Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The two, too-big eyes that were speechless with sorrow

There are now too many photographs. Here are three pairs of them.

I have gone through two charges of the LX100 battery, taking 2316 photographs. I have done a lot of tweaking the settings and going through menus, so it is apparent that one charge of the battery lasts for something like 1200-1500 photographs, which is about the same as with the LX5.

Two times I have now run into a problem of the LX100 not switching off. This may be due to battery running low. Today it happened a second time. The text "Saving..." got stuck on the screen, and the camera didn't switch off even when I turned the power switch to the off position.

Finally I had to take the battery out to switch off the camera. This is probably a software problem, to be fixed in a firmware update. Similar things happened with the LX3 when I got it in 2008.

I'm not yet used to the LX100 photographs. There are differences compared to the LX5, and I may need to resort to tweaking the settings a bit. In a way the LX100 photographs are too good, I have grown to like the imperfections of the LX3 and the LX5. And I did a lot of experimentation to find just the right settings with these cameras. It is still early to say what kind of settings prove to be best with the LX100.

My Flickr stream has got 100x the traffic there was before getting the LX100. My photographs haven't improved, quite the opposite, but the interest in the LX100 seems to be almost excessive so that even my photographs, which are rather far from the usually popular ones get a lot of views. I don't believe this will last long.

(Posting title is from the poem Switch by Seán Ó Ríordáin, translated by David Wheatley.)


Markus said...

The submerged cone is it for me, Juha.

Re. view numbers: that's the sad truth that we get views out of technical interest for a camera but only a minor fraction of those views for the genuine interest in our picture making...

Juha Haataja said...

This is a place which changes from day to day, always something to see. The submerged cone may no longer be submerged, or a cone at all.

Having a new camera I have browsed some discussions on Dpreview concerning the LX100, and I must day I'm really wondering sometimes. Is absolute sharpness and straightness of lines really so important with a camera?

I'm leaning more and more into the blurry and unsharp the older I get. That is the way I see the world.

Markus said...

The sharpness and lack of distortion are measurable things after all, so there is no discussion or opinion possible - less is better.

Of course this says nothing about the images, absence of such flaws is craftmanship, impeccable but not more. The soul, the content of the image has to come with other ingredients. A good picture content won't suffer from distortion (besides, it's easy to correct in postprocessing), but even the least distorted picture might suffer from a lack of content ;)

And when I remember Will McBride's images of his family, in absolute grainy B&W - there's an abundancy of souls in these images, but the grain alone doesn't make them good. But whom do I tell...

Juha Haataja said...

You are right about measurable things. The human visual system is such that it isn't always obvious what kind of combination of lens + sensor + settings + post-processing provides the view at the world one is searching for.

And then one can think about Equivalents and Stieglitz; taking a photograph is not about camera technology.