Some Truly Amazing News in Photography

This week Fujifilm announced their newest camera in the “medium format” digital market, the GFX100 II. I am very excited by this camera, for several reasons.

Fujifilm announced their new medium format digital camera, the GFX100 II, this week. One of Fuji's marketing taglines for this line of cameras is "More than full frame."
Fujifilm announced their new medium format digital camera, the GFX100 II, this week. One of Fuji’s marketing taglines for this line of cameras is “More than full frame.”
  1. Fujifilm has always been a favorite brand for me. My first single lens reflex (SLR) camera was a Fujifilm ST-605n, which I bought in the summer of 1978.
  2. Fujifilm has been developing one of the most interesting lines of camera and lenses on the market today.
  3. Fujifilm understands that the idea of “full frame” for digital imaging has always been a compromise, as in, “full frame” is a full frame of what? 35mm film, a format that was the most popular film size in history, but which was never the film format that resulted in the best image quality.
  4. As a result, Fujifilm has developed two successful lines, one smaller-format, APS-C sensors, the other a larger format, in this case a 43.8mm×32.9mm sensor, about the size of a Post-It note.

The specs on this new camera include the ability to shoot 8K video, but in a world of 100-million-dollar action movies, more video resolution might be a selling point, but as it increases by leaps, my interest plunges by leaps. Imagine, for example, how much better your videos might be if you went to filmmaking school with the money you’d use to buy all the cameras you think you need to make films.

At the heart of any digital camera, from your smartphone to the biggest, most-expensive digital camera, is the imaging sensor. This is one I took out of a dead Nikon D100.
At the heart of any digital camera, from your smartphone to the biggest, most-expensive digital camera, is the imaging sensor. This is one I took out of a dead Nikon D100.

Of course new, this camera’s price is high, though not as high as cameras in this class once were. If I were constructing a camera system from the bottom up, and image quality, especially in terms of maximum resolution for high-end photographic applications like portraiture, advertising, product and food, or fine art are concerned, this camera might be the cornerstone of that system.

But honestly, how many pictures made with incredibly powerful digital cameras end up on social media and nowhere else? Does it make sense to make images at resolutions like 12,000 x 9000 pixels, only to have it instantly reduced to 2048 × 1371 by Facebook? And does it make sense to spend $7000 so your friends will ooo and ahh at you on Instagram?

In a way, this feels like a call to photographic artists to resolve to do more – much more – with their images. Think about how much more satisfying, and long-lasting, it would be to have some of these super-resolution images printed really big and displayed in our homes, in galleries, or for sale to the public? How great would it be to spread out a dozen of your best images, all printed the size of posters, for sale on the Plaza in Santa Fe?

I have been to Santa Fe, New Mexico many times over the years, and I have always loved it's artsiness, and have often daydreamed that someday I might like to sell my images there.
I have been to Santa Fe, New Mexico many times over the years, and I have always loved it’s artsiness, and have often daydreamed that someday I might like to sell my images there.

Mirror Mirror

This article was originally posted in 2015, but this update reflects the fact that I recently purchased another Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 lens.

The Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 lens, second from the left, sits in the company of a 50mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.4, and a 500mm Opteka mirror lens.
The Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 lens, second from the left, sits in the company of a 50mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.4, and a 500mm Opteka mirror lens.
A young t-baller catches a fly in this image from the mid-1990s. Thanks to the characteristics of the mirror, or catadioptric, lens, the highlights in this image look like doughnuts.
A young t-baller catches a fly in this image from the mid-1990s. Thanks to the characteristics of the mirror, or catadioptric, lens, the highlights in this image look like doughnuts.
This is the Harlan J. Smith Telescope at the McDonald Observatory in Texas. It uses the same method of folding the optical path as the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm does.
This is the Harlan J. Smith Telescope at the McDonald Observatory in Texas. It uses the same method of folding the optical path as the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm does.

In the late 1980s through the mid 1990s, I had a Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 lens. The optical formula is known as a catadioptric, or mirror, lens. Astronomers know about this type of optic, but despite being a relatively cheap way to own a long-focal-length, lightweight lens, this design has fallen very much out of vogue with photographers because of a several significant shortcomings…

  • The maximum aperture is small, typically around f/8, and because of the optical design is the only aperture available.
  • Significant vignetting – darkening at the edges, so the f/8 is only f/8 in the center of the image, and the corners are more like f/16.
  • The “bokeh,” or quality of the background, isn’t just ratty or ugly, it can be, in some circumstances, downright unacceptable.
This is an obvious example of the so-called "doughnut bokeh" of the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8. It's not normally this exaggerated, but I knew right where to camp, at the edge of a lake in the morning, to capture this at its best, or worst.
This is an obvious example of the so-called “doughnut bokeh” of the Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8. It’s not normally this exaggerated, but I knew right where to camp, at the edge of a lake in the morning, to capture this at its best, or worst.

I found that in the years that I owned it the first time, my 500mm sat at the bottom of a bag of “extra” lenses I kept in the trunk of my car, and I seldom got it out and used it. By 1997, I had the magnificent Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 ED-IF, which combined with a teleconverter to form a 560mm that was very sharp.

However, like a lot of Nikon lenses I sold, I started missing the 500mm, so I kept tabs on them on Ebay. For a long time, they were commanding a very high price. But with the development of cheap superzoom lenses for the ever-growing mirrorless camera market, prices finally fell, so I grabbed one. I got it from a seller in Japan, and this particular one is in almost perfect condition.

The 500mm f/8 Reflex-NIKKOR sits next to its hood on my kitchen table. The hood is very shot, and mostly just serves to keep my fingers off the front element.
The 500mm f/8 Reflex-NIKKOR sits next to its hood on my kitchen table. The hood is very shot, and mostly just serves to keep my fingers off the front element.
The design of the 500mm includes a mirror that faces the back of the lens, so looking in the front of the lens shows a dark disk mounted on the front element. This configuration is responsible for the odd look of out-of-focus areas.
The design of the 500mm includes a mirror that faces the back of the lens, so looking in the front of the lens shows a dark disk mounted on the front element. This configuration is responsible for the odd look of out-of-focus areas.

I put it into service the next day, and it was everything I remember: a sharp, lightweight, manual-focus lens.

The 500mm is sharp when you take care to focus it precisely, as in this image from a Latta Panthers baseball game last week. You can see a little bit of the telltale "doughnut bokeh" in the background, but it's not a deal-breaker.
The 500mm is sharp when you take care to focus it precisely, as in this image from a Latta Panthers baseball game last week. You can see a little bit of the telltale “doughnut bokeh” in the background, but it’s not a deal-breaker.

Being able to focus a lens is a dying skill, but one I personally keep alive. This lens is among the more challenging to focus because the depth-of-field is razor-thin, and the focus throw, the amount you have to turn the ring to focus, is very long. It needs to be, since long focus throws let us carefully fine tune our focus spot.

Of course, we come back to the idea that mirror lenses produce those obvious doughnut-shaped out-of-focus areas, often called, correctly so (for a change), doughnut bokeh. It can work against you, but if your backgrounds are less cluttered and darker, it’s less of an issue.

One thing that makes this 500mm better today than in the film days is that you can amp the ISO on digital cameras so you can marry the constant f/8 with a fast shutter speed.

I can’t truthfully say I recommend this lens, since there are many better options today, but buying it and using it again after all these years scratched a bit of nostalgia itch. I’m glad I got it.

Years ago I used the 500mm f/8 to make this image of two girls playing at a local school. It was a bright day and the background was quite far off and not very busy, making for a successful feature photo with this catadioptric lens.
Years ago I used the 500mm f/8 to make this image of two girls playing at a local school. It was a bright day and the background was quite far off and not very busy, making for a successful feature photo with this catadioptric lens.

New Lenses, New Looks

Photography is both a fickle mistress and a moving target. One day pictures of models atop mountains are the big thing, then the next big thing is a picture of grass on your knees. Social trends have always been like this, but the speed of the webscape tends to amplify it.

This new Nikkor Z 28mm f/2.8 from Nikon is very different looking from the classic wide angles of the past, especially the very small front element.
This new Nikkor Z 8mm f/2.8 from Nikon is very different looking from the classic wide angles of the past, especially the very small front element.

I happen to think there is still room for the classics, and one of those is a basic wide angle lens. In fact, I talked about my favorite wide angle lens just last week.

In the middle of this conversation, a fellow photographer excitedly told me on the phone that he’d just bought a 28mm f/2.8 lens for his Nikon Z5. The Z5 has a 24mm x 36mm sensor, so 28mm is right in the middle of the standard wide angle range. He sent me a couple of photos of him unboxing it, with pictures of the lens itself.

The most obvious difference on the outside of the new Nikon lenses for their Z series mirrorless cameras is their austerity. There are few controls on these lenses, as almost all the functions are controlled by camera buttons and dials, or camera menus. It makes them look a little bland and blank, but also slick and post-modern.

I have an AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 of 1990s vintage. It has a bigger front element, but it's not much of a performer.
I have an AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 of 1990s vintage. It has a bigger front element, but it’s not much of a performer.

Also oddly un-lenslike for us old timers is the design that front element very small compared to the overall size of the lens. We grew up admiring and owning lenses that sported very large front elements, and believed they were the hallmark of a great lens, and make the lens look more capable and commanding.

I expect the tiny front elements are a result of design efforts for lenses in smartphones, and the computer designs for making very small lenses translated well to photographic lenses in general.

Finally, my friend sent a photo he made within an hour of getting the lens, an image of a friendly bulldog on a sidewalk, and the image is flawless.

A bulldog eyes my photographer friend's new 28mm lens.
A bulldog eyes my photographer friend’s new 28mm lens.

My Favorite Wide Angle Lens

A buddy of mine recently dropped and destroyed one of his favorite wide angle lenses, an AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G, which he called his “butter 35.” The nickname described the way this remarkable lens rendered out-of-focus areas.

Madi Brown tries to photograph her dog Moose during the Santa Stroll Monday night, Nov. 21, 2022 in Ada's Wintersmith Park. Shot with my AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 on the Nikon D700, it shows how a wide angle lens can be used to create a sense of "being there" for the viewer, as well as an idea of the way sunstars can express brightness in a wide angle image.
Madi Brown tries to photograph her dog Moose during the Santa Stroll Monday night, Nov. 21, 2022 in Ada’s Wintersmith Park. Shot with my AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 on the Nikon D700, it shows how a wide angle lens can be used to create a sense of “being there” for the viewer, as well as an idea of the way sunstars can express brightness in a wide angle image.

It got me thinking about my own wide angle lenses over the years, how I use them, why I like them, and which ones have emerged as my favorites over the years.

In the film era, I shot a lot with the Nikkor 24mm f/2.0, which was the staple of most of us news photographers. It was one of those lenses that I literally used up and sold almost as scrap, which I think is the perfect fate for a truly great piece of artistic equipment.

This is a scan of an image I made very early in my career, shot with my Nikkor 24mm f/2.0 stopped down to about f/5.6 to create gorgeous 14-point sunstars. The effect really drove home the brilliance of the spotlights.
This is a scan of an image I made very early in my career, shot with my Nikkor 24mm f/2.0 stopped down to about f/5.6 to create gorgeous 14-point sunstars. The effect really drove home the brilliance of the spotlights.

Also in my bag during most of my film-era photography was a Nikkor 35mm f/2.0. It was also a staple of news photography back then, serving as a more popular and versatile “normal” lens than the ubiquitous 50mm. I used it up as well.

As the digital era has matured, very wide angle lenses have taken over, made possible by computer aided design and manufacturing. An impossible-to-build lens in 1985 is in everyone’s bag by 2023. I have several that I love, including a very lightweight, very affordable 10-20mm for my Nikon APC-sensor (24x15mm) cameras.

But I am also a lover of the classics, and as larger imaging sensors (36x24mm) have made their way into my workflow, so have a couple of classic ultra-wide-angle lenses: the AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, and the AF 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5.

The AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is shown on my well-used Nikon D700.
The AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 is shown on my well-used Nikon D700.

You will usually find one or the other of these classics parked on my Nikon D700, usually as my second camera at events like news conferences and football games. They are very capable. The 18-35mm is more versatile, while the 20mm is more compact, yet has a larger maximum aperture. The 20mm also has the advantage of creating very smart 14-point sunstars with its 1990s-standard seven straight aperture blades.

Oddly, the bigger 18-35mm is noticeably lighter than the 20mm, since it was produced using a plastic barrel, focus, and zoom rings, while the 20mm is all-metal.

The use of these lenses can be a bit tricky, since using a wide angle to “get it all in the frame” usually results in an image that bores the viewer. The best way to use these lenses is in creation of a narrative that leads the viewers into the scene with near-far relationships and leading lines. That means using a wide angle involves movement – up, down, looking up, looking down, crowding in and, honestly, having fun bringing new perspectives to old subjects.

If I had to nail it down, I’d say the 20mm is my very favorite wide angle lens.

The AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 is shown mounted on my Nikon D700. This lens with its bayonet-type hood has been mistaken on a couple of occasions for the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8.
The AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8 is shown mounted on my Nikon D700. This lens with its bayonet-type hood has been mistaken on a couple of occasions for the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8.

A Look Back: The Nikon N6006 and N8008

Between gifts from readers and estate sale box buys, I have a nice collection of cameras. From actual antiques to digital cameras that are almost up-to-the-minute technology, it forms a timeline of photography on my selves.

The Nikon N8008 and N6006 pose in my home studio.
The Nikon N8008 and N6006 pose in my home studio.

Two cameras that fall in the middle of all that are the late-1980s, early-1990s Nikon N8008 and N6006. These cameras were among the first to provide fully automatic everything, from shutter speeds and apertures to film winding and rewinding.

My fellow photographers and I grew up believing that manually-operated, mechanical cameras were our only safe bet, so when cameras like these came along, we were skeptical. We were especially suspicious of cameras that didn’t allow us to wind the film to the next frame or rewind the film back into the canister when we were done.

The control quad on the top left of the Nikon N8008 and N6006 are similar but not identical. The location and shape are inherited from the location of a mechanical rewind knob on earlier 35mm cameras.
The control quad on the top left of the Nikon N8008 and N6006 are similar but not identical. The location and shape are inherited from the location of a mechanical rewind knob on earlier 35mm cameras.

It turns out were were mostly right. The tech of the late 1980s and early 1990s was transitional, and while I understand that cameras like the N8008 and the N6006 were a part of the transitions that got us where we are today, I wanted nothing to do with it. Croaked-out batteries didn’t just mean you had to guess the exposure. They meant you were done using that camera, and your film was a prisoner inside it, until you could get ahold of fresh batteries.

When handling these cameras, the thing that strikes me the most is how heavy they are. I expect this is because another issue in the transition from film to digital was the idea that plastic was “junk.” Honestly, that’s mostly right also. There have been a lot of strides in the last 30 years towards better materials, both in plastics and metal alloys.

The surfaces of both of these camera is slick and hard, offering an uncomfortable grip surface.

The main display panel on the Nikon N8008 is smallish and a little hard to see, and is very evidently a transitional phase between all-mechanical film cameras and all-electronic digital cameras.
The main display panel on the Nikon N8008 is smallish and a little hard to see, and is very evidently a transitional phase between all-mechanical film cameras and all-electronic digital cameras.

If you put batteries in these cameras, they seem to come on and run as expected, but that experience is as clunky and awkward as a 14-year-old boy asking a girl on a date. The buttons are oddly placed, the displays are small and not very contrasty, and the sound the camera makes – kerrrrclunk-whrrrrr – as it winds the film is like an underpowered VW microbus climbing a mountain pass.

Autofocus is barely there. That is an area of development that has skyrocketed in capability over the years.

Despite all that seems wrong with cameras of this ilk, I am glad I have them in my collection. They stand as a moment in photography history.

The Nikon N8008 and N6006 are shown with an AF Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5, a lens these cameras wore as part of a kit. Some, including me, think this lens is among the worst Nikon ever produced.
The Nikon N8008 and N6006 are shown with an AF Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5, a lens these cameras wore as part of a kit. Some, including me, think this lens is among the worst Nikon ever produced.

A Look Back: The Nikon EM

During my freshman year in college, I sold my first two cameras, a Fujica ST-605 and a Yashica Electro 35 GSN. I liked them both, but even at the age of 18, I knew I would want and need more – much more – out of a camera system. I loved my first cameras, but I quickly outgrew their limitations.

The Nikon EM sits in my home studio recently.
The Nikon EM sits in my home studio recently.

I turned to Nikon, which was very much the frontrunner in professional photography in 1982. The Fujica and Yashica weren’t worth much, so I combined that money and some saved lunch money and visited Lawrence Photo in Oklahoma City. Photographers might recall that they went out of business decades ago.

I looked at the long glass merchandise cases at all the Nikon cameras. The most expensive at the time was the industry-leading Nikon F3, but as a starving college freshman, a flagship camera might as well have been on top of Mount Everest.

I started looking at realist options. For a short time, I actually held, and considered, the Nikon EM. It was very affordable, and not a bad-looking camera (kind of cute, actually), but it had a fatal (in my opinion) flaw: no manual exposure control. In those days, it was almost considered a sin to not shoot in manual mode.

A roll of 35mm film sits in the film chamber of the Nikon EM to give a sense of how small this camera is.
A roll of 35mm film sits in the film chamber of the Nikon EM to give a sense of how small this camera is.

The camera I chose, and used until it died, was the Nikon FM, followed by a couple of Nikon FM2 cameras. These cameras were tough, solid, and completely manual-everything, and I made a living with them up to the time they died, which was also the advent of the digital age.

A kind reader recently gave me an EM. It appears to be in pretty good shape. The shutter runs and it looks like it is metering pretty accurately. Instead of manual shutter speeds, the exposure mode dial simply has B, M90, and Auto.

The exposure quadrant of the Nikon EM has the shutter release in the middle of the film wind lever. Shutter options are B, M90, and Auto. The button to the left of the shutter release is a battery test button, so when you push it, the little red LED next to it should light up.
The exposure quadrant of the Nikon EM has the shutter release in the middle of the film wind lever. Shutter options are B, M90, and Auto. The button to the left of the shutter release is a battery test button, so when you push it, the little red LED next to it should light up.

The B setting holds the shutter open as long as you keep the shutter release button held down or open with a cable release, the Auto setting allows the photographer to set the aperture and the camera picks the shutter speed, and the M90 is an emergency 1/90th shutter speed that will run if the battery dies or is removed. There is a self-timer on the front of the camera in the traditional place, and there is a “backlight” button that serves as a one-dimensional exposure compensation feature; when you push it, the camera makes the image two stops lighter by switching the shutter speed two stops longer.

An interesting option for the EM was the MD-E motor drive, which would wind your film at a blazing two frames per second. You could use the MD-E on its successors, the Nikon FG and FG-20.

The baseplate of the Nikon EM shows where the MD-E motor drive would attach.
The baseplate of the Nikon EM shows where the MD-E motor drive would attach.

The EM was considered plasticky in its day, but in my hands it actually feels pretty sturdy. At the time of its release, 1979, Nikon’s “affordable” sub-brand was the Nikkormat line, and they were made of so much steel and brass, almost every camera after them seemed plasticky.

I’ve got a few rolls of film, but every time I think that sounds like a project, I recall the fact that all my film is expired by about 15 years, and how much it costs to have it processed, then, of course, scanned, which just makes it back into a digital image, so I’m not seeing a real reason to do it.

I seldom saw the Nikon EM in the field, and I never put a single frame of film through one, but thanks to my reader, I have another nice museum piece in my collection.

The Nikon EM sits on its back in my studio. It's actually a neat little camera.
The Nikon EM sits on its back in my studio. It’s actually a neat little camera.

I Did Myself a Favor

As the sole news and sports photographer at my newspaper, a lot of disparate duties come my way. I shoot sports action, spot news, feature photos (to go with my stories), head shots, group photos, ribbon cutting photos, illustrations, and, in the next few weeks, a ton of what we call “media days.”

The Ada High Lady Cougar softball team has some fun at my request at last year's fall "media day."
The Ada High Lady Cougar softball team has some fun at my request at last year’s fall “media day.”

They can be a grind, since I am called upon to make team photos, head shots, and feature photos of hundreds of kids at the high school and college level.

For a while I was working these assignments with a Tamron 18-250mm “super zoom” lens, an optically mediocre but functionally versatile lens. But, since Tamron lenses aren’t the toughest in the world, this one quit on me, specifically, it quit zooming. The tiny plasticky parts in the zoom mechanism broke and seized up, making it a heavy, un-special 18mm.

That left me in my fallback position, a wide angle on one camera and a telephoto on the other; one for teams and groups, the other for head shots and features. It worked pretty well, but that combination slows down my workflow, and, as many older photographers will tell you, make my neck and shoulders pay by the end of each session.

I looked at some options, but none were really right. I have a couple of 18-55mm lenses sitting around, which I can kind of make work, but the 55mm end of the zoom isn’t quite enough. I have a 2005-era 18-70mm that was sold as a kit lens with the Nikon D70S back then. It’s got a bit more reach, but is optically disappointing, and the zoom ring is rough and uneven, so I really don’t like using it.

A third option was pressing my beloved AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm into service, but part of me wants to hold close to it both because it has been one of my favorite travel lenses, but also because it was quite expensive, and I have no desire to watch it get crunched by a pile of football players.

My new used Nikkor AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX sits on my lightest, smallest camera, the Nikon D5500 today.
My new used Nikkor AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX sits on my lightest, smallest camera, the Nikon D5500 today.

I thought about it for a while, and decided to look into a used (I know, I love used lenses) zoom in the 16-85mm through maybe 18-140mm range. A bit of shopping on Ebay and I found a good-condition AF-S Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX at a surprisingly low price, and it arrived today.

The 18-135mm extends substantially when zoomed to 135mm, and it is a somewhat awkward-looking package. Still, it's so lightweight that I'm willing to put up with it's nerdishness.
The 18-135mm extends substantially when zoomed to 135mm, and it is a somewhat awkward-looking package. Still, it’s so lightweight that I’m willing to put up with it’s nerdishness.

I like this lens already, for a couple of huge reasons: it is sharp (so far), it is very lightweight, the zoom ring is huge and smooth, and it fits the “media day” requirements perfectly. And while it lacks the glamour of the D700 with my 20mm f/2.8 on one shoulder, and the D3 with the 70-200mm f/2.8 on the other, I think it might be just the right lens for the job.

I’ll be pressing into service right away.

My first frame out of the box with the 18-135mm is of Summer the Chihuahua, and as you can see, it's decently sharp at 135mm.
My first frame out of the box with the 18-135mm is of Summer the Chihuahua, and as you can see, it’s decently sharp at 135mm.

A Fungus Among Us

With what seems like the wettest summer in decades, my garden is giving me a beautiful harvest of tomatoes, peppers and, cucumbers, almost every day. But because of that very wetness, I am losing as much as I am keeping because of rot. There is some kind of white fungus that appears on the lowest fruit on the vines, I guess because it’s so close to the moist soil.

It turns out that this isn’t the first time this month I’ve been visited by fungus.

Here is a close view of the front element of one of the most fungus contaminated lenses. It's not hard to see on this one, since it is on the front surface of the second element, which is rather large.
Here is a close view of the front element of one of the most fungus contaminated lenses. It’s not hard to see on this one, since it is on the front surface of the second element, which is rather large.

A very thoughtful friend gave me a camera bag and a cardboard box full of camera gear, including two film cameras, five lenses, and a dozen or more filters. Wow, that’s so fun, and I’m so grateful when my readers and neighbors think of me like that.

As I began to look over this gear, I discovered that all the lenses had a common malady of many older lenses: fungus growth inside the optical elements of the lenses.

Fungus growth inside lenses happens when lenses are stored with neglect. I expect that these lenses were stored in an attic, garage, or shed where rainwater or wet soil is present.

The problem with lens fungus isn’t that it’s present on the surface of a lens element, but that it is usually present on lens elements that you can’t easily reach.

Here's another look at some of the worst fungus damage.
Here’s another look at some of the worst fungus damage.

Also, while fungus isn’t “contagious,” if it is alive inside your lens, it will continue to grow. To kill the fungus, just leave your lens in open sunlight for an hour or two, preferably not when it’s too hot outside. The ultraviolet part of the sunlight spectrum (which is also the part that gives you a sunburn) will kill the fungus. It won’t, however, remove the damage.

If you see a teeny amount of fungus damage at the edge of a lens, and you have decided you can’t get to it to clean it, don’t worry too much. If there is a lot of fungus damage, it might be reparable, but weigh the actual value of a lens against the cost of repairing it, which involves a professional repair place, and it won’t be cheap. It’s one thing to repair a $3000 lens, but entirely another to repair a $300 lens.

Flare, sometimes called veiling glare, is common in photos made with lenses that have fungus on their elements, like this image made of a timer with a contaminated Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8.
Flare, sometimes called veiling glare, is common in photos made with lenses that have fungus on their elements, like this image made of a timer with a contaminated Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8. In a world where many of us yearn for better sharpness, fungus in this lens simply ruins the lens. And if you want to create this effect, just put some gunk on a UV filter.

A Look Back: The Fujica ST705

This week I added another handsome 1970s-era Fujica camera, the ST705, to my collection, thanks to a donation from a long-time friend.
This week I added another handsome 1970s-era Fujica camera, the ST705, to my collection, thanks to a donation from a long-time friend.

I ran into an old friend, Gerald, at the the park on Independence Day. Gerald’s wife Doreen took my photography class a few years back, and long before that, my wife worked for Gerald.

Gerald told me that he had an old camera and a few lenses for it, and asked if I would I like to have it to possible show to my class. Sure, I said, I never turn down a camera.

The Fujica ST605 and the Fujica ST705 sit on my glass dining table. The cameras are exactly the same size and weight, and are well-made.
The Fujica ST605 and the Fujica ST705 sit on my glass dining table. The cameras are exactly the same size and weight, and are well-made.

A few days later, a smallish camera bag appeared in my office, and I eagerly dug into it. I found, to my delight, that the camera was a Fujica ST705, one of the bigger brothers of the Fujica ST605, the first SLR I ever owned (link).

The 705 is the same size as the 605, and, in this case, came with the same lens, the lightweight, plastic 55mm f/2.2. The 705 has a full shutter speed value faster than the 605, at 1/1500th, as well as open-aperture metering.

Controls on most Fujica single-lens-reflex (SLR) camera are fairly simple, including this shutter speed dial on the ST705 that features 1/1500th of a second.
Controls on most Fujica single-lens-reflex (SLR) camera are fairly simple, including this shutter speed dial on the ST705 that features 1/1500th of a second.

Also in the bag was a 35mm f/2.8 Kamero lens, which interested me the most, since I have an adaptor to put M42 screw-mount lenses on my Fujifilm X-T10 mirrorless digital camera.

The Kamero 35mm f/2.8 lens is well-made and decently sharp.
The Kamero 35mm f/2.8 lens is well-made and decently sharp.

I made a few frames with the 35mm, and was not disappointed, but also not surprised, since most normal and wide angle prime lenses are pretty sharp, even wide open.

Tomatoes sit in a bowl on my kitchen windowsill this morning. Shot with the 35mm f/2.8 Kamero lens on my Fujifilm X-T10, I was happy with the result.
Tomatoes sit in a bowl on my kitchen windowsill this morning. Shot with the 35mm f/2.8 Kamero lens on my Fujifilm X-T10, I was happy with the result.

I also found a Soligor 80-200mm f/4.5, a very common lens that is well-made and good-looking, but optically mediocre at best.

I had fun photographing this stuff, since I took the opportunity to shoot on one of my glass dining tables, allowing me to bring some light in from below.

The Fujica ST605 and the Fujica ST705 sit on my glass dining table. Note the red-filtered light from below, and the green-filtered light from behind and to the right. Both cameras are propped up on a roll of 35mm Fuji film.
The Fujica ST605 and the Fujica ST705 sit on my glass dining table. Note the red-filtered light from below, and the green-filtered light from behind and to the right. Both cameras are propped up on a roll of 35mm Fuji film.

 

Finally, Lightroom Has Grown Up!

For years and years, Adobe has kept a wall between Lightroom Classic and Photoshop. There were a huge number of functions that could only be accessed with Photoshop, meaning if you are doing the main bulk of your editing in Lightroom Classic, you had to send that image to Photoshop to do things like selections or masking.

I expect this paradigm emerged from the idea that Lightroom was originally designed for bulk editing and organization, while Photoshop has been the graphic-artists’ go-to application.

Just this year, Adobe has taken Lightroom Classic to new, and very welcome levels, including a very effective AI-powered “denoise” function, and a pretty decent “selection” pallet.

I had a chance to use the selection tools recently, on an image I made in the early morning while driving to work.

You can see in this image that I have used Lightroom's "select sky" function. Lightroom also has "select subject," "select background," and "select people." I have the sky selected and Lightroom displays it as red, but if you use shift+o, your can toggle through the colors.
You can see in this image that I have used Lightroom’s “select sky” function. Lightroom also has “select subject,” “select background,” and “select people.” I have the sky selected and Lightroom displays it as red, but if you use shift+o, your can toggle through the colors.

The morning was mercifully cool, with soft light on the ground coming from a very interesting sky.

I got out of my car and tried to photograph a quickly-fading rainbow, but as I worked it, my eye was drawn to my car, with the mowed green grass and deep green woods along the highway. I made a few frames, and while I liked them, I knew I would need to edit them to get a product I could use.

As I drove away, I started thinking about how to do this. Run it through an HDR app like Photomatix Pro? Use the dodge and burn tools in Photoshop? What might Lightroom have to offer? Didn’t I see some new selection tools earlier this year?

I opened my images in Lightroom and went right to the image I wanted to edit, and clicked on the “masking” button, then clicked “select sky.” I was pleasantly surprised at home effective it was. That allowed me to darken and enhance the sky, then by inverting the selection, lighten the lower part of the image. In the past, selections required a lot of refinement, by hand.

So if you are a Lightroom Classic user, these selection tools are an exciting development in editing.

This is my Juke with a green July 4 highway, and a restless summer sky. It required surprisingly little effort to make it work. There are only a few halos (selection artifacts) at the horizon.
This is my Juke with a green July 4 highway, and a restless summer sky. It required surprisingly little effort to make it work. There are only a few halos (selection artifacts) at the horizon.

 

Do Your Pictures Matter?

Kids enjoy a ride on a tire swing in January 1994. I love the idea that I am one of Ada's historians.
Kids enjoy a ride on a tire swing in January 1994. I love the idea that I am one of Ada’s historians.

There’s been an upsurge in existential angst in the global photography community recently, much of it centered on the release of a new smartphone application (app) called “Threads.”

This app is intended, at least according to some of the press, to compete with Twitter now that Elon Musk has taken Twitter in a new direction.

Fun fact: if you go to threads.com, it’s not the new app. It’s an older app that is not free and looks very different than Meta’s release this week. Meta’s new app’s website, threads.net,  has only a QR code to scan with your phone to get the app. Confusing? Welcome to the Internet.

Kids sit on the floor in a classroom in the winter of 1994. It's fun to think about who and where they are now, 29 years later.
Kids sit on the floor in a classroom in the winter of 1994. It’s fun to think about who and where they are now, 29 years later.

There have been a lot of social media sites and apps that have come and gone over the years, like Hipstamatic, Vine, Yik Yak, Myspace, Google Plus, and on and on. Those apps didn’t fail because they were bad. They failed because they didn’t “catch on.” I only need to point to the inexplicable popularity of TikTok as evidence of this.

And that neatly circles back to an age-old question: do your photos matter? Do they matter if no one sees them? I am loath to think that the only legitimate adjudication of art is that thousands or millions of people see it, but that seems more and more like the central goal of creating photos, videos, and memes.

Ultimately, each one of us gets to decide what’s important and what’s trivial. Are your pictures important because you had fun making them? Shared with family? Shared on social media? Had them printed to hang on the walls at your house or office? You get to decide.

I’m lucky. I get to make a living sharing my photography and writing with my community, and that community – you – are definitely a great audience.

Geese stand on ice at Wintersmith Lake in Ada. Photographers will immediately recognize that this image was made with a catadioptric, or mirror, lens, which creates the doughnut-shaped out-of-focus background highlights.
Geese stand on ice at Wintersmith Lake in Ada. Photographers will immediately recognize that this image was made with a catadioptric, or mirror, lens, which creates the doughnut-shaped out-of-focus background highlights.

Why I Don’t Like Most Photographers

Photographers.

Are we photographers, or stenographers?
Are we photographers, or stenographers?

They are generally not positive, life-affirming, goal-encouraging people. They mostly want to tell you how much they know, and what an idiot your are.

There is a lot of ego in the game, and that ego was largely bred in the fires of middle school.

Example: cheerful photographer decides to try a Nikkor DX lens on an FX camera. He likes what he gets, and then asks a pretty straightforward question:

“Why is this a DX designated lens when it works flawlessly on FX cameras, with even great corner sharpness?”
“Why?  Mostly because of the noticeable light fall-off towards the edges and corners of the FX frame, as can been seen in your images.” You idiot.

“Golly, smart photographer on Reddit, you’re right!”

Something similar happened to me lots of years ago, and it was discouraging enough that I essentially stopped posting items, or commenting on them, on any shared web sites: I asked if the group knew of a good way to remove blue haze from an image shot from Muley Point in Utah. No one gave me an answer, but at least a couple of these stewards of photography fellowship made sure to tell me that my image was “horribly overexposed.”

Here’s the thing about that: I didn’t ask for your opinion of the photo or the exposure, and telling me you thought it was bad for some reason doesn’t help anyone.

Also, don’t bother telling these guys what they are getting wrong. They are all about being right no matter how wrong they are. Follow this link (here) to read a piece of photographic truth that no one will admit is right.

Don’t get me wrong. Photograph isn’t the end of it. It extends deep into many male-dominated activities. Amateur radio is full of know-it-alls who are happy to tell you how little you know about antennas, or how the thing you want to do is stupid and impossible. It extends to cars and airplanes and power tools and stereo systems and sports.

Sorry for the rant – I should know better than to keep reading threads like that.

Here is a frame with the lens/camera combination we are discussing. So sure, this lens vignettes on FX when you stop down to f/22. Yawn. When was the last time I stopped down to f/22?
Here is a frame with the lens/camera combination we are discussing. So sure, this lens vignettes on FX when you stop down to f/22. Yawn. When was the last time I stopped down to f/22?

Bokeh Note

My 200mm f/2.0 AI-S Nikkor lens is a wonderful feat of optical design and engineering from the late 1970s, but it isn't the bokeh lens to beat.
My 200mm f/2.0 AI-S Nikkor lens is a wonderful feat of optical design and engineering from the late 1970s, but it isn’t the bokeh lens to beat.

Here’s something that’s always bugged me: more than a few photographers have said that the Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 AI-S has “good bokeh.”

One reviewer said is has, “wonderfully smooth bokeh in every sense of the word.” Another claims that, “creates one of the smoothest bokeh.” Still another says it, “has extraordinary bokeh.”

The problem stems from the confusion between selective focus and bokeh. Photographers shoot with this lens wide open and are awed by the huge – and useful – selective focus capable with this lens.

That’s not bokeh. In fact, this lens has some of the rattiest bokeh in my bag.

I shot these flowers in my garden with my Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 AF-S, and as you can see, bokeh - the quality of the out-of-focus area of the image - is ratty and distracting.
I shot these flowers in my garden with my Nikkor 200mm f/2.0 AF-S, and as you can see, bokeh – the quality of the out-of-focus area of the image – is ratty and distracting.

It still frustrates me that well into the 21st century, we misuse and misunderstand basic language, often simply to sound smart or authoritative.

An Enlightening Month

This lighting shot was made by blending 21 images in Adobe Photoshop. The camera was the Nikon D700 with one of my favorite lenses, the AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8.
This lighting shot was made by blending 21 images in Adobe Photoshop. The camera was the Nikon D700 with one of my favorite lenses, the AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8.

Weather comes in fits and starts in Oklahoma. Sometimes we face drought. Other times, crippling heat. Winter can bring hot, dry wildfire conditions, or it can crush us with single-digit cold.

This spring, Oklahoma was among the states in the south that experienced particularly severe weather, including a tornado that did serious damage to a town where I once lived and worked, Shawnee.

With the sky turbulent and active, it was inviting me to try to photograph it. Lightning was particularly prevalent on April 19 and May 11. On both occasions, I decided to make numerous frames of the sky, and blend them together from Adobe Photoshop layers. This idea was extra-appealing since my work laptop computer was recently upgraded, and included the continuously-updated version of all of Adobe’s editing products.

This lightning was more distant, so it produced more reddish hues, since the light passed through more atmosphere. This represents 39 images blended in Photoshop. I shot this with my D700 and my AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5.
This lightning was more distant, so it produced more reddish hues, since the light passed through more atmosphere. This represents 39 images blended in Photoshop. I shot this with my D700 and my AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5.

Our Legacy

As I approach the age of 60 years, I am starting to thing about what might become of my work when I am gone.

These boxes contain most of my film photography at The Ada News from 1988 to 1997.
These boxes contain most of my film photography at The Ada News from 1988 to 1997.

Now, before you label me as one of those “back in my day” guys, you should know that I remain healthy and happy at my job as a news and sports photographer and staff writer.

But I thought about this extra hard recently because of two occurrences. 1. My young journalist friend Ashlynd visited my office recently, and we talked about the boxes and boxes and boxes of photographic negatives stored under the countertops here. 2. A fellow photographer came to visit recently with the goal of finding some photographic negatives from an event he photographed many years ago, and as a result, he brought down a big plastic tub full of three-ring binders full of negatives.

Neither my work nor his should be relegated to storage. In many cases, my shots were published once in the daily, then packed up neatly in Kodak boxes. That seemed like a sensible plan in the early years of my career. A few of these boxes stored over the period of a few months seemed entirely manageable. But as the years and decades rolled by, those boxes added up.

I certainly set aside many of my best negatives for contest and display, but the bulk of my work, thousands and thousands of images, sit in the dark.

I also think of the millions of images made by news photographers and reporters that might now be in the possession of newspaper/media companies long after their photographers aged out and retired or went to another paper. What plans to these understaffed media companies have for all those images?

I know it’s a lot to ponder, and I don’t know if I have a good answer. Would a historical society be interested in my negatives? Would a college library? The National Archives?

Or am I off base about this? Are the images we made and shared once in the daily newspaper or magazine simply a part of the process of living and being journalists? Have we done enough by witnessing life’s events and sharing them in print?

If you have ideas about the best way to preserve our legacies, I would love to hear them.

You can see the film era taper off abruptly in 2003 to 2005, a period during which I started relying much less on film and almost entirely on digital.
You can see the film era taper off abruptly in 2003 to 2005, a period during which I started relying much less on film and almost entirely on digital.