Birmingham, Bruce and Me

"So did you get me one?" 

This was the question I got continually asked when I announced that somehow, I had managed to snag one of the rare Bruce Springsteen tickets for the 2023 Birmingham tour date. 

The answer was always no. 

I had got one, at great cost and the idea of buying two or more just never occurred to me (which was probably a mistake). Even my wife, inquired whether I had included her in my plans. My answer was a) you don't like hanging around stadiums for hours at end and b) You don't like Bruce Springsteen so I never thought about it

Therefore, although I had alienated my friends and family and friends, I had the consolation that after a 38-year hiatus, I had a date with the boss. 

This however left me with two issues. 

Firstly, I had not been to a major concert for about 30 years (Dropping my daughter off to watch Harry Styles does not count).  

My first worry was how do you get to these things nowadays. 

Public transport would be most convenient, but trains in the UK rarely travel past 11, and if they do, I would be fighting with the other 80,000 revellers. So, driving seemed the only alternative, but where would I park and would the car be there when I get back? Also, how early would I need to get there to bag a spot in walking distance? As my family will testify, when travelling anywhere, I tend to assume the worst and leave about 3 days to travel 20 miles just in case of traffic jams, floods, alien invasion etc.

However, I came up with a cunning plan. I asked a friend who lived a mile away from Villa Park, whether I could park outside their house. Then in order to make sure I had a spot, I get there at 9 a.m., spend a day in Birmingham city centre, take the concert bus to the stadium and walk back to the car at the end. 

You can now see why my family hate me making any travel arrangements.

So with transport solved, I came to my second issue. Obviously, I wanted to take photos, but the ticket regulations said that only pocket cameras could be taken, which I assume ruled out my Fuji XT-4 with a 150-400 lens and tripod. I had my Pixel 6a phone, but the seats were quite away from the stage, and I doubted its zoom capabilities would be adequate, so I really needed something small and with a good zoom lens

I then realised I had the perfect thing. My wife's late uncle had given me his entire collection of old compact cameras. I had done a quick review and put them to one side, but they were still usable. Of course, compact cameras are very much yesterday's technology, superseded by mobiles, but one seemed perfect for this. 

The Samsung Galaxy Camera. 

 

 

 

In its day, the Samsung Galaxy camera was cutting edge in compact camera technology, with a powerful zoom lens mated to an android phone body. In another universe it could of shaped the way cameras were made, but a combination of factors meant that mobiles took over as the phone of choice, so it never took off.

But that raised an intriguing question. Could a dedicated 10 year old camera compete with a modern phone camera ?

This seemed a great opportunity to find out and at the same time explore the differences between phone cameras and dedicated devices, so I decided to take both round Birmingham and the concert to compare the results

First let's meet the competitors...

The Contenders

In the blue corner:-

The Samsung Galaxy Camera

Released in 2012, it boasts a 1/2.3" 16.3 Megapixel BSI CMOS sensorm supported by optical image stabilisation. 

The camera allows speeds between 16 to 1/2000th of a second and has a ISO range of 100 to 3200

The lens provides a 21x optical zoom between a focal length of 4.1 to 86.1 mm (23-481mm equivalent full frame focal length), and has an aperture range from F2.8-5.9

The camera has a 4.8" (122 mm) LCD touch screen with a resolution 1280 x 720 pixels

The camera supports  video 1080p 30 fps video capture, 120 fps slow-motion mode 

The camera OS is based on Android 4.1 'Jelly Bean' operating system running on 1.4 GHz Quad-core processor. It has a dedicated Camera interface and will support apps like snapseed for simple photo processing. It supports WiFi, but not mobile network access.  

Photos are stored on a SD card or 8GB internal memory. There is no RAW support

The camera has an integral pop up flash, which must be manually raised before use.

The camera measures 70.8x128.7 x19.1mm, and weighs a 300g without battery, which is removable. Power on from off is about 30 seconds, to 2 seconds from standby

In the red corner:-

The Google Pixel 6A 

 

Released in 2021 it supports two rear cameras, a 12.2 Megapixel 1/2.55" wide camera with OIS and a 12 Megapixel ultra-wide camera.

The wide camera has a focal length 14 mm (24mm Full Frame equivalent) and a fixed f 1.7 Aperture  , while the ultra-wide has a focal length of 17mm (16mm Full frame equivelent) with a fixed f2.2 Aperture.

The camera has a shutter speed range from  1/37000 to 8.3 seconds and a ISO range from 44 to 11,300,000

The pixel does support a 2x digital zoom function, but has no optical zoom.

The screen is a 6.1 in (150 mm) 1080p OLED screen with 2400 × 1080 px resolution.

The phones runs the very latest Android OS (13) on two  Octa-core 2.80 GHz Cortex-X1 processors. The camera interface is the standard Google Pixel camera app, offering  nightshot, portrait ,panorama modes, but a limited set of camera customization. The latest google camera app claims it has the latest A.I technology for photo sharpening and noise reduction.

The phone has 128Gb of internal storage, but this cannot be expanded. However, it supports mobile networks, so images can be offloaded to online storage on any 4G network. 

The phone can capture video at 4K at 30 or 60fps and 1080p video at 30, 60, 120 or 240fps

The phone measures 52.2 mm (5.99 in) x 71.8 mm (2.83 in) and weighs 178 grams 

The Test

The first test was a wonder around the heart of my home city, Birmingham. As a kid, Brum was a byword for ugly architecture, wrapped up in a ribbon of excessive roads and traffic. Those days are long gone. 

Modern Birmingham has redesigned itself and continues to extinguish the last vestiges of 1960's concrete slabs. Nowhere is this more self-evident than Centenary Square, which contains one of UK's best libraries and some very photogenic scenes. Over the years it has undergone considerable redevelopment

Because I had a lot of time to kill, I decided to set base camp in the library and use it to explore the area.The great thing about the library is its free, has charging points for phones, and great views over the city from various galleries. 

It was a lovely day in Birmingham, with bright blue skies. The sort of day that even a half decent camera will get great images with. Both devices gave good images. If I were picky, I felt the colours on the Samsung were stronger, but both gave usable results.

 

I did have a few issues with the Samsung, however. It was the first time I had really used it, so the controls were unclear. In bright sunlight, the screen was not always easy to read, and without any physical controls apart from the shutter, zoom control and power, it was sometimes difficult to see what I was doing. 

Saying that, when I could see it, the Samsung camera user interface was very impressive, with great use of graphics to set everything from shutter speed to aperture. In contrast, one of the big weaknesses of all android cameras is that they give very little control over the camera settings. If you dig deep enough, you may find a few like shutter speed, but it is clear that android phones cameras are designed for minimal customization, which is generally an anathema to any serious photographer.

My main issue with the  Samsung though was putting it in standby mode. The pixel was always ready at the double click on the on button. The Samsung however, due to the large lens size needed to be placed in standby when not in use and I could not always get it move from standby, sometimes requiring a full power cycle. Even when it did work switching between standby to on took about 3 seconds, which felt like an eternity compared to the phone.

Focal Lengths

One of the big differences between the Pixe3l and Samsung was the available focal length. 

A bit of an admission here. I bought the Pixel 6A due to its ability to take long exposure images, only to find only the Pixel 6 had that ability (This was not which not well documented). This hurt for a while, but it was ameliorated somewhat by the wide camera mode. I really love the ultra wide focal length and 90% of my images are taken with it. 

The Samsung focal length, although longer, is not as wide and for I found it hard to get all the scenes in with architectural shots. Nor can it do panoramas, which are really easy on the phone

 

While I found the Samsung shortest focal length a little on the short side, the longest was perfect for isolating elements of the building skyline. . On the other had, the Pixel camera digital zoom I found relatively unusable since you get a heavy drop in quality.

The concert

While fun, Birmingham city center in bright sunlight was not going to test either camera greatly, therefore enough the the support act, to the main event.

The concert was to be held at Villa Park, a place despite my long years living in Birmingham, I had never visited. 

 

As is my way, I arrived far too early, and wondered onto the pitch. It was only after an hour I realised I had somehow avoided the stewards and was in fact not meant to be on the pitch, since I did not have the correct tickets, as everyone else had arm bands on. I therefore had a dilemma. I could hide in the crowd and get a better view of the concert, or go and take my seat. The 20-year-old me would of probably taken the former option, but I was tired, older, and therefore sneaking past the stewards again (it was that easy) I took my seat.

I did try a few shots of the audience. I am not a very confident street/social photographer, and generally hide behind a long lens to try and remain unobtrusive. In some ways it is easier with a phone since no one bats an eyelid when people take phone images, while you are considered the anti-Christ if you try the same with a full camera. To be honest the form factor of the Samsung is close enough to be mistaken for a phone, however I took advantage of the long lens allowed me to pick out individuals from high in the stands

 

 

 

However the phones panorama mode allowed easy capture of the entire stadium

A Villa Panoroma

Then at 7 O'Clock the concert started. Being summer it meant that the light was still good. The irony of modern concerts is that you pay a lot, then end up so far away from the stage that the act is a tiny figure, and you can only view them via the giant video screens. To be honest they might as well as been in Norway, but obviously we go for the shared experience. 

I also still remember the day when you were frisked to make sure you bought no cameras in. Now everyone has a camera and spend their time using it to take images, recordings and selfies. So, would my Samsung super zoom trump these? 

The short answer was yes. Although some of the images initially were under-exposed, probably due to the bright sky, the longer lens gave the ability to get shots, that would have been impossible with the Pixel.

 If I had more of chance to play with the Samsung, I may have been better in getting the exposure better, such as switching to spot metering. It should also be noted that at least I had those options on the Samsung, while the Pixel provided virtually none. However, with both I missed a viewfinder and histogram display

However there were limits with the long zoom. The first is that with the phone form factor, it is really hard to hold steady. Also without a dedicated view finder, holding the camera at arms length and with full magnification, it was hard to frame the picture. This shows the limitations of such an extreme magnification on such a small body, making it pretty well useless for wildlife photography. Even when we did get a shot, the sensor limitations started to kick in, as shown below, where the image started to break apart at maximum magnification and much detail is lost.

 

So what about the Pixel? Well initially I thought the images were as good, if not better than the Samsung. Certainly they had better dynamic range capturing sky and crowd. However closer examination showed a certain artificiality to them, like they had been oversharpened

 This got even worse when we tried to zoom in using the digital zoom.

A surrealist image

The reason for this is that to compensate for the small lens, the Pixel uses so called "AI" to sharpen the images. Generally they look fine, until compared to cameras with bigger lenses etc. The shot above shows that whatever the hype, there are limits to this.

Video

For a longtime I was dismissive of video, but I have now started including it more into my work. It is difficult to show the differences on the blog, but I have put a video together with some of the photos and concert videos taken.

A longer youtube video compilation

Video

My initial impression is that the Pixel out performs the Samsung in video. This is no a great surprise with the phone taking advantage of its greater processing power to support higher resolution modes.

Final Thoughts and conclusion?

 

When I started this, I assumed the Pixel phone would win hands down. After all the pixel phone camera has the benefit of 10 years of development, masses of processing power, and vastly improved sensor technology.

However, the results are far closer than I expected and even after a decade the Samsung galaxy camera still produces great images in the right situations.

So, let’s start with the good. Despite the promises and advertising, the Samsung camera shows there is no substitute for a good lens. Computational photography techniques continually promise to overcome the limitations of physics, and often they do a good job, so as adding bokeh in portraits, but they will only take you so far. It is only when you hold two images next to each other, you see the A.I generated one to be inferior.

Secondly the Samsung camera interface is superb. I wish there was a phone (and to be honest some camera's) which had a UI as half as impressive. It is clear, obvious and provides a great user experience. The problem with the general android experience is that it caters for the masses. Any attempt to fine tune your image is doomed by the lack on control of the camera hardware itself

Next the not so good. Although the Samsung camera offered 21x zoom, to be honest it was too long. Using such a long zoom on a small form factor is virtually unusable in both handling and results and would of preferred a wider focal length with a shorter zoom. Also, the camera did not offer some of the facilities we expect such a panorama mode and DNG raw.

Finally, then the ugly. The on from standby times were slow and really needed a better on/off switch. For a device that depended on the screen for use, it really was not bright enough in strong light. 

The Samsung Camera phone cost a surprisingly low £500 in 2011 (~ £650 today). With high-end mobiles $ 1000 and above, it still feels good value and a surprisingly modern and capable camera. However, with a mobile phone camera, you are not only getting a capable camera, but a phone, social media access, wallet, maps etc. 

This defines the problem, and while such devices fell out of fashion. However capable it is, it still requires you to carry two devices when only one will generally be OK. The Samsung camera is a great example of when being best sometimes does not beat being just good enough, which is a pity since phone manufacturers could learn a lot from it about making mobile phones more than snapping machines and actual devices that photographers can use.

Here are some other images taken during the day...

 

 

 

A year in review

 

 

So long 2022...here comes 2023

It is always worth reviewing where you have come from, to give you clues where you are going, and I have to say for me in photography terms 2022 has been....

Absolutely awful

I have been thinking long and hard about why and what top do about. In any creative art, slumps are to be expected, but this one feels different. For starters, this has been far longer than normal, but I think also I am in a different place in my life and therefore have fewer avenues to fix it. For the first time in many years, I am seriously wondering whether to give up photography, at least for a while.

So what's wrong, and how do I fix it?

1. Quality

 

 

Quality is always subjective. How you feel about your photos will always depend on your mood at the time, but I cannot point to any image that I am truly happy with. It feels like I have reached a plateau, and I am not sure how to move on. 

The previous years have all been about improvement. Every year I have felt I have made some progress, either in how I take images or expanding into other areas. This year, my images have either felt derivative or I have not produced that memorable photo. I have tried other techniques, but nothing has really stuck.

Now, part of this is the Adam and Eve effect. In the early years I really did not understand what I was doing, so any half decent image seemed good if not miraculous. Now I have suckled on the apple of knowledge and I have a good idea of what is a good and bad image, and mine just do not meet my expectations. In truth, I am my worst critic, but that does not mean I'm wrong.

So my worry is that there is no next level. That my photography is doomed to not improve or, worse, decline as I lose heart. 

2. Opportunity

 

 

One way I found of getting out of a funk is just to go somewhere new. I have been places this year such as Cornwall, Robin Hoods Bay and Snowden, but they were all family holidays or with other people. However, one realization that I have come to accept is that I just don't like taking photographs with other people. I have to be there in my time and my schedule. I just cannot do that with anyone being around me, I always feel the need to moderate my time demands, move with the flow etc. 

 

 

 

As an example, I spent 2 days in Snowden and a day on Dinorwic slate quarry. I have wanted to go back for a number of years, but because I was with my daughter, I felt I could not just abandon her and go off or spend any time more than the minimum taking photos.

So why did I not just go off somewhere? There were a number of reasons why not, but I have just found myself de-motivated to try. This is strange because we felt huge frustrations during the Covid lockdown years, and you would have thought with restrictions dropped we would bound into action, but instead I seem infected with a weird agoraphobia like an animal constrained to a small enclosure who is so institutionalized that they are incapable of leaving their safe space. I am not alone in this, other photographers I have talked to seem to have suffered the same effect

Then there are the frustrations of when I am given an opportunity, I don't use it to it full potential. The big one this year was my nieces wedding. For me, weddings are the pinnacle of a photographer's challenge, and here was someone who had decided not to employ a professional. It felt that my photography journey had been building up to this. I could have stepped in, taken charge and made sure the important shots were taken, but I did not and missed not only an important opportunity but also a great gift for my niece.  Yes, sure I took some nice images, but I could have done so much more and that frustration has really been eating me for the last 6 months.

3. Circumstance

My life has changed a lot over the last couple of years. Firstly, the bit of my life that pays for the hobby has been required to take on new responsibilities. This means that I have less time to devote to my photography. 

 

Secondly, we got a dog. Now don't get me wrong, I love the little furball, but I was not keen to get one since I knew it would disrupt my life. My family assured me that they would be taking responsibility for walks etc, which did not happen, pretty well instantly. So that means that my mornings are often taken up with dog walking. So why is that a problem? Again, I have found I cannot mix photography and dog care. As I said, I am not a social photography and I find I cannot mix them. Worse, my wife feels that the walking should be done together, meaning I cannot sneak off an hour before sunrise, without pained looks from both my dog and my wife

 Solutions

So what to do about this? 

 The first would be to just accept the inevitable and give up. Take up another hobby where at least I have a chance of making progress. Apart from the fact that I would have either a ton of expensive kit lying around, or require extensive eBay visits, I don't feel ready to give up yet. Alternatively, a sabbatical may help me to get my thoughts in order, but I do like photography and I do feel that I need to take images, even just for me. And maybe that's the problem.  Perhaps it is not the taking of images that is the issue, but instead comparing them with my own and others. Maybe I should just start taking images for myself rather than others

Secondly, buy more kit. There is always a part of any photographer that says I could have taken that image if only I had a better camera/lens. While deep down I know it is not true, different kit does open new opportunities that may create a spark. For example, I am painfully aware that my present main camera autofocussing of moving objects is behind the curve. Also, I would like to do more multiple exposures, but its implementation is poor. As for lenses, I would like a better macro, ultra-wide angle and walk around lens. At the same time, I also know I have too much kit. For example, I have a 56 mm lens which I just do not use. However, this way, dragons lie. Spending yourself out of a slump may just result in an expensive slump.

Get out more. I have to break my inertia and go places purely for photography. Basically, I need to commit myself to going, warn my nearest and dearest that no is not an option and put my family on dog sitting duty. Problem is, even as I write this I feel the inertia creeping back in, but it is something I must commit too

Finally, I need a long term project.  One of my failures over the last year is to find a project I can work towards. Projects help you focus on the task, drown out the noise and gives you blinkers to ignore obstacles. I have tried and failed to start projects this year, but I need to find one to carry me into the new year and beyond.

So if anyone has any suggestions on how to learn to love photography again? Answers on a post card

 

 

Nostradamus part deux

 

It is almost 8 years to the day that I made some predictions on the future of cameras and photography. 

When I reviewed them in 2015, I rated my reviews and in truth my scoring was mixed, however 7 years have passed, so I thought it would be worth revisiting those predictions

So was I dead wrong, or was a just ahead of my time? do my predictive powers hold up or am I just another wannabe prophet? 

To find out read on...

2014 Predictions

1. Mirror-less cameras will continue to make in-roads into the professional market, taking market share from DSLR's, even at the top end.

When I made this prediction in 2014, the first high-end full frame mirrorless cameras, such as the Sony A7R II, were just coming on the market,

Reading the comments on forums like dpreview, there were many who doubted that such cameras could make in-roads into the established DSLR manufacturers. It was said that focusing was not good enough, battery life was poor and there was a lack of lens choice. Also, electronic viewfinders were criticized when compared to optical viewfinders on SLR's that they had poor resolution and had lags when tracking and when the camera fired, the EVF would black out.

8 years on, and it is clear that mirrorless has now taken over from DSLRs. Autofocus, for a long time the Achilles heel of mirrorless cameras, has matched or even surpassed DSLR models, and have added features such as eye and animal detect maening even in areas like sport and wildlife where DSLR's reinged supreme, mirrorless cameras are now common.

The EVF's have increased resolution to the point that they are the equal optical viewfinders, with a high refresh rate meaning black out and lag are virtually eliminated They also have the benefit of the extra viewfinder information that they contain and the ability for you to see what the actual photo will look like before you take the image

Even lenses are not a problem. Sony filled out their range with a combination of in-house manufacture and encouraging third party support, while Canon and Nikon provided adapters to allow mirrorless cameras to use legacy glass,

In 2015, I gave myself 8/10, but today it is not hard to argue that I deserve

10/10

 
2. Nikon and Canon will produce their 1st full frame mirror-less cameras. Nikon's especially will not gain much market share due to commercially driven design compromises.

 In 2015, it was felt that Nikon and Canon were still very much betting their future on DSLR's. This in turn gave Sony a free run to compete with big 2 cameras manufactures by developing their range of full frame mirrorless cameras. 

 For a long time Nikon and Canon were in denial, however the writing was on the wall, and Nikon eventually produced its first full frame mirrorless body in 2018, and Canon following soon after. 

Since then, it is clear both manufacturers see the future as mirrorless, and the future of any more DSLR development severely in doubt.

To credit Nikon, its 1st foray into mirrorless was very good and managed to stem the market share loss to Sony. However, unlike Sony and Canon, Nikon relies heavily on camera sales, and it does not have deep pockets. Developing and maintaining both the mirrorless and DSLR lines must have been expensive for Nikon. Also, due to the delay to entering the market means that Sony are now equal in terms of market share in the high-end areas, and Sony continues to be aggressive in its development strategy

Nikon on the other hand has history and intense customer loyalty to fall back on, but it remains to be seen whether Nikon can survive in this new world where it cannot share out the market equally with Canon

In 2015, I gave myself a dismal 0/10, but now...

9/10

3. There will not be much increase in maximum pixel counts in cameras. Instead, efforts will be made to increase the sensitivity of existing sensors by going full frame with fewer pixels on mid-range cameras

One of the certainties of the 2015 was that the camera megapixel war would continue unabated. At the time, 20MP was common, but cameras with 40MPwere coming onto the market.

Today, high MP is not seen as important. The sweet spot of APC is still around 20MP, but Sony full frame have gone as high as 60 Mpixels on its latest and greatest, which is not that much more than the Sony A7R 45 Mpixels of 2018. If you want 100 MPixel you will need to invest in high end, medium format cameras, which at best are niche products

This slowing of megapixel growth has been driven by 3 factors.

Firstly, is the law of diminishing return. The increased in resolution between 45 Mpixel camera and a 60 Mpixel camera is actually quite small, and at the same time it increases costs, the dependency on lens design, and camera stabilization etc. You will not see much benefit in this sort of increases of sensor pixel count while at the same time it increases the demand on storage and post-processing effort

Secondly, is the rise in computational photography. This has negated some of the resolution benefits of higher resolution sensors. Many cameras offer some manner of pixel shift capability, where the camera takes 4 images and combines them to quadruple the resolution. While the implementation in many cases is less than optimal, it is often an easier and cheaper way to get the increased resolution in those rare occasions when it is actually needed. Computation photography will no doubt improve removing, much of the need for higher resolution sensors

Finally, is the rise in video. Almost all cameras now promote their video capabilities as much as their photographic ones. It used to be 4K photography was the norm, but now high-end cameras are pushing 8K recording. However, video performance is dependent on how fast you can read from the sensor. Recording 120 frames at 8K means you need to shift the data out very fast. Even more important, the faster you read the sensor, the fewer effects like rolling shutter you get. However, the more pixels you have, the slower the read-out gets, meaning cameras have to resort to cropping the sensor.

Instead of increased pixels, we have seen improvements in both the readout speed and sensitivity of the sensor by changes in the sensor architecture, such as back side illumination chips that allow more light to be captured and read more quickly. These in turn have produced cameras which are almost ISO invariant in that even at high sensitivity they are creating little or no noise in the images.

In 2015, I gave myself 1/10, today....

Score 8/10

4. Sony will continue to indicate their continued support of the Alpha series  DSLR's, while doing bugger all to actually back up the claim by filling out the product range with a model between the A57 and A77II. In the meantime, they will produce 2 new mirrorless cameras, the A7S II and the A7R II.

To be honest, this was a no-brainer. The A-Series DSLR was based on technology bought when Sony took over Minolta which introduced a split screen that part of the light went to the sensor and part to the EVF. It allowed Sony to create a camera with some of the capabilities of a mirrorless DSLR, but with the cost of reduced light to the sensor. It was clear however that it was a stop gap solution and the future was pure mirrorless as long as the technology challenges could be worked out.

The complication was that although the writing was on the wall, for a long time Sony denied that the line was dead. Clearly now it was a commercial decision to ensure return of investment from the lens. The last camera, the Sony A99 II being brought out on Sept 2016, even then Sony refused to confirm the death of the line leaving many Sony DSLT users to hoping for an upgrade and production continued until 2020 when Sony was finally admitted it would be killing off the line and concentrating on their pure mirrorless cameras. 

You would have thought that the cameras would now be junk, but a Sony A99 II will still set you back £2500 on fleabay, so obviously there is still some love out there, and of course a lot of legacy glass.

Score at the time was 6/10, but now

Score 10/10


5. High-end cameras to use more smartphone technology in their OS. Not only the ability to upload photos via mobile networks, but also download apps to add new functionality to the camera. Also, it would be great if cameras opened up their SDK, so it allowed programming of new functionality. Why limit yourself to 5 stop HDR where you could expand your camera to do 10 stops and focus stacking at the same time. Preferably using some sort of graphical programming environment. (This was not mine originally but borrowed from Mark Abeln, but was too good not to include)

Today, the majority of photography is taken on mobile phones. Mobile phone cameras have grown from a toy to a serious photographic tool that has killed the small digital camera market. 

To overcome the inherent disadvantages of lens and sensor of mobile phone cameras, phone designers have added computational photography techniques such as combining multiple images to reduce noise and increase dynamic range. 

Not only that, but on a mobile you can add apps to customize the phones, process your images on the device, update your images to social media together with location info. They even allow you to make phone calls :)

It seemed obvious at the time that camera manufacturers would have to embrace some of these new technologies and build them into the cameras. However, that has singularly failed to happen, with camera OS showing little change to the one in 2015

I recently reviewed a Samsung Galaxy Camera I was given. Despite being almost 10 years old, I was blown away of how modern it felt, with a huge rear screen, mobile connectivity and apps. This should of been the future of all cameras, but for some reason design and innovation has stalled in camera design. I always think that it is a sign that designers have run out of ides where they start going down the retro route like the Nikon fc.

Sony did try having a app store for a while, but basically blew it by making it a closed shop. However the argument to have the ability to extend your camera or customise its functionality is a powerful one, and it seems only the conservative elements in camera design are stalling it happening. 

For example on my camera I can set ISO limits, but they are crude. What I want is the ability to set a ISO limit, a speed limit and a aperture limit. I want them to cut in at certain light levels, so I can say ISO 100, speed 1/100 Aperture F8 is the limit, but when it gets darker it can go to ISO 400 etc. 

The other big area of mobile technology is connectivity. For example not many cameras provide a headphone jack, because the are large ane unweildy. Why then do cameras not provide bluetooth audio? It seems a no brainer, but no camera on the market offers it

While some connectivity to the cloud is offered, cameras are still a closed area with limited outside access and connectivity. They also provide little customisation both in the camear operation and adding extra functionality via a app store

Any way my score the was 1 out of 10, today dissappointingly it is still

1 out of 10

Conclusion

So 7 years on, it seems the majority of my predictions have been borne out. So waht will happen in the next 7 years?

Thsi will be the subjectb of another blog when I have looked in my crystal balls and consulted my tarot cards..

coming soon.

Forty Farms - A review

 

I first became aware of Amy Bateman through twitter photographic competitions such as Wexmondays. I had had a few small successes and feeling pretty smug, but some person with a handle @Croftfoot kept consistently kept getting in the top 3. I sort of assumed initially that she was a professional photographer, but as I learned more about her, we found out she was someone just starting in the world of photography with no formal training who just happened to have a natural flair for the subject.

Over the years I have crossed paths with Amy a number of times at things like the photo show, and we also got her to do an online talk to my camera club, and in the process learned a little of her backstory. 

She started out as a physio therapist, married a lake district farmer, and gave up her chosen career to have children, then started in photography as a hobby to do something to fill the hours between school runs. 

It is clear that she is one of those people who seem to do well in anything they set her mind too. Normally that would them incredibly irritating, however this is mitigated somewhat by the fact that in person she turns out to be actually a very nice person.

Spotting her talent early meant that I have followed her career trajectory with great interest. So when she announced she had a book coming out, I of course ordered a copy. 

This is the review of that book

Forty Farms

When I put my order in, I had sort of assumed that it would be just your standard photo book of the sort that I have many of. 

The first hint that this book was different was when it dropped through the letter box. Normally, photo books hit the ground with a soft "thwap". This one arrived with a loud crack and the complaint from the nearby British Geological survey that there had been a minor earthquake in the area.

After unboxing and opening the book, I realized this was not only a book containing photos, but also a documentary, analysis and treatise of Lake District farming.

The book covers 40 farms in and around Cumbria, from Barrow-in-Furness to Carlisle, from one family small holdings to giant conglomerates. In it, Amy has interviewed the farm residents in length and laid out a description covering pretty well all the aspects of farming in Cumbria. 

It is clear from reading the interviews that Amy's used her position as someone inset with the Cumbria farming community to gain the trust of the farmers and gain privileged access to the subjects. As a result, the book covers a vast array of subjects, from the farm dwellers themselves to the actual business of farming. 

In many ways, the timing of this book is providential. Through a combination of climate change, Brexit and generally people's relationship with the countryside, farming is going through a tsunami of changes, but one thing you get from the book is that many of the farmers are here not out to get rich but are motivated by a sense of connection with the land and a belief in themselves and their own destiny. You also find that most farming is hard, unyielding work, only partly compensated by the sense of achievement. That is not to say there is any sense of self-pity, just an acceptance of the reality. 

One of the impressions of people who are not in farming is that all farmers and farming are the same, and farmers speak with one voice. Something that stood out from the book is how far from the truth this is, with farmers expressing a wide range of attitudes from things as critical as breeding strategies to the effect of Brexit on farming.  It is clear that farming is like any community, highly stratified and diverse, and the book lays out the differences well, and shows the tensions within the farming community on things like land access.

The attitude of farmers to hikers and walkers accessing their land is an interesting subject, and as someone who often hikes is both a concern and interest. In places like the Lake District there will always likely to be tension since it is an area of both entrenched farming and increased leisure commercialization. These two uses are not always happy partners, and the attitude from farmers ranges from frustration to those who feel that tourism brings in benefits that can be used to boost farm income. Of course the other issue is the that farmers are cash rich, but money poor and there is always pressure to sell off land for development in such a sought after location. Again the book sets out both the issues and the attitudes of the farmers

Interestingly, the author decided to include her own farm in the book. This gives a personal insight into her and her husbands' life, and perhaps a motivation in writing the book itself. One of the interesting point is that although the farm has been in the family for over a hundred years, Colin, Amy's husband, comes from an academic background and is not your traditional farmer. Again, this highlights that few of the farmers are actually dyed in the wool (sic) farmers, with many having careers outside the industry before deciding to give it a go, so going against the idea that farmers are all traditionalists against any change. For example, on the author's farm there is very much the idea that nature must be worked with and not against.

As someone who struggles to even grow sunflowers, it provides a deep dive into the world of farming. I must admit I am still struggling to tell a Hogg from a Gimmer, but that just a sign on how much information has been packed in. It is definitely not a book that you can flick though, but you will need to return to many times.

For a first book, the level of journalism is impressive as is the attitude of the author to let the interviews tell the story and let the reader make up their own mind, rather than use it as a pulpit to try and impose some world view. 

May contain photos

I should also perhaps mention the photos, since this is a photographic blog. 

It is clear that since Amy started picking up a camera, she has expanded her repertoire from landscape, to take in animal, people, documentary and drone photography. In fact, it is hard to think of a photographic genre which this book does not cover (although there is a lack of ICM :) ), and it is clear that Amy has expanded her skill set to become an excellent generalist. 

Most of the photos are of course there to tell the story, but even then some images are slipped in that would stand out on their own, and of course we have some of her best known work, such as the sheep being driven down from the hills. 

Forty Farms Later

In the last page, Amy highlights some of the issues facing farming today, such as the uncertainty of government policy on farming, the changing of government subsidies post-Brexit and the reduction in emphasis from an encouraging bio diversity. Of course, farmers are not immune to the effects of outside events, such as gas prices effects on fertilizer prices. 

As she notes, farmers are not strangers to crisis and change (If you want a low stress life, farming is definitely not your profession) and it is a profession that weeds out quickly the weak, leaving people who are tough, self-reliant and determined. However, everything has a breaking point, and it is easy to forget how critical farming is in Britain; Not only in feeding the nation, but also con how we manage the countryside and strive to create a balance with nature. 

Often, farmers and the public are cast as two sides, in conflict with each other. However, this book shows that farmers and the wider general public have much in common and should work together to meet our common goals.  

This was not the book I was expecting, but it was definitely one I am pleased I purchased. I have come away with a different appreciation of farmers, farming, beautifully wrapped in gorgeous photos of the Cumbrian landscape and farming community. 

The one thing I hope is that there is a follow-up one day, continuing the story of the families involved. Did they succeed? Were their hopes and fears realized?  It calls for a follow-up called 40 Farms Later, 10 years down the line.

What this book highlights is the need for a narrative and outreach to fight the myths and misinformation on both sides. Maybe this is a role someone should pay Amy to do. It is maybe not something she has ever considered doing, but with her track record, I'm pretty sure she would become very good at it.

Forty Farms can be ordered from Amy Bateman's website

Street View

Last week we had a great photography club talk from Brian Lloyd Duckett. Brian, apart from providing a superb photography club talk, is a wonderful and talented street photographer and gave great advice for anyone wanting to have a go with this genre. 

One of the things he suggested was that we should watch the documentary "Finding Vivian Maier". After finding it on Amazon Prime, I heartily echo that recommendation. It was one of the most engaging, thought-provoking, and emotional roller coaster documentaries I have ever watched on photography and made me think really hard about my relationship with photography.

Just to add to small world theory, at the same time this article appeared on a popular blog page. 

This was a timely reminder that of all the photographic genres, street photography is one thats divides photographers. One of the street photographers (although I am not sure that he would use that term) I greatly admire, Marc Davenant, chimed in on Twitter (For those reading in 2023. Twitter was a popular platform for expressing opinions :) )that

"This is a terrible take on the ethics of photographing people who are experiencing homelessness. It isn’t rocket science. There are virtually no circumstances where non-consensual photography of homeless people on the street is acceptable or ethical."

While I hate to argue against people I admire and who probably had more time to form a reasoned opinion, I do also have a low tolerance for definitive black/white opinions on subjects that has a lot of greys. It is something I have thought about a bit, so I felt it was time to tie my colours to the mast (too many colours metaphors- Ed)

256 Shades of Grey

As I said, opinions on street photography, even among photographers, are very polarizing (see what I did there :) ). Any article on somewhere like a site such as dpreview on street photography, will result in a fair proportion of comments saying things like street photography should not be allowed in any circumstances. Even of those that concur that street photography as some value as a genre, will put some caveats that some should be prohibited. These are not the kind of discussions you generally get on say landscape photography.

The dividing line seems to fall on one's perception or feeling about on how much an individual's should expect on a right to privacy.

There are also various cultural barriers to be considered. In live in the UK and the law is clear that in public there is no automatic right to privacy, while in other places it can be a legal minefield, going from general acceptance to chemical castration (looking at you South Korea). These in many ways echo the societies view of privacy. Even in the UK, there are some who feel that street photography should be banned altogether, or at least require an element of consent (ignoring the legal complexity of such a law, enforcement, and logistical impossibilities of consent of everyone taking an image). There is also the consideration that people seem to make a distinction between mobile and camera photography.

One of the other problems with street photography is the tendency for it to be conflated with other less salubrious photographic endeavours. In the public eye there seems a short step from genuine social photography, to paparazzi, tabloid journalism, and even worse, things like up-skirting. That is even before we consider the ethical issues of taking pictures of minors. In many ways, taking pictures of homeless people and children are lumped together and while in the UK, it is not that it is illegal to take pictures of either without consent, whether it is ethical to do it is left to the photographer's own conscience and moral map to provide an answer.

However, there is a counter-argument.It can be argued that a well taken, considered street photograph is in itself a far more important and valuable document than one taken in any other genre. 

A street photograph can capture the changing face of society, and the eyes looking back at us ask us questions about are own mortality and our place in the world. 

When I think about the images with the most impact, it is not Ansel Adams, etc that I consider, but the Diane Arbus's, Dorothea Lange's etc. These individuals captured images that more than any defined a point in time in society, in a way that no other medium could possibly hope to capture. For example, You would have to be a Conservative MP or a Fox newscaster not to feel strong empathetic emotion to images such as Migrant Mother.  

Great street photography allows you to look into the eyes of another soul, and makes you ask questions about yourself. A long time ago I did a video called Ghosts of Castle Donington, after finding a book of old photos of the village I lived in. While it was fun lining up the old images with the modern village, what really spoke to me was the people in them, all long gone, whose steps I was following. It was a way of making sure of their spirit lived on.

It also often the only evidence that an individual ever existed. Some of the power of Vivian Maeir's photos was not that they were taken of the rich and famous, but they were often of those who formed the underclass of society, unseen and unwanted, but each individual a vessel containing their own love, hates, desires and wants. Street photography is at its best a leveller because it elevates the common masses. (It should also be said that the curse of street photography is that it's value is often only really measurable long after the image was taken)

Also, at its very best, street photography can be a powerful tool for social change. If you are lucky (lucky??- Ed) enough to go to North Korea, you are restricted about where you can take photo's, because the authorities want to control the narrative and it will ruin the curated image of a socialist paradise.  Photographers such as Dorothy Lange work also showed the world the devastation of the depression on working people, and highlighted that the people affected were real, not just faces in a crowd. Such images have become a powerful totem in the battle against ideologies which belittle or downplay individuality.

For these reasons, street, social or whatever we may want to call it is invaluable and so are the rights to express it.

However, we still have the question, as to how far you should be allowed to go. Should there be limits, either legal or through forced social pressure, about which images you should be allowed to take?

Let's start with the statement that there are virtually no circumstances where non-consensual photography of homeless people. Whenever I hear such statements, my brain cannot start with thinking of counterarguments.

 For example, what if someone took images of all the homeless people in London, and played them on a continuous loop outside the House of Commons in an effort to improve social conditions. Would the greater good outweigh the loss of privacy of the individual? I think most of us would agree that it would

Therefore, my biggest issue with such arguments about whether homeless people should not be photographed is that in doing so, it creates a form of censorship. Do we want future generations to see the world around us as it truly is, or in a watered down North Korea way, only what we find morally acceptable?

Going back to the original article, the author made it clear that the purpose was not to take images of homeless people, but to put them in the context of the disparate society they lived in, and in some way to highlight the issues in a society that seems to abandoned them. I really cannot see the problem with this, and I struggle to understand the anger with such images. I have less of a problem of people taking photos of the homeless than I do of the fact there are homeless people around to take photos of. In short, why shoot the messenger.

However, I agree that there has to be boundaries. My red line is when images of homeless people are taken to primarily profit the taker.  If you are going around taking images of homeless people purely to fill your portfolio or to sell books, then your moral compass needs re-setting. When we take images of anyone, we must first treat them as human beings and not objects.

In the end, these moral questions are messy, and it is up to each individual to work their way through the maze. Personally, in these situations, I fall back to the  good book. 

But not the religious type. (Omnipotent deities seem to have remarkable little useful to say on the moral dilemma's of modern artistic mediums.)

Instead, I refer you to late great Terry Pratchett

There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin.

"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"

 

"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."

 

"Nope."

 

"Pardon?"

 

"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. 

 

And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."