from those 2D images in whole or part. This your challenge... Go to and see if you can tell with certainty which of his works may have had 2D origins. I would also point you to David Hockney's book "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters" in which he proposes that many of the old masters used a camera obscura to do the drawing that underlaid their paintings. He shows that drawing suddenly became more accurate with the invention of the camera obscura. Does that count as working from "flat"? I also know artists who insist on working from 3D but that is just a preference, like whether or not to use Photoshop or for that matter whether to print your own or just shoot JPGs and send them out to be printed.
This kind of discussion isn't unique to photography. It happens around all sorts of topics that inspire passion. It is particularly prevalent in politics and religion but I'll pass on those in favor of a mail list I used to belong to. It was a mail list for people who were enthralled with the Appalachian Trail, in particular, those who had or wanted to "thru-hike" it (as in all 2000+ miles in one season). There was a fair amount of discussion over what specifically constituted a "thru-hike. In fact there is no "official" rule (by the AT Trail Conference that oversees the trail) except that one hike the entire marked trail and doing it one one season isn't required since they only recognize "2000 milers", those who have hiked the whole trail regardless of how long it took to do it (some have taken decades). In spite of the lack of specific rules by a governing authority, some purists try to set themselves up as that authority. At the end of my association with that list several such individuals hounded one young woman member of the list into an online confession and apology that her hike of the AT the prior summer was in fact not a "thru-hike" because she had by-passed a couple of short stretches for personal safety reasons, allowed by ATC 2000 miler rules but not the purist's. No matter what we do in life there will be others who have expectations of our work that we do not entirely meet all the time. Is it legit to by-pass a stretch of trail that requires you to risk injury? Is it legit to eliminate things from your photo that detract from what you are trying to convey? I think it depends on the expectations of those passing judgment but often they are informal groups imposing their ideas via social pressure. It is not based on edicts from a governing body whose role is to define the rules. FWIW I dropped out that mail list group in disgust over their treatment of the young lady who had come there for support and encouragement but ended up being shamed. Another faction of the list had the attitude HYOH, "hike your own hike", on the philosophy that ultimately hikes for one's own reasons and satisfaction and what others thought didn't matter. Perhaps we need a PYOP movement.
BTDT on teaching. Classroom time is the "performance" part of teaching. It is a lot like other performance arts in that the preparation time has to exceed the performance time or you will suck as a teacher. Initially, it has to exceed the classroom time by a lot. Eventually, you get it down to a set of repeatable presentations that you modify according to changes in technology, the needs of your students, etc., but there is still prep time. People who think teachers are overpaid should try it some time.
Every camera IS more than I need because no one makes a camera that has only the features I need. OTOH It is hard to find one that has all the features I'd like, even with all the features I don't care about thrown in.
I've always regarded his work as highly competent commercial photography but I can't say I have ever seen one of his photos that grabbed my attention and spoke to me on a deeper level. But then I didn't care much for "The Family of Man" exhibit either. I guess he and I are/were just out of synch.
I Have never considered NG to be a source of objective fact and nothing but the facts, as Joe Friday would say. I've always considered it to be stories from a certain perspective and that they take particular pride in aesthetically excellent photographs,so I'm not shocked that some of them aren't "straight". Aside from that I haven't seen the article with the photo in question but I have to wonder, how did removing one occupant from the pedal taxi, or removing a vendor's cart falsify the article that the photo illustrated? Are the alterations really germane to the credibility of the article or in this just a game of "gotcha"? Personally. I don't give a damn whether the taxi was carrying 2 people or 3 or 15 for that matter. There are more important things in the world to worry about IMO. As always YMMV.
Good post Mike. I enjoyed it. My own belief system defies labels, at least any that I can think of or that others have tried to attach to it. I think that is as it should be. Labels are the first step on the path to conflict.
Some history and thoughts. Many years ago when I was younger and working at a job I wasn't happy in, I had an opportunity to buy a camera shop from a guy I'd known since HS. He was retiring (about the age I am now). I really wanted to do it until he told me he wasn't making money on cameras because the chain and drug stores were starting to carry the cameras most consumers wanted and because they could buy in volume, they could sell those cameras for less than his cost. He carried a few new cameras and listed them at the higher prices he needed and told customers that he was selling service along with the actual camera (sound familiar?). He could offer advice and instruction that made the higher price worth it. Mostly the cameras sat the shelf and his main business was B&W processing which had to be done after hours because he couldn't afford a clerk to tend the store while he processed film. He was grossing about $10K (this was in the '70s) about the time the 800# dealers were starting to kill the local shops. I saw the handwriting on the wall and reluctantly passed. The guy who did buy the business ended up bankrupt. Neither of us foresaw digital. Nikon isn't the first to be sticklers about proof of purchase. I once bought a used Pentax and wrote the US importer asking if I could get a copy of the user manual. They denied my request because they said if they said if they supplied manuals without proof of sale by a US dealer, people would buy overseas models cheaper and then request an English manual. I pointed out that the camera was used and no longer in production but that made no difference to them. That kind of turned me off Pentax and I switched to Canon. I've been buying, selling and trading cameras (both used and new) for over 50 years (more buying than selling, I still have too many cameras). FWIW I've never owned a Nikon. I have owned or do own Voightlander, Graflex, Miranda, Pentax, Canon, Mamiya, Fuji, Olympus, Yashica, Wista and a few others but never a Nikon. The used cameras never had a warranty of course, and out of all the new ones I have bought (mostly licensed imports but some grey market) not one has ever failed in what was or would have been the warranty period had there been one. Of course, I'm not a working pro who is hard on gear. If I were, and was depending on my camera purchases to feed my family I'm sure I'd want the insurance of a well-backed warranty, but as it is, a failed camera is not a crisis to me. Besides, as I said, I have several others if one ever does fail and I've saved enough over the years on used and grey gear that if one did bail on me and an anal repair facility refused to fix it over lack of a sales slip, I could just buy another and still be ahead. I guess I'm playing the odds but my history demonstrates that the odds are with me when it comes to cameras without warranties. As always YMMV.
I agree with your dog theory. My prime criteria for vehicles is reliability and along with that, I hold to the maxim that if I have to drive more than 30 miles for warranty repairs, it is not a good car/truck. Thus I am unlikely to ever own a Volvo, Mercedes or even a Kia since none of those have a dealership within 30 miles of my rural location. Likewise my rule for cameras has more to do with the technological capabilities of the camera than the price. I paid around $1700 for my Canon 7D kit when I bought it about 12 years ago. It has been worth every penny IMO. OTOH I've looked at cameras that run $3000+ that I wouldn't touch because they aren't suitable for the kind of photography I do. I'm considering a shift to mirrorless (I do a lot of hiking and at 71, weight is becoming an issue, both my weight and the camera's) but I want one that has the same capabilities as my 7D.
Toggle Commented May 22, 2016 on Open Mike: Theory of Dogs at The Online Photographer
Somehow this whole debate reminds me of the arguments over whether the Bible is the literal "word of God" but tempting as that analogy is I won't go there. There is a photographer, I don't recall his name, who is blind. He points the camera and trips the shutter. Someone else, I guess, develops and prints the images he makes (he uses film) and since I've seen mention of him multiple times in various media, he has made at least a modest reputation as a photographer. Assuming that his processor is doing 'straight' processing, I think we could all agree that his photographs are images of reality because they are in no way biased by his visual perceptions. I, on the other hand, choose my subjects visually, choose what to include in the frame and what to leave out and process the images to emphasize what aspects of the subject I want the viewer to "see", the same way a writer chooses his/her words to create the mood or emotion intended. That act of choosing is, in itself, a departure of from the 360 degree, 5 senses reality of the instant in which the shutter was clicked. Given that awareness, I hope you will forgive my lack of indignation for editing photographs that are illustrative as (IMO) most of the photos in National Geographic are. When I look at their photos I am fully aware that they make them in much the same manner as I do. Truth to be told, I wouldn't have shot that particular image of the bike taxi and if I had, I would not have brightened, saturated and raised the contrast to the degree that they did. Why? Because (for me) it too greatly alters the mood of the slog through rain and mud. Again, if I had shot it, I would have done much the same edits Mike suggests but unlike Mike I would have completely ditched the white square because it is totally meaningless to the photo and is distracting. I would have suffered zero pangs of guilt over doing it although it appears that I might well have suffered unemployment in today's world of journalism, a touch of irony when I see other much more egregious distortions in photographs which are ostensibly not Photoshopped. I refer here to numerous instances in our current election campaign where news media tightly frame images of a modest campaign event to give the impression of a large turnout (that actually totaled a few dozen to a few hundred) while downplaying (again through framing) a turnout in the thousands, with the message of each reflecting the preferences of the media's management re: the politician involved. They also choose the individual portrait image on the same basis, a flattering image for someone they favor and an unflattering one for those they oppose. All this routinely occurring in mainstream media on matters regarding the future direction of our government. But we aren't debating that. Instead, we are debating an inconsequential photograph of anonymous people on a bike taxi in India in a publication that is largely apolitical (or at least it was before its recent change of ownership). All this disputation over a photograph, the precise truthfulness of which is of little to no consequence, makes me more glad than ever that I got out of photojournalism when I was in my 20s. Jeesh!
I have mixed feelings about this. As a rule, I like to manipulate as little as possible, i.e. I would not have Photoshopped out the guy in the background, but when I do I try to make the manipulation as un-obvious as possible. I recognize that cameras don't 'see' the way we humans do and photography is primarily about seeing for me. A camera 'sees' everything you point it toward. We label that camera seeing as "objective" but that is a human judgment. We could just as easily say "indiscriminate" if we chose to put a negative spin on how the camera sees instead of a positive spin. Humans see subjectively. We pay attention to that which has meaning for us either because we like it, or because it is somehow threatening to us. Moving objects get our attention as do brightly colored things. It is a survival function. There was an interesting video made some time ago that shows up on the web periodically in which there is a group of people passing a ball around and the viewer is instructed to keep their eye on the ball. At the end the viewer is asked if they saw the gorilla. There was a guy in a gorilla suit who walked right through the group of people passing the ball. I missed him (as do the vast majority of people who see the film without being told in advance about the gorilla and I have been doing photography (seeing intently) for over half a century. Should a photographer be honest about editing out things if asked? I'd say yes but I also wonder if we aren't being too strict about "honesty" in photographs. Does it really matter that the guy in the background was edited out? Does it somehow change the story? If it was evidence in a legal proceeding obviously but for a magazine story? Like it or not, every digital photo out there is edited to one degree or another. Digital cameras all shot in RAW format which can't even be viewed without converting to some other format. Even the preview on the LCD is a conversion. That involves modifications to tone, hue and dynamic range either in camera or in "post processing". It often also involves correcting to lens distortion. Perhaps we need to get over the idea that photographs are inherently "honest" and then decide what level of honesty is required for the particular situation.
Toggle Commented May 12, 2016 on Faked-up Photos at The Online Photographer
RE: Twoot. I don't tweet. Facebook already wastes too much of my time. I don't need another time waster.
That begs the question, "what is a SERIOUS photographer?". I have been a pro (many years ago) and a freelancer after that but gave up any notion of making a living at it. I'm not particularly successful at selling prints which all I've ben doing with it for several decades now. All the same I consider myself to be quite serious about my photography. Like Tom I am a "happy snapper" but it is much more than that. I'm truly serious about my photography. I can't quantify that for you though. It just is.
Toggle Commented Mar 28, 2016 on Know Thyself at The Online Photographer