8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

1/16

35mm Prime Lens Reviews, Part IThe 35mm prime lens is, today, a poor-selling focal length. Most everyone buys zooms,

and even some professionals consider the 35mm focal length to be too nondescript,

preferring more radical wide-angles in hopes, perhaps, of imparting more pizzazz to

their pictures. The exceptions to this rule are the Leica M cameras, which dont take

zooms and cant easily frame ultra-wide lenses; the 35mm focal length remains the

most popular Leica M lens focal length, eclipsing even the more famous 50mm.

Its too bad that the 35mm has fallen into this undeserved obscurity, for it may be

the most useful single lens type there is. Thirty-fives are commonly small and light,

and in most cases not terribly expensive. They frame a dynamic angle of view, wide

enough to be inclusive without calling attention to themselves with obviously wide-

angly visual characteristics. Theyre often usefully fast without being large. They offer

a great balance of good depth of field with good hand-holdability. Theyre not too

wide for most flash units to cover. And their image quality is typically quite high, in

general equaling, or in some cases surpassing, the best in the rest of the makers line.

Im not the guy to talk about 20mm or shorter lenses, or 300mm /2.8s. I use prime

lenses in the focal length range of about 28mm to 135mm for 35mm cameras, with out-

liers at 24mm and 180mm. Within those focal length ranges, however, Ive tried hun-

dreds of alternatives-some very extensively, and many at least to the extent that Ive

been able to formulate a personal opinion about them.

What follows are my subjective comments about some of the 35mm lenses I know

well. Ive tried many more of them than Ill list here. Bear in mind that we each have

our own tastes and our own uses; since Ive generally only shot color for commercial

and freelance work, I wont talk much about color transmission. I typically shoot black-

All contents 2002 by Michael C. Johnston and The 37th Frame

the 37th FrameA Newsletter for Photographersby Mike Johnston

Number 3 February 25th, 2002No Advertising Accepted

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

2/16

and-white. Bear in mind also that bokeh (theaesthetic properties of out-of-d.o.f. blur) isfairly important to me, whereas it may not befor others.

AIS NIKKOR 35mm /1.4: This was animportant lens in its day, being one of the firstNikkors to be multicoated as well as beingone of the first superfast 35mms made in a

well-known and widely used lensmount.Photojournalists in particular snapped theseup in the days before zoom lenses infiltratedthe profession.

The lens is physically very beautiful, builtwith the rocklike solidity and smooth, well-damped focusing action that made manualNikon lenses world-famous; yet the smallish52mm filter size lets it retain a sense of overallcompactness despite its relatively large size.Few lenses feel better on any camera than thislens does-it balances wonderfully on most

Nikon bodies from the era of the classic SLR(even the FE/FM series) and its wide focusingring falls to hand as well as any lens.

Image quality is characteristically excellent.During the classic era of the SLR (say, 1960-80), Nikons strategy was to make slowerlenses more to a price point for the amateurmasses, and to lavish its optical expertise onthe fast lenses that professionals were morelikely to buy. This meant that, mostly, fasterNikkor lenses were better performers thanslower ones, despite the fact that the princi-

ples of optical science would predict theopposite. Center sharpness is quite high (itwas exceptionally high for the mid-1970s),and contrast is very good across the frame,although the AIS Nikkor 1.4s high imagequality is not now as uncommon as it used tobe.

The lenss Achilles heel is an unpleasantlycomplex bokeh that looks jarring where itshows up. As with most 35mms, this is miti-gated at small apertures, and I suppose somemight claim that the harsh blur might make

the in-focus image pop more; but I dontbuy that. I think its distracting to the eye.This may not matter to you, in which case thecharms of this once-famous lens are still thereto be enjoyed.

NIKON SERIES E 35mm 2.5: Heres a lensthat is nearly the antithesis of its famouscousin discussed above. Very small, very

light, quite cheap-feeling, with somewhatinsecure focusing action, and slow, it exhibitssharpness and contrast that is merely good(although good enough, especially for ISO 400films), but it has excellent, smooth, verypleasing bokeh. Still a viable option, especiallyfor manual-focus Nikonophiles who use the35mm focal length only sparingly.

LEITZ (later Leica) PRE-ASPH 35mm /2SUMMICRON-M: Arguably the mostrenowned 35mm lens ever made, the WaltherMandler designed 1979 version of theSummicron-M is a richly characterful lens thathas been responsible over the years for manyfamous and great photographs. It may not bethe most popular lens in Leica history by salesfigures (I dont know what is), but it is possi-bly the best-loved, and it is certainly the idealcompanion for for an M4 or M6. Exceptionallysmall, its construction quality is probably one

tier below the best, especially (by reputation,at least) the Canadian-built version; but itmakes up for that by its wonderful handlingproperties on the camera: its one of the fewlenses your hands can learn to operate asthoughtlessly as a kid rides a bicycle.

Optically it is wonderful, though not byany means perfect. To dispense with itsflaws: it vignettes rather severely by modernstandards (Leica, of course, like the Lambwashed clean and pure, never admits to suchproblems- until after it fixes them), and it has

a higher than normal degree of perspectivedistortion. Now, by the strict definition, per-spective distortion is a property that is purelygeometrical, affected only by angle of viewand camera position. People have arguedwith me by the book that this lens cantshow any more or less perspective dstortionthan any other 35mm lens. Fine-so Ill call itapparent perspective distortion then. Thefact remains that if you take a photographwith a round object such as a basketball up inthe extreme corner of the frame with this lensand also with a retrofocus 35mm lens, theSummicron will show the basketball to bemore distorted into an oblong shape than theother lenses show it to be. Call this whateveryou want; its a fact. Try it.

Next, the lens more or less sucks wideopen. While it takes serviceable pictures at/2, it gets soft and loses most of its distinc-tive properties. (Only slightly stopped down,

\ 2[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

3/16

however, contrast begins to kick in, and mat-ters improve quickly.) And finally, although itis highly flare-resistant, it is not flare-free.

The lens, of course, has gobs of character, towhich even some of its flaws contribute. Ona tripod at middle apertures with a slow filmit can show astonishing detail; its contrast isperfect, neither exaggerated nor at all lacking;and its bokeh from /5.6 is so cohesive that in

some instances it actually fools the eye intothinking objects far out of the d.o.f. are ren-dered clearly. Once you know the lens youcan recognize pictures taken with it at tenpaces.

I know of one Magnum photographer whoswitched from this lens to the Summicron-ASPH when it came out, and then, a year orso later, quietly switched back. That seems awholly appropriate tribute.

ZEISS CONTAX DISTAGON 35mm /2.8:

Its a particular burr under my saddle thatZeiss never made a 35mm /2 for theContaxes, except the one for the G series.Now, of course, since the introduction of theN1, its a mooted point-if you think its beenan endless wait for new lenses to appear inthe manual-focus line, try hanging aroundwhile primes in the newborn autofocus lineget filled out. You could look like Rip VanWinkle before your hearts desire (or the lensyou most need for jobs) comes along.

The 35mm /2.8 for the Contax SLRs is a

very odd and occasionally very beautifuloptic, especially in regards to its contrast,which is in some cases phenomenal.However, it is strangely, almost mysteriouslyinconsistent. Of all the lenses discussed in thisarticle I think I know best how this onebehaves, yet I am least confident of my abilityto describe it in words. I think that some of itsinconsistency is due to the fact that the lensimages object lines with one orientation sig-nificantly better than objects aligned with theother, as shown by the widely diverging sagit-tal and tangential lines on its MTF chart; attimes it can look almost unsharp where it sim-ply shouldnt be. It is also not consistent inperformance over either its aperture or focus-distance ranges, seeming almost, chameleon-like, to change its fundamental character asthose parameters change.

Its bokeh is among the weirdest I know of:objects deep in the o.o.f. seem almost to col-

lapse in on themselves, becoming smalleralmost as much as they become blurry. Youcan see this property most easily in the blur ofsparsely-leafed trees in the distance; lines likesmall branches, twigs, and leaf stems simplydisappear, while the leaves themseves collapseinto smaller, relatively hard shapes. I cut myteeth on this lenss look, so I mostly tend tolike it, but other bokeh connoisseurs have wide-

ly varying opinions of its peculiarities.Yet just when you find yourself getting per-

plexed or fed up, the lens will reward youwith a string of stunning pictures that seembeyond the capabilities of more pedestrianglass. All in all, its a very alluring oddball,capable of great results along with its curious,nagging oddities.

KONICA HEXAR 35mm /2: The KonicaHexar now seems to me to have been the firstof a series of inventive Leica M knock-offs.

The Hexar is just about exactly the size andshape of an M6 with the pre-ASPH 35mmSummicron on it. Its almost as if the M6mated with a good-quality point-and-shootand the two gave birth to baby Hexar.

Oddly, the combination works. The KonicaHexar has graced the camera bags of a greatmany photographers in the years since it wasfirst introduced, whether temporarily or per-manently, and it still has a loyal following.

Two facts about the Hexar filtered downthrough the grapevine to me. The first is that

a major design goal of the cameras engineerswas quietness. Konica certainly achieved thatobjective: subjects two yards away from youwill be oblivious to the faint noise of the shut-ter. The second fact is that Konica set outdeliberately to copy the pre-ASPHSummicron in designing the Hexarslens...even though the company has semi-offi-cially denied this.

And sure enough, the Hexar lens more orless shares the Leica lenss design, albeit withthe addition of a last (innermost) elementcalled a follower intended to reducevignetting. Its not surprising, therefore, thatthe Hexar lens shares many of the Leica lensspleasing qualities. The difference is that it vig-nettes less, it is better wide open, and QC- andthus average performance-isnt quite as high.This isnt difficult to account for, since Konicasells the entire Hexar, camera and all, for lessthan Leica ever sold its Summicron for.

\ 3[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

4/16

OLYMPUS OM ZUIKO 35mm /2: Anotherold-fashioned lens that is in most ways verygood, if sometimes maddening. It has a rela-tively complex cross-section with a large,steeply convex outermost element, and its ofa nice size and shape and handles well.Olympus was late in the game with effectivemulticoating, which meant that earlier OMZuiko lenses-some of which still exist in the

now-doomed OM catalogue-were prone toflare, sometimes rather badly so. The old35mm 2 is decently coated and makes abrave go at controlling flare, albeit sometimeswith imperfect success. Its lens shade isntvery effective, since it doesnt seem that per-pendicularly-impinging light (sidelight) iswhat gives the lens trouble. Also, like manyZuikos, it gets flustered at small apertures,throwing in the towel to diffraction effectsand letting its image quality go pretty muchto hell. This can happen at /11 in unpropi-

tious circumstances, and it frequently hap-pens at /16.

Despite this, the lens has a certain indefin-able quality that is hard to deny. Its quitesharp at most apertures, and seems to have away with contrast and tonal reproduction thatcan give its results, especially in black-and-white, a seductive quality. Its not the best35mm lens at any particular parameter (andthe two Ive owned both seemed to allow theOM-4Ts meter to get fooled more often thanis the case with other Zuikos, somehow), but

at middle apertures the results it gives can bequite lovely.

CANON EF 35mm /2: I first heard aboutthis lens from The 37th Frame subscriber BillPierce, the darkroom wizard who writes theNuts & Bolts column for Dirck Halsteadsoutstanding Digital Journalist web site, whenhe (Pierce) was printing the master reproprints for P.F. Bentleys book on Bill Clintonsfirst campaign, Clinton: Portrait of Victory. Itis probably, all things considered, the mosttechnically perfect 35mm lens you can buy. Itis supremely well-behaved: superbly sharpacross the frame and throughout the aperturerange, with loads of contrast. Its propertiesdont change much with focus distance, andits bokeh has great integrity whether slightlyor greatly blurry, and whether in front of orbehind the plane of focus. Even at the settingsthat confound most other lenses-relatively

wide open and focussed relatively close, withobjects in the frame that are far out of focus-its bokeh still holds up. Its also highly flareresistant-among the best in the focal length-and its compact and light. Although its not aUSM lens (it doesnt really need to be, sinceits so small and quiet anyway), it autofocusesfast and its image pops nicely in the viewfind-er.

Yet for some reason it tends to get back-handed compliments from lens nuts. As tendsto happen with Canon glass, some call itslook synthetic. The reclusive multilingualpolymath and brilliant extreme connoisseurof photographica, O. Grad, has even let slipthe epithet boring on occasion.

Still, few lenses are so predictable or excel-lent in performance, and almost none havesuch consistently smooth and reliable bokeh. Ifall that excellence and predictability add upto a lens that fails to call attention to itself,

well, at least you wont mistake its images forsomething youd see from a Nikkor.

35mm Prime Lens Reviews Part II, coming inIssue #6, will cover the Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm /2 M42 screwmountlens, the Leica 35mm /1.4 Summilux AsphericalType 1, the AF Nikkor 35mm /2, the Leica 35mm/2 Summicron-R, the Pentax SMCP-M 35mm/2, and the Zeiss Contax Distagon 35mm /1.4.Also, Ill discuss comparisons and defend myopinion as to which is the best 35mm prime Ive

ever used.

Photography of nature

tends to be either centripetal or

centrifugal. In the former, all

elements of the picture converge

toward a central point of interest to

which the eye is repeatedly drawn.

The centrifugal photograph is a

more lively composition, like asunburst, in which the eye is led to

the corners and edges of the picture;

the observer is thereby forced to

consider what the photographer

excluded in his selection.

-Eliot Porter

\ 4[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

5/16

Abberzee: Oh, jeez, I dont know, Bob. WilliamClift. Howard Bond? I suppose I should say Ansel

Adamsdoesnt everybody? But you know, Imreally not the guy to ask.

Coates: Oh, cmon. I want to know. Who else?

Abberzee:Well, I guess I would say PaulCaponigro. Hes a guy whose books I really like.

Coates:Any classic guys? Edward Weston?

Abberzee: No, probably not Weston. A lot ofWeston prints are great but theyre kind of all overthe place by modern standards.

Coates: More recent masters? Michael A. Smith,George Drennan, John Sexton?

Abberzee: Cant really say I know their work. I

have a Sexton calendar. Never heard of Drennan.Coates:Your loss. One of the best warmtoneprinters around. His prints are incredibly rich,

with just a hint of an old-fashioned quality. Butnot directly derivative of historical prints. Hes oneof the only printers going who can play warmtones like Ashkenazy plays the keyboard. Beautifulstuff. Distinctive. How about Barnbaum, who

writes for Mikes old magazine? You know hiswork from the magazine, dont you?

Abberzee: Oh, yeah. Theres one photographer Ican say I hate.

Coates:What?Hate?Are we talking about thesame guy? The guy who does the Master PrintingClass features.

Abberzee: I know who he is all right. I guesshate isnt a very nice word to useI take that

back. But I know who were talking about.

Coates: How can you hate Barnbaums work?

Abberzee: How can you like it? Its got all thefailings of standard Zonie crap. Any excuse for apicture, never mind what it is. Every print done todeath, zippy-zappy, cut-your-eyeballs contrast. Ill

tell you how to make a master print Barnbaumstyle: kick up the magenta filter and bleach the shitout of the shadows. Its all overdone, all of it.

Coates:Excuse me? I hardly consider BruceBarnbaums prints to be overdone. Not unless

youd call all those mediocre 35mm printers youlike underdone.And what, pray tell, is the stan-dard failing of people who practice the ZoneSystem? This is going to be good.

Abberzee:Wannabe Zonies are like birdwatch-ers. Theyve got this standard life list. Mono Lake,Bodie the friendly ghost town, Anasazi ruins, thatadobe church that Ansel and Strand photographed,

yatta yatta yatta. Every modern Zonie acolyte hasto collect the life list. Hell, if Georgia OKeefe couldonly live to be 200, shed be on the Zonies life listtoo. Glowing birch trees against the dark forest,abstracts of slit canyons. Gag me with a stirringpaddle.

Coates: Slot canyons. Which Bruce Barnbaumpioneered as a photographic subject, by the way.

Abberzee: Praise be.

Coates:Well, for Gods sake, you can hardly com-plain the man is only photographing derivative

subjects if hes acknowledged as having pioneerednew subjects!

Abberzee: New subjects which became clichs inabout a year. If I never saw another damned slitcanyon picturesorry, slot canyonId survive.

Coates: This is getting outrageous, even for you.Bruce Barnbaum is a superb photographer, widelyacknowledged to be among the best in the country.Hes one of the few photographers who can make aliving selling prints. Why do you think that is?Because his prints are marvelous. Because peoplelove them and photographers admire them.

Abberzee: Sorry, buddy, but I cant concede youmuch for mass popularity. Hes a guy who printsfor effect, and I dont think he has any real visualinterests beyond mere effects. He has no interestin subject matter. Old stone archways, mountain-sides, stormy skies, theyre all just excuses to makezippy-zappy prints. Thats not what I call photog-raphy. If this guys a master, Im a horned toad.

Coates:You said that, not me.

Abberzee: Hey, you asked me who I thoughtwere the top printers alive. I told you Id rather notplay that game. Barnbaum wouldnt make my top

250.

Coates: He makes my top 25. I think his work ismarvelous, and his prints transcendent. Im aston-ished its not something everybody thinks.

Abberzee: So heres an odd situation, Bobyouand me disagreeing. Alls well with the World.

Robert Abarzejian andRobert Coates

\ 5[

Abberzee andCoates: Zippy-Zappy Zonies

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

6/16

The RantIMAGE IS EVERYWHERE The word imagehas lately been spreading like a sort of verbalkudzu, choking out everything in its path.

What appears to be causing this linguisticplague is one part monkey-see monkey-doand two parts snobbery. Critics and academi-cians have long employed the word imageto imply that what theyre talking about aremore serious than mere pictures. They alsouse it because not every photography-basedcreation that merits their interest and atten-tion is a picture. And because critics and aca-demicians (who are thus excused) employ theword so frequently, image has spreaddownward from the ivory tower like a virusuntil it has infected the entire art-photograph-ic community. The word has become a signifi-er: an image is worthy of attention; apicture isa common low-class fillip that any tourist can

make with a disposable. The implied hopeseems to be that an image, as opposed to ahumble picture or photograph, is some-thing special, something that shows artisticintent, skill, sensibility, and accomplishment.People who make images must be artists,since image is the word that folks who talkabout art use when they talk about photo-graphs. Right?

Image, unfortunately, is also a weak-willed, dirty-dishwater, sniveling little sot of aword. Its an umbrella wordbland, character-

less, general. It takes in everything. You dontsee a photograph of yourself in a mirror, yousee an image. A line drawing of a smiley faceisnt a picture, but its an image. Man wasmade in Gods imagebut lets hope the Lorddoesnt look like Danny DeVito. Caricatures,fantasy posters, the Proctor and Gamble logo,Messonier paintings, a cloud reflected in apuddle, Flash Gordon streaking across thepage of a comic book, Apple Computersappleeven the beautiful specter of the worldcast by a fine lens on a view cameras ground-

glass theyre all images. But none of themare photographs.We shouldnt be afraid to get more specific,

and to hell with vague connotations of status.Photographs are distinct from most otherimages, and photography is distinct frommost other means of creating images. Theword photograph, thought to have beencoined by Sir John Herschel and the sole sur-

vivor of the mixed-up jumble of nineteenth-century descriptive terms and coinages (takenany good Heliographs lately?), is a good, spe-cific, muscular descriptive term that wears itsetymology proudly on its sleeve. Even thecheerful proletarian word picture is morespecific than image, since it is A visualrepresentation or imagepainted, drawn, pho-tographed, or otherwise rendered on a two-dimen-

tional surface (AHED, mod. auct.; italicsmine). In other words, a picture is a particularkind of image-the kind that most photographsare.

So why doesnt anybody take pictures anymore? No one seems to; everyone makesimages. The overuse of this pale and tremulouslittle word is ludicrous and middlebrow. Thephrase would you like to see my images? isfaux-proper, like saying would you like tocome to dinner with Martha and I?

Image is a weak-willed,

dirty-dishwater, snivelling

little sot of a word.

The dull-witted term digital image is, onthe other hand, perfectly suitable, because itdescribes something specific that isnt quite aphotograph and isnt necessarily a picture ora representation either. Unfortunately, it does-nt translate to other word forms very well-no

one calls themselves a digital imager (theysay digital photographer, a truly woefulhybrid) and the term digital imagerysounds like you got forced to sit through agovernment seminar in Verbal Obscurantismthree jobs ago. Various alternatives have beenproposed -I like digigraph, digitographer(dij-ih-TOG-raf-er), digitography myself, notthat anyone cares. But the actual terms areevolving pell-mell, without forethought, andwere going to get stuck forever with whatev-er evolves.

Whatever. Strong-minded men and womenare not timidly fearful of being thought to usegauche terms if those terms are correct, andhave no compuction about saying what theymean. I think we should show some back-bone, and call pictures pictures, and photo-graphs photographs, and reserve the squir-rely little pseudo-euphemism image foroccasions when its really what we mean.

\ 6[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

7/16

How to Write Internet UserReports of Cameras

A Guide for Idiots

1. First of all, dont be shy. One need notknow how to spell, how to use upper caseand lower case letters correctly, or how to

put the apostrophe in the right place whenending a word with s. (O, the camerasIve seen.) The internet is a triumph ofdemocracy, even if youre Republican, sobe sure to remember that knowledge ofelitist codes such as grammar is just thesort of thing that got people in eyeglassesslaughtered during Maos cultural revolu-tion. Nobody likes an egghead. Yourefine. Forge ahead.

2. Pay no heed to your level of ignorance ofthe subject at hand. Its a brave new

world: speculation is as good as opinion,and opinions are as good as facts, andyour facts are as good as anyone elses-even if you made them up. If youre incollege and youre disagreeing with a guywhos been a professional for thirty years,not to worry: youre probably as smart ashe is. Hey, hes not in college, is he? If hewere so smart, hed be in college. Its alevel playing field, or might as well be.Take advantage.

3. If you suspect that you may actually be far

more ignorant than someone who is dis-agreeing with you, use more emphatic lan-guage. If that fails, call the person names.You know what they say: the best defenseis a good offense!

4. Anecdotal evidence is cherishable. If youheard something from a friend who heardit from a friend of the guy it happened to,for Gods sake get it out there, man! Put iton the table! We really do want to hearabout it from you if you once heard itsomewhere. How else are other peoplesupposed to hear things somewhere?

5. It is not necessary to actually own a cam-era to review it. It is not necessary to havetried it to review it. In fact, it is not neces-sary to have ever seen it to review it. Ifyouve read a published review of it, youmay adopt that reviewers conclusions(just dont let on where you read them); ifyou are acute enough to have noticed a

trend among the complaints in previousreviews on the site, you may pile on;and, certainly, if youve skimmed thebrochure, well, how much more about thedamned thing does anyone really need toknow?

6. Keeping a stock file of generic complaintsand dispensing them randomly may back-fire. For instance, if you say too much

mirror slap about a camera that has verylittle mirror slap, people may begin to seeyour review for what it actually is. (Thetactic is especially dangerous when youuse terms without knowing what theymean.)

7. Always remember: the critical thing youmust contribute to the worlds sum ofknowledge is your unique opinion as towhether Canon or Nikon is better. It isvery important that we hear from you onthis matter.

8. If you have ever been personally wrongedby being sold a camera that turned out tohave a defect, now is a good time to getback at the manufacturer.

9. Xenophobia in regard to the location of acameras assembly has somehow escapedbeing revealed as racism, so you have afree hand. If you use a camera markedMade in Germany, you are, as youknow, a better person than someonewhose camera was made in Japan, andyou should let people know that. You may

use the term Japanese shit if you like,even if your camera was assembled inGermany by immigrant Turks or was builtin Portugal and only shipped to Germanyfor final assembly. If your camera wasmade in Japan, however, take care to notewhose pieces of shit were made in thePhilippines or Thailand, so you can feelsuperior to those people. (Note: if youbought a Cosina Voigtlaender, and yourcamera is stamped both Made inGermany and Made in Japan, figuringout how to feel superior by calling some-thing else shit may be too complicated aproceeding to undertake alone. See a psy-chotherapist.)

10. Rule 9 conflicts with the ultra-low-vol-ume exclusion. For instance, everythingmade in China may be referred to as totalshit unless it is made in numbers insuffi-cient to supply, say, 1% of the population

\ 7[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

8/16

of a mid-sized Japanese city. In that case itis ultra-rare, which means it is great andcannot be called anything bad at all.

11. If you own an ultra-rare camera, you mayrave on and on about it on the Internet.Since no one else has ever heard of it, youwont be contradicted.

12.Judge things even if you lack any sort ofbasis for comparison. No one will know!

Isnt the Internet great?13. If someone catches you out by pointing out

that something you wrote in your reviewwas just plain wrong, take personal affrontand start making accusations, pretendingnot that verifiable facts are in dispute butthat the other person has motive to slanderyou based on your sex, age, race, religion,writing style, country or origin, country ofresidence, or physical handicaps. Go aheadand invent said motives. Anything thatsounds plausible works.

14. If you were comparing two cameras ofapproximately the same price and descrip-tion but from two different companies, andbought one of them, it is usually appreciat-ed if you take the trouble to post a deni-grating, sarcastic, and dismissive review ofwhichever one you didnt choose. Try notto be negligent about this, as all the worldis eager to hear proof of your good judg-ment and a detailed accounting of yourpersonal shopping criteria.

15. If you were comparing two cameras in the

same manufacturers line and decided onthe more expensive one, post a review aboutthe less expensive one and complain bitterlythat it doesnt have, but should have, all thefeatures the more expensive one does.

Please take the trouble topost a sarcastic and dismissive

review of whichever camerayou didnt choose.

16. If, on the other hand, you were comparing

two cameras in the same manufacturersline but decided on the less expensive one,post a review to point out that all the fea-tures the more expensive one has, youdont need, and that, therefore, anyonewho bought the more expensive one is anidiot who likes to waste money. Peoplewho wasted their money in this way

always appreciate having their errorspointed out to them by perfect strangers.

17. On any given review site, if a camera thatcompetes with yours has a higher ratingthan yours, go over there and slam thatdamn thing. Even though you came veryclose to purchasing it yourself, give it azero or a one or whatever the lowest rat-ing is. That will teach those people who

dont agree with you whos who.18. Preying on peoples natural insecurities

works. Saying its just not a professionalcamera even when comparing one ama-teur camera to another amateur camerausually helps make other people feel bad.

19. Plastic = poorly built. Mine it, baby.20. If you spent far more money than other

people have, then they cant argue withyou. This is one thing that makes stupidlyspendy kit so deliciously worthwhile.

21. A type of scathing putdown useful in

reviews is to point out the obvious, orsomething that could easily be discoveredand decided upon before purchase, butphrase it as if it were a negative. Forinstance, I bought this fixed-lens camera,and its a decent enough camera I supposeexcept for the fact that is has a fixed lens.Or, if you chose a small camera, complainthat its small; or, if its made of polycar-bonates and engineered plastics, say it hastoo much plastic, in a disapproving way,as if you actually bought one and this

awful realization somehow took you com-pletely by surprise sometime during yourthird month of ownership.

22. A nice variation of this is to pretend to beconfused by something that would takeany rational person two minutes to figureout permanently the first time he everused the camera. If it took you a fewmoments to figure out how to use a cer-tain switch, for instance, say that theswitch is confusing.

23. If you are ever forced to resort to theinstruction manual, it is proof that a cam-era is poorly designed. If you haventfound a feature that is in fact on the cam-era because you havent read the manual,its okay to say it isnt there. Everyone willunderstand.

24. Finally, when writing your review, pleasepay no attention to whether your newcamera is useful for taking pictures. The

\ 8[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

9/16

rest of us do not want to hear subjective,touchy-feely bullshit like that from you.Argue from a common foundation: thefeature list! That way, people who havenever done much photography (but whospend lots of time on the Internet) will feelriiiiiight at home.

Subscriber NotesThe 37th Frame subscriber ChristopherJames has just had published The Book ofAlternative Photographic Processes, fromDelmar, a division of Thompson Learning,Inc., ISBN 0-7668-2077-7. This one looks like areal winner to me-he concentrates on practicalexplanations of alternative processes as theyare practiced by artists today, which seems anastute approach-but since Im not an experton alternative processes, Ive invited a friendwho is to review the book for a future issue of

the newsletter.Chris James, a professor at Harvard

University from 1978 to 1991, has lecturedextensively on alternative processes all overthe world. His work has been exhibited inshows at the Museum of Modern Art, TheMetropolitan Museum of Art, and GeorgeEastman House. He is currently Chair of thePhotography Department at The Art Instituteof Boston at Lesley University. Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee sub-scribed recently. Both are among the most

accomplished large-format photographers inthe United States. Outside of my recollectionof a beautiful spread in the old Camera &Darkroom prior to its unfortunate demise, Iknow Michael Smiths work only by reputa-tion, but I have two of Paula Chamlees booksand prize them. Natural Connections is asophisticated journeyman piece of subtle hori-zonless landscapes that are like a crossbetween the work of Frederick Sommer andEdward Weston; High Plains Farm, an evenbetter book, documents her parents and the

farm where she grew up in the TexasPanhandle. I think High Plains Farm, whichJames Enyeart calls a visual poem, is one ofthe great books of documentary photographypublished in the 1990s. Its been a book Ivereturned to regularly for both pleasure andcontemplation. A really fine piece of work. The ICP Library, the George EastmanHouse, Ted Hartwell at the Minneapolis

Institute of the Arts, The PhotographyCenter of Atlanta, and Houstons AmonCarter Museum are also among the new sub-scribers to The 37th Frame since last issue.

Please send subscriber news by mail to 316Windsor Drive, Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186, orby e-mail to michaeljohnston@ameritech.net.

Comments & QueriesPaul Butzi writes: Im trying to cut down onmy subscriptions but I was hooked by the You area punk quotation on the reviews part of yourweb page. The world is overrun with pre-digested,guaranteed non-offensive opinions. Please preserveus from the unbiased, uninformative, overween-ingly positive reviews of everything from breakfastcereal to candidates.

Kerry Thalmann writes: Its about time some-

body was willing to step forward and tell it like itis without kowtowing to the advertisers and otherself-important powers that be.

Ed Kirkpatrick writes: I always enjoyed youreditorials in Camera & Darkroom and then PhotoTechniques and I was very pleased to find a copy ofyour first issue. It was posted on the lab bulletinboard at the Smithsonian where I teach photogra-phy and I instantly recognized the columnsname...Good luck!

John Wren writes: If film is doomed, how comeNikon just released a new all manual camera?Mike replies: Film is indeed obsolescent, butI doubt it will ever disappear entirely. TheFM3a came into existence because a) theresalways been a persistent call for the return ofthe FE2, and prices for used ones continues tobe strong, b) it in effect replaces the F3, and c)Nikon has a large enough customer base, anda large enough installed base of existingmanual-focus equipment out in the world, tojustify it. You wont see Pentax, Minolta, or

even Canon (because of FD-EF incompatibili-ty) following suit and introducing a newmanual/mechanical camera.

Regarding the industry and digital, consid-er the almost warp-speed of digital develop-ment over just the past few years. Looking atdigital cameras from 1995 is like looking atfilm cameras from1950. It used to be thatpro digital SLRs cost $25,000 and consumer

\ 9[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

10/16

digicams had only a quarter or a half amegapixel and very poor image quality. Thatwasnt long ago at all. Now you have the D1xat, what, $5,500, and the Coolpix 5000 at bare-ly more than a grand (the same cost or slight-ly cheaper than the Olympus OM4T or thelast of the recently discontinued Pentax LXs,by the way) that has 5 megapixels and is actu-ally a pretty darned good little camera. So

whats happening is that the extremes of thescale-the cost of the top models and the capa-bility of the consumer models-are comingtogether at a very dramatic rate.

The effect hasnt really been felt at the con-sumer level yet, but there are certainly signs.In 2000, Kodaks film sales actually decreasedfor the first time in decades. Sales of filmpoint-and-shoots, which have driven theindustry since the 1980s, havent grown since1998 and have probably declined in 2001 forthe first time. Sales of high-end point-and-

shoots like the 35Ti are way down-more than50% down in 2000 alone, and down the yearbefore as well-as well-heeled consumerschoose same-priced digicams in preference tothem.

Oddly enough, sales of film SLRs are upslightly. Thats because entry-level film SLRsare getting so good, so cheap, and so easy touse that dealers are presenting them to cus-tomers as better-quality, more versatile alter-natives to medium-cost point-and-shoots.This isnt more than a break in the clouds for

film, however, since overall sales of SLRs arestill only a small fraction of the camera mar-ket as a whole.

The digital technology the consumer willeventually accept is here now. But it will takea few years for the public to catch on, or forthe tipping point of acceptance to occur. Itwill happen gradually as converts to digitalconvert their friends, equipment gets betterand cheaper and easier to use, and film andprocessing availability begin to constrict andperhaps rise in price. At the very least, gener-ational changeover will eventually seal thedeal-there are already young adults who gotinto digital when they got into photographyand have never used film in a very consciousway. Generation X will be the first to largelyembrace the new technology. Theyre morecomputer-savvy than preceeding generations,and still young enough to be accepting of newways of doing things. The last film-using gen-

erations will eventually die off, even if peopleof those generations choose not to switch todigital of their own accord-which they maywell do.

Is film doomed, though? No way. Its a rel-atively low-tech, limited-investment productto manufacture (perfect for emerging second-and third-world economies, for example), andas long as theres even a small market for it

there will be somebody willing to produce it.But early this year, sales of digital cameras interms of gross dollars spent eclipsed filmcameras for the first time. Film cameras,although still maintaining a large cushion interms of total unit sales, will never regain thatlead. Soon enough, digital will eclipse film intotal unit sales, too-and by then, film will bewell on the way out...except for those of uswho choose to continue using it.

Kent Phelan writes: Stunning, or mebbe not

stunning, news about Olympus, eh? [See TheNews.] A significant event if you ask me, even ifOly never managed to get into the center ring ofthe circus. A true group of dedicated people. Peoplewith a single vision, people who got it, peoplewho tried to (and almost did) change the course oflater 20th century photography. They should beapplauded-most likely they will be forgotten. Areal pity.

On the other side of the coin is Bill Piercestheory that we are entering a new renaissance ofphotojournalism because of digital. Read about it

at: http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0201/nutsandbolts.htm. Pierces idea is that photojournalismis finally back at the forefront of news gathering. Ihave to say I agree. I dont know about your news-papers, but the photography in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has changed dramatically in the pastyear. The pictures coming out of Afghanistan areoutstanding. They remind me of the news photosof my youth-pictures of Vietnam, pictures of thecivil rights movement, pictures with a sense ofurgency, pictures that mattered and, for an adoles-cent like me, pictures that were revered as TheTruth. I love it. Turns out, digital is OK.

John Collier writes: It is great to hear from youagain and I know I will enjoy your writings. Yourdd bokeh articles [in Photo Techniques,Mar/Apr 1997] are what made me realize why Iwas avoiding certain lenses; a real eye opener. Iwas doing laundry in Jasper National Park andwandered over to check out what the drugstore

\ 10[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

11/16

might have in the way of magazines. There wasthat issue staring me in the face. I have boughtevery issue since, although somewhat less enthusi-astically lately. I used to always read the last pagefirst and then jump to the old Grumps [DavidVestals] column. Between the two of you, youhave greatly altered my perception of photography.Thank you!

Here are my silver shekls to keep you on your

blasphemous ways.Mike replies: And thank you, John. Sinceyouve brought up DV, I should mention thatwe received a signal honor in the last issue(no. 78) of Davids newsletter GRUMP, onwhich this newsletter is, in part, modeled: DVnot only mentioned but even briefly reviewedThe 37th Frame. (Ive always wanted to makeit into GRUMP, so I was really pleased.) Hedid criticize the first issues lack of pagina-tion, and offered me a set of numbers to usein No. 2, a gift I dutifully availed myself of.

For those of you who might not knowGRUMP, its an 8-page plain-paper newsletterpublished informally and occasionally byDavid Vestal, P.O. Box 309, Bethlehem, CT06751-0309, $30 for six issues. GRUMP 79 hasjust arrived at my house, along with the tinygem of an original print that David alwaysincludes in the holiday issue. I plan to savorboth. As I told David when I took over at PT,Ive always been a Vestalian at heart.

Please send comments and queries by e-mail to

michaeljohnston@ameritech.net, or by mail to 316Windsor Dr., Waukesha, WI 53186.

Piece of Crap AwardI wanted this inaugural award to go to one

of those awful 28-200mm lenses-any exampleof that wretched breed would do. (If theywere the only lenses available, Id do whatFrederick Evans did when the first world warinterrupted platinum production from Russia

and platinum papers ceased to be manufac-tured commercially: Id quit photography.)But it turns out that there finally is a really

good 28-200mm lens. Well, actually its only a28-200mm equivalent-its the 7.2-50.8mm/2.8-3.5 on the Minolta Dimage 5 andDimage 7 digicams.

Unfortunately, this fine lens is attached to aPIECE OF CRAP. The Dimage 7 is awkward,

badly balanced, overheats, has a coarse LCDscreen finder thatll make you say they mustbe kidding out loud, and, in terms of bothstyle and construction quality, looks like oneof your better-made products from Mattel.You might expect this from big electronicscompanies that havent come up the learningcurve when it comes to making ergonomiccameras. But Minolta?!? Cmon. A Cheap

Crap Award for the Dimage 7. If this is thefuture of photography, Ill be running in theopposite direction.

[Thanks to Neil Young for providing thememusic for this award.]

Good Solid GearThe Good Solid Gear Award for Winter

2002 goes to the Speedotron Force 10 mono-light. Powerful, fast, flexible, and well

made...and made in America (we think-Chicagger, by all appearances). Takes all BlackLine accessories, too. If youre looking for anice monolight, youve got two options: youcan waste hundreds of dollars on a cheap oneand then be forced to buy a better one laterfor more money, or you can spend yourmoney wisely from the start and get one likethe Force 10.

The ViewTHE SIREN SONG OF DIGITAL As aphotographer, Ive always been principled(which is another way of saying stubborn)and faithful to what I want to do. Aside fromprofessional work, my personal work formany many years has been 35mm black-and-white. There are lots of reasons for this, butIve been consistent.

Theres nothing important here about myspecific choice. Substitute your own tech-nique, whatever it happens to be.

Im very drawn to two ideas that contributeto my desire to continue being faithful towhat Ive always done. First, I learned longago from photographer John McIntosh that areal body of work is not the same thing as adiscrete project done during a finite period oftime. A real body of work is the sum total ofwhat a photographer has been able to accom-plish over an extended period of investigation

\ 11[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

12/16

or interest-over years, decades, or a lifetime.And the more consistent we are with ourmethods, the more consistent our bodies ofwork can be over time. A 35mm black-and-white picture I took in 1980 can be presentedright alongside a 35mm black-and-white pic-ture I took last summer and the two will gotogether seamlessly. Switching to digitalwould create a schism in my work, a dividing

line, closing one period and beginning anoth-er. Im just not sure I want to do that.

Ive also always been attracted to the exam-ple of Atget, who went from using materialsthat were current, then obsolescent, thenanachronistic, then obsolete-and all withoutever changing the way he worked. Ivealways thought it would be a cool thing tostill be shooting 35mm black-and-white in,say, 2030, by which time the technology willnot have been in general use for fifteen ortwenty years. The technique would go from

being current, to pass, to stick-in-the-mud, tointerestingly uncommon, to romantically anti-quarian. Cant you imagine a newspaper arti-cle in 2040 about some old guy who still usesold-fashioned 35mm film to make pictureswith-just like they did back in the 20th centu-ry? It will be a distinction someday, prizedbecause its rare.

However, Im also lazy. This is my Achillesheel, and Ive always known it would be theleading wedge of any attraction to digital Imight someday feel.

My true interest is in shooting pictures andlooking at pictures rather than in any giventechnique. Ive always used 35mm camerasonly because they suit the kind of pictures Ilike to take; Ive only mastered black-and-white printing because those are the kind ofprints I like best.

Digital prints are finally starting to get pret-ty, to have their own aesthetic. Its been a longtime coming. But they also enable more shoot-ing with less expense and printing with lesseffort and in shorter time. It takes me aboutan hour and 40 minutes to develop and proof105 exposures of film (setting up to develop,developing, cleaning up; clipping and sleev-ing the dry negs; setting up chemicals, mak-ing proofsheets, cleaning up). I typicallyworkprint between one and eight frames perroll, and fine print maybe two in 10workprints. Meaning that a long-term averageof anywhere from .3 to 2.4 fine prints will

result from that hour and a half of processinglabor.

I can account for the dollars and centsabout as accurately:

Cost per 105 exposures (three rolls):$2.89 x 3 = $8.67 for filmProcessing chemicals roughly $.40 per tank

PrintFiles sleeves $.75 for threePaper and processing chemicals for proofsroughly $.50 per roll = $1.50

Total: a little more than $11.25 per threerolls / 1 tank.

By contrast, the SmartMedia card in mydigicam cost $50 and the per-use cost decreas-es every time I use it; but in any event, it haspaid for itself completely by the time Ivetaken the equivalent of 18 rolls of film (I shoot

100-250 rolls of film annually). After thatpoint, the cost of developing and proof-ing 105 digital pictures is $0.00, and the timespent doing so can be measured in seconds.To insert the card in the card reader, down-load the card, and open all the pictures tolook at takes all of three minutes, maybe 5minutes at most.

So thats $11.25 and 1 hr., 40 min. vs. $0.00and 5 minutes. This is simply not an advan-tage to be cast aside lightly if what you wantto do is shoot, and look at, pictures.

Despite this, Im hoping I have the moxienot to create an artificial schism between thelast 20 years of my work and the next 20.Perhaps my habitual stubbornness will saveme from abandoning my longtime workingmethod and succumbing entirely to the sirensong of digital. Since Im both lazy and cheap,however, this is far from a foregone conclu-sion. Time will tell.

WHY PRINT L.E. IS IMPORTANT FOR DIGITALPractically speaking, and contrary to the

conventional wisdom, digital files dont havean infinite life. Theyre subject to the samesort of attrition that affects a physical object.

I read a book forward recently by a womanwho specializes in trivial collectibles likeBeanie Babies. (For foreign readers notaware of this phenomenon, Beanie Babies area range of small bean-bag animals that wereall the rage for several years in the U.S.) The

\ 12[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

13/16

list of things she collected and dealt in wasvery long, from lampshades to lunch boxes.She was asked how Beanie Babies and thingslike them could possibly have any value ascollectibles if everyone was collecting them.

She writes that even when people try topreserve things, they still become rare overtime. People will lose Beanie Babies in moves,in floods, in fires, to vermin, to mold; get

uninterested and allow children to play withand damage them; die and will the stuff tosomeone who doesnt care; etc., etc. Her guesswas that 100 years from now, Beanie Babieswill be as rare as any other type of antiquetoy.

Theres a good analogy to photographyhere. Even if a photographer is conscientiousand tries to file his negatives carefully, there isstill a certain amount of danger to their sur-vival-uncaring heirs, disorganization, loss ordisplacement caused by moves, and the phys-

ical dangers listed above.Although its often claimed that digital

files are permanent, in fact the same thingwill hold true of them. Most photographerswill archive them to the extent that they wantor expect to use them. But beyond that thereis a gulf of time that most historical objectsdont make it to the far side of-the gulfbetween the time when the item was last use-ful to its maker and the time when it beginsto be considered valuable to posterity. Themajority of all digital picture files will fall

victim to crippled computers, dataswitchovers when new equipment is pur-chased, sloth or indolence in filing, accidentaldeletion, failure to keep the files in a readableformat as formats evolve, loss of or damageto physical filing devices (e.g., CDs) overtime, and so forth.

As digital imaging becomes the prevailingmedium for imaging, what will happen to itis what happened in every other visual medi-um from copperplate etching to pastels. Mostpractitioners will use it thoughtlessly orincompetently or purely for practical orobligatory uses, and a very small minority ofpeople will become adept enough at it tomaster it and make valuable creations with it.Regarding those few people, the file is onlyhalf of the creation, just as the negative isonly half of the creation with traditionalblack-and-white-the other half of the craft,creativity, and judgment involved is the reifi-

cation of the print, the matching of the file tothe materials chosen to print it with and on,etc. A file optimized for a program and aprinter that exist on the digital photograph-ers desk today and a paper she choosestoday may not be meaningfully preservedwhen that type of printer no longer existsand that type of paper is no longer made.

Finally, theres the issue of the separation of

the finished object from its raw data-anal-ogous to the separation of prints from theirnegatives in traditional photography. Most ofthe tens of thousands of old prints Ive exam-ined in archives dont have correspondingnegatives. The reason is not far to seek: theprints are often valued and preserved bysomeone remote (geographically or in time)from the person who made it. If a photogra-pher sends a print to a magazine as a promo,and it gets filed away in a drawer and forgot-ten, and its discovered half a century from

now and given to a museum and exhibited,what are the chances that whoever values it atthat point in the future will ever be able tolocate the negative? Slim to none in mostactual cases, even if the original maker valued thenegative and tried to preserve it.

For all these reasons, print life expectancy(LE) remains a critical issue. And of course,historically, it doesnt really matter what kindof print LE is possible; it matters what kind ofprint LE is prevalent. In other words, justbecause there were dye transfer printers

working in the early 1970s making prints withvery high LE doesnt mitigate the fact thatmost color materials from that era are unsta-ble and are now deteriorating. The presentdoesnt know what posterity will value, eitheraesthetically or historically. So it matters notjust that a few printers are able to createarchival prints; it matters also how the aver-age printer performs.

Its typical at this point in an exegesis likethis one to make a call to arms, and claim thatevery photographer has an obligation to agi-tate for the best possible print LE. But ofcourse that wont matter much either. Thelucky historical condition that I think pertainshere is that early digital prints had such awfulLE, lasting sometimes only months or a smallhandful of years. This had the beneficial effectof calling attention to print longevity and ele-vating it to the status of a marketing concern.It was so bad that consumers became aware

\ 13[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

14/16

of it-and subsequently responded with theirpurchasing dollars to improvements. In retro-spect, this will be seen, I believe, as a crucialand important historical accident in the para-digm shift to digital technology.

THE CANON S800 INKJET PRINTERIts not common these days for a Canon prod-uct to have to play second fiddle to anything.

Epson, however, has come to own the bur-geoning market for desktop inkjet printers forphoto imaging; Canons an also-ran by com-parison. Epson makes larger-scale commercialprinters such as the excellent 7500, and its1280 remains the desktop standard for homedigital printers who wish to make prints larg-er than letter size. With the recent C80, Epsonis pioneering the changeover to more perma-nent pigment inksets in inexpensive all-pur-pose printers.

One result of all this has been to obscure

the considerable attractions of the CanonS800, which may be, all things considered, thevery best letter-sized inkjet printer for pho-tographers.

First things first. The S800 is a compact,solidly-made little unit, conservative in itsstyling but not without a certain modestgracefulness. At $300 or a little less, it isaffordable to most. Because its from Canon,its reasonably easy to find if you lookaround.

As an all-purpose printer, its not much,

and its gotten some tepid reviews as an officeprinter. Text printing is okay but not great,and text pages are very slow to print.Performance is so-so with plain paper.

Its when you look at it exclusively as aphoto printer that it shines in comparisoneven to the very best of its competition. Imagequality is excellent; the phrase that crops uprepeatedly from users is that image quality isat least as good as the Epson equivalents,and, if that implies that its as good andmaybe a wee bit better, I agree.

Colors are excellent. The printer is particu-larly adept at skin tones, both for caucasiansand people of color, distinguishing easilybetween subtly different types of skin colorsand textures. If it has any weakness in thearea of skin tones, its that shadowed areascan sometimes look slightly too gray.Evenness is superb, with individual ink dotsvirtually invisible to the naked eye and only

barely visable under a 4x loupe. Maximumresolution is 2400 x 1400 dpi.

The printer sets up quickly and with a min-imum of fuss and works equally well withPCs and Macs. A flash card reader comes withit, as does Canons barely adequateImageBrowser (Mac) and PhotoRecord (Win)software; connectivity is USB or parallel.

It is perhaps the fastest letter-sized printer

when printing photos, taking a mere two orthree minutes for a full page, and its amongthe quietest once it gets going (turn-on noiseis greater but hardly objectionable). You wonthear this printer from the next room unlessyour house is particularly quiet and yourhearing acute. It can certainly be operatedwithout waking the baby.

Its when you look at it

exclusively as a photo printerthat it shines in comparison

even to the very best of its

competition; image

quality is excellent.

Operationally, the S800 has two greatadvantages. First, if not used frequently,

Epson printer heads have a tendency to clog,requiring time-consuming and (because theyconsume ink) costly cleaning regimens. TheS800s printer head is not only not prone toclogging, it is easily replaceable should it everfail. A new one costs $90 or so, and is simplic-ity itself to install: just unwrap it, drop it intoplace, and throw an easily-identified lockinglever. If a printer head on an Epson goes bad,youre out the cost of the printer. Not so onthe Canon.

The biggest attraction of the Canon from anoperational standpoint is that, unlike most ofthe Epsons, the S800 uses six individual inkcolors, each in its own cartridge. Although theink cartridges are expensive, costing some$13.00 each at retail stores, there are betterdeals on the internet: www.techstore.com, forinstance, sells them for $8.93 each (be aware,though, that they take a good long time toship). This expense is mitigated further by the

\ 14[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

15/16

fact that the full inkset sets lasts much longerthan most all-in-one ink cartridges do, and, ofcourse, no inks are wasted since you replaceeach cartridge individually as it expires. Thisefficiency is easy to track: typically, for everysingle Cyan and Magenta cartridge you use,you will probably use approximately one anda half Black and Yellow cartridges and twoPhoto Magenta and Photo Cyans.

Ink Codes:BCI-6Bk (Black)BCI-6PC (Photo Cyan)BCI-6PM (Photo Magenta)BCI-6C (Cyan)BCI-6M (Magenta)BCI-6Y (Yellow)

The ink cartridges are simple to install. Flipback the printer lid, and the printhead centersitself for your convenience. The ink cartridges

snap into place positively and easily. Onceefficiency and ink cartridge life are taken intoaccount, economy becomes (that phraseagain) at least as good as the competition.And yes, I believe probably a little better.

Finally, using a glossy paper like CanonsPhoto Paper Pro or a good matte paper likeEpson Archival Matte, print LE can be expect-ed to be at good end of the spectrum for con-ventional dye-based inks, on the order of 25years before noticeable fading occurs.According to Wilhelm Research, the very best

dye-based ink and paper combinations beatthe S800 by a mere two years or so.Canon appears to have ceded the field to

others where printers for 13-inch-wide papersare concerned, which is too bad. And theS800s virtues are not very widely known. Ifyoure looking a letter-sized printer mostly orexclusively for printing pictures, this is asuperb printer that deserves to rank at the topof the list of currently available models.

Its not often that anything Canon makescan justifiably be called a sleeper, but theS800 is one of them. Its a product that com-bines uncompromised quality with outstand-ing convenience. Highly recommended.

Note: A wide-format model of the Canon S800,called the S9000, has been announced in Britain.Its been talked about in Japan (as the F9000) formonths. I assume a U.S. version is imminent; ifso, its really exciting news.

When the good pictures come,

we hope they tell truths, but truths toldslant, just as Emily Dickinson

commanded. We are spinning a story ofwhat it is to grow up. It is a

complicated story and sometimes we tryto take on the grand themes:

anger, love, death, sensuality andbeauty. But we tell it all without fear

and without shame.-Sally Mann

The NewsHappy Birthday to Manuel AlvarezBravo, who turned 100 on February 4th. Whosays photo chemicals are bad for you?

Sic Transit OM: after a bad year finan-cially, Olympus finally discontinued theproud old OM system. Although its beenmoribund for years, the company had keptthe system alive out of loyalty to its cus-tomers and, probably, a sense of pride.Actually, the decline of the OM system in the

1980s inspired changes in the way Olympusdid business that helped make it one of themost profitable camera companies of the1990s. After large losses in 2001, however, theOM system became a luxury the companycould no longer afford. NOS (new old stock)will be available through March of 2003, andthe company will try to maintain parts sup-plies until ten years after the discontinuationof any given product.

Dear God, I almost left out the jazz notes

again! We cant have that. You probablyalready know about Blue NotesConnoisseur series-limited-edition 20- and24-bit CDs of tapes from Blue Notes vaults.Ive been floored by Lee Morgans TheProcrastinator and Hank Mobleys ThirdSeason,both of which are marvelous.Connoisseurs really are limited editions, soget em while you can.

\ 15[

8/3/2019 37th Frame 3

16/16

A bad year: The photo industry as awhole spent 2001 in the toilet. In a pointedjuxtaposition, the digital camera site DigitalPhotography Review (dpreview.com) notedtwo recent figures: first, that Eastman Kodaklost $209 million in the fourth quarter of 2001,mainly due to a 10% drop in film sales; andsecond, that sales of digital cameras were upat least 42.7% from 2000 to 2001. According

to PMA, 400,000 digital cameras were sold in1996, a figure that rose more than tenfold, to4.5 million, by 2000; and projections for thisyear are for sales of something like 8.3 millionunits. You can see why so many companiesare angling for a piece of this market.

The problem is that nobodys figured outhow to make much of a profit selling digitalcameras yet. Development costs are astro-nomically high, product lifecycles are ruth-lessly short, pricing is cutthroat, and competi-tion is fierce-especially since electronics and

appliance powerhouses such as Sony andMatsushita are trying to position themselvesas players. Hope for a healthier year in 2002.

Follow-up: Steve Simmons was con-cerned that I reproduced his private insultsin the last newsletter, and indeed it probablydid make me look worse than it made himlook. I was angry because for years he hadpretended to be a friendly colleague, a pos-ture which was evidently little more than aruse. In any event, he wrote to claim that his

remarks were copyrighted, and then threat-ened legal action against me for repeatingthem.

So, as a precautionary measure, Ive con-verted all the newsletters assets to bearer

bonds, Ive got the private plane gassed upand waiting, and Im keeping my passportand a packed suitcase by the back door. Theminute I sniff trouble, Im off to find aCaribbean island that has no extraditiontreaty with View Camera.

Kyocera on the move: Contax has intro-duced a second autofocus camera as a com-

panion to its first AF camera, the N1. Calledthe NX, the new camera will apparently be asimpler, lower-priced advanced amateurmodel. Also introduced were three new35mm Zeiss lenses, all zooms.

Norman C. Lipton, whose byline manyphotographers will remember, passed awayNov. 26, 2001, at the age of 88. NormanLiptons involvement in the photographicindustry spanned 75 years, as a journalist,technical expert, and industry publicist. He

served as managing editor for PopularPhotography and later launched an independ-ent public relations firm that representedcompanies such as Ilford. He was a goodphoto guy.

Id like to ask everybody a favor. Could youkindly help get the word around that the35mm Lens Reviews are in this issue? Overthe years, many people have asked me for my

comments on various lenses, but theres reallyno way for me to contact all of them now. Ifyou would, please spread the word howeveryou can. Thanks!

And hey, see ya next time. Mike

\ 16[

The Fine Print: ALL CONTENTS COPYRIGHT 2003 by Michael Collett Johnston. All rightsreserved. Up to 18 copies of ONE item or article herein may be photocopied for educationaluses in valid educational settings, but this copyright notice must be copied with it. ELEC-TRONIC REPRODUCTION OR POSTING OF THESE CONTENTS ON THE INTERNET ORTHE WEB IS PROHIBITED.

The 37th Frame is a white-paper newsletter published at least 4 times a year, available by sub-scription. Prices: 4 issues (1 yr.), $18; 8 issues (2 yrs.), $32; 12 issues (3 yrs.), $42. Add $3 peryear for Canada or Mexico, $7 per year for all other countries. To subscribe, send check madeout to Michael C. Johnston to The 37th Frame, 316 Windsor Dr., Waukesha, WI 53186.

-No advertising accepted-

Please refer interested parties to: www.37thframe.com