Re-Thinking Zoom Lenses (And Getting A Fuji 90mm Prime)

Buying a zoom lens for the X-E4 has been in the Pending tray over the winter, and I've taken it out now. Which means watching more YT reviews. Now play this (for about ten seconds to get the point)



and if that doesn't remind you of an extending p***s to you, I can guarantee it will to someone on a London street. Those zooms look like a neat package tucked away, but whip one out and give it a yank, and it's damn nearly fourteen inches long. That's going to make the ladies turn their heads and not in a good way. Everyone for about fifty yards around will see you waving it around, peering down the EVF and think you are going to invade their... privacy. On a tripod, with the flip-screen flipped, and operating the shutter with a cable so there's no obvious contact between you and the camera, it may just pass, but tripods mean "professional photography" for which you may need a licence from the Council - you need one from the Port of London Authority to shoot with a tripod on their river and riverbanks.

I can't, I just can't. I had zoom lenses for my OM-10 back n the day and none of them behaved like extending p***ses. Maybe in the country or by the sea with no-one watching, but in Covent Garden? You try and let me know how it works out for you.

So there went my plan to get a zoom lens for the X-E4. No-one makes discreet internal zooms for X-Mount. Yet. I would imagine it would cost a whole lot of money even by the standards of Fuji lenses. If I'm going to zoom, and a lot of the better shots I took in the past were zoomed to nearly the max on my Panasonic DMZ-TZ40, I'm going to need a smaller lens. For instance the Panasonic Lumix TZ99, with a 4/3's 20.2 MP sensor and a max 30x optical zoom. That's around £520 on Amazon, and MPB only has one at near-full price, which means a) nobody buys this, or b) having bought it, nobody wants to sell it. One is very bad and one is very good.

Another plan is to get the longest X-Mount prime I can find / afford, which turns out to be the Fujifilm XF 90mm f/2 R LM WR, which costs £949 new from Fuji and around £480 - £500 on MPB. Fuji prices, right? A while back Roman Fox (and a whole bunch other people, damn the algorithm) did a video on how much he liked this lens, so there's that. The plan would be to use it as the daily driver for the rest of the year, as I use the 27mm (40mm equivalent) pancake now. Learn to see and take 90mm (135mm equivalent) shots.

Or I could do both, but my concern is that if I did get the TZ99, I might never use the X-E4 again, which would be silly. So I did my first order with MPB for the XF 90mm, which arrived presto by DPD. Here's the first couple of decent shots with it...

No cropping, just framing. I had not realised that all those great candid people shots from other people I like were all taken with a telephoto lens.

I could still get the TZ99 later and both bits of kit would have cost no more than a new XF 90mm, so I wouldn't really be spending more. (Which is called "Hobbyist economics".)

Why I'm Stopping My MUBI Subscription

I have been subscribed to the online streaming service MUBI for a LONG TIME - since autumn 2018 according to my viewing history page. It has a contemporary art-house catalogue, occasionally runs a good retrospective (I caught up with a lot of Rossellini movies thanks to that), and sponsors new movies, in part I guess by giving them distribution. I saw some good movies through it.

But for the last couple of years when I run through the catalogue, I have not thought "oh wow, yes, must watch that". Instead I've thought "Seems okay, I could if I didn't need to wash my hair right now" or "Jesus... 165 minutes?" or "Sorry, not interested in the tribulations of a transexual in Baghdad". I'm of the age when "art movie" meant France, Germany, Sweden, American indie, Italian, Kurusawa and Ray. Simpler times.

There's something cutely undergraduate film society about MUBI's choice of films and its descriptions. Whoever writes them has definitely drunk the post-modern feminist everything-is-power-relations Kool Aid, and may go on to a job writing comments for the Tate Modern or National Gallery. Whereas all they really need to do is say "contains Adele Exarchopolos" and I'm in, now that La Reine Isabelle is no longer making movies. Let's say that the pre-occupations of today's film-makers are not mine. I'm watching the Battlestar Galactica box-set again at breakfast.

I watch new movies in the cinema, and part of that is the whole going-to-the-Curzon thing (i'm not really an Everyman Man).

Also, MUBI is a subscription service. I have access to the Curzon catalogue, because Sis very kindly for Christmas bought me a Curzon membership (which pays for itself with the free movies) through which I can watch a movie for what amounts to a nominal rental. The films it has now are more interesting to me than the MUBI films, though there is some overlap.

So I have just pressed the button on "Cancel Subscription" in my iPhone settings. Not really because I needed to save the money, but to stop there being one more thing I should be doing but am not.

Film Emulation Bracketing (on Fuji X-E4)

Bracketing on the X-E4. I kinda knew what it was - it takes three pictures of the same scene with one parameter varying - but wasn't sure what I would do with it. Until I saw it did film emulation bracketing. Suddenly I could take lots of shots with three different film emulations and compare them.

The Standard / Velvia / Astia emulations can produce a lot of shadow, which it often takes shoving the Shadow Adjustment clear over to 1.0 to reduce. Those algorithms produce way more shadow that the human eye sees, or maybe the eye does some computational photography as well, just not as egregious as Apple's. A first pass through convinced me that Monochrome was way more to my taste than ACROS, and that the Eterna was, well, wintery

 

Summer (Astia)

Winter (Eterna)

Now take a look at these, taken on the Regent's Canal

Astia - feels like now

Eterna Bypass - feels like 1975 

Monochrome - feels like a quiet day in 1930

Which conveys the majesty of St Pauls better?

Personally, I prefer the Monochrome version of these

If you have film emulation bracketing on your camera and have never tried it, give it a whirl. In the end, I think I arrived almost where I started from: Astia is fine, I've added some HDR tweaks from You Tube, and I must pay more attention to the range of brightness in the frame. Like I did when shooting film back in the day.

Somewhere in Soho

I leave this one with no comment. It doesn't need one. Eterna, Fuji X-E4 with 27mm pancake lens. 

Changing Film Simulations

If you thought guitarists were obsessed with "tone", let me introduce photographers. What do you think all that tweaking of RAWs in Lightroom is about? It's the photographic equivalent of tone-tweaking. And the reason that Lightroom lets us do it is because photo editors back in the day were doing it with black-and-white photos. Watch this short about that iconic James Dean Times Square photo with comments by the guy who did all the dark-room manipulations...



By comparison I'm a set-it-and-forget-it guy when it comes to cameras, but then, I do twiddle a bit in Photos. For the last year or so, I have been using the Astia film simulation, which is just a bit softer than the standard simulation. It over-reacts to shadows. A lot. This was taken with Astia...




and this was taken with Eterna...



(Both these were test shots and are not going to make it to any Greatest Hits folder. ) Notice how much we can see inside the cafe with Eterna, but not with Astia. The Astia feels more "summer-y" while the Eterna feels a little like "autumn". Sure I can adjust the Astia shot to bring out the details in the shade, but then it looks more like the Eterna shot, but slightly more saturated, and the adjustments involve whacking some sliders way over to the max.

I'm going to persevere with Eterna for a while - it gave me this

Anyone who says I should be selecting the film simulation, aperture, shutter speed and exposure correction for each photograph with the speed and certainty of Max Verstappen, will be reminded that the pros who do that take a freaking age to do the settings, unlike Max, who really is that fast. I want to spend time looking for pictures, and settings are a distraction. Kinda the reverse of the guitar.

Primrose Hill

Okay, it's catch-up time. 

I took my first photos for a good few months a couple of weeks ago, and as always when it's been a while since I took photos, I made a right hash of it the first time out. The check-exposure-aperture-shutter-speed-dials reflex had been forgotten (though I was relieved to hear that even one as prolific as Roman Fox has shot dozens of photos without checking he hadn't nudged the exposure. I had put in some adjustments over the winter that looked okay indoors, but outdoors produced colours that were way over-saturated. Like this...



Fortunately I have never claimed to be a pro. Anyway we can "fix in post", right? This one is the result of un-saturating the colours so that it looks like a slightly faded film photo from the 1970's.

It's also a fine example of the people-sitting-at-the-top-of-a-hill-looking-into-the-distance picture, and proves that my compositional chops were not entirely lost.

(PS: Yeah, I know, it's a big wide world out there and there's a lot happening. However, I am not going to spend any energy trying to make sense of it, because it makes no sense. I told you back in 2020 that British society had already collapsed, not that it was about to. Should you be in any doubt that the UK is now a joke, I give you the state of our Navy; a population claiming for imaginary disabilities in the millions; our borders, which are porous to anyone without a passport but with a dinghy; our politicians, who only took the job on the basis that all the real work would be done by "experts", judges and civil servants, and our civil servants, who only took their jobs on the basis that the real decisions would be made in Brussells. David Davis is much better at this stuff than I could ever be. Read him.)

James Popsys' Human Nature Photographs

James Popsys is a You Tube photographer - at least I can't remember him referring to wedding, portrait or product shoots, nor using the phrases "my gallery" or "my agent". I don't have half his camera technique, have no idea how to use Lightroom on RAW (he's a wizard), and I don't have a successful YT channel. I bought his book (Human Nature) recently, and am unlikely to publish one of my own so he can return the compliment. Just so we're establishing who the actual talent is here.

It took me a few passes through the book, and a comparison with Edgar Martins' Topologies (which I happened to have on my shelves because Foyles many years ago) to realise what my eye was baulking at.

There are often too many subjects in the photographs.

By the conventions of art photography and my dumb eyes.

Let me explain.

Ever noticed how dogs are really, really interested in other dogs to the exclusion of all other animals? People are the same. Put a person anywhere in a picture and they will become the centre of our attention. People are interested in people to the exclusion of everything except "cute" - people love "cute". Put one person in a picture, and we want to know who they are and what they are doing there. Put in two, three or four and we want to know what their relationship is - even if we decide they are strangers sitting on a wall. Five or more starts to be a crowd, which is a subject in itself. What is it a crowd of? Going where? To do what? It's for this reason one has to be careful about putting people in the shot. I do not want to remember how long I have stood waiting for the people to finish walking past so I can get a people-free shot of whatever it is I was looking at.

The single person in an otherwise people-free image, especially against buildings, is a feature of a certain kind of Internet photography. Here's my take on it, just to prove I can do it...

There's a classic of the genre on page 108 (of Human Nature) of a scene in Blackpool. A woman in an orange hooded coat walks from left to right, and since she's a person, my instincts assume she's the focus of attention. I missed the weird curved, multi-pronged streetlights at first glance. Now my attention oscillates between the streetlights and the person. Then I put my finger over the person, and instantly the image became an "art photo" about the streetlights. Who designed them? Who approved them? What do the locals think? Would I want streetlights like that where I live? Do I like them?

On page 126 is a photograph of a bridge at Kylesku in Scotland. It's over a narrow inlet and is tightly curved. Not your average bridge at all. And then there's a damn boat in the water, closer to the centre of the image and because it's a human thing, it draws my attention, and once again I'm oscillating between subjects. Put my finger over that damn boat, and it becomes a satisfying "art photo" of a bridge.

When James does have a picture without a person, as of the pylons at Ghabat al Ghuzlan on page 63, it's a well-composed art photograph. That abandoned car hidden behind the shed (also on the website home page), or the container trailer in the car park (also on the home page), are neat little classics that would grace any art portfolio. He knows what he's doing - it's the You Tube genre rules that lead him astray.

The idea behind the Human Nature book is the presence of people, literally or figuratively, in nature. Bridges and weird lamp-posts are exactly such presences on their own. We don't need a warm body to represent "human".

But like I said: "by the conventions of art photography and my dumb eyes". They are his photographs and his choices, and he's making a living out of them, which is more than you or I are doing. A lot of people share his judgements.

In the light of all this, I looked again at my own favourites that I printed a few years ago now. Yep, one subject, usually in the middle-ish of the frame, or spread all the way across the frame. Keep-it-simple art photography rules. Maybe I'm too old and slow multiple-subject images?

James Popsys' website is here The home page has some images from the book. I enjoy his YT channel, of which the latest episode is here

 

 

and features him talking about his photography in an honest and non-babble-y way (he never once refers to "my practice as a photographer").