While there are a lot of talented photographers out there, I’ve never seen a photograph or portfolio of photographs that made me drop my jaw in awe.  The kind of awe that makes you say “my God, I don’t believe what I’m looking at”.

The first time I observed an awe-inspiring talent was more than 20 years ago when I saw a Wynton Marsalis dual concert – he played the Haydn Trumpet Concerto and then a few minutes later played a jazz set – with equal virtuosity.

It’s been 20 years, but I’ve just seen that kind of talent for a second time.

Check out this video of Richie Kotzen.  Here is is playing “Paying Dues” a song he composed, recorded, sang the vocals, and is playing ALL the instruments (guitar, bass, drums).  My jaw hit the floor when I saw this.  His level of virtuosity with all the instruments is mind-boggling, as are his vocals.  Make sure you play this loud through a good set of speakers or headphones.

One person possessing this much talent should be a crime.  It’s definitely inspired me.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

Image Quality

Image quality is a complex topic. It has many components: detail/resolution, color, dynamic range, etc. Some of this stuff can be measured, others cannot. For example, I can’t come up with a quantitative measurement to explain why film looks so beautiful.  It just is.  To top it off, IQ is also subjective. What looks good to one pair of eyes may not look as good through another.  In short, it’s a messy topic.

I’m going to take my usual non-scientific approach. I don’t do really precise tests – head on over to the internets for stuff like that. However, I do get a little more geeked out than usual here. It is what it is.

Detail

The first component of IQ that most people look for is detail. How detailed and sharp are the files?  I think this is probably the most important quality of IQ, because color can always be manipulated in post, but there’s only so much you can do if the image files aren’t detailed.

Putting my geek hat on, here is the test image that I took.  I used the EP3 with Panny 20mm f1.7 lens and I also took the same shot with my 5D and 35mm f1.4L.  For those of you keeping score, that’s $1,250 worth of camera/lens compared to $4,200 of camera/lens.

Here is the test image exactly as I framed it:

I took 3 frames as carefully as I could, focusing on the words inside the red circle.  First I took 3 raw images, then 3 in super-fine jpeg, and then finally 3 more in fine jpeg.  I then selected the absolute sharpest image of each.   I did this with both the EP3 and my 5D. Settings for both cameras were identical:  ISO 200, f2.2, 1/200 sec.  The in-camera jpeg sharpening for both cameras was set to -2.

Here are the extreme crops.  The color differences are simply due to my sloppy/quick white balance settings with the image taken under a halogen light.

RAW

Super Fine jpeg

Fine jpeg

To be honest, you probably can’t make any absolute conclusions using my admittedly sloppy and unscientific test, but I will say this much:

- The level of detail is close enough between the EP3 and 5D as to be immaterial.

- The EP3′s jpegs are better than the 5D’s.  I’ve always known that the 5D’s jpegs were not very good, which is why I always shoot my 5D in raw.

- There really isn’t any detail/resolution penalty for shooting the EP3 in jpeg. If there is, it’s minute.

- There isn’t any detail/resolution penalty for shooting the EP3 in “fine” jpeg versus “super fine”.  This makes sense, when you consider the fine jpegs aren’t that much smaller.  The EP3 raw files are about 10mb, the super-fine jpegs about 6 mb, and the fine jpegs about 4.5 mb.

- Keep in mind that the 35L is one of Canon’s sharpest lenses.  To some extent the detail that you see above is as much a measure of lens quality as it is sensor quality.  I think this test acquits the Panny 20mm f1.7 very nicely.  It stands toe-to-toe against one of Canon’s best/most expensive lenses.

- Although not seen in the samples above, in lower light the EP3 has an advantage – image stabilization – that the 5D doesn’t have.  I expect low light shots (taken at, say, 1/20 sec.) to be sharper with the EP3.

Dynamic range

The biggest weakness of small sensors has always been the relative lack of dynamic range.  This was why I sold my Panasonic LX3, I just couldn’t stomach the lack of dynamic range.  Here’s an LX3 sample from a couple years ago – look at Annika’s face and you can see what I’m talking about:

The EP3′s dynamic range is better than a small-sensor point-n-shoot, but not by much.  In fact, it’s so bad that I would say it’s nearly unusable unless you’re in very low-contrast light (e.g. in shade or a dull, cloudy day).

In any kind of sunlight, the EP3 just can’t hack it.  Look at these simple snapshots:

Dynamic range is so poor the EP3 sometimes can’t even handle simple indoor shots with window light:

It’s hard to judge from this small photo, but on my big screen you can clearly see how, even moving the exposure slider 4 stops to the left, Annika’s face is still overexposed.  And she is NOT even being hit by a beam of direct sunlight – she’s just a few feet closer to the window than MaryBeth.  This result was NOT due to poor metering. The poor result was due to lack of dynamic range.

The EP3 even struggles in overcast conditions:

Could I have “saved” these shots by underexposing 2-3 stops then moving the “fill light” slider way to the right in Lightroom?  Maybe – but it would be far from ideal and would result in sloppy/noisy images.

I’m not sure I understand how a camera released in 2011 can perform this poorly but all I can do is report what I see with my own eyes.  For those of you who are wondering the metering is not the issue.  The highlights are not blown out due to poor metering, they’re blown out due to lack of DR.

High ISO noise

To be honest, I really don’t give a rats ass about super high ISO capabilities.  I shoot 90% of my images at ISO 400 or below.  Using a fast lens like the Panny 20mm 1.7, going up to ISO 800 is usually all I need, even when shooting at night.  That said, I didn’t do any sample tests, but the high ISO noise appears to be about one stop worse than my old Canon 20D.  ISO 800 looks about the same as ISO 1600 on my 20D, and that’s a camera that came out in 2004.

Conclusion

The EP3 is an interesting camera.  I really, really wanted to like it.  I was very enthusiastic after my first couple of outings with it.  But as I used it more, and under more varied conditions, it’s Achilles Heel was revealed.

Here’s the best way I can describe it:  imagine taking a Porsche 911 and putting a Yugo engine inside.

The EP3 is gorgeous.  It’s well-made.  It feels solid.  It has an innovative and terrific touch screen.  Focusing is fast and accurate.  There is a lot to like about the EP3.  The bad news is the sensor is really not much of an improvement over my small-sensor Canon G11. Olympus made a curious decision to stick with a really old sensor instead of upgrading to the newer sensors that go into the Panasonic m4/3 bodies.

I’m sure the sensor in the new E-M5 is a big improvement over the one in the EP3, but that doesn’t help current EP3 owners.

The final word:

I sold my EP3.  However, I am keeping my Panny 20mm 1.7, which is a great lens.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

Anyone out there who has passed the “newbie gains” phase knows that making big progress in the gym can be very, very tough.  You see lots of guys (and gals) in the gym who look exactly the same year after year.  Sure, they’re in pretty good shape, but getting to exceptional shape – the kind of shape that turns heads in amazement – takes a long, long time and is often never achieved.

Ahhhnold was in exceptional shape

One of the best articles I’ve read on the subject was written by John Romaniello, who advocates specialized training.  That is, focus on one body part at a time for a month or so, while keeping everything else on “maintenance”.  The idea is that maintaining your condition is easy, while improving your condition is hard – so really focus intensely on one body part at a time.

I switched to this strategy on January 1.  For the month of January, I specialized on legs, working them intensely 3x per week while my entire upper body only got one very brief “maintenance” workout per week. It worked. My legs are noticeably improved, while my upper body stayed the same and did not regress.  Now for the month of February I’m specializing arms.  Next month will be the back, etc.

This same strategy will work for a photography business.

Let’s say you’ve been in business for a while and you are overwhelmed with all the things you need to work on.  Your website needs updating.  Your pricing needs updating.  Your sample albums need to be redone.  You suck at posing.  You want to try off-camera flash but don’t know how. You need to implement a new marketing plan.  And on, and on, and on.

If you try to do everything at once you will (1) burn out and (2) probably fail.

Everybody has limits.  Time limits.  Energy limits.  Money limits.  Emotional limits. Stressing the entire system at one time will result in marginal overall progress.  Instead, dedicate the next month to improving just ONE thing.

PhaseOne 645 AF, Fuji Pro400H

Let’s say that you suck at posing and you believe it’s holding your business back.  Great – for the next month or two dedicate yourself completely to posing. Drop the website design project. Forget about your pricing. Put the new sample albums on hold. Every single day, once you’ve done the required minimum necessary to keep your business running, work on your posing. Study the posing of photographers you admire. Read about posing – there are tons of articles out there. And most importantly, practice your posing.

Schedule a few shoots every single week. You don’t have to make money on these shoots. Just work on your posing. Shoot former wedding clients for free or for a low rate just for practice. Shoot your married friends. Shoot friends with their boyfriend/girlfriends. Just shoot! Experiment replicating poses you’ve seen elsewhere. Experiment. Experiment. Experiment.

A month or two later your posing should be better. A lot better. What was once a weakness is now a strength, or at least is no longer a weakness.

Now that you’ve improved your posing, move on to your next project. And then the next. And the next. In a year your business will be far, far ahead of where it would have been had you tried to do it all at once.

Specialize and move forward.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

Lots of interesting new cameras:  Nikon D4, D800, Olympus E-M5, Fuji XPro1.

Cameras, cameras, cameras!

While they certainly look interesting, I’ve decided I’m not really going to give any significant input on these new cameras for two reasons:  (1) I’m sure they’re all great cameras perfectly capable of stunning results in the right hands and (2) a hundred blogs will be reviewing these cameras better than I can.  I simply don’t have the patience to do detailed camera reviews.

And at the risk of sounding anti-gear (I’m not), I’m currently thinking more about actual photography than I am about gear, which has little to do with photography.  Plus, I’m on a simplicity kick.  I’m trying to simplify every aspect of my life.  I want to do less, and I want to own less stuff.  To that end, I’ve been eBaying a bunch of gear (camera gear, guitar gear, and other junk).

Looking at my photography life, I’ve realized two things:

(1)  I don’t need to upgrade my 5D Classic, ever.  I’ll use it for professional and personal work until it dies and needs to be replaced. So all this talk about the D4, D800, D1X, etc. is fun to read about, but is otherwise of little interest to me.

(2)  I don’t need an “intermediate” camera.  That is, I’ve come to a realization that a second camera system (bodies, lenses, flash units, etc.) is something that I don’t really need.  Why?  Because (a) if I’m shooting my kids around the house, then I can just reach for my 5D – a smaller camera system isn’t an advantage since I’m not lugging it around.  And (b) if I’m out and about with the kids, I don’t want to carry any kind of “system”, I want a small point-n-shoot that I can put on my belt.  And when I eventually break down and buy a smart phone, I won’t even need the point-n-shoot.  So no Fuji XPro1, as great as that system probably will be.

So with that in mind, the camera that interests me most is the Canon Gx1.

I don’t know if I’ll get one to replace my G11, but a camera that size with a nearly-APS-C sensor and 24p HD video would make a great vacation / day with the kids camera. No need to change lenses or add external flash units:  just shoot.  It’s given me something to think about.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

Here’s the bad news:  my conservative guess is that the typical wedding photographer easily leaves $500 – $1,000 on the table with every single wedding.  That’s based on what I’ve learned about their pricing practices during dozens of coaching sessions.

Now the good news:  you can earn back that extra $500 – $1,000 per wedding overnight just by redesigning your price list. You can do this without improving your photography, marketing, website or sales skills.  All it takes is a few moments on a word processor.

This post is about my pricing principles and how I use those principles to construct packages that work.  Now there’s more than one way to successfully price wedding photography, so please don’t get all bent out of shape if you’re successful doing the opposite of what I’m recommending here. What follows is a method developed through trial and error that has worked for me.  Your mileage may vary.

Principle #1:  packages work

Do you think that McDonald’s would make more money if they did away with packages and sold everything a la carte? Seriously?  The concept of packaging together products and services to increase profit is a business practice that’s lasted hundreds of years because it works.  I’m confident that the practice of packaging will be here thousands of years from now.

Believe me, I’ve tried a la carte pricing in the past.  Do you know what a la carte pricing really means?  In practice, it means that every single client gets your “base” price, which typically includes coverage only with no products.  After the wedding you hope and pray you can sell them stuff – most commonly an album.  But how many couples are broke after the wedding?  Most of them are.  If you want to sell an album to the majority of your clients, you’ve got to include them in packages.

Principle #2:   packages are good, but too many are bad

Okay, if packages are good, why not create a dozen of them so you’ll be sure to have something for everyone?  Bad move.  Too many packages just invites confusion and, ultimately, paralysis.  In addition, a long price list is instinctively something associated with low-end products.  Think about going to a restaurant.  The diner has an enormous menu with pages and pages of items.  The fancy restaurant has a limited menu with just a few choices.  Which one would you rather be?

Over time I’ve found that three is the perfect number.  Four at the most.  Give your potential clients a short, simple menu with three basic choices:  base, middle and high-end.  That’s all you need.

Principle #3:  the middle package is the “money” package

75% of my clients end up purchasing my middle package.  That’s all I care about – selling the middle.  That’s because the middle package contains an album, and upselling the album is what gets me an extra $900 – $1,200 on average.  In fact, I’m pretty much indifferent between my top package and my middle package.  Sure, the top package costs more, but since it also includes more stuff there’s less room for upselling.  All it takes for me to hit my goal is that middle package.

And remember that people are not rugged individualists – most people want to be in the middle.  With the group.  With three packages, the majority will gravitate towards the middle, especially if you make it very attractive to go there.

Principle #4:  don’t include too much “stuff” in your packages

What’s wrong with this package?:    8 hours of coverage + engagement session + rehearsal dinner coverage + 30 page leather 10×10 wedding album + dvd with wedding and engagement images + mounted 20×24 print from the engagement session to display at the wedding + 2 parent albums + sign-in album with engagement images +  one 11×14 print + five 8×10 + one 24″ canvas gallery wrap.

Okay, this is kind of extreme, but let’s repeat the question – what’s wrong?  The very first thing the couple will ask is:

- how much will you reduce the price if you remove the rehearsal dinner?  the sign-in album?  the parent albums?  the 11×14 print?

You get the idea.  The more “stuff” you cram into each package, the more you are inviting your clients to bargain you down by taking stuff out.  You don’t have to let them do this.  Make the packages so simple that there’s really not much they can take away.

Principle #5:  don’t include albums in your packages, only album credits

This is my most important principle.  If you included, for example, a 30 page 10×10 album in a package, then that automatically sets a ceiling on the album.  Anything extra is an “upsell”.  And that 30 page number gets embedded in your clients’ brains.  They begin to expect just a 30 page album and that’s all.

Instead of including albums, include album credits.  That leaves the number of pages to be an open item.  The client may end up with a 20 page album or a 60 page album.  It gives you freedom to sell big albums, which is where big profits come from.

Principle #6:   put your most expensive package at the top of your list

Imagine that you’re moving to a new city – one that’s a lot more expensive than where you’re currently living.  You want to spend up to $500,000 on a new house.  You spend time online looking at houses and all of the ones you’d consider living in cost $800,000.  You’re in shock.  Then you find a good realtor who shows you a house you love that costs $700,000.  Now does that house seem cheap or expensive to you?  Well, it used to seem hugely expensive, but now it seems cheap! Magic, isn’t it?

That’s why you need a top package.  You don’t necessarily care if anyone actually buys it, but it certainly will make your other packages seem quite reasonable by comparison.

Putting it altogether

Okay, now that you understand my principles, let’s go through the exercise of constructing some sample wedding packages.  I’m going to assume you’re in that vast middle range that charges about $2,500 for your base price.  Here’s how I would construct the packages:

Base Package:   $2,500

• 6 hours of wedding day coverage
• DVD with your image files

  album pricing:

• large (12×12):  $60 per page
• medium (10×10):  $50 per page
• small (8×8):  $40 per page

So what’s happening here?  First, note that the price differential between the base package and the middle package is exactly the amount of the album credit.  In effect, that means that the extra hour of coverage and the engagement session are the “bonus” or the incentive for moving up to the middle package.  That’s a pretty big bonus and is a strong motivator to get your clients to move up to this package.

Next, note that the second item in the package is the e-session or an extra hour of coverage. Why did I write it that way? Because if your client has already done an e-session, or if they don’t want to do one, then they can’t bargain me down by removing it. I just say, “okay, great, then you get 8 hours of coverage instead of 7″.

Lastly, note that the album credit is enough to get them a 10×10, 20 page album.  This is critical and the holy grail of my system.  On average, my clients end up with albums close to 40 pages.  In this particular example, a 40 page 10×10 album would result in $1,000 of extra revenue.  So instead of $3,500, you would have made $4,500.

Now this is quite different than a standard up-sell, where you include a 30 page album in the package and then try to sell them 10 extra pages.  In my system, the client doesn’t know how many pages to expect.  I tell them right upfront I have no idea how many pages the 1st draft will be, only that my first draft typically averages between 40-60 pages.  How many pages they decide to keep are up to them. This is all above-board, non-confrontational, and results in very happy customers.

You can read about my album sales process in-depth right here.

[By the way, 1 page = 1 side.  Make this clear on your price list.  It's kind of incredible that people get confused by this, since every book they've ever read in their life is 1 page = 1 side.  Since when does 2 page = 1 page?  Whoever messed this up in the first place deserves to be eaten alive by red ants.]

Highest Package:  $5,000

• 7 hours of wedding day coverage
• engagement session or 1 extra hour of coverage
• 2nd photographer
• $2,500 album credit
• DVD with your image files

The same principles apply here.  The price differential between this package and the middle package is exactly equal to the increase in album credit, so the 2nd photographer is the bonus incentive for moving them up.  Again, you shouldn’t really don’t care if you sell this package or not, but it makes my middle package seem less expensive.

Wrapping up

So there you have it.  These are the principles of my package construction process.  It doesn’t matter if you’re a $1,000 photographer, a $2,500 photographer or a $10,000 photographer. If you use these principles, you should be able to boost your revenue per wedding by 20-50% with your very next wedding.

Keep it simple and you should be good to go.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

Here’s a very cogent analysis on why Kodak died while Fuji survived.   The author’s conclusion:

Surprisingly, Kodak acted like a stereotypical change-resistant Japanese firm, while Fujifilm acted like a flexible American one.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

It’s been a pretty big week for the camera industry.  Lots of new stuff announced.  Some quick thoughts:

Canon G1X

I’ve always been a fan of the Canon G series.  At one time I owned the G2 and right now I still own a G11.  There’s always been a lot to like about the series:  solid build quality, sharp built-in lens, raw, dedicated control knobs for exposure compensation and ISO so you don’t have to go menu-diving, hotshoe, etc.

As nice as the G Series body is, it’s main limitation has always been the tiny sensor.  Now, with the G1X you get all the benefits of the G series combined with a sensor that’s just a tiny shade smaller than APS-C – 6.3x bigger than the sensor in the G12.  Combined with the Digic 5 processor, I expect the image quality to be very, very good indeed.

Two things that (on paper) I really like about the G1X:

- The large, 14 megapixel sensor.  I like the fact that they didn’t try to cram too many pixels in there.  14mp seems just about right.

- The video implementation looks great:  1080p at 24fps (the preferred frame rate that makes your videos look “cinematic”).

I’m guessing the image quality will be on par with Canon’s crop sensor DSLRs.  If the lens is as good as prior G-series lenses, sharpness should be better than the kit lenses that come with the Rebel line.

The 2 primary limitations are the puny optical viewfinder and the lack of interchangeable lenses.  The lens itself is a 28-112 (equivalent) f2.8-5.8.  The focal range is quite useful and I wouldn’t miss the ability to change lenses – this would be all I need.  However, the aperture does have some limitations.  Since it’s a couple stops slower than the lenses on some of the best compacts (Oly XZ1 or Fuji X10), you’ll need to boost ISO a couple stops to compensate in low light.  Therefore, the large sensor loses some of its advantage.  In addition, since it’s so slow at the long end (f5.8!), you might not get much of a shallower dof either.

Another limitation – if I’m reading the specifications correctly – is the flash sync.  On my G11, I can sync at any speed due to the electronic shutter.  This has a massive advantage when using off-camera lighting in bright conditions.  I’m not sure, but the G1X appears to have a mechanical shutter because the specs say the max sync with external flashes is only 1/250.

All in all, the G1X is a massive leap forward for the G series.  I look forward to seeing what it can do.

Fuji X-Pro1

This is the camera I wanted the X100 to be.  Beautiful design, innovative viewfinder, interchangeable lenses.

While of course everything is speculation until the camera actually gets tested and evaluated, I anticipate this camera to have stunning image quality.  Why?  First of all, the X100 IQ is no slouch, and this sensor is said to be a significant improvement on that.  In addition, due to its lack of an AA filter, perceived clarity/sharpness/resolution should be stunning.

The logical comparison is between the X-Pro1 and the M9.  There will be highly animated debates between supporters of these two cameras, probably similar to the old debates between the Contax G2 and Leica M6.

What to make of the X-Pro1?  I fully expect this camera to have the best IQ of any mirrorless camera out there.  It should be better than any crop sensor DSLR as well.  How it compares to a full-frame DSLR like the 5DII or D700 remains to be seen, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was very, very close.  While the camera looks great, let’s see if Fuji has improved on the x100′s limitations (autofocus speed/accuracy, speed of operation, buffer, etc.).

The biggest knock on the X-Pro1 will probably be the price, which is expected to come in at around $1,700.  Very cheap compared to that little old company in Wetzlar, very expensive compared to micro 4/3 and Sony.

Some preliminary observations:

The Canon G1X appears to be a terrific camera for vacations or outings with the kids.  It also would make a pretty darn good landscape camera.  You’ll get dslr quality in a compact package.  It probably wouldn’t be a good tool for professional portrait work due to the slow lens, but who cares?  That’s not what it’s designed for.

The Fuji X-Pro1 creates more of a dilemma.  The IQ will probably be sufficient for professional portrait work, so this camera might be the first mirrorless that I would be tempted to use not only for casual use, but for professional work as well.

Concluding thoughts

It will be fun to see the samples and read the user reports for these cameras.  While the Fuji sounds like just an awesome camera/system, it doesn’t seem likely that I’ll buy one.  I already have a camera that suits me quite well for professional work (my 5D), so I’m not sure anything would be gained by purchasing the Fuji, other than my bank account being drained.  For casual use I’d rather use a cheaper system like m4/3 or the Canon.  Of course, I could change my mind once I see the results.  These are fun times for gear lovers!

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

Eastman Kodak Co. is preparing for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy-protection filing in the coming weeks should efforts to sell a trove of digital patents fall through, people familiar with the matter said.

The struggling photography icon, which employs about 19,000 people, is in discussions with potential lenders for around $1 billion in so-called debtor-in possession financing that would keep it afloat during bankruptcy proceedings, the people said. A filing could occur as soon as this month or early February, one of the people said.

A Kodak spokesman said the company “does not comment on market rumor or speculation.”

Should Kodak seek Chapter 11 protection from creditors, the company would then try to sell its portfolio of 1,100 patents through a court-supervised bankruptcy auction, the people said. Kodak would continue to pay its bills and operate normally while under bankruptcy protection, the people said.

It’s a crime that Kodak is nearly bankrupt.  They were there at the beginning of the digital revolution and should have thrived.  (Remember the photo CD system from 1990?)  It doesn’t take a big stretch of the imagination that Kodak – with top notch management – could have been Xerox, Sony, Canon, Samsung, or – with exceptional management – even Apple.  Now instead the company will be broken up in pieces.

Some investment firm will probably buy Kodak’s digital properties.  Some Chinese company will probably buy Kodak’s film and paper business.  Somehow, somewhere, Kodak Portra and Ektar film will continue to be made – for a while.  But it’s probably going to get more rare and expensive.

A note on film:  Kodak’s bread and butter film business has largely been supported by the motion picture industry, which – until very, very recently – still shot almost everything on film.  It is the continuous improvement in this film which eventually transferred over to still photography film like Portra and Ektar.  Unfortunately for film users, while it’s taken a decade longer to get there than still photography, digitally-shot cinema is finally here.  Cinematographers who have the freedom to shoot with any medium are beginning to choose digital.  Case in point:  The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Social Network, Margin Call, The Lincoln Lawyer, The Book of Eli, Angels and Demons, Pirates of the Carribean, and The Hobbit were all shot on digital.  It’s unlikely that any company that buys Kodak’s film business will continue to put any more into R&D.  What’s become a niche product (film) now becomes a micro-niche product.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

It’s that time of the year again – my annual “what’s in the bag” post. This is what I’m using going into 2012.

My current gear:

Phase One 645 AF with Mamiya 80mm f2.8 lens

This is my only film camera.  My reasons for owning and using this camera:

- The nice big negative:  56mm x 42mm, which is 2.7 times larger than 35mm or full-frame digital sensor.  The big negative has several important advantages:  detail, clarity, dynamic range, and of course that beautiful 3D-like rendering.  Nothing looks more beautiful than medium format film.

- The most advanced MF body:  The P1645 / Mamiya AFDIII (the same camera with different labels) is the most current medium format film body and is still made today.  It has the best metering and autofocus of any medium format film camera ever made.  Unfortunately, it may also be the last.

- Mamiya glass:  Mamiya makes absolutely gorgeous lenses.  They are tack sharp, light, and ridiculously cheap on eBay.

- Cost:  All-in, I think I spent $1,200 on this camera.  A deal.

When will I use this camera?

- When I feel like shooting film (for either personal or professional work)

- When I want to capture some really special images of my kids

Canon 5D Classic

This has been my workhorse since 2006.  I use it for 90% of my professional work.  To date, I still think the 5D produces the best files of any DSLR ever made – that includes the latest DSLRs, which are all fantastic.  Yes, it has flaws, namely the primitive auto-focus system, slow speed and tiny buffer.  If I still shot weddings, that would be enough of a reason to upgrade right now.  But as a portrait photographer, those flaws are a non-issue for me.  I see no reason to upgrade now or at any time in the future.  I’ll simply keep using this camera until it dies.

Lenses:

- 24mm f1.4L:  A great lens but I might end up selling it.  I simply don’t use this focal length very much.

- 35mm f1.4L:  A fabulous lens – I use it all the time as a 2-lens combo along with my 70-200.

- 50mm f1.4:  Sharp, inexpensive, small and light.

- 85mm f1.8:  ditto

- 70-200 f2.8 L  IS:  My primary portrait lens.  Beautiful rendering, tack sharp, effective image stabilization.

Olympus EP3 with Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens

The EP3 is my primary personal camera.  Since I bought it I probably use it for 90% of my personal work.  It’s primary advantage is it’s small size and light weight.  When I’m out and about with my kids on some outing (and photography is not the reason for the outing), size and weight trumps everything.  Focus and metering are great.  It has it’s flaws (which I’ll cover when I release my final EP3 review post), and it’s not a permanent solution, but for the next year or two it will certainly be fine.

Canon G11

Since I purchased the EP3 I don’t use my G11 very often.  I don’t really see much reason to sell it, though.  It’s great for macro shots like for eBay auctions.  Since I don’t own any macro lenses for my P1, 5D or EP3, this is it.  I can also keep it for when I need some really high speed flash.  Shooting off-camera flash at 1/1000 is no problem, since this camera doesn’t have a mechanical shutter.

G11 w/off-camera light, f3.5, 1/320 sec, ISO 100.

Camera’s that I tried and sold in 2011

Film cameras:  The great thing about film cameras is that trying them is pretty much free.  If you decide not to keep them, you can eBay them for as much (or sometimes more) than you bought them for.

- Contax 645:  A great camera with great lenses (Zeiss) that’s hampered by an almost un-useable autofocus system.  A great choice for manual-focus shooters. Sold for a big profit.

- Canon 1V:  A state-of-the-art 35mm film camera.  Works great but it’s really no lighter and hardly any smaller than my P1.  If I’m going to pay a size/weight penalty, I’d rather be shooting medium format.

- Contax G2:  Beautifully designed, razor sharp lenses, beautiful files, but has a hit-or-miss autofocus system.

- Fuji GA645i:  Medium format in a small and light package.  Files are eyeball-cutting sharp.  Hampered by some pretty severe limitations, namely:  widest aperture is f4 and fastest shutter speed is 1/400.  This means it’s really not great for shooting in either low light OR bright light!

- Olympus OM2n:  I may regret selling this one.  A jewel of a camera.  Beautiful, HUGE viewfinder.  Sharp lenses.  So cheap it’s practically free (cost $100 with lens!).  At the end of the day, I simply am not a fan of 35mm film.

Other gear in my bag:

- Alien Bee B800 strobes (three of ‘em).  Dirt cheap and reliable.  Great customer service from Paul C. Buff.

- Canon 580EX and 580EXII speedlights.

- Pocketwizards (3 of ‘em)

- Cases

Tamrac rolling case (for the 5D)

Pelican 1600 (for the P1)

Bodabag classic (for shooting)

- Various light stands / modifiers

The camera I’m interested in for 2012:

I’m really interested in the upcoming Fuji LX.  The X100 by almost all measures is a great camera that I really would have considered if it had interchangeable lenses.  The LX has that covered, and it’s also supposed to offer a major improvement on the already great X100 sensor.  I’m hoping that this camera will not only be a significant improvement over my Olympus EP3, but might also be good enough to replace my 5D as well.  We’ll see.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!

By now you’ve probably heard the bad news from Adobe:  beginning with Photoshop CS6, you won’t be able to get the “upgrade” price unless you already own CS5.  If not, then you’ll have to pay the full $699 price.

You can’t follow a strategy of upgrading every 2nd or 3rd release, you’ve got to buy the new release every year if you want to stay current.  So in other words, Adobe is moving towards a subscription model of pricing.

Am I mad at Adobe?  Absolutely not.  It’s their business – they can price their products any way they’d like to generate profits.  And maximizing profits for shareholders is the best economic system that’s ever been invented by mankind.  Without profit maximization there would be no iPhone.  No iPad.  No Canon 5D.  No Photoshop.  No Fender guitars.  No Converse All-Stars.  And no Laurence Kim Photography.  Enough on that.

So what should you do?  It all comes down to how important Photoshop is to your business.

I barely use any Photoshop.  I use it for sharpening, some minor facial retouching, saving-for-the-web and that’s pretty much it.  Other than sharpening, 98% of my images get no Photoshop work whatsoever.  So for me, it’s a no-brainer:  I’m sticking with CS3 and I’ll probably never upgrade.

What’s right for my business, however, might not be right for yours.  If you’re a heavy Photoshop user, then it may make sense to keep upgrading every year.

Lightroom, however, is another story altogether.  For one thing, it’s a much less mature product than Photoshop, so each new revision has had some pretty dramatic improvements.  For another, I use it to do 98% of my post-processing.  I can see myself continuing to upgrade Lightroom with every release, at least for the next few years.

It’s your business, do what you want.  But if you’re an American Dreamer, I’d think long and hard about if you really needed those new whiz-bang features in every new release to do standard wedding/portrait photography.

__________________________________________________________________

Please keep these blog posts coming! All you have to do is shop by clicking on the advertisements below. It won’t cost you a penny more to shop that way, but it will provide me with a small commission that enables me to spend time working on new blog posts. Thanks!