The Ancient Tea Horse Road

Jeff Fuch: Ancient Tea Horse RoadMy friend Jeff Fuchs is going to be in town this weekend (September 13) showing photographs and doing a talk to promote his new book “The Ancient Tea Horse Road” (Viking Canada). It’s a book of text and photographs recounting the 6000 kilometer trek through the Himalayas that Jeff lead in 2006, following an ancient tea trading route that is now almost forgotten.

Hell of a trip. Here’s the book description from Amazon:

The Ancient Tea Horse Road winds its way through some of the most unforgiving terrain on earth. Over seven gruelling months, Canadian Jeff Fuchs took on the challenge of following traditional muleteers along this twelve-hundred-year-old route. Documenting his travels in rich and eloquent detail, with stunning photography, Fuchs brings to life a path that has been an escape route, trade highway, and an adventure destination, battling frostbite, snow blindness, and hunger along the way.

Fortunately you won’t need any mules or snow glasses to enjoy his talk and outstanding photographs on Saturday night. And there will be tea; the good people from Camellia Sinensis will be there, providing tea service.

Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008
Time: 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM
Location: Café des Arts, 350 rue St. Paul Est (East end of Bonsecours Market)

The event is informal; sort of a mix of a vernissage and a book launch. The talk will be in English, but knowing Jeff he’ll probably swing into French, Chinese, and maybe even Spanish. Everyone is welcome and the event is free of charge.

Bees

In lieu of meaningful content, I hereby present you with five pictures of bees.

Don’t laugh – you try to take photos of live bees with a point & shoot camera. Right. Not easy. (Check Flickr for larger images with more detail, starting here.)

Bee 1:

bee

Bee 2:

bee

Bee 3:

bee

Bee 4:

bee

Bee 5:

bee

How I Waste My Time (#238)

I like Flickr. There is lots of good stuff on Flickr, and I’m not just talking about the photos. There are interesting discussions, cool tools, fun mapping toys, and of course lots and lots of images.

Flickr is one of the original “social networking” sites that came about before “social networking” became “a thing” (a thing which some of us have HAD IT UP TO HERE hearing about, by the way). It works because it is well thought out, nicely designed, and has a lot of interesting people on both the front end (the users) and the back end (the people who make Flickr). What it doesn’t have is a big stupid “hey everybody! I’m social goddamn networking!” flag flying over it. But I digress…

One of the great things about Flickr is that the Flickr experience is made by the users. For example, pretty much anyone can start a “group” (a collection of contributed images by people who share an interest). Unfortunately, by now there are far too many groups to even comprehend, so they don’t have the kind of cohesive sense of groupiness that they used to have. (For example, if you like pictures of black cats, there are dozens of cat photo groups that you can belong to.) But still, it’s a nice aspect of the Flickr package.

Overall that “of the people, by the people” is pretty cool, and it is reflective of the way social networking used to be before it went corporate and start-upy. But it also means you have to put up with a lot of dopiness and stupidity, because “the people” are, by and large, pretty dopey and stupid.

Your best photo’s what?

Tonight I found a Flickr group called “My Best Photo’s” (sic). As some of you might know, the plural (photos) does not take an apostrophe. “Photo’s” is the possessive; it means something belongs to a photo. So “My Best Photo’s” is incomplete. Your best photo’s what?

  • My Best Photo’s history?
  • My Best Photo’s asking price?
  • My Best Photo’s pet rat?

I fully acknowledge that anyone can make a mistake. Loyal readers know that this blog is peppered with more typos than a blood bank. But when I see them, or other people point them out, I correct them.

But “My Best Photo’s” has been running for at least 15 months. It has 3629 members and 28,533 photos in its group pool. Did none of those people think to correct the grammatical error in the group’s name?

So I sit here contemplating joining the group for the sole reason of pointing out the error. However, I’ve been around the Web’s blocks a few times, so I know how ultimately futile that would be. Instead I will simply bitch about it here, on my blog.

An award I could do without

I should also note that many of the images in the group are really outstanding. There are some great photographers on Flickr. However, even if I wanted to put an image forward as “my best,” I simply could not bear to do so in this group. It is so fundamentally wrong to have something that you consider your best defaced by such a glaringly obvious grammatical error; especially one that no one will step up and fix.

So I remain unacknowledged. My best photos end up on my photo blog, thank you very much, and my photos on Flickr continue to limp along, as they should, since they are not my best. They’re just there, happy to be looked at, but possessive of nothing.

Me, The New York Times, and the DP1

The New York Times finally covered a story I’ve been writing about since November 2007; the most important thing for image quality in a digital camera is not megapixels, it’s sensor size. What? You haven’t read anything on the Blork Blog about that? Of course not; I’ve been writing about it on my other blog: My DP1.

I started My DP1 because I was tired of reading all the half-baked, ill informed blog and forum posts about the then-unreleased and highly enigmatic new camera from Sigma, the DP1. The DP1 was announced back in 2006, but its release was delayed time after time, and the rumours and speculations grew and flew off in all directions.

People were excited about the fact that the DP1 promised something entirely new; an SLR-sized image sensor in a small pocket camera. Those of us who know a bit about cameras understood what that meant; super high quality images from something you could tuck in your shirt pocket. A real breakthrough.

The DP1 also promised to be quirky. From it’s unusual Foveon sensor to the fact that it had a fixed focal length 28mm (equivalent) wide angle lens (i.e., no zoom), it was destined to be an odd camera targeting a niche user base.

I was totally in that niche.

So I started the blog to give me a reason to read up on, and write about, the DP1. It was a great exercise, and the My DP1 blog ended up getting four times the traffic of my Monday Morning Photo Blog.

Then, in March, the camera finally came on the market. It was a crushing disappointment. The image quality was there, in spades, but the camera design was far behind the curve. The biggest complaint was its slowness; slow to focus, slow to write images, slow to start up and shut down. Handling is important to me, so in the end I fell out of love with the DP1 and ended up falling in love with my Lumix DMC-LX2 all over again. It has a notoriously noisy small sensor, but it handles like a dream and has an excellent lens. Plus I pretty much use it exclusively for Web stuff, so you never see the noise on scaled down images.

So I’ve paused My DP1, since I no longer have much desire to get a DP1 (especially with its $800 sticker price). David Pogue’s New York Times article sums it up pretty well, although I disagree with him on some points. Watch the video for a quicker overview.

So now what? My LX2 is great, but rumours of an LX3 have been afoot for a while. The web is peppered with forum postings full of “wish lists” for how Lumix could improve the camera. Many of those forum postings were written by me, where I wished for (a) a bigger sensor, (b) better image processing, (c) an optical viewfinder (like the cool clip-on one that you can get for the DP1), no radical changes to body design and handling.

Well guess what? They finally announced the LX3 this week. The new model has everything on my wish list, and more. Plus a whole bunch of stupid features that I can easily ignore. (Face recognition? Give me a break.) The only thing I don’t like is that they’ve made the already wide end of the lens even wider, and shortened the other end. (The LX2 was 28-117 equivalent, and the LX3 is a drastically shortened 24-60).

Well, maybe I can live with that, since I’m a wide angle guy anyway. The new model will hit the shelves at the end of August for about $500 (less than I paid for the LX2). I wish it was sooner, as I dropped my LX2 ten days ago and bent the lens mechanism. Doh!

What is particularly interesting about the LX3 announcement is that the marketing talk around it plays heavily to the rhetoric that was built up around the DP1. In particular it emphasizes the LX3’s larger sensor, which is an overstatement; it’s larger than the LX2’s but significantly smaller than the DP1’s. But there is other DP1-inspired talk as well, including positioning the camera as a portable backup for professionals, and emphasizing its potential for street photography. And that clip-on viewfinder is a total rip-off of the DP1 (but it’s a rip-off I like.) August will be a very long month of waiting. But when I get my new LX3, with its optional (and removable) optical viewfinder, I’m gonna love it!

The Lumix DMC-LX3 with the optional optical viewfinder.
A bit retro, and way cool.

Update: somehow, I managed to fix my LX2! I poked and prodded and it un-stuck and seems to be working just fine. Yes, you read that right; I fixed my bent lens by applying brute force and now it works. I’m still going to get an LX3 though; but at least I won’t be without camera for August!

Update 2: Mason Resnick has published the results of a test he did comparing similar images from a DSLR and a compact camera, to show the difference between a large sensor and a small sensor. Differences are exaggerated because of the low light/high ISO situation, but you can still get a sense of the difference in general. That said, I think it’s important to remember that image quality can be measured along many dimensions, and that “pixel peeping” is only one way to do so.

dslr vs. compact