Photographs, Photographers and Photography

April 28, 2007

About the snap: Terns at Oceano Dunes

Filed under: About the Snap — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:52 am

Terns at Oceano Dunes.


Canon 5D, 24-105mm at 105mm, ISO 400, 1/2000, f/8

Date: July 10, 2006
Place: Grover Beach, CA at Oceano Dunes
Modus operandi: Thinking about Edward Weston
Weather: California gorgeous
Time: 9:03 am
Gear: Canon 5D, 24-105mm
Medium: RAW original processed in Aperture
Me: Thrilled at this bit of serendipity
My age: 54

It is impossible for any photographer to visit Oceano Dunes, here in central coastal California, without thinking about Edward Weston and the generation of early American photographers who did such land breaking work here. So I was walking on the beach with the intention of clambering up the dunes to absorb some of Weston’s spirit. Parking by that little restaurant, I was walking down the path to the beach when this blast of noise and commotion caught my eye. It was literally a second’s work to crank the lens to its longest setting followed by a stab at the button. Thank God for automation! The image reports 1/2000 at f/8, but I can assure you I had nothing to do with that!

And if you wonder about that broad aspect ratio, well, I can seldom go to any beach without Boudin’s paintings dancing in my head.

I never thought there were decisive moments to be had on the beach …. and you can still smell the sea in this one.

April 27, 2007

Morning Paper 2

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:51 am

Another early morning snap

Just walking the dog, Lumix in the trouser pocket as usual.


Lumix LX1, ISO 80, 1/400, f/3.6

April 26, 2007

California sky

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:14 am

Another reason to live in the Socialist Workers’ Paradise

True, California’s politics redefine corruption, the public schools are in the bottom decile and the taxes amongst the nation’s highest.

Then again, your are wandering around and glance up.


Basketball. Lumix LX1, ISO 80, 1/1250, f/4.5


Moonrise. Lumix LX1, ISO 80, 1/1000, f/2.8


Broadway. Lumix LX1, ISO 80, 1/1000, f/3.6

It may not pay the taxes, but it beats living in Nebraska. Or just about anywhere else.

April 25, 2007

Morning Paper 1

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:58 am

Mooching about in the Bay Area

This one’s a tad unusual for me.

First, I actually used the LCD screen to frame it on the Lumix LX1; indoors, it’s usable.

Second, the reason I had to use it is that my glued on viewfinder only frames accurately (well, sort of in the ballpark, if you get my drift) at the 28mm setting and here I had to zoom the lens all the way out to 100mm to get the composition right.

Shades of the Leica M2 and the 90mm, but much quieter!

I cranked the ISO up to 200 (400 is really too grainy) and held the camera as steady as I could.


Lumix LX1, 200 ISO, 1/13th, f/4.9. Processed in Aperture.

The Panasonic’s image stabilizer did its job as best it could and the result is more pointillist than blurred; the palm in the foreground was pure luck and the Lumix’s native 16:9 aspect ratio doesn’t hurt either.

Well, I didn’t know what would come out and the sparse color palette is my sort of thing.

April 24, 2007

Balloons

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:30 am

A little bit of nonsense seen this weekend


Lumix LX1, processed in Aperture

If you would like to see how to process images from the unsupported Panasonic Lumix LX1 in Aperture, please click here.

April 20, 2007

Go where the money is

Filed under: Software — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:25 am

Economics 101 and Photoshop CS3

Well, the glowing reviews are coming in from the big magazines extolling the genius of Photoshop CS3.

So, what are you going to do? Trash your biggest advertiser? I don’t think so.

Heads up, class, for Dr. Pindelski’s Three Rules of Economics:

  • All control drives up price
  • A fool and his money are easily parted
  • When wondering about decision making, always go where the money is

I have been using Photoshop CS3 in beta form for some four months now so let me write in clear, unconflicted language.

This remains the hardest to use, worst user interface, clunkiest photography software available. Rather than improve on previous versions it just gets worse. The menu structure is so poorly organized we now have new options like “Show all menu items” in drop down lists of umpteen selections! Just try to find something basic like Image->Contrast/Brightness without this option.

Increasingly, real world photographers – those who prefer to take pictures rather than process them – are adopting user friendly products like Aperture and Lightroom. For the average person who does not need a zillion variables applied to his snaps, CS3 is simply God’s way of telling you that you have too much money, time or both.

April 19, 2007

Walker Evans: Signs

Filed under: Book reviews, Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:17 pm

Book review

This is a charming and inexpensive introduction to some of Evans’s most interesting work. Highly recommended.

About the Snap: The Painter

Filed under: About the Snap — Thomas Pindelski @ 9:36 am

The Painter.


Leica M3, 50mm Summicron, Kodachrome 64

Date: 1982
Place: Broadway on Manhattan’s Upper West Side
Modus operandi: More intent on grocery shoppng than photography.
Weather: Outdoors overcast.
Time: 3pm
Gear: Leica M3, 50mm Summicron
Medium: Kodachrome 64.
Me: Looking forward to the smell of all those cheeses at Zabar’s.
My age: 31

The Story: Few who are familiar with New York City’s west side would deny that amongst the greatest cultural attractions to be found there are the Julliard, Carnegie Hall, and the Carnegie Deli. And let’s not forget the greatest deli grocery store in the world, Zabar’s, up the road a few blocks on Broadway.

Now Broadway holds many precious memories, not least of them being this snap.

Once, lazily catching a Broadway bus rather than walk the few blocks home from 80th Street to 56th and Eighth, I sat transfixed opposite none other than the gorgeous Lauren Hutton, and found myself getting out on the opposite side of town, having missed my stop. On that same Broadway I lost my seemingly nuclear war-proof doorman’s umbrella, double struts and all, in a blast of wind when coming out of the Met with my mum in 1986. The umbrella died magnificently, sacrificing itself under a massive Checker cab. Every Thanksgiving you would have found me during the years 1980-86, cheering the Macy’s Parade on Broadway. And every winter, there I was on Broadway at Columbus Circle, watching the marathoners come home.

Now Zabar’s is far more than a European grocery store. It’s a place to meet, to argue, to debate. Art, politics, food, music, ballet, it makes no matter. A place where I sometimes went to gaze at the arcane cooking instruments, trying to work out their uses. A sure cure for depression. Add a pumpernickel bread my Polish forbears would have died for and a selection of coffees unparalleled in the Western hemisphere, and you have a special place.

So intent was I that Autumn day to get my provisions that I shot right by this amusing scene. Nothing gets between a hungry polack and his food. My mind’s eye caught this little piece of drama, however, and a few seconds later, disregarding the urgent messages from my tummy, I was retracing my steps. The tableau was still to be had!

After that, I was on autopilot.

April 18, 2007

Saul Leiter

Filed under: Book reviews, Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 2:47 pm

Book review

Recent comments by reader Giovanni Maggiora in response to a couple of journal entries here (1 and 2) saw recommendations for the color work of Saul Leiter, a photographer I had never heard of.

So I hopped over to Amazon and a few days later Early Color by Leiter was in my hands. You will understand the level of trust I place in my readers when I admit to having blown $45 on this small volume, which is some sort of record given that I ordinarily only buy remaindered photography books. A remaindered Brassai is a cheap Brassai, after all. And, as the lovely mother of my son reminds me, cheap is good.

Leiter’s work uses color sparingly in these pictures, taken during 1948-60; frequently, the colors are faded. The style is somewhere between Ralph Gibson (Leiter’s work being far more approachable) and Andre Kertesz, which is funny when you recall how much Kertesz denigrated color photography. As much as I (mostly) denigrate monochrome today. Stated differently, the style is street photography, but has nothing to do with the Decisive Moment school. People often feature in Leiter’s streetscapes, but as an architectural adjunct, seldom as a subject. As the text suggests, he would have done more color but couldn’t afford it. Boy, do I know how he felt.

I found the work wonderfully fresh and inspiring to look at, not least because my own style of street snap is very reminiscent of Leiter’s work. I say that unselfconsciously, having never heard of him until now. So while I can honestly report that Leiter’s work did not influence me one bit, the similarities are striking.

I make some disclosures below about the copyright aspects of reproducing Leiter’s work here; bottom line, I make no money from it and, hopefully, he will when you buy his book. Additionally, I have added an imprint on his pictures to make things clear. Then, compare his work with some of my color street snaps over the ages:


Madison Avenue, NYC 1982. Leica M3, 35mm Summaron. Kodachrome 64


Leiter’s version, 1960


Stanford University campus, 2002. Olympus C-5050 digital


Leiter’s version, 1956


Near Tombstone, Arizona, 1994. Leicaflex SL, 50mm Summicron-R, Kodachrome 64


Leiter’s version, 1954


Chinatown, San Francisco, 2000. Leica M2, 35mm Asph Summicron. Kodak Gold 100


Leiter’s version, 1956


Eiffel Tower, 1977. Leica M3, 35mm Summaron. GAF Ansco 500


Leiter’s version, 1959

Anyway, regardless of your opinion of my work, if this genre appeals to you, do take a look at Leiter’s book. And thank you, Giovanni, for putting me on to Saul Leiter’s work.

April 15, 2007

About the Snap: Max

Filed under: About the Snap — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:37 am

Max.

Date: February, 1972
Place: Olympia Exhibition Centre, near Hammersmith, west London.
Modus operandi: Usual stealth gear – scruffy jacket, worn jeans, generally unkempt.
Weather: Indoor arena at Cruft’s Dog Show.
Time: 11am
Gear: Leica M3, 90mm Elmar
Medium: Kodak TriX – the single greatest monochrome emulsion ever made, underexposed one stop at 800ASA in this case.
Me: Simply electrified at the abundance of subject matter all around.
My age: 20

The Story: I have never met a dog I did not like. Fact is, I’m writing this on the sofa wth Bertram the Border Terrier looking over my shoulder. Indeed, life without a pup in the home would be a far sadder affair. Who can equal a good dog’s love, loyalty and adulation? You come home, beat. The firm just went belly up. Your car got hit on the way home. Your wife left you for another woman. But the greeting from the pup is always the same. A wagging tail, joyous body language and that wet nose looking for an unsuspecting piece of exposed flesh. And suddenly life doesn’t seem so bad.

Having watched the world’s greatest dog show on the BBC for years (back then there were three TV channels in England – BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV; standards were never higher) it didn’t need much of an excuse to drag my newly acquired Leica with the 90mm Elmar for some character studies to the show center. A wonderful environment and if you know dog people, well, there were as many varieties on display as there were breeds.

Much of this sort of show demands patience, more than anything, from the owners and handlers (back then, they were one and the same before professionalism imported from the USA’s Westminster Dog Show pointed to the need to separate the roles); there’s a lot of waiting, during which time you groom your charge, feed him snacks and generally fret over whether the whiskers are just so.

On an ethical point, it is very easy for a photographer to ridicule the owners and their pets. Such crass behavior held no more interest for me then than it does today. Let it remain the province of photojournalists. Further, the general, stereotypical, dog-and-owner lookalike stuff had been done ad infinitum. No, I was looking for something odd, and in my book ‘odd’ means ‘funny’. Anyone can do ‘woe is me’ drama; ‘funny’ is much harder.

Of all the noble breeds God has placed on this earth, few can match the qualities of the wolfhound. Standing proud to a man’s waist, the animal has large reserves of dignity and decency, last encountered in the White House during the presidency of a certain B movie film actor. Add a magnificent skull, a discreet grey coat and the flowing movement of a ballerina, and you have a special animal indeed. And, boy, do those wolfhound chaps have a sense of humor or what? This character was bored of standing around while others ahead in the line were being subjected to all sorts of indignities and gropes. That’s the judging process for you.


Leica M3, 90mm Elmar, TriX at 800ASA

So he did what any rational being would, in the circumstances. He cocked an eye this way and that. Just curious. Only snag was, the owner’s Harris Tweeds were in the way, so he had to give the jacket’s flap a good shove to get it out of out of the way, allowing him to grab a clandestine glimpse at the lady of his desire.

Luck, I assure you, was not involved.

Look what that sly devil Max was up against.

Can you say perfection in gear choice? Leica M3, 90mm Elmar lens, TriX.

I couldn’t afford the faster Elmarit or the exotic Summicron, so I simply underexposed by one stop and cooked the film a couple of minutes longer in the developer. F/4 was never faster! I doubt the shutter was any shorter than 1/30th, as the blurred negative suggests. And to hell with the grain.

Anyway, when Max (he has to have been named Max, don’t you think?) decided to poke about with his gorgeous snout just so, all that was left for me to do was press the button. The lady’s amply filled tweed skirt was just the icing on the cake.

Dear sweet Max. I love you to this day.

Woof!

April 11, 2007

About the Snap: Perry’s

Filed under: About the Snap — Thomas Pindelski @ 4:16 pm

I thought it might be fun to give a little bit of background on some of my favorite snaps. And by ‘my’, I mean I pressed the button.

Perry’s.

Date: December 31, 1999.
Place: Union Street, San Francisco.
Modus operandi: Just mooching about the streets while the wife shopped on Union Square.
Weather: Beyond spectacular. San Francisco at its very best.
Time: Probably 3pm – when the light gets interesting.
Gear: Leica M2, 90mm Asph Summicron (a certifiably OhMyGodHowDidTheyDoThat? optic)
Medium: Kodak’s wonderful Gold 100 color negative film
Me: Looking forward with eager anticipation to the New Millenium, full of hope and optimism.
My age: 48

The Story: I just knew this fabulous, millenium-ending moment was going to happen. Edward Hopper best understood the loneliness of the Big City and he was dancing in my head when I pressed the button. Your best snaps are always like that. They are not great surprises – you just knew they would be there. So you were there, too.

A New Millenium just hours away and she is lonely, her date made off with a younger woman. She drags on her ciggie. What’s a girl to do? Here she is, stood up, at the ultimate west coast pick-up joint.

There would be no second chance at this one. As a kid I blew many similar opportunities because my hands would shake at the sheer excitement of the moment.

But in ‘99 I was 48, no less excited but a tad more in control of my emotions. I have only a vague idea of the exposure – things sort of worked like that with the Leica.

By now I had been using Street Leicas (meaning M rangefinders) for over 25 years, so it’s not like I needed to check the controls. Or so I told myself.

I had unconsciously moved the focus ring to infinity not a second earlier (I was across the street) and have very little recall of taking the picture. But I knew Rita was in the bag.

I do remember spinning the aperture ring all the way to f/2 – heck, Gold 100 was only 100 ASA – and probably twiddled that silly, ill-designed shutter speed dial to 1/500th – and then …. click.

Lovely Rita, meter maid. What would I do without you?

A while later I meet my sweet lady wife at an agreed spot in Union Square (she tolerates my eccentricities. “Taking pictures again?”); she could clearly see that all is not well with the old man. A glow infused his normally pallid cheeks. A certain spring affected the step.

“Honey, what is it? You seem very chipper”.

“I got it, darling! I got it!”

Me, the urban hunter.

“There, there, dear. Now let me show you this hat I just purchased.”

But I did have it. Rita would be in my heart forever. And she gave me only one chance before she got up and left, distraught. My last Snap of the previous millenium.

April 10, 2007

You probably do not need a 5D

Filed under: 5D — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:00 am

Just an expensive way of publishing on Flickr?

Yesterday I wrote about my fifteen months with Canon’s 5D camera, explaining how, for the most part, it is just right for my needs. These focus largely on the making of large prints for display in the home or in exhibitions. The large, grain free sensor in the 5D makes all that possible. Nay, easy.

But the chances are that you do not need the 5D in the sense that I do.

From a pricing perspective, Canon positioned this camera above its semi-professional 30D but well below the full frame sensor 1D, which is more than twice as costly. The latter, with its heavy duty execution and very fast motor drive is probably just the ticket for hard working professionals, banging away thousands of snaps weekly in weather where a sealed body makes sense. Now the 5D has neither the rugedness or fast frame rate of the top of the line model, and is poorly sealed from the elements. It also has quite a few less pixels in the sensor, though many experts seem to be of the opinion that the 5D’s sensor makes a better compromise between pixel count and print quality. We are probably splitting hairs here.

So the 5D would appear to be the advanced amateur’s tool of choice; one definiton of ‘amateur’ being one who pays for his own equipment or does not generate a significant revenue stream from his photography. I have no doubt that thousands of weddings have been recorded using this tool, for very modest pay.

But wait a minute. You can get as good an 8″ x 10″ print – which is ‘large’ for most consumers – from a 5 mp point-and-shoot. How many of us have 18″ x 24″ wedding snaps on the wall, after all? You want shooting speed, no shutter lag and interchangeable lenses? You may get a pretty lousy viewfinder with the cropped frame Canon consumer SLR bodies (the image in my wife’s Digital Rebel is an abomination after using the 5D with its film SLR size viewfinder) but get a Nikon D80 or D200 and you get a proper viewfinder at half the price of a 5D. So now you have a fast camera with a great lens range at much less than the 5D.

Why pay more?

There is only one reason I can see, which is that you consistently want to make prints with medium format definition and detail. And those prints have to be big, meaning 12″ or more on the short dimension. That’s right about where cropped sensor originals begin to suffer when enlarged.

Now let’s face it. How many photographers, in a digital age, make prints, let alone big prints? I have no idea but would guess it’s under 1%. Most of us, of course, display our work on the web, whether in web sites or through picture sharing networks like Flickr.

So I checked my web site. Most of the snaps are 7″ x 5″ on my 17″ diagonal screen, whose display area is 14.5″ x 9″. By the time you add navigation controls, headers and menus, there’s a lot less than that available for display, unless you like things crowded. The typical file size of these web pictures is 100-200 kilobytes. A one megapixel point-and-shoot, in other words, is more than adequate to provide decent detail in this display medium.

So unless you just like the 5D for unrelated emotional reasons, or just have a bonus burning a hole in your pocket, save your money and go with one of the many cropped sensor alternatives at a far more reasonable price. Otherwise it’s rather like driving a Porsche to get the groceries. Nice, but hardly necessary.

April 9, 2007

Canon 5D in use

Filed under: 5D — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:43 am

15 months later

Click on my profile and you will see that the revenue I generate from this journal is zero. Zilch. Nothing. No ads, no banners, no conflicts of interest. When I write that something is good, it’s based in actual experience, not desire to generate click-through dollars. If the modest revenue I forego is the cost of full disclosure, well, it’s worth every penny. When I write that it’s bad, well, that’s because it is.


My outfit today. 5D, 24-105mm f/4 L, 200mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 15mm fisheye, aftermarket strap

So, some 15 months after buying my Canon 5D, what is good and what is bad? Recalling the original reasons for purchase, the primary drivers were to replace my bulky, clunky, heavy medium format gear, primarily used for landscape photography. Rollei SLR, Rollei TLR, Mamya 6 rangefinder. That the 5D accomplished with ease. A related benefit was that the body ended up replacing all my 35mm equipment as well, as the trade-offs against the rangefinder Leicas I had been using for 35 years worked well for me.

So let’s get the bad things, the design errors and compromises, out of the way first.

  • The LCD screen is unusable in sunlight. If you need to change most settings, find a shady spot.
  • The camera is bulky – you think twice before taking it with you, compared to four times with film-based medium format gear.
  • The sensor attracts dust quicker than socialism attract losers.
  • The viewfinder readouts are useless in bright sun. So try to change ISO (which is meant to be visible in the finder and the top panel) and you have to once again resort to that shady spot.
  • The egonomics are so-so. The camera feels great in my (largish) hands but the plethora of small buttons is an abomination. Canon needs, as a minimum, to move ISO (a very frequently used control with the grainless 5D sensor) to a good old-fashioned, click stopped dial visible to all, not some minute set of digits on a useless LCD screen or a hard to read panel on top.
  • It could be quieter, though it’s a church mouse compared to a Nikon F, say.
  • The less said about the factory strap, the better.
  • Matrix focusing is a problem looking for a problem. Inept at best. I use the center rectangle focus area only.
  • Garish product names on the camera – black electrician’s tape fixed that.
  • The price remains far too high, owing to the absence of competition.
  • IS in selected lenses only, rather than in the body, where it belongs.
  • Not as well made as the early Leica M2/3/4, but what is?

A long list, written by a grumbler obsessed with the man-machine interface.

But there’s lots of good things, several probably unique.

  • It does not use film. No more processing scratches, endless scanning, the nightmare of waiting for results.
  • That magnificent, grain free, sensor. Use RAW and the dynamic range is comparable to the best film can offer, so long as you expose for the highlights, not the shadows. The sensor has a nasty tendency, seemingly common in digital, to burn out highlights.
  • 18″ x 24″ prints on my HP DJ90 easily equal anything the best medium format gear had to offer, and with a far greater success rate. Compared to 35mm film there is simply no contest.
  • Critically accurate auto focusing with that central rectangle, superior to anything a well tuned optical rangefinder can offer.
  • Outstanding, definition improving, IS in the 24-105mm Canon lens (the only IS lens I own, so I cannot speak for others). Worth two shutter speeds.
  • Small file sizes – some 12mb if you use RAW.
  • Nice, large CF cards for image storage – something this human being can easily grasp. By contrast the SD cards used by many are simply too physically small to be handled with ease, even if their storage capacities are comparable.
  • Dirt cheap, superb lenses (and that goes for the ‘L’ and non-’L’ ones in my little outfit) – that is for someone coming from the Rollei SLR and Leica rangefinder worlds. Optically good enough that the price premium for German lenses no longer makes sense.
  • Replaces both medium format and 35mm film gear, with a huge attendant reduction in bulk and weight.
  • Excellent selection of metering modes includes a really accurate spot metering variant.
  • Breathtakingly fast autofocus with my five Canon lenses. Beyond anything you could possibly accomplish with any manually focussed camera. With the 200mm f/2.8 you have a camera whose optical qualities surpass even those of my old Leicaflex SL and the magnificent Leica Apo-Telyt-R 180mm, f/3.4 lens.
  • Excellent battery life – easing the worries that the prospect of dead batteries brings.
  • Free, if you sell all that Leica gear to Japanese collectors like I did.

Would I buy it again today at the US price of $3,799 with the 24-105mm ‘L’? That’s some 13% less than I paid fifteen months ago. Yes, but I would still grumble at the price. With the 30D body selling for $1,600, compared to the $2,800 for the 5D, the $1,200 premium is simply too high for the sole distinguishing factor of a full frame sensor. At $2,000-$2,200 the price smells about right, and it would quickly get there were someone at Pentax, Nikon, Olympus or Sony to pull their finger out and offer a full frame competitor.

April 8, 2007

Thomas Eakins

Filed under: Book reviews, Paintings, Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:26 am

Book review

Growing up as a lad in London I knew but three things about Philadelphia.

  • It’s the HQ of the Mob.
  • The great impressionist painter Mary Cassat was a native.
  • Photographer Thomas Eakins also hailed thence.

Well, I’m no longer sure about the first fact (I think the mob has now moved to Detroit where it runs GM), though Rocky did make out well in Philly.

I’m certain about the second, having adored Cassat since I first saw mention of her work in John Rewald’s definitive ‘A History of Impressionism’. Now famous, her work holds its own with the best. And while you are at it, check out Berthe Morisot’s canvases – another less known but outstanding painter of that age.

As for the third, I grew up knowing Eakins (1844-1916) as a photographer not as a painter. This book is one where various scholars pen chapters on aspects of Eakins’s work, so you never get bored with any one writer’s approach, and has an excellent chapter addressing how Eakins used photography as a tool in his painting. Indeed, Eakins was most secretive about his use of photographs to flesh out details in his paintings, in the face of a raging debate whether photography was art.

The book, gorgeously produced and illustrated, shows that this fine photographer was a superb painter. The idiom is uniquely American, strong, forthright, confidently realist, and his work is always memorable, as the 243 plates and 209 illustrations attest. Even if you don’t care to read the text, get the book for all those pictures.

Not cheap, it’s available from Amazon and is a splendid value.

April 7, 2007

Bob Carlos Clarke

Filed under: Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 7:16 am

Never boring

When it comes to photography of exotic women, when America gave us the crass, crude and vulgar German, Helmut Newton, England blessed the photography world with Bob Carlos Clarke, who died by his own hand and was buried a year ago yesterday in one of my favorite haunts, Brompton Cemetery.

Clarke never saw a woman, it seems, he did not like, though towards the end disillusionment with his profession had set in:

After 30 years as a photographer I can say this
business has got harder, more callous, less open and much
more competitive. In the 1960s, photographers ranked just
behind rock stars in terms of image. Now they’re way down
the list, behind brawling footballers and provincial DJs.

You can see his work here.

As the UK’s Photography magazine printed my snap which went on to become the Photographer of the Year prizewinner in 1974, I always remember that the issue where I was published also had an article on Clarke’s photography, my first intoduction to his work.

Here’s a snap from Brompton Cemetery I took in the early ’70s which, it seems, is appropriately dedicated to his memory.


RIP BCC. Brompton Cemetery. Leica M3, 90mm Elmar, TriX

April 6, 2007

Beating the system

Filed under: Photographers — Thomas Pindelski @ 1:04 pm

Here’s someone who got it right

From yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article on photographer Jeff Wall:

Now while I wish Mr. Wall the best of good fortune in selling his snaps for $1mm a pop, maybe you should read this for a reality check while you’re at it.

And while I remember, you can get my framed 22″ x 28″ prints for quite a bit less. Though I do like his fluorescent tube touch, I must say. If you really want those, let’s talk. Limited edition? No problem.

April 5, 2007

Afternoon Sun

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:18 am

Nothing like it

I can never resist this sort of thing.


Lumix LX1, 1/800, f/3.2, ISO 80/i>

April 4, 2007

High viewpoint

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 10:55 am

Instant drama from the air

There are worse things to do than hire a small high-winged aircraft to take some aerial snaps.


Templeton vineyards from the air. Canon 5D, 24-150mm at 82mm, 1/1500, f/8, ISO 800

April 2, 2007

Do not do this for a living

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 11:06 am

Your ego makes out, but not your pocket book

Face it. I’m a retired old git who makes his money in the stock market. When not struggling to make ends meet I adopt the sobriquet ‘Private Investor’ which sounds a whole lot better than the reality. My earning status is not about to change.


Invitation card for my show

Contemplating a photography show of your own as a source of income? Well, don’t do it for the money. Here are some facts about my show:

I monitored the prices asked for paintings and photos on display at the winery over the past two years. They ranged from $80 for a small, 8″ x 8″ matted watercolor, to $2,500 for a 24″ x 30″ framed oil. In no case were the artists famous.

I asked the curator about this and her reaction was that anyone pricing over a few hundred dollars, unless world famous, was not going to sell anything. She cited the oil painter (asking >$2,000) and a photographer (asking $1,500), adding that neither had sold anything during month long shows.

I priced at the low end of the scale – $245 framed, $125 unframed. Here are the economics – something to chew on if you contemplate doing a show:

Profit margins:

Framed/Unframed:

Selling price                                 $245 $125
Gallery commission – 30%              (74) (38)
Cost of materials                            (70) (28)

Margin                                         $101 $ 59
Margin %                                          41% 47%

While the margins are attractive (though they value my many hours of labor at zero), stated differently, if I sell thirty framed prints, which is highly unlikely, I make $3,030 and I estimate over the past two years I have spent $2,500 all in on the effort. And that’s if I sell anything.

Not, in other words, something to do for a living. So your ego makes out like a bandit, but your pocket book is left waiting at the corner. We artists, you know, have always suffered for our art.

But what of the psychic benefits? First, for the rest of your time on this best of all worlds, you will be able to hold your head high and refer with pride to your one man show. That’s more than 99.99% of serious photographers will ever be able to say. You are one in ten thousand. Sceptical? Blame Gutenberg. Sell a couple and your work is forever being enjoyed in someone else’s home. How good does that feel?

Now publish a book and take a few prizewinners. The last is a bit tougher as you do not have control of the judges, but determination and a good eye will get you there.

Now you are in a class usually confined to the likes of a Cartier-Bresson, an Erwitt or a Doisneau.

Neither of us may be in their class, but it’s a start.

And it feels insanely good.

By the way, next time I pen a piece on equipment and some boob writes complaining that I’m just a gear freak, well, all I need do in reply is to ask about his last show ….

April 1, 2007

The show is on!

Filed under: Photographs — Thomas Pindelski @ 1:11 pm

You think hanging pictures is easy?

Well, let me tell you, it’s a whole lot harder than taking them!

The only unexpected outcome so far is my dismay at how barren our home looks now that all these pictures have moved to the winery’s gallery. As for the fame and fortune which will doubtless follow, well, those are taken for granted ….

Powered by WordPress