Local Landscapes

Like many landscape photographers we're not roaming the world constantly photographing exotic locations. Much of the time we are working in our own local environment. 





Indeed some of our best selling shots are taken within a few hundred yards of our home.





The nice thing about working close to where you live is being able to photograph through the seasons, and to be able to anticipate great lighting conditions. Travel photography with its new locations is exciting and stimulating but usually you only get one chance at it. Many of us get to photograph these faraway places only in summer but the thought of how they might look at other times of the year is often only a matter of speculation since we won't be there to experience it.








It is worth remembering however that our local landscape, while seeming familiar and often mundane to us, is an "exotic location" for someone who lives in a totally different environment halfway round the world. We may have been there many times, but for someone else its an insight into a different world, and deserves to be photographed accordingly.





Words - D
Images - D & A

Photographic Websites

You may have noticed that there is no longer a link to a certain website here anymore. I was involved with that site for a short while, but that has ended. The site in question now has a relationship with a US retail store. There are links all over the site to that store, including "advisers" from the store who will answer questions. Large amounts of photographic equipment from that store has been sent to the sites owner, who is reviewing it. 

There are I imagine lots of reasons for starting a photographic website. An interest in Photography would be an obvious one. This could involve the process of photography itself or an interest in the gear. Dpreview is the most well-known of these sites, with a huge readership. As I'm sure people are aware the site was bought by Amazon a while ago. The site carries advertising. However it is reasonably discrete. If Amazon own the site, then you would expect it to carry advertising for that company. 

Despite rants from certain fanboy elements of bias towards one company or another, I've always had respect for the Dpreview reviews. If I have bought a camera that they have reviewed, I rarely have any major difference of opinion with them. They are also a good source of news for upcoming equipment releases. They restrict themselves to announcing official releases and don't concern themselves with the constant rumours that circulate the internet, though their forums are constantly full of speculation.

Dpreview is in the SITES YOU MIGHT ALSO ENJOY section here. It is there because its a site I visit frequently. Over the years I have found it useful, and often entertaining. 

The other two sites in that section are from individuals. One is Ken Rockwell. Ken is a bit like Marmite. He seems to polarise opinion. I like his website, I like the fact he is opinionated, I like the fact that he makes mistakes and changes his mind. His site is a mine of information and he obviously spends a lot of time researching and reviewing. Above all he's a good read. Some people seem to think he's either the devil or a money grabbing charlatan with an ego the size of a planet. He may well be, but he's fun and has a passion for photography, two things that go a long way in how I regard someone.

The other is Phillip Bloom. I became interested in his site after starting to work with video enabled DSLR's. Over time his site had become much more commercialised and I get the feeling that its almost becoming his main source of income. However he is still a good read and obviously a seriously good cameraman. His short demo films are often extraordinarily beautiful and again show that passion and commitment.

There are lots of other sites around. Like the rumour sites, which I treat as a guilty pleasure. A bit like chocolate. I know I shouldn't but I just can't help myself. There are also the sites of certain photographic pundits, which I'm less enthusiastic about. Some seem to demonstrate a degree of unwarranted arrogance and self-importance that I find difficult to read. 

A lot of these sites carry advertising. While not particularly keen on this, I'm prepared to tolerate it if means the site wouldn't exist without it. Some sites are a full-time undertaking. For those situations the money for clicks situation is probably the only way to be able to keep these sites running and generate an income for their owners. Whether they are multi-millionaires because of this or just getting by I wouldn't really know. 

As an experiment I tried the Google monetise option here for a couple of days, which involved some small ads appearing on the blog. It certainly didn't generate any income and I wasn't particularly happy about the companies that Google posted. Lets just say that some have reputations for not being entirely honest about the pricing and availability of the products they advertise. I didn't want to be associated with them.

This blog is certainly not my living. I have a full-time job and at the moment things are going well, so I have no need to make money from this. There's a slight cost involved in the fees for the sites that host the images, videos and raw files such as Flickr, Vimeo and my Mac webspace. This is hardly a substantial amount however. 

So I'm only going to be writing here from now on. Pieces that I wrote for my short excursion elsewhere have been removed and are now situated here. There's a list of links below. I like the freedom to write what I want, and I don't want to be involved in anything that compromises that because of other considerations. I don't imagine that I'll ever get sent boxes of equipment to review, and I certainly won't be offering you the opportunity to get "advice" from any retailer. For better or worse this is what it is. It won't make me (us) any money, and it may remain relatively small-scale and little known. It will also be like me, flawed, uncertain and occasionally confused (speak for yourself!! - A & B) but also I would hope, honest and written with passion and commitment for the activity that pays my mortgage and inspires me every day, photography.

D

Links to posts that are now (re) situated in this blog.

depth-of-field

sony-nex

43

sometimes-you-get-reward

can-small-sensors-take-decent-picture

cost-of-photographic-equipment

pro-kit

Small cameras, tripods and f16.

In a article I've referred to before - 
http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/blog/reviews/43-panasonic-gf-1-in-the-landscape.html 
one of my favourite UK landscape photgraphers, David Clapp, talks about using a Panasonic GF1 for landscape work. In the article on his website he used this phrase:-
"I began questioning the point of anything but this camera as the weapon of choice for long distance walks and mountain climbs. Its certainly not a compromise. If I was pushing myself to the limits high on a ridge, I am starting to think that the GF-1, 14-45 and a decent tripod system is all I would ever need."


I've been wondering about doing this for some time. Following on from my piece on the Olympus E-P2 and its kit lens
http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2010/08/taking-stock-3.html 
a couple of days ago, I decided to try the Olympus E-P2 with 14-42mm kit lens under similar circumstances to David. While he used the Scottish Highlands, I had a sunny afternoon in the Cotswolds. I certainly wasn't "pushing myself to the limits high on a ridge" though carrying a tripod around for several hours is something I've not done for a long time & I certainly suffered the consequences after doing it, with a complaining back.





Firstly it must be said that, for a tripod-mounted outfit, the whole thing was very compact. The E-P2 plus kit lens is a very light option. Its also very easy to use. The screen worked well even in sunlight and the 2 sec. self timer worked very nicely in the absence of a cable release. I used f16 throughout the day. There were occasions when I could have used a wider aperture, but I was interested to see the results in full landscape, maximum depth of field mode.


As David Clapp found with the 14-45mm kit lens on the GF1, the optimum aperture on the Olympus 14-42 isn't f16. The results were certainly softer than those obtained at f5.6 & f8. Diffraction takes it toll at these narrow apertures. However this doesn't mean that the images were bad by any means. Some sharpening in Photoshop yielded perfectly acceptable results.
I was however slightly disappointed by the following shots. Both were of subjects close to the camera and would normally be expected to produce very sharp results.








At these web sizes its difficult to see the difference, but the 100% version on my screen needed a fair amount of "smart sharpening" in Photoshop to get the images crisp. 


As a comparison I used the camera hand held at wider apertures later in the day.











The three images above are all very sharp and crisp. Apertures varied from f4 to f11.


I had also taken the Leica X1 with me, as a comparison. The results were similar. I used f14 on the Leica as it has a minimum aperture of f16.


The tripod mounted shots were marginally sharper than the Olympus.





Again there was a slightly disappointing result from a close to the camera subject.





Again I tried the camera in hand held mode at wider apertures.








These were excellent. In the shot immediately above the flowers are incredibly sharp and crisp.


So what did I learn from this?


Yes its possible to use a small m4/3 camera in tripod mounted landscape mode at small apertures and gain acceptable results. There would be no problem in printing these images at large sizes or for magazine reproduction up to A3.However I would only ever do this if I had to. Its certainly not a way of working that I would want to be doing a lot. 


Yes you can obtain better results with wider apertures but certainly the kit lens on the Olympus performs well enough at f16 for it to be considered a usable option.


I've always had positive feelings about the 14-42 Olympus zoom. No its not as sharp as the X1 lens, but a small amount of Photoshop sharpening brings it to comparable levels for reproduction.


Cameras like the E-P2 and X1 are designed to be used hand held at wide apertures and that is where they perform best. There is no advantage in using them on a tripod at small apertures. However if thats what you need to do then they will perform satisfactorily. If I was looking to do what David Clapp does, then I would agree with him that a m4/3 camera with kit zoom is perfectly capable of doing the job.


For me, its not something that I would do very often, if at all these days. Yes I've carried medium format film cameras, lenses and a tripod up mountain slopes, but not for many years. These days, with digital cameras and their superb higher ISO performance, its often not necessary, and for me I only use a tripod when light levels are so low that hand holding the camera is impossible.


A useful experience and one that adds to my knowledge of what two of my cameras are capable of. 


Words - D
Images - D & A

Change of direction?

Currently we are preparing an article on gear websites with particular reference to one we were involved with. It has made us think seriously about where we are going with this blog. We have tended recently to concentrate on the equipment side of things. Mostly out of a reluctance to get involved in the minefield of photographic philosophy and aesthetics. 

We also dislike pretension, and are careful to avoid any notion of lecturing. However we feel that there are probably enough places where you can get a comparison of cameras and lenses and we are intending to change the emphasis more towards what we were trying to achieve, how successful we thought we were and the many other things that drive our work and our passion. We won't be ignoring the equipment that we use, but recent experiences have left a bad taste in the mouth of one of us specifically in regard to an almost exclusive concentration on the means of producing pictures, rather than the pictures themselves. 

Even we sometimes loose sight of the fact that its the photographs that really matter and not the cameras and lenses. We have been through an 18-month period of enormous change on the equipment front, with a gradual change from a DSLR centred workflow to a way of working that has involved smaller, lighter and simpler cameras. This has tended to dominate our thinking and has led to a lack of emphasis on what is really important to us, the creation of images. We also feel that we have been up a few blind alleys recently, including the unpleasant experience for one of us of getting involved with a venture that we now feel ashamed to have been associated with.

We are resolved to return more to the things we love, our work, our passion, our commitment to the second great love of our lives - photography.

Art? Junk?

I've got a thing about Holgas, Lomos, Dianas, Lensbaby's etc. I think they're junk, I think what they produce is junk. If you want to use one as a bit of fun, then go ahead. Its not what I would consider as having a good time but who am I to stop you?


What really gets my blood pressure going is that certain people try to describe their blurred, out of focus, faulty mistakes as "art". This verges on the criminal. The idea that these pathetic attempts to justify incompetence, lack of imagination and creativity as artistic beggars belief. 


I'm currently engaged in a forum debate with a "fine artist" (his description, not mine) who seems to think that I'm some kind of Phillistine because I can't appreciate the "uniqueness of these cameras in their abilities to communicate the artists vision" What is this rubbish? Is there a manual somewhere that gives you a list of meaningless phrases like this with which to justify your ineptitude?


You could I suppose attempt to play Sketches of Spain on a vuvuzela and call it art. Indeed these "fine artists" seem to think that any of their activities can be considered "art". We already have to put up with the likes of Tracey Emin, and I've always wondered if the amount of money that she earns is enough to compensate for the ridicule and derision that she gets. 


Of course if you don't appreciate junk art, you're a moron, a neaderthal, or an Archie Bunker as my "fine artist" described me. Well actually its these "fine artists" themselves who are the morons and the neanderthals. Indeed since cavemen (and women) were producing works of art far superior in their execution, vision and social relevance than anything these purveyors of the ordinary can come up with, they are probably not even at that level.


In the film of Jules Feiffers Little Murders Elliot Gould plays a depressed apathetic photographer who ends up taking pictures of dog turds. His work becomes the height of artistic chic and he is celebrated by the "art elite". 


Satires like this demonstrate the pretension, the embracing of the perverse and shocking, and the glorification of the ugly that dominates much of what passes for art these days. We have "artists" too concerned about making a reputation (and making money) to even make any pretence about actually learning any skills and critics too frightened about being seen as old-fashioned or "fuddy-duddys" to actually exercise any judgement about what is put before them.


The sickening thing is that there are actually people who take this nonsense seriously. They actually seem to believe that taking pictures on a useless piece of equipment somehow turns them from a humble photographer into an artist. Just what level of self-delusion do you have to operate on to believe this? What incredibly small circle of fantasists do you inhabit that actually gives your "work" the seal of approval? Does a little voice ever trouble these people in the middle of the night? Do they ever have the slightest concern that what they are producing and attempting to justify is actually what the rest of the world thinks it is? 


Many of the people who promote this "grunge photography" get very defensive and aggressive in their reaction to criticism of their efforts. Doesn't this indicate that somewhere lurking in their brains there is a notion that they have something that needs defending? When the vast majority of people who look at "images" created by these worthless pieces of junk think of them as indicating that the camera is in dire need of repair, isn't there a message there? Looks like a duck, walks like a duck etc.


Much of what is presented to us as "artistic" these days is unfortunately treated with contempt and incredulity, as a result of this perverse point of view. In the rush of the untalented to get their noses in the trough, I wonder how many genuine creative people with important things to show us, get trampled and left by the wayside? 

The Charlie Waite Video and the use of "alternative" cameras

Multi image stitched panorama using Olympus E-P2 and 14-42mm kit lens.

I haven't always been the greatest fan of Charlie Waite. I don't particularly like square images of the landscape, I really hate grad. filters and I think landscape photography has not been well served by what I would describe as his 1980's coffee table book style. Medium format film cameras, F22, tripod mounted, lots of filters etc. He also has a tendency to lecture and some of his comments about photography and photographers have struck me as being in the "If you don't do it like I do, then its rubbish" vein.

Having said that, he's always struck me as being a nice bloke. I had pictures with his library, Landscape Only, many years ago and there are quite a few calendars and books which feature images from both of us, back in the days when I was producing coffee table book images with medium format film cameras and grad. filters!!

Lately he seems to have been re-inventing himself, with a more flexible approach, and he's suddenly become a lot more fun! I was chuckling away watching his video. The sight of him lying on the floor with a compact camera taking pictures of skateboarders was priceless and not something I would have expected to see. His enthusiastic promotion of small and compact cameras as a serious photographic tool, and the sense of fun and liberation that he showed using them was a joy to watch. Often when you read about, or watch photographers using what might be described as

"non-professional" gear, you often get the impression that the "serious" gear is just around the corner. In this case I didn't get that feeling. He may well have had a Hassleblad lurking just out of the camera shot, but it seemed like he didn't.

Leica X1

After first watching his video a few days ago, I have been thinking very seriously about how I am using these "alternative" cameras. Regular readers will know how the shedding of weight and bulk from the process of creating photographs has been a regular and dominant theme of this blog. However I'm now not convinced that I've fully embraced what I might describe as a "Small Camera Philosophy" It seemed to me that, unlikely as I would have once thought it, Charlie Waite was adapting to the concept of the "compact camera" much better than I was. I suddenly realised that by using systems like m4/3, Samsung NX10, Leica X1 etc. that I was just trying to come up with a smaller lighter DSLR system, and not fully appreciate the benefits and freedoms that these alternative systems can bring.

To give an example. I've written in very complimentary terms about the image quality of the X1. However its very rare that I will take it out on its own. I always have my brain in a "cover all bases" mode. What if the "next great shot" needs a telephoto and I don't have one with me? The assumption is that the pictures are "out there" somewhere and need capturing rather than being inside my creative mind. I've written before about the experience of destroying two of my cameras and being left for a weeks shooting on the French Riviera with one camera and a standard lens. I wrote about how this was one of the most pleasurable and liberating experiences of my photographic life. However I seem to have largely ignored what that was telling me.

Leica X1

It did seem to me that Charlie Waite looked comfortable and at ease with the medium he was using. That he was enjoying the freedom that using these cameras brought. He was taking advantage of the simplicity, the speed and the reduced options that they provided. He looked happy! Thinking back to some of my most pleasurable photographic excursions I was struck by how often they were defined by the fact that I was using minimal gear. The fact that I earn my living from photography does mean that I have, to a certain extent, to think about giving myself as many options as possible. However I am determined to go out more often with a one lens kit. If that happens to be just a prime lens then thats fine. Should be fun.

Olympus E-P2 Lumix 20mm f1.7

Words - D

Images - D & A

Pembrokeshire - Leica M9

Unfortunately due to the dust spot problem with the sensor, the M9 was used more sparingly than we would have liked, during our recent trip to the Pembrokeshire coast in West Wales. We had wonderful deep blue skies and the thought of cloning out dust spots from the images was not appealing. Due to a problem at the company that cleans our sensors, Calumet, they are unable to do this until next week, so we had to use the Leica with its current proliferation of spots.


As a coastal National Park, it has truly breathtaking scenery, much of which is only accessible by foot. Consequently we spent much of the time walking. Our decision to take only light, non-DSLR cameras and lenses proved the right decision.





The two pictures above were taken around Wooltack point, on the Marloes peninsula. The cliffs are very high and care needed to be taken as there were many sheer drops. The temptation to get just a little bit further forward to get the shot had to be resisted!





The ponies shot is one of our favourites from the whole trip. We happened upon them "posing" in this group. Couldn't have really been better if we had placed them there ourselves. They kept this grouping until we had taken the pictures we wanted & then they drifted away.





The final picture was a test shot taken with our 45 year old 135mm F4 Tele-Elmar lens. This is a lovely, though heavy, lens. It is pretty difficult to focus, because of the small size of the 135mm frame in the M9's viewfinder. If focusing on a distant landscape, which is where its very useful, it can be difficult to find something suitable for the rangefinder focusing. Consequently we tend to use the smallest aperture we can, so that we can be sure that we have our subject in focus.


Considering its age we are always amazed by the sharpness of this lens. A real bargain.

Gower and the Mumbles

We have just returned from a stock photography shoot in the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park in West Wales. On the way we stopped off at the Gower Peninsula and The Mumbles near Swansea. The light was very flat to begin with, so we used the Samsung NX10 for its warm high contrast jpgs.



On a Gower beach we found beautiful red and pink wild flowers amongst the sand dunes and in the absence of strong sunlight, concentrated on these using shallow depth of field.





The Samsung NX10 and the three lenses currently available, produce great richly coloured images that can be very "over the top" in bright sunny conditions, but can give a real lift to images taken on dull days. It is possible of course to tweak the jpg settings on most cameras, but we have never found anything approaching the Samsung for such intense colour saturation.


The requirement to produce commercial images that people find attractive and want to publish is very much the prime consideration in travel and landscape photography. Some people seem to object to photographs that do this. Back in the days of film there was a split between users of films like Fuji Velvia and Kodak Panther (A very short-lived yet beautiful film) and other less saturated emulsions. There was some notion of "photographic purity" that was often cited as a reason to use more "conservative" films such as Fuji Provia.


The truth of course was that no film was ever 100% "accurate" In the same way that no sensor in a digital camera reproduces "reality" Considering that we all see colour in a different way, there's not a lot of point to this anyway. The primary consideration with us is, have we produced an image that we are happy with? Also do we think that others might like it too and be prepared to pay to use it? Whether other photographers think that we over-saturate images or use too much photoshop manipulation, is not really of any concern to us. It makes as much sense as criticism of photographers such as Ansel Adams who worked out elaborate systems of exposure and development and used extensive "burning and dodging" techniques to produce his beautiful, yet often "unrealistic" images.


Whatever your photographic "philosophy" or personal preferences there is no "right" or "wrong" way to produce an image. Thankfully we have a wide variety of ways of taking and producing images, and choice and experimentation is always preferable to uniformity.


Our experience of the world through our eyes (the best lenses ever produced), is 3D, capable of incredible dynamic range and colour differentiation. The world is full of intense saturated colour, and it is often very difficult to produce a photographic image that does it justice.


Returning to the Welsh trip, the clouds did eventually lift late in the day and we able to get some dramatic shots of the Gower (Top Image) and the Mumbles Lighthouse (Below)


D & A

Is this the most beautiful camera ever made?

This is our 2nd. E-P2. The first, a black one, was sold back in the winter to help towards the cost of the Leica M9. At the time it was something we regretted, as we enjoyed the camera very much. Originally this silver version, similar to the E-P1 was not available in the UK. When it was announced that it was going to be released here, we knew we couldn't resist!

There are lots of comments on the E-P2 regarding our previous example at http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympus%20E-P2 when it was used extensively.

The E-P2 demonstrates all the strengths of weaknesses of m4/3 as a format. Small, light, good IQ, "difficult" dynamic range etc. However, the recent work we carried out has improved the latter enormously. On the E-P2 shooting at the "native" ISO 200 and "underexposing" by 1/3 to 1 stop helps prevent the burning out of highlights as well as increasing colour saturation. All m4/3 cameras we have used have a tendency to overexpose anyway. We find that dialling back from the meter readings gives much more satisfactory results.

The other great advantage is the VF-2. The wonderful Electronic Viewfinder from Olympus. After using the EVF on the GH1 for a while, then coming back to this we appreciate just how good it is. The shooting position that it creates is also a pleasure to use. Some people find it difficult, but we find it very stable. In general this is a great camera from a handling point of view.

A brief word on lenses. It is possible to manually focus with the VF-2 viewfinder without going into the magnification options, which on the E-P2 are a bit of a pain with lots of button pushing. We tried it with some fast lenses, f1.2 and f1.7 and found our focusing spot on. Makes life a lot easier on that front. With the benefit of in camera Image Stabilisation this makes it a real manual focus/legacy lens friendly camera.

In terms of zoom and autofocus lenses, we are planning to use the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 which performs really well with this camera. We also really like the 14-42mm kit zoom.

We always have. http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/search/label/Olympus%2014-42%20zoom.%20m4%2F3 It never gets much attention and always seems to get compared unfavourably to the Panasonic 14-45mm. We think people should "stick up" for this lens more. Its really very good. Incredibly light, with little CA and pretty sharp. Its always worth remembering that many people who buy m4/3 cameras wont use anything other than the "kit" lens. The manufacturers are aware of this and tend to make some decent examples. This lens and the Panasonic 14-45 are good examples of a "kit zoom" as indeed are the Samsung 18-55mm for the NX10. We've also liked the 18-55VR that Nikon produce. The glaring exception to this is Canons appalling 18-55mm's. All of them are dreadful.

Once more we shall go into raptures about the Zuiko ED 40-150mm f4-5.6. Olympus 4/3 lens. We have always rated this lens very highly. It deserves some sort of award for value for money. Having sold our previous example as part of a kit, we have now bought our third one! The price for this little gem is gradually creeping up. Maybe people are catching on. However we found a brand new unboxed one on ebay for the princely sum of £89.00 and bought the Olympus 4/3 to m4/3 adapter for it. Total cost of these was less than the current price for a boxed version of the lens. We can't say enough times how good this lens is. Its really sharp, even wide open. Yes its slow, but working outdoors in the sunlight it produces beautiful results. Its way better than the Panasonic 45-200. We know nobody will believe us, but we get results comparable to the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 monster that we used to carry around.

So good news all round. But what happened to the original question? Is this the most beautiful camera ever made? Does that really matter? Should it matter?

There will be no apologies here for taking pleasure in good camera design. Obviously the most important considerations when we buy and use a camera are does it do what we want? and does it deliver in terms of results? Having established that the E-P2 does both of those things, we take great pleasure in using this beautiful little silver machine. While not "an electric line to your Zodiac sign" it is the nicest looking and handling camera we have ever used. The weight and feel are just perfect and the design is simply stunning. There's a bit too much button pushing for our liking but overall its a delight. Whether its the most beautiful camera ever made is down to personal taste, but surely few would argue that its not one of the best.

The last year has seen a steady and constant downsizing in terms of our camera equipment. A year ago a Nikon D3X, a Canon 5D MKII + Battery Grip and some monster lenses were in everyday use. Currently the Canon 550D is our largest camera and the Leica M9 our heaviest. The E-P2 sits alongside our GH1, NX10 and X1 in the AF small camera section. This is increasing alarmingly! Some of the kit we use is so small that we don't notice its rapid expansion.

As serious sufferers from "Small Camera Syndrome"

http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/2010/06/scs.html we value our long term fitness and ability to walk without pain. We also believe that the more we enjoy the process of photography and take pleasure in the equipment we own, the better our results. No the E-P2 isn't going to produce images as good as a Leica M9 or Nikon D3X, but as the man said, "The best camera in the world is the one you have with you" The E-P2 will be that camera an awful lot in the future.

London Colour

SCS

Reprinted by kind permission of:-

The University of Worcestershire, Department of Irrelevant Yet Lucrative Studies.

Excerpts from the Paper "Illnesses associated with Photography" by Justin Cash and R.U.Serious, Senior Lecturers in Psychosomatic Media Disorders ©2009

S.C.S or Small Camera Syndrome is an obsession with small cameras. Sufferers from this condition develop an uncontrollable desire to sell their cumbersome, oversized and overcomplicated DSLR's (invariably black) and replace them with ever smaller and lighter alternatives. Dr. Hans Full (Ph.D, C.A, I.Q) of Solms University identified this pattern of behaviour in the 1930's. He saw it as an irrational desire to enjoy photography, without the need to carry large quantities of equipment in ever expanding camera bags.

Many of those afflicted with the disease group together in small, semi-religious sects on the internet. Long-term sufferers promote therapeutic alternatives via a network of self-help organisations such as Rangefinders Anonymous and Photographies Sans Douleurs Dorsales.

Many have tried to explain this. Dr. M. Oron of the MCS (Macho Camera Society) in his paper MInes bigger than yours (2009) said "While the disease is understandable for women and children, it is particularly disturbing for men. They seem to loose their masculinity by rejecting the norms of photographic society and in seeking to return to a simpler, less complicated way of taking pictures, put themselves into conflict with their peers."

The I.I.G.M.K.I.B (If its got more knobs its better) group, have taken an aggressive stance towards those who state that S.C.S is not in fact an illness, but an enlightened way of dealing with the complex issues of camera kit. In their recent publications, Flak Jackets and Telephotos and Big lenses: More fun than a Gun! They have aroused controversy by promoting the view that sufferers of S.C.S are actually a subversive organisation seeking to erode the long established traditions of photographic equipment purchasing. Their car bumper stickers proclaiming "Stand back! I've got a 300MM f2.8 and I'm going to use it!" have given rise to protest demonstrations in many towns and cities.

P. Sonic and Sam Sung authors of Pictures from my Pocket and Small is Special have taken the line that S.C.S is actually a healthy and desirable development. "In seeking to distance themselves from the ontological zeitgeist of the DSLR proliferation of recent years, so called S.C.S sufferers are merely responding to the negative discombobulation and persnicketiness (sic) of self-describing real photographers and offer a quasi-theological solution to this dilemma based on a reaction to the tautological imperatives promoted by those who in their struggle for consumerist producerism domination, merely encourage a guerilla type reverse proportionality response to the problem. In opposition to those who erroneously justify their error by misquoting the works of Marshall Mcluhan, which, as should be obvious, is an absurdly inappropriate understanding of this argument, we assert that SCS, far from being an illness, is a mature and innovative response to the non-ethical yet persuasive dominant mores prevalent in todays aquisition led society ."

The N.C.F.M.A.I.S (National Centre for meaningless and irrelevant statistics) have identified S.C.S as being on the increase. From a small but consistent population of sufferers, prior to 2009, the occurrence of the syndrome has risen dramatically in the last two years. Many see this as a direct consequence of easy to obtain products flooding in from manufacturers in the far east. Despite the efforts of organisations such as B.C.R International (Big Cameras Rule) and P.W.O.C.A.N.A.T.O.R.P (People who own Canons or Nikons are the only real photographers) to point out the dangers of these imports, including the notorious pink hybrid, more and more photographers are becoming addicted to these products.

References

1. Dr. Hans Full (1932-02-01) Small Camera Syndrome

2. Dr. M. Oron (2009-11-07). Mines bigger than yours

3. I.I.G.M.K.I.B group (2009-11-16). Flak Jackets and Telephotos. Big lenses: More fun than a Gun!

4. P. Sonic and Sam Sung (2009-08-08) Pictures from my Pocket. Small is Special.

5. N.C.F.M.A.I.S (2009-12-10). Analysis of Diseases related to Camera Purchasing. 2008-2009.

6. P.W.O.C.A.N.A.T.O.R.P (2009-11-21). Small Cameras Suck.