The Pentax DA 70 Lens Does a Portrait

by Carl Weese

Several readers asked about the Pentax 70mm DA lens for portrait work, and since I had a young visitor handy today, here is a sample.

Carl Weese, Alex, Woodbury, Connecticut (click on picture for larger version)

We looked around for a "busy" background and I used the lens wide open at ƒ/2.4 to keep the depth of field as shallow as possible. My impression looking through the viewfinder was that the "drawing" of the lens was really pleasant. I also noticed that the K10D's AF system was very clever on auto-select, keeping the eyes in best focus as I tried different framings. The background isn't the smoothest I've ever seen, but strikes me as quite good.

Then I tried a couple test subjects with lots of small detail in the background. Here the results weren't as good. I noticed, though, that the out of focus rendering got smoother as the lens was stopped down. Here's ƒ/2.8:


and here's ƒ/8:


Another pair. In this shot the shapes in the background aren't as small and picky, and the result is quite nice:

ƒ/2.8

ƒ/8

When bokeh is discussed most people automatically think of a relatively small subject—a person's head, a flower, etc.—in shallow focus with the background far out of focus, like the picture above. But Oren reminded me that another important consideration is the way a lens renders highly detailed subjects in depth. The problem here is that it's impossible to achieve universal focus, so the goal is to avoid a jarring transition between the fully sharp zone and the areas in front or back that gradually go out of focus. Some lenses are so bad at this that there's no point making the picture. My first tests with the 70mm DA, though, are really promising:

ƒ/8

The rendering here is so smooth that I want not only to try some more of these but also want to see how the other members of the pancake trio play this tune.

I'd say the bokeh of the 70mm DA is unobjectionable except with picky detail in the background, at which point it gets quite harsh. To be continued when I've had a chance to do some side-by-side comparisons with other lenses of about the same focal length.

Posted by: CARL WEESE

The Pentax DA 70 Lens Does a Portrait

by Carl Weese

Several readers asked about the Pentax 70mm DA lens for portrait work, and since I had a young visitor handy today, here is a sample.

Carl Weese, Alex, Woodbury, Connecticut (click on picture for larger version)

We looked around for a "busy" background and I used the lens wide open at ƒ/2.4 to keep the depth of field as shallow as possible. My impression looking through the viewfinder was that the "drawing" of the lens was really pleasant. I also noticed that the K10D's AF system was very clever on auto-select, keeping the eyes in best focus as I tried different framings. The background isn't the smoothest I've ever seen, but strikes me as quite good.

Then I tried a couple test subjects with lots of small detail in the background. Here the results weren't as good. I noticed, though, that the out of focus rendering got smoother as the lens was stopped down. Here's ƒ/2.8:


and here's ƒ/8:


Another pair. In this shot the shapes in the background aren't as small and picky, and the result is quite nice:

ƒ/2.8

ƒ/8

When bokeh is discussed most people automatically think of a relatively small subject—a person's head, a flower, etc.—in shallow focus with the background far out of focus, like the picture above. But Oren reminded me that another important consideration is the way a lens renders highly detailed subjects in depth. The problem here is that it's impossible to achieve universal focus, so the goal is to avoid a jarring transition between the fully sharp zone and the areas in front or back that gradually go out of focus. Some lenses are so bad at this that there's no point making the picture. My first tests with the 70mm DA, though, are really promising:

ƒ/8

The rendering here is so smooth that I want not only to try some more of these but also want to see how the other members of the pancake trio play this tune.

I'd say the bokeh of the 70mm DA is unobjectionable except with picky detail in the background, at which point it gets quite harsh. To be continued when I've had a chance to do some side-by-side comparisons with other lenses of about the same focal length.

Posted by: CARL WEESE

Telling It Like It Is

Nitrozac and Snaggy tell it like it is...Adobe Edition.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON with thanks to David E.

Telling It Like It Is

Nitrozac and Snaggy tell it like it is...Adobe Edition.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON with thanks to David E.

Another Little Trick

In all the talk about photographing street people, no one except Charlie D. has mentioned this yet, so perhaps it's not as well-known a trick as I thought: you take the picture first and then ask permission. If permission is granted, you take a few more (especially with digital, what can it hurt? And you might get a good one). If permission is refused, you can politely refrain...from taking any more. You still have your candid in the camera, you might say.

A "shoot-first-then-ask-permission" pair by Charlie Didrickson

I think this is justified because 1) it's true that you won't get the same shot after you approach someone (they can become self-conscious or just change position), 2) many people don't realize for sure if you've taken any pictures or not anyway, and 3) people mainly just like being asked.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Another Little Trick

In all the talk about photographing street people, no one except Charlie D. has mentioned this yet, so perhaps it's not as well-known a trick as I thought: you take the picture first and then ask permission. If permission is granted, you take a few more (especially with digital, what can it hurt? And you might get a good one). If permission is refused, you can politely refrain...from taking any more. You still have your candid in the camera, you might say.

A "shoot-first-then-ask-permission" pair by Charlie Didrickson

I think this is justified because 1) it's true that you won't get the same shot after you approach someone (they can become self-conscious or just change position), 2) many people don't realize for sure if you've taken any pictures or not anyway, and 3) people mainly just like being asked.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

A Great Classic Reissued

For the first time in many years, very soon now you will again be able to buy The Photographer's Eye as a new book. John Szarkowski is arguably the best writer on photography of the second half of the 20th Century, at least in English, but he was also one of the most influential curators—especially early on in his career, when this was published. The Photographer's Eye is his visual textbook of how photographs function and why they matter. The plentiful illustrations are an invigorating hodgepodge, ranging all the way from avowed masterpieces to anonymous vernacular photography, and including snapshots, photojournalism, and historical documents; before this book, lumping all those together just wasn't done. Originally published by the Museum of Modern Art in 1966 and now selling used for up to $250, this is a book that was part of the background music for an entire generation of photographers, in one of photography's most fecund periods, the late '60s and the '70s.

It's a slim, slight, modest book with few words, probably Szarkowski's least verbal book. Personally, after a quarter of a century spent studying photography and working with and around photographers of every kind, from rank beginners to the world-famous, I can't think of a single reason why anybody who professes any interest in photography would not want this, or benefit from having it. The new reissue is not out yet—the link is to a pre-order—so I'm not sure if they've recreated the gravure reproductions of the original or not, but that's not really critical. The pictures are the crux of it. This is as close to a must-have and a mandatory buy as any recent reissue, for any photographer. Highest recommendation, and do note that the reissue won't be available forever, as is the nature of such things.

If you buy it through the links here on the site, we get a tiny commission, but that's not the point.

I'm going to be on you about this, so you might as well give in now.

Get it? Get it.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON with thanks to Geoff

A Great Classic Reissued

For the first time in many years, very soon now you will again be able to buy The Photographer's Eye as a new book. John Szarkowski is arguably the best writer on photography of the second half of the 20th Century, at least in English, but he was also one of the most influential curators—especially early on in his career, when this was published. The Photographer's Eye is his visual textbook of how photographs function and why they matter. The plentiful illustrations are an invigorating hodgepodge, ranging all the way from avowed masterpieces to anonymous vernacular photography, and including snapshots, photojournalism, and historical documents; before this book, lumping all those together just wasn't done. Originally published by the Museum of Modern Art in 1966 and now selling used for up to $250, this is a book that was part of the background music for an entire generation of photographers, in one of photography's most fecund periods, the late '60s and the '70s.

It's a slim, slight, modest book with few words, probably Szarkowski's least verbal book. Personally, after a quarter of a century spent studying photography and working with and around photographers of every kind, from rank beginners to the world-famous, I can't think of a single reason why anybody who professes any interest in photography would not want this, or benefit from having it. The new reissue is not out yet—the link is to a pre-order—so I'm not sure if they've recreated the gravure reproductions of the original or not, but that's not really critical. The pictures are the crux of it. This is as close to a must-have and a mandatory buy as any recent reissue, for any photographer. Highest recommendation, and do note that the reissue won't be available forever, as is the nature of such things.

If you buy it through the links here on the site, we get a tiny commission, but that's not the point.

I'm going to be on you about this, so you might as well give in now.

Get it? Get it.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON with thanks to Geoff

Point of Procedure

Now that the hubbub surrounding the comment moderating posts from a few days ago has died down, I thought I'd gently mention a persistent fallacy that rears its head around here from time to time. There's no way, folks, that this blog can be "just about photography," for one simple reason: photography is not just about photography.

Photography is mainly about life, and the world. It's about people, events, feeling-tone, places, animals, history, death, modes, conditions, politics (yes, politics), poetry, colors, evidence, personal identity, nostalgia, artistic expression, all sorts of things...and it's about responses as well. Photography is a recording medium that can be used in innumerable ways, for every sort of purpose under the sun; it trades in information and meaning, in the observance or in the breach, and the loop it proposes is a communications loop, between subject, photographer, and viewer and back around again, twisting and rebounding and reverberating betwixt and between subject and object in its implications—and it makes no sense to ignore all these significations. In other words, when looking at pictures of the homeless, it makes no sense not to discuss homelessness—or any of the many issues that pertain to the fact of subject, or to the pictures and the act of making them.

That much is clear here, isn't it—at least cumulatively? If this website has a theme, that is probably it. If T.O.P. were "only about photography" in the sense of being restricted to the phototechnical, it would be like a website about writing that discusses only pencils and word processing programs, or a blog about music that concentrates mainly on piano tunings or a conductor's stance on repeats. It would have to ignore far more than it includes. Which is fine for them what wants it, but it certainly ain't for me.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Point of Procedure

Now that the hubbub surrounding the comment moderating posts from a few days ago has died down, I thought I'd gently mention a persistent fallacy that rears its head around here from time to time. There's no way, folks, that this blog can be "just about photography," for one simple reason: photography is not just about photography.

Photography is mainly about life, and the world. It's about people, events, feeling-tone, places, animals, history, death, modes, conditions, politics (yes, politics), poetry, colors, evidence, personal identity, nostalgia, artistic expression, all sorts of things...and it's about responses as well. Photography is a recording medium that can be used in innumerable ways, for every sort of purpose under the sun; it trades in information and meaning, in the observance or in the breach, and the loop it proposes is a communications loop, between subject, photographer, and viewer and back around again, twisting and rebounding and reverberating betwixt and between subject and object in its implications—and it makes no sense to ignore all these significations. In other words, when looking at pictures of the homeless, it makes no sense not to discuss homelessness—or any of the many issues that pertain to the fact of subject, or to the pictures and the act of making them.

That much is clear here, isn't it—at least cumulatively? If this website has a theme, that is probably it. If T.O.P. were "only about photography" in the sense of being restricted to the phototechnical, it would be like a website about writing that discusses only pencils and word processing programs, or a blog about music that concentrates mainly on piano tunings or a conductor's stance on repeats. It would have to ignore far more than it includes. Which is fine for them what wants it, but it certainly ain't for me.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

The Flower-Seller

by Russ Butner

A few days ago, while ambulating through Couch Park, this homeless gentleman asked if I'd like to buy his flowers for a dollar. I politely declined, but asked if he'd be willing to pose with his flowers for the one dollar fee. He happily agreed, and I made this quick snap of him. He was quite pleasant, and was quite happy to receive his "posing" fee.

Posted by: RUSS “KIRON KID” BUTNER

Featured Comment by Del Bomberger: I was going to avoid commenting on the photographing of the "homeless" issue, but, as it continues, it seems I'm going to be drawn in.

As an individual who is the Executive Director of a Homeless Shelter and has performed this job in four separate parts of the U.S. since 1994, I feel it is important to say that there is no way for the average person to know if the person they are photographing is homeless or not.

Your assumptions may well be wrong. They may be mentally ill, they may be addicts, they may simply be lonely and on Social Security and yes, some will actually be homeless, but you can't tell by looking.

I met a woman in a Walgreens in New Orleans last week who is working full-time and graduating from Tulane on the way to Law School. She lives in a homeless shelter, but you wouldn't know by looking at her.

Photographing the homeless is at best like shooting fish in a barrel—it takes little if any extra talent, and brings for the most part little or no new information to the discussion. Many of those living on the street and panhandling are not homeless, just entrepreneurs making a living, working their own hours, without any supervision and not paying any taxes on what in some areas can be considerable income.

View some of them as not much different than someone having a hot dog cart or corner newspaper franchise without the inventory. Of course there are those who panhandle just for the money to keep drunk or high, but they are a minority of the homeless population in my experience.

The Flower-Seller

by Russ Butner

A few days ago, while ambulating through Couch Park, this homeless gentleman asked if I'd like to buy his flowers for a dollar. I politely declined, but asked if he'd be willing to pose with his flowers for the one dollar fee. He happily agreed, and I made this quick snap of him. He was quite pleasant, and was quite happy to receive his "posing" fee.

Posted by: RUSS “KIRON KID” BUTNER

Featured Comment by Del Bomberger: I was going to avoid commenting on the photographing of the "homeless" issue, but, as it continues, it seems I'm going to be drawn in.

As an individual who is the Executive Director of a Homeless Shelter and has performed this job in four separate parts of the U.S. since 1994, I feel it is important to say that there is no way for the average person to know if the person they are photographing is homeless or not.

Your assumptions may well be wrong. They may be mentally ill, they may be addicts, they may simply be lonely and on Social Security and yes, some will actually be homeless, but you can't tell by looking.

I met a woman in a Walgreens in New Orleans last week who is working full-time and graduating from Tulane on the way to Law School. She lives in a homeless shelter, but you wouldn't know by looking at her.

Photographing the homeless is at best like shooting fish in a barrel—it takes little if any extra talent, and brings for the most part little or no new information to the discussion. Many of those living on the street and panhandling are not homeless, just entrepreneurs making a living, working their own hours, without any supervision and not paying any taxes on what in some areas can be considerable income.

View some of them as not much different than someone having a hot dog cart or corner newspaper franchise without the inventory. Of course there are those who panhandle just for the money to keep drunk or high, but they are a minority of the homeless population in my experience.

Don McPhee 1945-2007

Eamonn McCabe has written a respectful send-off for Don McPhee, left, one of the defining photographers of the Manchester Guardian and for many years a leading light of photojournalism in the U.K. Added is a brief collection of tributes from colleagues who knew him best. Also, don't miss the sympathetic slideshow with commentary from Guardian picture editor Roger Tooth.


Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Don McPhee 1945-2007

Eamonn McCabe has written a respectful send-off for Don McPhee, left, one of the defining photographers of the Manchester Guardian and for many years a leading light of photojournalism in the U.K. Added is a brief collection of tributes from colleagues who knew him best. Also, don't miss the sympathetic slideshow with commentary from Guardian picture editor Roger Tooth.


Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

For Aperture Users

"Dedicated to providing information, education, training and support for Apple-based photographers."

Visit the site.

Posted by: DAVID EMERICK

For Aperture Users

"Dedicated to providing information, education, training and support for Apple-based photographers."

Visit the site.

Posted by: DAVID EMERICK

You Do It

Since I've gotten many private responses to my post about comments, I'd like to invite you to try this yourself. Pretend you're me. You've just received the following comment in response to the "Strange Days" post. The writer, by the way, is someone who often contributes comments that are approved, so it's not some interloper. (And, we don't actually dislike Texans, even though we make fun of them sometimes. That's a joke, son, I say, a joke.) Bear in mind you can't edit. All you can do is pass it along as written, or axe it. Here's the comment:

"Wow you're as warm as it was here in Central Texas today. I read with interest the global warming conversations. I wonder how much is real, how much is over-exaggerated, how much is caused by mankind and how much might be of a natural cycle. It's as warm as it been in a thousand years they say. (what caused it then?) Wasn't it in the 70's when they said we were headed for an ice age? Of my 3 winters in Maine 2 were colder than normal. Jan. and Feb. here in TX were colder than normal this year. What happened to acid rain? They said the fish would be dead by now. Does anyone know how much Al Gore has made off of his movie and lecture tour? Millions? I wonder how much of that money will be donated by Mr. Gore to the global warming cause or will it be used to purchase many thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly in private jets? Ah that's right he has to heat his huge mansion too. Damn we all need to cut back so the elite can live like the upper class that they are. :0 My advice is enjoy that weather. You know it ain't gonna last. :0 Sorry about the rant."

So what do you do? Does your own agreement or disagreement with the political-scientific opinions of the writer determine your response? Does the fact that it says nothing about photography count against it? Would you risk triggering a debate among readers about global warming? Would you be itching to join that debate yourself?

So, leave your own comment and tell me what you'd do: allow or disallow?

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

FOLLOW-UP: I think y'all can see what I'm up against here. In the 35 comments left as of 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, there were 24 people who made it clear what they'd do. There were 10 "disallow" responses and 14 "allow" responses (at least as I interpret and tabulate the responses). So, although the "allows" win here, with this comment, as with many other "borderline" ones, the right thing to do isn't exactly cut-and-dried, at least not overwhelmingly so.

Neither is the response I might provoke no matter which course I chose. As you can see for yourself, some people have expressed unhappiness that their comments have been rejected in the past, while others feel it's oppressive that rejection of the comments they might write is even a possibility. Others would prefer I be a bit more heavy-handed and keep impolite, off-point, or distracting topics out of the comments. Many simply endorse autocratic rule-by-Mike, which, I might point out, is very well-adjusted of them, since that's essentially what you're all getting here anyway, like it or not!

My main goal is just to be to keep things friendly and polite, and be as fair to everyone as possible. All I can say is that I try. And I'll keep trying. I've picked on two commenters today, and perhaps that in itself violates my own principles. Of the two, special thanks to the person who wrote the comment featured in this post, for suffering their words to be used as a "guinea-pig" and get picked over by everybody.

P.S. Just for the record, I didn't reject any of the comments to this post. At least not so far—!

UPDATE: I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know that our temperatures are back very close to dead average—the high yesterday was 45°F, and the average high for the date is 46°F. Make of that what you will....

You Do It

Since I've gotten many private responses to my post about comments, I'd like to invite you to try this yourself. Pretend you're me. You've just received the following comment in response to the "Strange Days" post. The writer, by the way, is someone who often contributes comments that are approved, so it's not some interloper. (And, we don't actually dislike Texans, even though we make fun of them sometimes. That's a joke, son, I say, a joke.) Bear in mind you can't edit. All you can do is pass it along as written, or axe it. Here's the comment:

"Wow you're as warm as it was here in Central Texas today. I read with interest the global warming conversations. I wonder how much is real, how much is over-exaggerated, how much is caused by mankind and how much might be of a natural cycle. It's as warm as it been in a thousand years they say. (what caused it then?) Wasn't it in the 70's when they said we were headed for an ice age? Of my 3 winters in Maine 2 were colder than normal. Jan. and Feb. here in TX were colder than normal this year. What happened to acid rain? They said the fish would be dead by now. Does anyone know how much Al Gore has made off of his movie and lecture tour? Millions? I wonder how much of that money will be donated by Mr. Gore to the global warming cause or will it be used to purchase many thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly in private jets? Ah that's right he has to heat his huge mansion too. Damn we all need to cut back so the elite can live like the upper class that they are. :0 My advice is enjoy that weather. You know it ain't gonna last. :0 Sorry about the rant."

So what do you do? Does your own agreement or disagreement with the political-scientific opinions of the writer determine your response? Does the fact that it says nothing about photography count against it? Would you risk triggering a debate among readers about global warming? Would you be itching to join that debate yourself?

So, leave your own comment and tell me what you'd do: allow or disallow?

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

FOLLOW-UP: I think y'all can see what I'm up against here. In the 35 comments left as of 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, there were 24 people who made it clear what they'd do. There were 10 "disallow" responses and 14 "allow" responses (at least as I interpret and tabulate the responses). So, although the "allows" win here, with this comment, as with many other "borderline" ones, the right thing to do isn't exactly cut-and-dried, at least not overwhelmingly so.

Neither is the response I might provoke no matter which course I chose. As you can see for yourself, some people have expressed unhappiness that their comments have been rejected in the past, while others feel it's oppressive that rejection of the comments they might write is even a possibility. Others would prefer I be a bit more heavy-handed and keep impolite, off-point, or distracting topics out of the comments. Many simply endorse autocratic rule-by-Mike, which, I might point out, is very well-adjusted of them, since that's essentially what you're all getting here anyway, like it or not!

My main goal is just to be to keep things friendly and polite, and be as fair to everyone as possible. All I can say is that I try. And I'll keep trying. I've picked on two commenters today, and perhaps that in itself violates my own principles. Of the two, special thanks to the person who wrote the comment featured in this post, for suffering their words to be used as a "guinea-pig" and get picked over by everybody.

P.S. Just for the record, I didn't reject any of the comments to this post. At least not so far—!

UPDATE: I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know that our temperatures are back very close to dead average—the high yesterday was 45°F, and the average high for the date is 46°F. Make of that what you will....

WTTW

Just a very brief reminder that I won't post comments that contain ad hominem. I've had to reject a number of comments today and yesterday in the Jonathan Greenwald thread. It's too bad, because many of those comments contained much that was thoughtful and illuminating; but a comment is rejected if it contains any direct personal insult aimed at another poster. Sorry, but I dislike flaming and I have a ".1-tolerance" policy (i.e., very close to zero) in effect to keep it suppressed.

—Mike

ADDENDUM: I hasten to add that I've seen no truly offensive and certainly no illegal behavior from visitors to this site. The comments I'm talking about are very similar to posted ones, but include some form of inconsiderateness, many of which can be quite mild. I just don't think that comments like "her picture sucks" or "that comment is absurd" do anything to further a discussion. True, this is censorship, but, as I've said before, this is not a forum.

I think it goes without saying that almost all of the comments posted here are friendly, intelligent, and polite. Every day I'm impressed by the number and the quality of people who read T.O.P., and that extends to those of you who leave comments. The genesis of this post is simply that Blogger doesn't provide the email addresses of people who leave comments, so, when I reject one, I'm unable to contact the writer privately to explain to them why I've done so—something I would otherwise try to do.

The most frustrating kind of comment is one that is polite and mature all the way through until the very end, when the writer just cannot help adding what you might call a "kick." The effect is somewhat like this:

Reader X commented that combat boots are suitable footwear for photography. While I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone what kind of shoes they should wear, combat boots are heavy and don't dry quickly, so, with all due respect, I would suggest that Reader X hasn't tried Adidaboks—if he had, he would know how superior they are.

His mother is obviously a skinhead.

The problem for me is that Blogger doesn't allow me to edit comments. If it did, I would just chop off that last line and publish the comment; but I can't. So, in many cases, that last kick means I have to reject the whole comment. You can see my dilemma.

Oh, and "WTTW" stands for "word to the wise."

WTTW

Just a very brief reminder that I won't post comments that contain ad hominem. I've had to reject a number of comments today and yesterday in the Jonathan Greenwald thread. It's too bad, because many of those comments contained much that was thoughtful and illuminating; but a comment is rejected if it contains any direct personal insult aimed at another poster. Sorry, but I dislike flaming and I have a ".1-tolerance" policy (i.e., very close to zero) in effect to keep it suppressed.

—Mike

ADDENDUM: I hasten to add that I've seen no truly offensive and certainly no illegal behavior from visitors to this site. The comments I'm talking about are very similar to posted ones, but include some form of inconsiderateness, many of which can be quite mild. I just don't think that comments like "her picture sucks" or "that comment is absurd" do anything to further a discussion. True, this is censorship, but, as I've said before, this is not a forum.

I think it goes without saying that almost all of the comments posted here are friendly, intelligent, and polite. Every day I'm impressed by the number and the quality of people who read T.O.P., and that extends to those of you who leave comments. The genesis of this post is simply that Blogger doesn't provide the email addresses of people who leave comments, so, when I reject one, I'm unable to contact the writer privately to explain to them why I've done so—something I would otherwise try to do.

The most frustrating kind of comment is one that is polite and mature all the way through until the very end, when the writer just cannot help adding what you might call a "kick." The effect is somewhat like this:

Reader X commented that combat boots are suitable footwear for photography. While I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone what kind of shoes they should wear, combat boots are heavy and don't dry quickly, so, with all due respect, I would suggest that Reader X hasn't tried Adidaboks—if he had, he would know how superior they are.

His mother is obviously a skinhead.

The problem for me is that Blogger doesn't allow me to edit comments. If it did, I would just chop off that last line and publish the comment; but I can't. So, in many cases, that last kick means I have to reject the whole comment. You can see my dilemma.

Oh, and "WTTW" stands for "word to the wise."

The Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens

by Carl Weese

When Less Really Is More
Recently I've been experimenting with a Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens, the longest of the Pentax compact "pancake trio" of lenses. Since its angle of view is equivalent to a 105mm on 35mm format, I was reminded that the first high quality accessory lens I ever bought, back in 1965, was a 105mm ƒ/2.8 Super Takumar for my Pentax H3 camera. Along with excellent optical quality, one feature of that lens was that it was significantly more compact than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers. But look at this comparison between the venerable 105 and its new descendent:


Here it is mounted on a K10D camera:

That is amazingly compact for a telephoto lens! I'm also impressed with the picture quality. I don't use longer-than-normal lenses very much—shorter lenses suit me better in almost all situations—but here's something from yesterday that I like:

The optical quality leaves nothing to be desired. If the designers have compromised anything to achieve the compact size, it isn't apparent in pictures I've made with the lens. Well, one compromise is obvious—the lens is quite pricey.

So who might be interested in spending the money to have such a miniaturized lens? My first thought would be, someone for whom a moderately long lens feels "normal" (the way a moderately short lens feels normal to me). The camera/lens package, especially if you leave the grip at home, would make a great little "walkabout" kit if this angle of view fits your vision.

Then I realized that someone like me is another obvious candidate, for one specific reason. Since I seldom use a long lens, I'm likely not to bother carrying one if it's big, heavy, and bulky. But there's practically no camera bag so small you can't slip the DA70 into it somewhere. This came in handy last Sunday when I happened on an unusual event while out looking for pictures. Pop over to my web log and see the DA70's results in my post for 2/26/07. The second and third pictures were made with the 70, literally because there was no place for me to stand where a shorter lens would have given an interesting view of the action.

Even if I use a long lens for only 2% of my pictures, a lens compact enough to encourage me to carry it at all times means I won't miss out on that 2%.

Posted by: CARL WEESE

Additional Comment from Mike: For those of you who may not be Pentaxians and may not know this, you see that old c. 1965 105mm Super Takumar in the top picture, on the left? You can actually use that lens on the K10D, Pentax's latest and most up-to-date digital SLR, albeit with some inevitable operational restrictions. Now that's back-compatibility for ya.

The Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens

by Carl Weese

When Less Really Is More
Recently I've been experimenting with a Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens, the longest of the Pentax compact "pancake trio" of lenses. Since its angle of view is equivalent to a 105mm on 35mm format, I was reminded that the first high quality accessory lens I ever bought, back in 1965, was a 105mm ƒ/2.8 Super Takumar for my Pentax H3 camera. Along with excellent optical quality, one feature of that lens was that it was significantly more compact than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers. But look at this comparison between the venerable 105 and its new descendent:


Here it is mounted on a K10D camera:

That is amazingly compact for a telephoto lens! I'm also impressed with the picture quality. I don't use longer-than-normal lenses very much—shorter lenses suit me better in almost all situations—but here's something from yesterday that I like:

The optical quality leaves nothing to be desired. If the designers have compromised anything to achieve the compact size, it isn't apparent in pictures I've made with the lens. Well, one compromise is obvious—the lens is quite pricey.

So who might be interested in spending the money to have such a miniaturized lens? My first thought would be, someone for whom a moderately long lens feels "normal" (the way a moderately short lens feels normal to me). The camera/lens package, especially if you leave the grip at home, would make a great little "walkabout" kit if this angle of view fits your vision.

Then I realized that someone like me is another obvious candidate, for one specific reason. Since I seldom use a long lens, I'm likely not to bother carrying one if it's big, heavy, and bulky. But there's practically no camera bag so small you can't slip the DA70 into it somewhere. This came in handy last Sunday when I happened on an unusual event while out looking for pictures. Pop over to my web log and see the DA70's results in my post for 3/26/07. The second and third pictures were made with the 70, literally because there was no place for me to stand where a shorter lens would have given an interesting view of the action.

Even if I use a long lens for only 2% of my pictures, a lens compact enough to encourage me to carry it at all times means I won't miss out on that 2%.

Posted by: CARL WEESE

Additional Comment from Mike: For those of you who may not be Pentaxians and may not know this, you see that old c. 1965 105mm Super Takumar in the top picture, on the left? You can actually use that lens on the K10D, Pentax's latest and most up-to-date digital SLR, albeit with some inevitable operational restrictions. Now that's back-compatibility for ya.

Strange Days

Apropos of nothing, I've got to say that this weather is freaking me out. I know, I know, the weather is supposed to be nothing but another partisan political debate (Dems: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!; Repubs: Don't know what you're talking about; our heads are securely encased in sand) and I know, it was virtually yesterday that I was complaining bitterly about the cold...but that's just the thing; it was virtually yesterday.

Here in Wisconsin we had a very strange winter. December and January were extremely mild, with "winter" basically packed into five weeks, the four weeks of February and the first week of March. And it was some kinda serious winter, with weeks on end of sub-zero nights and copious amounts of snow. But now we've just had two eighty-degree days in a row. (That's 26°C, for those of you with no respect for illogical traditional measurement systems.) Eighty degrees. In March. In Wisconsin. Less than three weeks ago I was happily griping about the frigid cold, and there was so much snow heaped up every which-where in my alley I almost couldn't get the car out. Holy greenhouse effect, Batman.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but it also freaks me out that they're suddenly pulling all sorts of giant squid out of the Southern Ocean, after millennia of giant squid being the most elusive of creatures. Something seems to be off, and every now and then it strikes me as ominous. I can't say I like it. The Republicans claim it's nothing but a natural cycle, and has nothing at all to do with us pumping trillions of tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. It's not often that I find myself hoping the Republicans are right.

On the other hand, I can't say it isn't pleasant: the warm weather got my lazy butt out of the house with the camera for a loop around the neighborhood. That's something good, eh?

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Featured Comment by Samik: Well, you're not alone wondering. We had extremely warm December and January too. And now it's +15C—all-time high.

In Finland! We're almost on other side of the globe from you.

It's freaky. But I kinda like warm weather.

Strange Days

Apropos of nothing, I've got to say that this weather is freaking me out. I know, I know, the weather is supposed to be nothing but another partisan political debate (Dems: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!; Repubs: Don't know what you're talking about; our heads are securely encased in sand) and I know, it was virtually yesterday that I was complaining bitterly about the cold...but that's just the thing; it was virtually yesterday.

Here in Wisconsin we had a very strange winter. December and January were extremely mild, with "winter" basically packed into five weeks, the four weeks of February and the first week of March. And it was some kinda serious winter, with weeks on end of sub-zero nights and copious amounts of snow. But now we've just had two eighty-degree days in a row. (That's 26°C, for those of you with no respect for illogical traditional measurement systems.) Eighty degrees. In March. In Wisconsin. Less than three weeks ago I was happily griping about the frigid cold, and there was so much snow heaped up every which-where in my alley I almost couldn't get the car out. Holy greenhouse effect, Batman.

I don't know if you've noticed this, but it also freaks me out that they're suddenly pulling all sorts of giant squid out of the Southern Ocean, after millennia of giant squid being the most elusive of creatures. Something seems to be off, and every now and then it strikes me as ominous. I can't say I like it. The Republicans claim it's nothing but a natural cycle, and has nothing at all to do with us pumping trillions of tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. It's not often that I find myself hoping the Republicans are right.

On the other hand, I can't say it isn't pleasant: the warm weather got my lazy butt out of the house with the camera for a loop around the neighborhood. That's something good, eh?

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

Featured Comment by Samik: Well, you're not alone wondering. We had extremely warm December and January too. And now it's +15C—all-time high.

In Finland! We're almost on other side of the globe from you.

It's freaky. But I kinda like warm weather.

We're All Famous Like

I'd like thank Nick Wright, of Independence, Kansas, for naming T.O.P. as one of his favorite blogs (he named Carl's, too) over on Sportsshooter.com. It's always humbling to have one's virtual chicken-scratchings singled out for praise, especially on a forum that's only semi-related.

I was also pleased to get my most recent issue of LensWork (no. 69, Mar.–Apr. 2007) in the mail, and, as I usually do, turn first to Bill Jay's "End Notes" column at the back of the magazine—there to read an item discussing one of T.O.P.'s very own posts. I've been an admirer of Bill's since I stumbled across his excellent 1992 Nazraeli Press book Occam's Razor, still a favorite (and, despite the philosophical title, all about photography).

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

We're All Famous Like

I'd like thank Nick Wright, of Independence, Kansas, for naming T.O.P. as one of his favorite blogs (he named Carl's, too) over on Sportsshooter.com. It's always humbling to have one's virtual chicken-scratchings singled out for praise, especially on a forum that's only semi-related.

I was also pleased to get my most recent issue of LensWork (no. 69, Mar.–Apr. 2007) in the mail, and, as I usually do, turn first to Bill Jay's "End Notes" column at the back of the magazine—there to read an item discussing one of T.O.P.'s very own posts. I've been an admirer of Bill's since I stumbled across his excellent 1992 Nazraeli Press book Occam's Razor, still a favorite (and, despite the philosophical title, all about photography).

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

'How Come No One Called? Seriously'

In response to Ctein's post, "Customer Support, Take 2," below, Player commented "Okay, I give up. How come no one called? Seriously."

This is pure speculation, but over the years I've noticed that people have a tendency to blame themselves when something goes wrong with products. I've said before that I think that's how personal computers have made it this far as consumer products...for most of their history, computers have been very balky, buggy, complicated products, and very unreliable. The only reason people put up with them was a persistent tendency for each customer to place the primary blame for problems not on the product, not on the manufacturer, but on him- or herself. The reaction is easy to understand from a psycho-perceptual standpoint—nobody is perfectly expert in the use of personal computers—even computer professionals. And since we know we're not experts, ergo it's easy to blame problems on our own lack of expertise. Something is wrong = we must have screwed up, somehow.

There's got to be a name for this in marketing theory, but I wouldn't know what it is.

Over the years I've encountered many situations in photography in which relatively simple claims went unchallenged. In many of those cases it took an experienced researcher to simply say, "wait a minute, is this true?" and design an experiment to find out. I'll give you one example. For many years, Zone VI studios touted its print washers as being superior to others because they drained from the bottom, and "fixer is heavier than water, so it sinks to the bottom of the tank." This was repeated as "conventional wisdom" so frequently, and in so many places, that I asked PHOTO Techniques magazine's resident photochemistry expert, Bob Chapman, to put the silly myth to rest. Among Bob's array of commonsense proofs of the nonsense of the proposition was simply that if you put half fixer and half water in a jar and shook it up, then let it sit on a shelf for a year, the fixer would not come out of solution with the water and "sink to the bottom." So I promptly did just as he suggested. As luck would have it, our company had a chemistry lab as one of its divisions. After the jar had sat on the shelf for a year, more or less, I asked one of the chemists to sample the solution at the top of the jar and at the bottom. The concentration of fixer was the same in both places. Obviously, if fixer can't "sink to the bottom" of a still jar in a year's time, it's not going to "sink to the bottom" in a turbulent print washer. (A coda to this story is the amusing—and maddening—fact that some of our readers still refused to believe that fixer doesn't sink in the print washer. One photographer told me he still thought the old myth had to be true because he had just "read it in too many places" for it not to be. Argh! If you want to read more about our innate tendencies to error, I can recommend two excellent and very readable layman's books on the topic—Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking, by Thomas E. Kida, and A Mind of its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, by Cordelia Fine. Both recommendations satisfy the Pinker Rule.*)

But who, exactly, is most likely to test such a claim? Probably not casual home darkroom workers. I'm assuming that most photographers, if a particular batch of developer wasn't working, would simply presume it was operator error somehow and throw the batch out. It would take a relatively confident, informed individual to test the hypothesis that the developer was bad as it came packaged from the factory. To name one trivial experimental difficulty, the individual would need to have a second packet of the same batch of developer on hand, so they could mix it up again and insure that no stupid mistakes had been made in mixing up the first batch.

Absent such careful testing for confirmation, I can understand that people would be reluctant to complain—they just didn't think that manufacturer error was a viable explanation, let alone the most likely one.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

*My brother and I have a rule between ourselves, named for author Stephen Pinker, that we're not allowed to recommend a book until we've actually finished reading it.

'How Come No One Called? Seriously'

In response to Ctein's post, "Customer Support, Take 2," below, Player commented "Okay, I give up. How come no one called? Seriously."

This is pure speculation, but over the years I've noticed that people have a tendency to blame themselves when something goes wrong with products. I've said before that I think that's how personal computers have made it this far as consumer products...for most of their history, computers have been very balky, buggy, complicated products, and very unreliable. The only reason people put up with them was a persistent tendency for each customer to place the primary blame for problems not on the product, not on the manufacturer, but on him- or herself. The reaction is easy to understand from a psycho-perceptual standpoint—nobody is perfectly expert in the use of personal computers—even computer professionals. And since we know we're not experts, ergo it's easy to blame problems on our own lack of expertise. Something is wrong = we must have screwed up, somehow.

There's got to be a name for this in marketing theory, but I wouldn't know what it is.

Over the years I've encountered many situations in photography in which relatively simple claims went unchallenged. In many of those cases it took an experienced researcher to simply say, "wait a minute, is this true?" and design an experiment to find out. I'll give you one example. For many years, Zone VI studios touted its print washers as being superior to others because they drained from the bottom, and "fixer is heavier than water, so it sinks to the bottom of the tank." This was repeated as "conventional wisdom" so frequently, and in so many places, that I asked PHOTO Techniques magazine's resident photochemistry expert, Bob Chapman, to put the silly myth to rest. Among Bob's array of commonsense proofs of the nonsense of the proposition was simply that if you put half fixer and half water in a jar and shook it up, then let it sit on a shelf for a year, the fixer would not come out of solution with the water and "sink to the bottom." So I promptly did just as he suggested. As luck would have it, our company had a chemistry lab as one of its divisions. After the jar had sat on the shelf for a year, more or less, I asked one of the chemists to sample the solution at the top of the jar and at the bottom. The concentration of fixer was the same in both places. Obviously, if fixer can't "sink to the bottom" of a still jar in a year's time, it's not going to "sink to the bottom" in a turbulent print washer. (A coda to this story is the amusing—and maddening—fact that some of our readers still refused to believe that fixer doesn't sink in the print washer. One photographer told me he still thought the old myth had to be true because he had just "read it in too many places" for it not to be. Argh! If you want to read more about our innate tendencies to error, I can recommend two excellent and very readable layman's books on the topic—Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking, by Thomas E. Kida, and A Mind of its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, by Cordelia Fine. Both recommendations satisfy the Pinker Rule.*)

But who, exactly, is most likely to test such a claim? Probably not casual home darkroom workers. I'm assuming that most photographers, if a particular batch of developer wasn't working, would simply presume it was operator error somehow and throw the batch out. It would take a relatively confident, informed individual to test the hypothesis that the developer was bad as it came packaged from the factory. To name one trivial experimental difficulty, the individual would need to have a second packet of the same batch of developer on hand, so they could mix it up again and insure that no stupid mistakes had been made in mixing up the first batch.

Absent such careful testing for confirmation, I can understand that people would be reluctant to complain—they just didn't think that manufacturer error was a viable explanation, let alone the most likely one.

Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

*My brother and I have a rule between ourselves, named for author Stephen Pinker, that we're not allowed to recommend a book until we've actually finished reading it.