man & nature # 103 ~ camera maker pokes sharp stick in eyes of pixel peepers

Car in late day spring fog • click to embiggenHoly s**t. I never thought that I would live to see the day when anyone in the tech sector say "enough is enough".

However, lo and behold, none other than Akira Watanabe, leader of Olympus' SLR planning department, has declared:

Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need ... We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System ... We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models.

Instead, Watanab said Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting.

Halle-f**king-lujah!!!!

Something along the order of sanity reigns at Olympus. That's more than enough to make me want to go out and buy into the Olympus system ... no ... wait a minute ... I already have 3 Oly bodies (2 of which have been donated to the Cinemascapist cause) and 4 Oly lenses. Wow. I just knew that my visionary decision to go Olympus when I moved into the dslr ranks was a good one.

All of that said, here's the thing about my current Oly body - a 10mp E3. As most of you know, I have been regularly making 24×24 inch prints from the 10mp files made with that camera. The prints are no-excuses-needed stunningly very nice. IMO, based on 40 years experience in the picturing business, is that they rival, in look and quality, prints made from 2 1/4 (120) film based cameras. Maybe, just maybe, a tad better in some respects.

What they are not is that they are not the pinnacle of absolute sharpness that is possible from APS-sized sensor cameras. However, I don't see this as a deficiency because, when viewed at a proper distance - the distance from which a viewer can see and get the whole picture - or even at a closer distance that is outside of pixel-peeping range, the prints are way more than sharp enough.

That is to say (and not damning with faint praise) that the prints are very sharp - just not as sharp as the current state of the art for non full-frame sensors.

BUT, here's the most important thing - the look and feel of the prints is ideally suited to visually complimenting / supporting what I am trying to say with my pictures.

Here's how I look at it - I think of my Oly as my medium format camera (as judged by traditional analog photography standards). I think of my Pentax K20D as my 4×5-8×10ish view camera (as judged by traditional analog photography standards). If I were to own a FF sensor camera, I would probably have to think of it as something beyond being able to be judged by traditional analog photography standards. Each of these "formats" (all of which are delivered in traditional analog 35mm camera bodies) deliver different-from-one-another look and feel prints.

To my eyes and my sensibilities, each sensor format when printed at 13"×19" and larger presents a different enough visual impression that it can effect an astute viewer's perception - visual and intellectual / emotional - of a picture.

Without getting too in-depth, I look at the difference this way - the smaller sensor format's visual footprint suits the making of pictures that are more "spontaneous" or "casual" in nature or, at least, where the intent is for them to appear to be so. The larger sensor format's look and feel is more suited to making pictures that are more "formal" in nature - pictures that are or appear to be more "studied" in both their making and their meaning(s).

In actual picture terms, think of it as the difference between, as an example, the landscape pictures of the Landscapist and those of Ansel Adams. Or, as the difference between the tableuax vivants pictures of the Cinemascapist and those of Gregory Crewdson.

IMO, the point that the pixel-peeper idiots miss is that, sure enough, sensor size matters - each delivers a different look and feel in pretty much the same manner as different film format cameras did/do - but, choosing to use one sensor format or another should be a matter of using those those differences as determined by what you are trying to express, not whether one sensor format or another is better based on tech specs.

At times, bigger is better, more dynamic range is better, more sharpness is better, and so on. But, at other times, it simply isn't so. IMO, the choice of which way to go all depends on using the tool that gets the results you want/need in order to say what you want to say.

That's the reason that commercial photogs, especially those in the cosmetics world, who need pictures of eyelashes, hair, skin, etc. to be smooth as silk and sharp as a tack, won't even touch a FF-sensor 20mp+ Nikon / Canon / Sony camera. The look and feel they need can only be had by using medium format 40mp+ cameras.

BTW & FYI, one more reason I applaud this 12mp limit idea is that everything I use to process and print 10-14mp picture files - my computer (AKA, my image processing power), my RAM, my hard drive space for storage, my memory cards, etc. - is currently operating at peak efficiency. If I were to move to the next level of mp files (20mp and up), everything would have to change. And, of course, all of those changes would come at great expense and, I would guarantee, at great aggravation as well.

So, kudos to Olympus for putting on the brakes. And I'll be acquiring one of their 12mp bodies soon enough.

pretty decay

Decay still life ~ scanner photography • click to embiggenA few years back I started a decay project that I let slide. It involved finding dead/decaying things from the world of nature, bringing them into the house, and scanning them on my scanner.

As you may be able to discern from these scanner pictures, I did not rely solely upon the scanner for light. The things were given a bit of accent lighting from my studio strobe modeling lights. The black background was, in fact, a large piece of black foamcore mount board that was suspended above the scanner.

Decay still life ~ scanner photography • click to embiggenThe thing about scanner pictures is the stunning amount of detail that can be had. And, if you scan at 2400dpi, the amount of enlargement that is possible is also rather stunning.

The biggest PITA though is dust - every single speck on the scanning surface is recorded in faithful detail. The only thing that saved me from going nuts with all the dust removal was the black background - I was able to select all the black with the Magic Wand and use the Despeckle function to deal with it rather easily.

In any event, once the snow is gone, I'm out the door scavenging for more scanner photography subject matter.

Have any of you every played with scanner photography?

FYI

For those who are interested and don't know about it, Shutterfly is running a 20% off sale on photo books through March 10th. They are also throwing in 2 free 8×10 prints to the offer.

If you don't know about this, it's because you have not signed up for a free account at Shutterfly. If you had, you would have received an email from them about this offer.

If you haven't signed up and are interested in making photo books, use the link at the top of the right column and sign up - The Landscapist receives a small commission on all your transactions at Shutterfly if you do. I mean, what the hell, since I bust my ass almost everyday for you here on The Landscapist, I think it's only fair and just that you help stimulate my economy just a little bit.

man & nature # 102 ~ the cruel

Window ice after a storm • click to embiggenRelative to the last entry and the idea of "nameless and commonplace", I like these words from James Agee:

In the immediate world, everything is to be discerned..with the whole of consciousness, seeking to perceive it as it stands: so that the aspect of a street in sunlight can roar in the heart of itself as a symphony, perhaps as no symphony can: and all consciousness is shifted from the imagined, the revisive, to the effort to perceive simply the cruel radiance of what is.

I absolutely love the phrase, "the cruel radiance of what is". It speaks to me of the real stripped of myth, dogma, and the fanciful - the world as viewed in the cold hard light of day. As most who have followed The Landscapist know, I am quite a devotee (in my picturing and in my life) of "the real" as viewed in the cold hard light of day. Which is why I also take a certain form of delight in Agee's view of picturing:

The camera seems to me, next to unassisted and weaponless consciousness, the central instrument of our time.

IMO, there can little doubt that Agee felt this way about "the camera" as a result of his close friendship, association, and collaborations with Walker Evans, one the first and foremost practitioners of picturing and revealing "the cruel radiance of (the) what is" of his time.

It is no coincidence that Walker's pictures were described as the genesis of the notion of artless art. IMO, and that of many others, he was the first to practice on a grand scale the idea of straight picturing - that is, simple direct seeing unaffected by the conventions and mores of Art. The objective being to just show what things look like.

an aside - the idea of artless Art - that which ignores the conventions and mores of Art - has, of course, evolved into conventions and mores in its own right.

But here's the thing about pictures that illustrate and illuminate "the cruel radiance of what is" -

Most seem to perceive such pictures with an emphasis upon the notion of cruel. That such pictures are "cold", "heartless", and very often "depressing". And, in fact, sometimes and in some cases, they are cold, heartless, and very often depressing. But, in most cases, I don't see them that way.

To my sense and sensibilities, they are "cruel" only in the sense that pictures, which depict the cruel radiance of what is, leave us with no place to hide - that is, they most often strip away all of the notions of myth, dogma, and the fanciful in/with which we all take refuge from the inconvenient truths of the real world.

IMO, pictures that strip away all of the notions of myth, dogma, and the fanciful are, indeed, beautiful. I truly and deeply believe in what it says at the top of this browser window - photography that aims at being true, not a being beautiful, because what is true is most often beautiful.

I truly and deeply believe in making pictures that strip away all of the notions of myth, dogma, and the fanciful because:

If the proper goal of art is, is as I now believe, Beauty, the Beauty that concerns me most is that of Form. Beauty is, in my view, a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life. ~ Robert Adams

It may seem very contradictory (to the notion of "cruel") that I agree with Robert Adams when he writes about singularity of Hopper's influence (whose work typically illustrated and illuminated the "cruel" notions of isolation and loneliness in America) when he states that it was Hopper who enabled his artistic realization that:

One did not need to be ashamed of having a heart

I agree with this idea of "heart" because I always strive to make pictures with a heart and from my heart. And, I truly believe that pictures with/from a heart are inherently beautiful and, at their root, are filled with the hope of recognizing and realizing the coherence and structure underlying life.

IMO, and to my eye and sensibilities, pictures that point to the cruel radiance of what is are pictures that point to truth. And truth, while it may be hard and inconvenient to swallow, is never cruel.

As far as I am concerned, the only pictures that are cruel are those fanciful creations that ignore the cruel radiance of what is, and, consequently, give rise to false hope. Those pictures, when viewed in the cold hard light of day, would most commonly be labeled as lies.

man & nature # 101 ~ the most influential photog of the 20th century (who never made a photograph)

Horse corral at dusk • click to embiggenThere was an interesting article in the Arts&LEISURE section of yesterday's (Sunday) edition of the NY Times. The title was Images Separated At Birth?

The article was an overview of a show (and its premise), EDWARD HOPPER & COMPANY at the Fraenkel Gallery in San Francisco (5 March - 2 May). Unfortunately, it seems that the article is not online so I'll provide a brief synopsis.

The exhibit presents 10 painting by Edward Hopper side-by-side with prints by 8 prominent photographers - Robert Adams, Diane Arbus, Harry Callahan, Lee Friedlander, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, William Eggelston, and Walker Evans - under the premise that Hopper's painting were very influential on modern photography. Hence the idea that he "could claim to be the most influential American photographer of the 20th century - even though he didn't take any photographs" (from the British author, Geoff Dyer).

What the exhibit explores is "What we see in Hopper's paintings when we look at them through the lens of photography, and how, in turn, the language of photography was influenced by Hopper's work." The exhibit currator, Jeffery Frankel, writes in his introduction:

More than almost any American Artist, Hopper has a pervasice impact on the way we see the world - so pervasive as to be almost invisible. The photographs that follow are potent evidence of his legacy, each a revelation of how medium one might point to unimagined new possibilities for another.

I find this to be very interesting stuff, in part because Hopper and all of the 8 photographers have certainly had an influence on my picturing aesthetic. While not all the photographers express any direct association with Hopper's work, a few - especially Shore and Adams - openly admit to a deep respect and appreciation of his work. Not so much the visual specifics of his paintings (although both mention his use of light) but rather the aesthetic sensibilities thereof. This from Robert Adams:

A painter like Hopper is so powerful because his scenes are so nameless and commonplace that we tend to find them boring and dismiss them in our own lives but Hopper brings us back to them. (my emphasis)

Hmmmm ... nameless and commonplace = boring ... where have I heard that before. Wait ... let me think ... oh yeh, that's right, I've heard it about 7 gazillion times from the pretty picture crowd. Not only regarding my own pictures but about just about every mid-late 20th century Artist who uses a camera/photography.

Now, I'll admit the obvious here - I have railed against the work of the pretty picture crowd for quite some time - many might say up to and beyond the point of ad nauseum. But, I have always stopped short (by the skin of my teeth) of outright attacks upon the pretty picture makers themselves. However, once again admitting the rather obvious, an attack upon one's art is most likely to be considered an attack upon the values and sensibilities of the artist him/herself.

It should be noted, however, that I detest the sin, not the sinner. To paraphrase a common adage - many of my friends are sinners. And I am operating under no delusions here - I am certain that many who consider me a friend (or at least a friendly person) also consider me to be a sinner.

That said, here is, IMO, the thing about the pretty picture aesthetic that I find to be so utterly lacking -

For quite a long time, dating back to at least Hopper (painting) and Evans (photography), Artists have been addressing the "nameless and commonplace" as opposed to, let's say, the "grand and glorious". I can't not speak to individual cases as to why this is so but I do like, as a general consideration, the idea that they were/are trying to "bring us back to them" as a counterpoint to the uniquely American cultural obsession and glorification of the individual / individuality and as a warning to the inevitable and deleterious result of that particular fetish.

To wit: an obsession that has, ironically, led to a profound and nearly universal sense of loss of individual identity, or, at the very least, a sense of loss of personal individual worth that has escalated along with the cultural obsession and glorification of only those "individuals" who are "grand and glorious".

Simply put, the "nameless and commonplace" man/woman, and by extension, the nameless and commonplace event, place, thing, et al, have come to be considered "boring" and therefore "dismissed" in our own lives which ultimately results in concomitant feelings (because, after all and point in fact, there's no denying that most of us are rather "nameless and commonplace") of alienation, isolation, and loneliness that so many of us experience. Feelings that were Hopper's operative stock and trade.

Hopper's work gave voice to those feelings and, whether you believe that the work of others (in this exhibit's case, photographers) were influenced by his work or that they were/are just expressing / giving voice to their own culture-influenced feelings of alienation, isolation, and loneliness, IMO, what they were/are doing is tapping into a pervasive and prevalent cultural paradigm the pretty picture crowd chooses to, at best, ignore, or at worst, deny.

IMO, as a nation, we have totally lost sight of the "nameless and commonplace". We are a culture that has devolved into various cults of the "grand and glorious". As a culture, we worship and revel at the altar of the "grand and glorious" in just about any part of life you care to mention - sports, politics, economics, et al. Our America motto is no longer E Pluribus Unum but rather Nothing exceeds like excess.

I can't and won't be a part of it. And, I certainly won't be a part of it with my picturing.

I can't not state strongly enough that I believe we are in the fine mess that we currently find ourselves in precisely because, for generations - we did not get here overnight, we have ignored, dismissed, and denied the value and lessons that can be derived from an appreciation of the "nameless and commonplace" in all walks of life.

If we continue to ignore, dismiss, and deny it, we do so at our peril.

All of that said, I am curious - would anyone care to share who (and why) has influenced your picturing?

civilized ku # 163 ~ the times they are a-changing

New prints over way too many pillows • click to embiggenIn an effort to help stimulate the economy, I ventured up to Plattsburg yesterday to purchase a few new prints at the now bankrupt Ritz Camera store.

Ritz Camera continues to operate under Chapter 11 (reorganization) protection. If one does not follow the news about things photographic, I doubt if anyone in the mall knew that anything has changed at Ritz. It appears to be operating the same as it ever was, which, for me and my print buying habits, is a good thing.

The one thing that I noticed was that the store was staffed by a single person. That's rather remarkable given that I visited the store on a Saturday afternoon - a prime-time shopping day. It's also worth noting that the single person in question was not one of the "regulars" with whom I was familiar. That person is a college student from Plattsburg State University - fortunately, she is a student in their photography studies so she was pretty knowledgeable (in a student kind of way) about things photographic.

I am fairly certain she was the sole store attendant because she is mostly likely the recipient of a lower hourly wage than the aforementioned "regulars". That said (and I fully appreciate and understand that decision on the part of management), fortunately for all involved, she is not only a photo student but also, as I discovered in our conversion, the daughter of a now-closed down-state Ritz Camera store manager. So, when faced with a nasty situation, management seems to have made a good choice.

My only hope - now that I have managed to create a really good output file calibration for that store's printer - is that they continue to stay in business. If not, I will have lost the second and only remaining provider of large, decent, and inexpensive prints in our area.

What that means is that I will have to bit the bullet and set up a wide-format Epson printer. If it comes to that, it will be time to get a storefront here in town (gallery in the front, printing in the back) and go "commercial" - but only to limited number of clients/customers.

In order for that to work, the setup will have to include an ftp site for customers (from near and far) to upload files for printing. The intent will be to offer very high quality "proof" prints at a very reasonable cost. So-called proof prints that are, in fact, suitable for framing - much like the prints I now get from Ritz Camera. Prints that are printed with the same archival ink set (on archival-rated paper) that most high-end / high-cost print services use but offered at nowhere near the price - in fact, at about 15-20% of the cost - that those labs charge.

With all of that said, I'm curious - how many of you out there make big(ish) prints of your own pictures? By big(ish), I mean prints with dimensions that are in 24-36 inch range.

Update on Monday, March 2, 2009 at 01:42PM by gravitas et nugalis

I put these pictures on the wall above our bed (as a replacement for another set) while the wife was out of town. She arrived home safe and sound late yesterday afternoon. We spent some serious "quality time" together and at about 8pm she retired to the bedroom to "stretch out and relax".

I had purposely not told her about the picture change. It was a "test" of sorts. Sure enough, after a 5 minutes or so, I went up to the bedroom and there she was all stretched out and relaxing and, even after I hinted that she should put an extra blanket on the bed because "the room would be much colder tonight", she was completely oblivious to the new pictures.

How the hell does that happen? I mean, what - they only occupy about 12 sq. ft. of getting in bed / in your face space?

Here I'm thinking about a 24" wide-format printer. Maybe, if I want my pictures to be noticed in my own home, I've got to go for the 48" model.

civilized ku # 162 ~ to just see is to be free

Random rhythm, symmetry, harmony and organic organization • click to embiggenIt seems quite obvious to me that success in picturing the real world depends a great deal upon possessing a nearly effortless - it just comes easy / don't even have to think about it - sense/awareness of shapes, patterns, natural rhythms, and spacial / organizational relationships.

A sense/awareness that most might call an ability to compose / create interesting composition in your pictures. However, I don't include myself amongst those who think of it those terms.

For me, "composition" is a construct that demands rather intensely thoughtful work or effort in order to make the 2-dimensional surface of a print visually interesting. IMO, if you have to work at it, there are only 2 possible outcomes:

1. you'll never get it right

or

2. you'll have to use the "rules" and thereby end up with ... well ... a picture that just looks like it was made by the numbers.

(Once again) IMO, "composition" can not be taught nor can it be reduced to a dictum of rules and guidelines. To my way of thinking, it can be learned by refining your way of seeing but, if a sense of "composition" is not native to your way of seeing, you've got an uphill battle on your hands when comes to making visually interesting pictures.

To be clear, by "visually interesting" I mean pictures that are not totally dependent upon their referent to create interest. Think Jackson Pollock here. One could reasonably say that his paintings were about "nothing" except, of course, they were all about visual energy, motion, spacial and color/tonal relationships. In a very real sense he made something very interesting out of "nothing".

It is well worth noting in the context of my positing that Jackson said of his technique:

"When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc., because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and take, and the painting comes out well."

This notion of "harmony" and "easy give and take" meshes well with 2 of photography's stalwarts - Edward Weston and Henri Cartier-Bresson - ideas about the subject of composition. Weston thought that "composition is the strongest way of seeing" and Cartier-Bresson thought that composition is " ... an organic coordination of visual elements."

And, along the same lines, I would be remiss not to mention Sir Ansel's thought, albeit more general in scope - "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

What all of this means for me is that I consider myself to be truly blessed to mercifully free of the ravages of the rules of photography. Long ago, I discovered that the rules are an insurmountable obstacle to both "strong seeing" and an "organic coordination of visual elements" that are found in the real world.

And, I also discovered that, once you escape from the confines/constraints of the rules, there are pictures to be found almost everywhere you look.

urban ku # 198 ~ Ali Baba and the 40 thieves

Honk if you love Makers • click to embiggenIf I were ever to return to the land of un-square, I've found the perfect lens for making ku pictures without the attendant PS work I currently employ to obtain my vignetted look.

To be accurate, the glass in question is not a full-fledged lens, rather it is one of those hunks of glass that you screw onto the front of "real" lens in order to effect a change of focal length - in this case, expanded wide angle coverage. In the past, converter lens were of very questionable optical quality. More recently, some manufacturers offer some pretty decent wa/tele converters for their P&S cameras but, I am delighted to report that if you look for bargained-priced converter lens for use on a dslr, there a decent selection of glass that can turn any high-priced, high-quality lens into a piece of optical crap.

That said, it is not about the joys and delights of destroying the fine optical quality of a high quality lens that I wish to ruminate upon herein. Rather, it is the manner in which I "discovered" the aforementioned converter that I find to be much more interesting.

This entry was instigated by the recent disclosure of the bankruptcy protection filing by Ritz Camera - the largest dedicated camera retailer in the US, a chain of 800+ stores (operating under a number of names). Those stores have not exactly been a favorite of "serious" amateur photographers and certainly not so for pros, so the announcement does not exactly come as an earth shattering blow to many.

Although, Nikon Inc. (the US subsidiary) may not be quite so taciturn - Ritz has reputedly left them holding the bag for $27M - an amount that represent somewhere in the region of 20% of Nikon Inc's expected annual operating income.

Ritz had a business model based on a zillion locations dedicated to delivering 1-hour processed film with prints to the seriously amateur/casual/average-Joe P&S shooter - a market which has all but disappeared with the advent of digital picture making. Sure, they sold cameras including a fair number of entry level dslrs kits but their bread and butter was the high-volume, high-profit 1-hour minilab thing.

Since moving to the Adirondacks I have developed a kind of old-timey camera store relationship with our semi-local Ritz Camera store. That relationship was kindled by default - it's Ritz or nothing in these here parts. My main interest with them was in purchasing large format (24×24 inch) epson prints that were my "proof" prints. I would never use them for final high quality prints but suffice it to say that more than a few of them are hanging on my walls.

I found the staff at this particular Ritz to be friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable in a manner that was reminiscent of my old-timey experiences with "real" independently owned camera stores. Stores that catered to the entire spectrum of picture makers simply because they were virtually the only place one could purchase a camera (with the exception of the Kodak counters found in a zillion drugstores).

Those were camera stores where the person behind the counter was undoubtedly a serious picture maker who was very knowledgeable about just about everything in the store. In many cases they were people who actually made a career out of standing behind a camera store counter. After a few visits to the store they knew who you were and what your needs and interests were.

If you regularly used a film that they didn't stock, they would start to stock it for you. For pros like myself, if you were interested in a piece of equipment but wanted to test it out, no problem - take it for a spin for a day or two. If you purchased equipment and it broke, a replacement or a loaner was always available. And, amazing at it might seem, they delivered whatever you needed right to your door (no charge).

Unfortunately, most of those smallish independently operated camera stores are a thing of the past. With the advent of digital, camera manufacturers - who had previously depended upon these stores for their very existence - essentially abandoned these stores in favor of the big box discount electronic stores. Add to that insult the emergence of online sales and the result was a rather sudden and dramatic end of the line for small local independent camera stores.

More's the pity. One of the things I really miss, even though I am not a gearhead, is the ability to walk into a store and check out the stuff. Like the opportunity to hold a lens in your hand, put it on your camera, and take a look through the viewfinder. Like the opportunity to hold a camera in your hands and get a feel for it before you have plunked down your bucks and it arrives via FedEx. And, god forbid, actually get informed information about whatever it is you are interested in.

OK, enough of that silly old-timey stuff and onto the converter.

I discovered the converter after I was basically abducted from a NYC sidewalk in front of one of those quintessential small NYC "discount" camera/electronics stores. If you've ever been to NYC you know the ones I am talking about - they are invariably small and stuffed with stuff, have a display window(s) crammed with cameras / binoculars / telescopes / small electronic devices, and are owned and operated by someone who is of middle-eastern descent - a fact that creates an experience that I imagine is much like that of a true middle eastern bazaar.

If you aren't prepared to barter and bargain - (the more you can engage in theatrics or even histrionics the better), you'll get skinned alive. Hell, even if you do, you still might get skinned alive. FYI, I don't mention this as a "negative" per se - it's just the culture of such places.

In any event, there I was just looking in the window - I think I had a Panasonic DMC LX3k on my mind - when, in typical fashion, a "representative" of the store came out to greet me and, eyeing the Olympus E-3, started in telling about the new wide angle lens he had for my camera. And, again in typical fashion, he grabbed my camera and headed into the store where he set in on the counter and proceeded to affix the converter to my 11-22mm lens.

Finishing that, he again grabbed the camera and headed out of the store to the sidewalk where he actually handed me my camera back and said to point it up and take a picture. He then removed the converter and said to repeat the picture making process with just the 11-22mm lens after which he again grabbed he camera and showed me the results on the LCD as he headed back into the store.

At this point I informed him that I wasn't really interested in the converter and that what I was looking for in the window display was the aforementioned LX3k. No problem. He produced one almost immediately but, alas, he only had the silver body not the black body (k) in stock. No problem. He could get one and fast. "How much?", I asked, where upon he quoted a ridiculously low price - so low that the phrase "grey market" came immediately to mind along with an endless procession of extra-cost "options".

You know, options like a battery, a camera case, USB cables - all things that are suppose too be in the box - and. of course, the ever popular extended warranty. The costs of which would undoubtedly drive the price of the camera to that equal to or greater than that to be found at a place like B&H, Adorama and the like. At that point, I managed to withdraw from the proceedings and leave the store but not before he gave it one last try by yelling out even lower prices for the converter and the LX3.

Man, oh man, I was left pining for the good old days of the local camera store.

That said, I should mention that I was previously very pleasantly surprised by a visit to B&H in NYC. The experience I had there, if you can ignore the football field-sized display room, was actually rather delightful. Fast, friendly, relaxed, and very knowledgeable service from a rather chatty (in a good way) counter person that made me feel like I was in one of the aforementioned local camera stores.

B&H ~ NYC • click to embiggen

No hassles, no hustles, and they seemed to have everything photographic ever made in stock. I wasn't rushed in any way as I tried out a few lenses for my Pentax K20D. I was in the store to purchase memory card for the Pentax but I ended up leaving with both that and a 14mm wide angle prime lens for the camera.

What I found amazing was the ease with which the counter person was able to call up my entire online buying history with B&H and from that have a pretty damn good sense of how he should deal with / relate to me - it felt remarkably like we had been dealing with each other personally for quite a long time.

Next time you're in NYC, I would recommend a visit to B&H even if you're just window shopping. And speaking of window shopping, I would also recommend doing so at at least one Times Square camera "bazaar. And don't hesitate for a moment to allow yourself to be "abducted" - everyone should have that experience once in lifetime.