Like a tiny theatre for the deaf

Fence 1

Fence 2

These are probably the darkest reasonably shake-free photographs that I have taken handheld. Exposure 0.4 seconds, ISO 1600, f/2.2. With the LX3 and LX5 I was able to take shake-free handheld photographs even at 0.5 second exposure, but I had to take several shots to have one that was ok. Sometimes I succeeded even with a 0.7 second exposure, but that was pushing it. And I couldn't raise sensitivity above ISO 400 because it got just too noisy.

With these photographs I got way beyond the point that was the limit for LX3/LX5, and this was at ISO 1600. I have been happy with ISO 3200 photographs, so this isn't even the limit where one can go with the LX100. The OIS seems to work at least as well as with the LX3/LX5, because most of the photographs that I took were almost shake-free.

I have had the LX100 for a week now, and so far I have taken 1033 photographs with it. I know there is still a lot to be learned, but the basic things start to be familiar.

I take a lot of photographs, that is the way of photography I learned when I got the LX3. I go for a walk, and while walking I take photographs instinctively, without engaging rational thinking. At least that is the plan, or rather that is the not-plan. Switch on the camera, point, shoot, switch off the camera. Usually I take 2-5 photographs within a second or two, and then I continue walking. Or I take the photographs while I walk, without stopping.

Most of the photographs are failures, of course, but one in ten or twenty has some promise, and those I don't delete. This is not really photography as most people think about it, it is my approach towards a kind of meditative state, or switching off the chatterbox and just seeing what there is to be seen. Usually I don't succeed, but sometimes, rarely, I do.

The amount of photographs I take now is at the other extreme compared to way I worked when I got my first camera, the Minolta XG-1. I went for a walk then also, but I took perhaps one shot during the walk, or maybe none at all. Film was expensive for a teenager. The exception was when I went to a wedding or a funeral with the family, then I could shoot several rolls of film. I liked that then, being an observer, and I like it now.

By the way, I got a featured comment about the LX100 at The Online Photographer, and that has directed quite a lot of traffic to my observations about the LX100.

But even before that, there has been quite a peak happening with the view stats of my Flickr stream. The only explanation I can think of is the terrific interest towards the LX100. My photographs haven't drastically improved within a week.

I have used Flickr since 2008, and the view stats during the last week are about 10% of those during the previous six years in total. In fact, my photographs at Flickr have been soon viewed almost as many times as is the total amount of photographs I have taken with the LX3 and LX5.

(Posting title is from the poem Silent Film by Kurt Brown.)

The darkness bears a shine as yet unpunished by clarity

Night 2

Night 1

Night 3

I commuted by bicycle today. In the morning it was cold (-0 °C) but dry. But on the way home it was snowing and there was freezing rain as well, and in some places the road was extremely slippery. On the bicycle I had slick summer tires, not studded winter tires. I slipped sideways a couple of times, but stayed upright.

You had to really concentrate on riding the bicycle to cope with the road conditions. I saw four or five people walking with a bicycle, it was that bad. But I got safely home. That took over one hour instead of the typical 45-50 minutes.

Above you see some photographs taken at night with the LX100. Speaking of the LX100, I got some comments and questions at the LX100 observations page, many of them concerning manual focusing.

This reminded me of the lovely Minolta XG-1, my first camera, which was in retrospect a great camera to learn about photography: manual focus and aperture priority was the way to go then. I took the XG-1 out from the storage shelf, dusty but still intact, and below you see how you can determine DOF for different apertures when using such a camera.

(Posting title is from the poem Vincent, Homesick for the Land of Pictures by Peter Gizzi.)

A way to light - to light

Evening 1

Evening 2

Evening 3

I have taken photographs using aperture priority mode even since I got my first camera, the Minolta XG-1 SLR. I used a couple of point-and-shoot cameras in between, but I returned to aperture priority when I bought the Panasonic LX3, and I continued with the same settings on the LX5.

When the click wheel got stuck on the LX5 I was unable to change aperture, which was stuck to the minimum setting, f/2.0 at the wide end of the lens. But I have been using the same custom settings nevertheless all this time, until today.

After the previous posting I decided to try out the P (program) mode on the LX5, and here you see a sample.

There is nothing special about the photographs, but I think the selections the LX5 made concerning aperture and shutter speed were rather good, so I think I'll continue trying out the P mode. However, I need to change some of the default settings, such as the film mode, to be able to get the results I want, escaping from the oversaturated colors which are the default.

(Posting title is from the poem Aperture by Nuar Alsadir.)

FAQ, part 2: simplify, simplify, simplify

Parking, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Green, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Round, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

I got a question on what kind of settings I'm using for my night photographs. Below are some answers. However, the photographs shown here are more or less the opposite: deliberate overexposure to get a light feeling.

I wrote down some questions and answers earlier, so this is a second installment in a series. Maybe I pick this up again at some point.

1) I don't like automatics, especially the so-called "intelligent auto" mode of the LX3. Basically, I like to be in control, and I don't like surprises.

Thus, I'm almost always using aperture priority. I have used manual mode a couple of times, but only because the maximum exposure is 8 seconds on the LX3, and with manual you get 60 seconds.

Why aperture? Some say aperture priority is pointless when using a small-sensor camera, but it isn't, especially when you take closeups. And I learned photography with cameras which had aperture priority: Canon Canonet QL 17 GIII and Minolta XG-1. Thus, this is the most natural approach to me. (Edit: I guess I was mistaken here, as it seems that the Canonet actually had shutter priority, not aperture. But the XG-1 definetely was aperture priority. And that was the first SLR I used, and also the first camera of my own.)

2) When taking long exposures, I most often use manual focusing. On the LX3, you see the DOF area graphically on the display, so it easy to set the desired focus area. Most often, I use hyperfocal.

However, there is a potential hiccup here, because if you use the zoom, you have to check whether DOF is still right. For this reason, when making the long exposures I usually set the zoom at 24 mm and leave it there.

3) I use a pocketable mini-tripod to set up the camera. If I haven't the mini-tripod with me, then one needs to find some other support. When there is snow, one can make a pile out of it and put a glove below the camera.

4) What else? Oh, I almost forgot: I set the ISO to 100 when doing the long exposures, as the noise tends to creep up. (However, see the next point.) And I have exposure compensation at + 1/3 EV, which I change when needed. This setting is because I often have light sources in the photograph which tend to fool the metering.

5) Also, do not fear underexposure. When it is dark, the photograph should show it. Thus, 8 seconds is usually enough with ISO 100 and f/2.0. However, sometimes it is so dark this just doesn't work. You find an example here where I used ISO 400.

6) I have also another set of settings where I have ISO 200 and - 2/3 EV. This is for shooting handheld, often with deliberate motion blur.

Film camera vs. full-frame DSLR

Wall, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Candy, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

I have been unable to stop thinking about small-sensor cameras: the look of the images, the possibilities and the limitations. Suddenly I remembered that there is a full-frame camera at home: just buy some 35 mm film and shoot. The Minolta XG-1, my first camera, is still in working condition, at least it should be.

But using a film camera would be so extremely inconvenient... so no go.

But this got me thinking about the photographs I took with the Minolta XG-1. It is a nice SLR, cheap but it had aperture priority metering. The 50 mm f/1.7 lens was also cheap but not bad.

But what is interesting in retrospect is that I was never tempted by the current "full-frame aesthetics". That is, I didn't search for bokeh and use of the shallow depth of field for maximum effect. In fact, I strived for the opposite, making everything as sharp as possible, and opening up the aperture only when there wasn't enough light.

I think part of this is due to an "old-fashioned" school of photography, which I adopted from various guides and photography books. And partly I just didn't realize that there were other options to explore with the lenses I had.

Or was it so that the current "artistic" use of the wide apertures got started only later, not yet in the 1970s?

In any case, I now feel that photography has moved towards another extreme, towards bigger and bigger sensors. In fact, a rumour circulates claiming that Canon is planning to buy a medium-format camera company. That would be a logical step for a camera company.

But is this direction reasonable? And are there another approaches? Such as that provided by the so-called small-sensor cameras.

Of course, if you plan to make a lot of post-processing or cropping for your images, a full-frame camera is a good option. But if you take photographs the way I do - shoot the final jpeg file directly in camera - there is no need for RAW files or post-processing, so this point is moot.

About workflow - or, how to process 100,000 photographs

Road, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Lychnis viscaria, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Wild strawberry, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

As I wrote here on Friday, I have taken over 100,000 photographs with the LX3 which I bought in September, 2008, just after it became available in shops.

I was asked about the workflow: how I process hundreds of images daily (well, on the average about 150 images per day). Simplicity, that is the recipe.

In the beginning I was doing quite a lot of post-processing to the images, but I have more or less stopped that since the last few months. Occasionally I correct the color balance (this is often necessary with artificial light), but that is rare. Every once in a while I may change exposure or contrast a little bit afterwards, like in the first image here, where I slightly decreased the exposure to make the image better match the actual situation. But I don't do it often, I try to get the photograph right in the camera.

When I look at some of my older photographs, for example some from 2008, I tend to dislike the heavy post-processing. (There are some exceptions, though.)

Nowadays I transfer the images to iPhoto on my iMac using an usb card reader, and then I go fast through the images deleting about 90-95 percent of them. Then I go through the remaining images once again and delete some more. Then I upload the images to Flickr and name them there.

Below you see how it looks in the beginning of the process. Yesterday I had 244 images, and of the 28 shown here I deleted all but two.



Although I haven't been buying new cameras all the time, I have had quite a few cameras before the LX3. As I have previously discussed, I'm serious about buying cameras, and do a lot of work beforehand.

My first own camera was a Minolta XG-1, an aperture-priority SLR, but before that I was allowed to use a family camera, a Canon Canonet QL 17 GIII. And afterwards I have used numerous small film cameras, even an APS format camera (does anyone remember that still).

Before the LX3 I had a Canon Digital Ixus 400 for several years, but the lens got stuck, and thus I started to look for another camera. And after checking out the LX3 in a shop, I bought it, even though no "serious" reviews of the camera had been published yet.

More about learning photography

View to a school, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Wet forest, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Wet mushrooms, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Yesterday I posted a short note about learning photography. I have continued thinking about this. One interesting aspect is of course equipment. What kind of camera you need to learn photography?

I started to take photographs when all we had were more or less manual cameras, with simple exposure automatics but manual focusing. My first camera was a Minolta XG-1 SLR, which had aperture priority automatics. It was an excellent learning tool.

Nowadays even the cheapest cameras have automatics much beyond the simple SLRs of the past. But this is a hindrance to learning and experimentation. Here you find a nice article about this. It is indeed hard to find a cheap enough camera with manual controls.

What is not mentioned in the article is the availability of CHDK software for Canon compacts, which helps in using manual controls. On the other hand, if the camera is not designed for manual operations, a clever software is not much use.

In summary, megapixels don't matter much in learning, but good manual controls are essential. An slightly older (or used) camera may be the best purchase, whether it is a high-end compact or a low-end DSLR.

In getting reasonably good images, learning to use exposure compensation is essential. In short, you need experimentation to know what to do in a given situation. This should become almost instictive with enough practice. Another topic is the white balance, but here I must admit to being a lazy learner, and I'm far from mastery.

Finally, the most important espects of learning to take photographs: having fun. In fact, I'm no longer waiting to learn photography. The learning process is in itself the thing for me. I don't expect to be an expert any time soon. In fact, learning and experimentation is the fun in photography.

Lens problems with the Panasonic LX3 - should I buy another just in case?

Red shack, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Upside down in a drop, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

Tree shapes, originally uploaded by jiihaa.

My LX3 is having more and more problems. Previously, memory cards gave occasionally write errors, which were fortunately curable by reinserting the card. And since going back to shooting jpeg instead of RAW+jpeg I haven't had any problems, so this may be a software problem instead of hardware.

Also, I have noticed that the zoom is no longer smooth, there is a short of abrupt jerk somewhere in the middle of the range. This problem appeared also a couple of weeks ago.

Today new problems appeared. I was out at a playground with the chilren, and took a few photographs of the foggy landscape. But when shutting the camera, the lens didn't retract properlly all the way but instead stuck about 3 mm outside the barrel. I switched the camera on again, and then off, and the same thing happened. Then when I switched the camera on again, it didn't start at all but instead gave instructions to switch the camera off and on again. After a few cycles of this, the camera finally agreed to retract the lens.

At home, when I tried the camera again, it worked as it used to, including that small jerk in the zoom when extending the lens.

But later today I ran into another problem. When switching on the camera, the lens extended, retracted, extended again, and there was a notice on the screen: "system error (zoom)". After shutting the camera (the lens retracted ok) and switching it on again, there was a similar kind of extent-retract cycle, but then the camera started to function properly once again.

The LX3 has been showing problems almost daily now, so I'm afraid it soon needs repair. I have taken slightly under 29,000 photographs with it, so perhaps 30,000 photographs is a kind of limit in the durability. (As in cars, 3 years or 150,000 kilometers...) But fortunately I should be covered by the warranty if the camera soon breaks.

I have been thinking whether I should buy another camera to supplement the LX3. My Ixus 400 is broken (E18 error, stuck lens) and I'm not willing to start shooting film with the Minolta XG-1. And my Nokia E90 cameraphone is probably one of the worst cameras ever in terms of usability.

But what choices are there? The G10 is a possibility, but it is bigger, and there is an f/2.8 lens instead of f/2.0 and more noise that on the LX3. The new Fuji F200 EXR has an interesting sensor, but no manual focusing, and typical Fuji usability problems, such as no histogram display.

Another choice would be the Panasonic G1, but I'm not interested in bigger cameras. Also, I would need several lenses to cover my needs, and currently there are limited choices in the selection. And of course there is no lens giving the same capabilities as on the LX3, from 1 cm macro photography to 24 mm wide landscape photography.

So, buy another LX3 just in case? This seems to be the best choice at the moment, although I would need to pay more that I paid originally for the LX3. (The discount price of 399 euro was a great deal.)

The photographs are from today, showing the wet and foggy/clouded landscape.