justinblack

January 11, 2016

IMHO, with the M262, Leica has come quite a bit closer to perfection in a digital M camera.

Though most of my work over the last two decades has been with 4x5 and medium format film, and more recently Nikon DSLRs, I've also been a Leica M user along the way. I've always loved the film Ms, but I didn't find the M8 or M9 compelling enough given their cost. Fuji's X-Series arguably offered a better digital solution in a rangefinder-like profile. The Leica M240 was in many ways an improvement with a lot of admirable qualities, but the rather hefty weight (for an M) coupled with a number of features that are uninteresting to me in that type of camera (live view, EVF support, video, etc.), left me cold.

Then along comes the M262, digital Leica I'd been waiting for. Image quality is exceptionally good across the native ISO range, the weight has been decreased substantially, and Leica have returned to their roots, offering the simple, straightforward photographer's tool that every M camera should be. It delivers everything a digital rangefinder camera needs, and nothing it doesn't. It also represents a rather good value, considering that, adjusted for inflation, the M262 only costs $1500 more than a new M6 did thirty years ago, and meanwhile one saves the cost of film and processing. The only improvements that would make me happier with the M262 would be slightly better performance at ISO 3200 and above, and a slightly slimmer body size the same as an M6 (though engineering realities and the laws of physics may render the latter impossible).

August 1, 2012

Hi Howard,

I'd like to make some recommendations, but I'm not clear on whether you just want a guide or if you have specific goals in mind for your photography. Is there something in particular you'd like to learn? Are you interested in someone who will simply show you how, when, and where to shoot the iconic scenes, or are you looking for someone who knows Yosemite well but who can teach you something about original creative vision?

Either way, you'll have a wonderful time in Yosemite. It's a phenomenal place.

Best,

Justin

June 8, 2012

You're right, Andy. It helps to be honest with oneself about one's actual needs, since the number of photographers out there who truly need massive resolution is relatively small. The D800/D800E is designed for pros whose clients need or appreciate high resolution, or for amateurs who want to make large fine prints. For folks printing at more typical sizes (say, 16x20 or smaller), a D700 or D7000 will work wonderfully well. A couple years ago, I had two landscape images from my D700 printed at 32"x48" (339% enlargement @ 300ppi) for an exhibit at the U.S. Capitol. The results were noticeably better than 32"x48" prints I've had made from drum scans of 35mm Velvia, and from a normal viewing distance of a few feet, the quality was really good.

If the same print had come from a D800, you'd be able to get right up to the print to appreciate the fine detail because the degree of enlargement would be 196% rather than 339% (or you could make a seven-foot-long print at 339% enlargement). If the image were a 72MP D800 shift-stitch, you could make a 7x10 foot print at 339% enlargement, or a 24"x36" print at 300ppi without enlarging the file at all.

The D7000, by the way, is a superb little camera that I highly recommend to enthusiast photographers in need of a single affordable body that does just about everything well.

June 7, 2012

If I were to recommend a camera system for a landscape photographer hoping to make big, beautiful prints it would be the following: Nikon D800E PC-E Nikkor lenses: 24mm, 45mm, 85mm (I carry the old 35mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor too) AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR One could add lenses to that basic set, but this covers the bases incredibly well. You can both control plane of focus and create 72MP images by shift-stitching with the PC-E Nikkors or pan-stitching with the 70-300. It all fits in a small, lightweight photo backpack, and is in essence more powerful than a full 4x5 field camera outfit. Just trust me on this one. Best, Justin Black <img src="webkit-fake-url://5B101893-D7F1-4E64-8F2A-B082749C5103/image.tiff" alt="" />

February 25, 2012

Certain iconic shots at Zion or Bryce are best at sunrise or sunset, but extraordinary images can be made at either park at all hours.

Bryce at sunrise:

Bryce at sunset:

Zion early morning:

Zion late morning:

Zion at sunset:

February 19, 2012

Penn Camera has been scooped up by Calumet Photographic, and the E St., Tysons, and Rockville stores will continue to operate under the Penn Camera banner. Calumet is expanding the range of products on offer, both for sale and for rent. This is very good news for the DC photo community!

October 7, 2011

If you are interested in adding greater meaning and purpose to your nature photography, you might enjoy my article in the November Outdoor Photographer, available online now:

http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/locations/north-america/photographing-with-purpose.html

Feel free to get in touch with any questions.

Best,

Justin

August 8, 2011

Suggesting that a D7000 requires better quality lenses than, say, a D300 isn't really comparing apples to apples. Yes, a 16MP sensor may more clearly reveal optical imperfections in a given lens than will a 12MP sensor, but in most cases only if the final image is printed at a larger size that corresponds to the increase in pixel density. In other words, a 12 MP D300 file is 4288 x 2848 pixels, which will make a 9.5" x 14.29" print when scaled directly to 300 ppi. The D7000's 4928 x 3264 sensor scales to a 10.9" x 16.4" at the same output resolution. Your lens' optical imperfections would be more apparent in the larger print from the D7000, but if you were to print both at 9.5"x 14.29" then you won't notice much difference at all. If you were to print the D300 file at 10.9" x 16.4" then the optical imperfections would be there too, but wouldn't be rendered with the higher resolution of the D7000. Imperfections like subtle chromatic aberrations "hide" better in lower pixel-density files.

Basically, if you are buying a D7000 so you can take advantage of the resolution to make larger prints, then yes, you may wish to consider upgrading lenses to keep up with the performance of the camera. If you like the D7000 based on its all-around specification and performance, then I would get the camera first (it is excellent), and then make your own judgement about what you'd like to do in the lens department.

August 4, 2011

Is there enough of a market to support a non-Leica, manual-focus rangefinder digital camera system? It doesn't need to be built like industrial jewelry as a Leica is, but just a quality rangefinder system camera for people who like the functional advantages of such a camera. If Nikon, for instance, were to release a compact, lightweight, interchangeable lens rangefinder built to the standard of the D7000, along with a small series of compact prime lenses, I have to imagine that they'd have a huge winner on their hands.

March 16, 2011

Will the book project provide promotion to the business that you photographed? If so, they are getting their perk and were probably only too happy to host your shoot. And, they should absolutely pay for licensing use. Perhaps you could throw in a courtesy discount if they were particularly hospitable and facilitated your shoot, though I wouldn't factor this into the negotiation. I'd just submit the invoice with a 10% discount as a gesture of good faith.

March 2, 2011

@Jean-Yves:

Implicit in the OP's inquiry is the notion that a film camera is required for his class. Digital cameras are great learning tools for digital photography and for universal aspects of photography, but they are entirely inappropriate for learning the peculiarities of film photography.

February 28, 2011

To be quite honest, for an A-level film-based photography course, I have a hard time imagining that you'd need anything more than your Kiev. Actually, for learning photographic fundamentals you'd probably be better off with a 35mm camera plus a basic 4x5 kit. I promise you that it is the rare photography student who can predict what his gear needs will be once he embarks on a presumed but presently hypothetical professional career. I wouldn't worry too much now about trying to guess what you'll need after you finish your course.

If you really want a medium format system to use with film during your studies, I'd buy either a used Mamiya RZ67 or Bronica SQ-A outfit. You'll get great kit for the money and will likely be able to sell them for roughly what you paid once you are far enough down the path to really know what you need in your camera system(s).

February 23, 2011

Color chemistry requires extremely precise temperature control, within .5 degree Fahrenheit, as well as consistent transitions between chemistry steps. Otherwise you'll get color shifts in your prints that will cause you to be constantly fighting between color filtration in your enlarger and your inconsistent development. I used to print color in the darkroom for years before switching to the hybrid film-scan-print method. I found the former far less satisfying than traditional b&w printing, and the latter more satisfying. That said, I still have some lovely and subtle color prints from the darkroom days.

February 23, 2011

Outdoor Photographer is a great magazine given its target market and purpose. It has helped legions of enthusiastic nature photographers learn everything from technique to composition to environmental ethics and beyond. It is limited, however, in that the magazine has staked out the boundaries of its intended audience, and doesn't seem to want to grow beyond those boundaries along with its readers. My feeling is that OP is just a single magazine that can't possibly satisfy everyone who does outdoor photography, but for photographers at a certain level, it has been very valuable over the years.

I hear over and over that people particularly appreciated Galen Rowell's column, and there's a reason why. Galen was always asking questions, actively improving his skills, knowledge, philosophy, ethics, and vision. For him, the "why" was far more important than the "how," and he was always wondering why things worked a certain way visually, and then set out to find and fully comprehend the answers. We're all lucky that he also was a gifted enough writer to share his insights with us. It would be nice if OP could find a suitable successor to pursue some of the deeper questions again.

February 21, 2011

Andrew, if you wish to enforce your copyright, you must register the images with the Library of Congress. There are instructions and background info here:

http://www.editorialphoto.com/copyright/primer.asp

If the images are not registered, any infringement claim you may have will have no teeth, as you would have to pay legal fees as you go in order to pursue a reward that would only be limited to actual damages (obviously not worth litigating). With registration, you are eligible for up to $150K per infringement in cases of willful infringement. Since your client told you he intends to follow through with the infringement after being informed that you would not authorize any prints he makes on his own, his infringement would be willful (though you'd have to be able to prove this). You wouldn't likely recover $150K in a case like this, but the award could still be sufficient to secure the help of a lawyer working on contingency.

Obviously, one ought to engage in good faith discussion and pursue every alternative course of action that might lead to a satisfactory outcome prior to suing one's clients, but sometimes legal action becomes necessary to protect one's business interests. If you ever need to sue or need a threat of suit to be taken seriously, you need to have your copyright registered.

February 18, 2011

I used a Canham DLC45 with the 58XL for years. It works beautifully, and you can even use a flat board and the standard bellows very effectively.

February 18, 2011

Publishers routinely pitch best-case-scenario (for them) contracts to photographers that are entirely unrealistic from an experienced, informed professional's point of view. After all, the publisher has nothing to loose and everything to gain, but they assume that a relatively large percentage of these contracts will require further negotiation to come to an agreement.

I'd go through the contract, clause by clause, and cross out or amend anything that you feel is appropriate from your point of view. Make sure you cross out anything that conveys liability to you, indemnifies them, forces you to defend them legally, etc. After all, for £700 you certainly shouldn't take on the burdens of liability.

As for transfer of copyright, I would amend the contract to read that the £700 is for one-time, one-language, first edition distribution in the U.K. and the U.S. for up to X copies (whatever the original print run you've discussed with them is planned to be). Stipulate that any further printings, editions, territories, or electronic versions are subject to further licensing and fees.

Good luck!

February 15, 2011

I agree with your approach, Maris. Particularly considering the general excellence of modern lenses, I've always felt it makes far more sense to use the aperture one needs to properly render the image one has in mind, rather than worrying about absolute maximum-possible sharpness, particularly in larger formats. Chasing sharpness is sort of a lame exercise compared to capturing strong composition, great light, a fleeting gesture, evocative mood, etc.

Put simply, it's valuable to have a general understanding of how optics behave, but don't let it get in the way of making meaningful photographs.

February 4, 2011

There is no doubt that if the priority is to make "tripod-sharp" images, a solid camera mount is the solution. That said, there are many, many great photographs that were only possible, or at least were facilitated, by hand holding. In some cases, the image benefits from creative use of camera or subject motion of a sort that a fixed mount would make impossible. In other cases, it is the spontaneity of hand-held shooting that captured the moment. A great moment that wasn't captured at all is probably the worst sort of photograph.

To the OP, the reality is that there are great photos to be made by handholding a Hasselblad (or any camera) for 1/4, 1, 5, or 100 seconds. It just depends on the type of image you want to make. The important thing is to apply appropriate tools and techniques to serve the image you have in mind, rather than being bogged down by what you are "supposed" to do.

December 27, 2010

they want to buy some of my images to use in their advertising for the area. They mentioned brochures, internet, possibly some large posters or prints for the local airport and courthouse. They want unlimited use

</blockquote>

I imagine this client isn't particularly saavy when it comes to photo licensing, so I think some education is in order. What I would do is try to get them to break out each use separately.

Brochure: Try to find out what print run they would expect to produce each time they run brochures and give them a price list for that at various size and placement (Inside: 1/4-page inside, 1/2-page, 3/4-page, full-page, 1.5 page, and double page; Cover: full-cover, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4, etc.).

Website-use: Give them prices for 1-year (or 5-year, or 10-year as they wish) web use based on placement, size, and number of reuses throughout the website.

Posters/Prints for Airport: If they are posters, give them standard display advertising rates based on size, number produces, and time. If they want framed photographic prints, I'd try to negotiate having them arrange the display space at the airport, take charge of print production, and use them to advertise my own business. If they agreed to that, I'd wave the licensing fee.

Discounts: You can certainly offer discounts of 15%-25% for multiple reuse and multiple image use. Also, since it sounds like you'd be inclined to actually donate the use if it came to that, you can certainly justify that this is a cause you wish to personally support for the broader benefit of your community. You can offer a generous discount, but I'd still recommend getting the licensing well-defined to maintain control of your images.

This client has pretty narrowly defined usage needs, and they don't really need unlimited use. It's just a matter of explaining that unlimited use gets into the many thousands of dollars in fees and causes problems with long term image control, and that you would prefer to nail down their actual requirements to negotiate a much lower recurring rate that they can spread over the years of actual use. If you need help pricing the specific uses, contact me with the terms you work out with your client and I'll help you.

December 24, 2010

There is, of course, the option of saying "no" and walking away.

Certainly try to get them to agree to any limits on the license that will still allow them to do the essentials of what they wish to do (this could be in terms of duration of use, limited to specific types of media, etc.), and for goodness sake don't grant them unlimited rights in perpetuity, or the right to sublicense the image. That could effectively be considered a buyout of copyright, worth tens of thousands of dollars.

A few hundred dollars for unlimited use is offensive, and not worth anyone's time or talent, especially if you have material that is in short supply.

December 22, 2010

Definitely get a solid insurance package. I'd recommend talking to (or having your insurance broker talk to) the Berkeley Group in NY, as they have a strong portfolio of policies for tour operators. They can provide general liability specifically designed for adventure travel in the U.S. and abroad. Your policy should ideally cover:

– Travel in non-owed/rented vehicles

– Coverage of any staff chauffeuring customers in vehicles

– Physical and sexual abuse

– Bodily Injury

– Accidental death and dismemberment

– Workers' comp for any staff

– Emergency evacuation and medical care (as necessary, especially for international workshops – in any case, you at least require that your clients to carry their own insurance of this type).

– Identify any excluded risks for which you might want to arrange for supplemental coverage.

You'll also want to come up with carefully thought-out risk mitigation policies, like well-drafted contracts with disclaimer language, liability waivers, hold harmless/indemnity provisions; authorization from client for arrangement of emergency medical care if the client is incapacitated and isn't able to authorize care themselves; asking your vendors to demonstrate their own insurance (any hotels, vehicle rental/chauffeur companies, guides, etc. that you might use); coming up with liability limitation policies/practices that you will follow and in which any staff will be trained.

As you price out your sessions, just factor in your insurance costs to the total cost. Also, market the fact that you are well insured, as many photo workshop operators are winging it, relying on potentially unenforceable liability waivers rather than proper coverage.

December 18, 2010

Antonio, I think that the bulk of "unreal" images being made today are the result of the quest for instant impact at the expense of subtlety, artistic longevity, or qualities inspiring thoughtfulness, reflection, new ideas, etc. Images with the combination of highly saturated color, simple but strong graphics, controlled shadows and highlights, and a tonal baseline of a rich black have a major "wow" factor, can be powerfully attention-grabbing and often "attractive" to many people. If they are taken too far, however, they really become cartoonish caricatures of the scene or subject, and if one were to hang such a print on the living room wall, one might well find that the image overstays its welcome rather quickly. This approach to image making still requires decent seeing and visualization, as well as knowledge of certain formulaic techniques, but it seems to me that it often lacks meaning and conceptual depth.

To me, the photographs that have true merit are those that, whether visually impactful or subtle and quiet, also encourage reflection and thoughtfulness, promote new ideas, reveal certain truths or interesting conceptual perspectives, etc. In other words, without being trite or cliché they prioritize the philosophical, while being, to varying degrees, conventionally attractive or repulsive, real or unreal, and descriptive or abstract.

December 18, 2010

To oversimplify all this, there are a many different kinds of art, and they can generally be defined.

1) Art that is generally not thought to be good, meaningful, or well produced, and it's also not artistically progressive or relevant. It's just not received well by any audience.

2) Art that does or would appeal to masses of average folks to the extent that it is marketed well. It may involve a reasonably high grade of craftsmanship (or it may not) but it's conventionally attractive. It's actual thought provoking or artistically progressive merit may be virtually non-existent. Think Thomas Kinkade or, in photographic terms, Peter Lik or Michael Fatali.

3) Art that is interesting and well made, but never develops an audience because the artist doesn't network with tastemakers or market the work well.

4) Art that in both interesting and well made, and develops a successful market through good marketing and devoted schmoozing with commercial gallery curators, arts patrons, and tastemakers.

5) Art that in both interesting and well made (or sometimes apparently not well made but with a strongly advocated concept) and develops a successful market, but it impresses a culturally significant but relatively small group of tastemakers because the work is considered artistically progressive. In other words, people who are seriously interested in art history and the fine art world start to follow and talk about this artist.

6) The highest level is like #5 in terms of artistic qualities, but the work moved to the next level by also being embraced by noted arts academics and curators at influential institutions because it is thought to be artistically progressive in some important way that is judged to distinguish it in the context of the history of art.

The "big-A" Art world makes a habit of being deliberately uninterested in work that are of a type they think has been done before. Ansel Adams is shown at MoMA, but if a present-day photographer produced an absolutely excellent but conceptually and aesthetically similar body of work, the academics and leading curators wouldn't touch it.

You can probably think of other categories as well, but it's the last two categories that really interest me, since that is where the art really moves forward at the high end. The key element is that to the "big-A" Art world, the first priority is that the work be a contribution to the forward progress of art, in simple terms, something new (and typically somehow relevant to the present zeitgeist). From the point of view of an art historian, there is a defined progression and development in art over time. If an artist in 2010 produces work is considered to fall into a category that was recognized and established in the 1950s, it won't be taken seriously at the highest levels, thought it might sell better than those that do.

Just some ramblings off the top of my head.

December 18, 2010

Dennis, what kind of setting do you expect to be shooting portraits in? Studio on a tripod with controlled lighting, or outdoors with natural light? On the street? At events? Fast-paced fashion shoots?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by justinblack