SOUNDIMAGEPLUS

2026-03-16T13:31:00.000+00:00

You might thing thast using a smartphone for professional photography was easy. After all these are point and shoot 'happy snapper' cameras, right? However if you are looking for the best quality you get, things are a bit more complicated.

Firstly you have a number of software packages to sort out. You can use the apple built in camera app, but that doesn't give you many creative options. If you want to set shutter speed, ISO and indeed manual focus then you will need a different app. There are excellent apps. like Halide, Pro Camera, Reeflex, Beastgrip, Moment, Reef Colour, Bayer Cam (for shooting genuine raw files), 65 x 24 (For shooting X-Pan size panoramas). Then there are video apps. of which Blackmagic and Filmic Pro are the best. I use them all and ofter switch between them. Finally a special mention for Adobe's new offering Indigo which bypasses the Apple software complete and creates it's own raw .dng files. You only get 12MP from this app. but it is very good indeed.

Then there are the add on lenses. These have been around for a while, but they were always rubbush. However things have now improved dramatically with great options from Reeflex, Moment, Beastgrip and Neewer. These require using screw in mounts via a smartphone case or adapters. I would briefly mention some instances where you get a real bonus. Firstly, I'm not convinced by the Apple lens set up. Having the basic lens as a 24mm equivalent strikes me as crazy, It's too wide. If you want to use the 2x lens, which is closer to a 'standard' lens, it's a crop and you only get 12MP. However I have a reeflex 2x add on lens, whuch when fixed to the front of the main wide 24mm equivalent lens gives a 48mm lens equivalent utilising the full 48MP of the apple lens.

Another great Reeflex lens is the 240.It was designed to double the length of the 120mm equivalent on the Apple 16 series. However it works brilliantly on the 17 Pro Max 100mm lens and gives an insanely sharp 200mm. Now if you change to the 8x crop setting you get an amazing 400mm f/2.8 (35mm eqivalent) and yes it works.

Finally there are a lot of posts about the amazing chinese phones. Huawei, Oppo, Vivo and Xiaomi. Now these might look impressive but there are some problems. Firstly, where do you buy one? There are very few places where these are available for Europe and the USA. And personally I'm not interested in buying a £1000+ smartphone on ebay. And secondly if you want extras, lenses cages,grips etc. you have to move to China to get those. I'm happy with my iphones, because I get none of those problems.

Why do I use an iphone for my library work.

2026-01-06T23:32:00.001+00:00

As long time readers will know, I make my living from shooting and selling stock library images. Below are some samples of what I take shot on iphones.

All of the above were shot in the past couple of weeks. So the reasons are -

The weight and size are much easier on my back, which has become painful after years of carrying around heavy camera systems.
When you compare ny iPHONE 17 Pro Max to the cost of a similar camera / lens combination the iPHONE has a serious cost benefit.
Few people take any notice of me when I use my iPHONE, since I'm just like everybody else.
Apple have now got their 48MP images to an incredible quality level.
This even includes some great results in low light.
The images off the phone are very flexible for editing in photoshop. I can make some serious adjustments without any break up of the image.
I mainly shoot outdoors in good light and the depth of field I can get with the small sensor is very useful for what I do.
I actually love the look of the images. After I have edited them I can achieve an 'almost film' look and certainly a comparable result to a DSLR or mirrorless camera.
All the developments in photographic technology seems to be mainly concentrated on smartphones. The developments in the last couple of years are simply amazing.
I actually enjoy shooting on my iPHONE 17 Pro Max more than my 'proper' cameras. It is more fun.
Some picture libraries that previously refused my smartphone images now accept them no problem.

I'm now a professional iphone photographer.

2025-12-11T13:46:00.000+00:00

Ever since I bought an iPHONE 17 pro max a couple of months ago, I've used little else. There are lots of reasons for this

I'm fed up carrying around cameras and lenses
The quality of images from the iPhone 17 Pro Max is the equal of my DSLR and mirrorless cameras.
The 'all in one' capacity of the phone saves a lot of messing about changing lenses.
I seem to have become more creative with the iPhone and I'm actually enjoying my photography much more.
The picture libraries I contribute too are now happy to take iPhone images when they didsn't before.
The whole system is lighter, easier to use and yes cheaper than what I've been using up to now.

So, there will be some who still maintain that 'proper' cameras will still do a better job. But where does that lead? If you are really committed to the best image quality it's possible to get then there is a $106,000 10x8 digital back. So remortgate the house, get one pf those and you need never experience anyone questioning your image quality again!! We all make compromises with what we use for taking pictures, in terms of price, functionality and results. It is after all the quality of the image that is the important thing after all. However I can say the the three main lenses on the iPhone 17 Pro Max are amongst the best I've ever used. And yes I'm well aware the the 48 MP images involve a lot of digital 'jiggery pokery' but that really doesn't matter. (It really doesn't)

Apple have now developed their technology to a very sophisticated level. I can now, with the addition of a supplementary lens take images from (At 35mm 'equivalents) 13mm f/1.8 to 400mm f/2.8. Now just imagine what a dent in your wallet (and your back!!) buying and carrying lenses like that would entail.

From now on I've decided to start up this blog again and concentrate 100% on iPhone photography. I have had a bit of a learning curve over the past couple of months and thought I would share my experiences, So if you are interested in this, I'll see you soon.

Sony RX1R III - They are joking right?

2025-07-25T13:19:00.003+01:00

I really thought that Sony would be a welcome addition to the photographic universe. They seemed to be interested in photographers opinions and I got quizzed by them at a trade show some years ago. However they now seem to have completely lost the plot. Particularly with their pricing. They now seem to think that they are Leica and they have been charging ridiculous prices for their ugly nasty plastic output. I HATE the look of Sony's current cameras. Particularly their compacts. About as much class as a Nissan Micra.

The price in the US is $5100. $5100 !!!!!!!! OK so in the US you have these ridiculous tariffs. (And if you voted for Trump - It serves you right!!) For a plastic piece of crap that will probably fall to bits in a couple of years. And it looks like one of those compact landfill cameras that were so popular in the past. Plus everybody you pass using this thing will probably go 'Ahhhh what a shame they can't afford a proper camera)

I have a Fuji X100VI and that's a work of art. In my opinion it looks better than a Leica. And with the two conversion lenses I have it's far more versatile. I couldn't care less that the Sony has got 61M pixels, I can easily get that with my Fuji by using Photoshops super resolution. I guess people will buy them. Looks like the kind of camera that David Beckham would buy. As I wrote in the title - They are joking right?

David Taylor Hughes 27/07/2025

The unnecessary end of the DSLR.

2025-02-17T13:04:00.004+00:00

So it's finally happened. The camera manufacturers, despite having derided them when they first came out are now extolling the virtues of Mirrorless cameras. And consequently have ceased making DSLR's. (so yesterday!!) I believe this is sad and completely unnecessary. So what is my reaction to this? I've sold the majority of my mirrorless cameras, bought myself another Nikon Df (I now have two, black and silver) and purchased a brand new Pentax K1 Mk II. So why have I done this? Well there are several reasons for this.

I'm fed up with the ridiculous battery life of mirrorless cameras.
I like my cameras to be for photography. If I do shoot video I use my iPHONE 16 plus. It's actually way better than most mirrorless cameras I've owned and the fact that people are shooting movies and TV programmes on iPHONES shows just how good they are.
I'm not a fan of the crap they put in mirrorless cameras these days. Focus points jumping all the screen, basically deciding what to focus on, rather than me. Plus all this nonsense about animal, car, plane etc. recognition. I want to control my camera, not let it control me.
The prices of mirrorless cameras are ridiculous and it seems camera manufacturers want us to buy a whole new set of lenses as well.
For example, I recently used a Nikon Zf. I found out very quickly that Nikons Z lenses are no better than Nikon F lenses and in many cases are worse.
The sheer complication of mirrorless cameras is very off putting and seems to be getting worse.
My experience with DSLR's has resulted in sharper better looking images. The Df's are legendary for image quality and the sensor on the K1 Mk II is mind bogglingly sharp.
I am, of course, used to the SLR Format. I started on film SLR's and that's what I like using. They are quicker to start up and I don't have to put up with EVF's. I've certainly never found one I like.

Now I'm not the only one to think this. Many other professionals are intent on using their DSLR's and like me are buying the ones that are still available, though when the stock of DSLR's runs out, we won't have that choice any more.

All of this reminds me of when record companies persuaded us to buy CD's rather than vinyl. And now look what's happened, CD's have replaced by streaming and vinyl is making a significant comeback. Now once DSLR's completely disappear. I suspect that they will never come back. But by then smartphones will probably be so good that we won't need mirrorless cameras anyway.

David Taylor Hughes Feb17th. 2025

Toddington Station Gloucestershire and Warwickshire heritage railway, Co...

2024-05-29T14:55:00.002+01:00

Shot on iPHONE 13

GUILD SURFLINER ELECTRIC GUITAR

2023-03-18T10:36:00.000+00:00

The Guild Surfliner is a retro designed affordable guitar by one of the classic companies. Guild have been making superb instruments since the early 1950's and are particularly known for their acoustics and semi acoustics. However in the past they did make this.

This is the S-200 T-Bird, so compared to this the Surfliner is relatively conventional!!

I like the Surfliner, I think it looks great and it certainly sounds great. There are three switches that turn on each of the pickups, giving the possibility of 7 different combinations, so it's pretty versatile. It does have a pretty chunky neck, which is not something I particularly like, but I seem to get round it well enough.

Now this is my first ever Guild guitar and I really like the unusual design. There are a lot of guitars like this appearing these days and I think that is a good thing, since everything doesn't have to be based on those early 50's Fenders and Gibsons.

As to the sound. As with the Squier Paranormal Supersonic I recorded an album with it.

So overall this is a success I think. Guild have made a relatively cheap guitar that has a lot of style and a nice set of tonal variation. For around £340 you get a very well made instrument that looks good, sounds good and plays good. Whats not to like?

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

THE FENDER SQUIER PARANORMAL SUPERSONIC GUITAR

2023-03-05T14:18:00.003+00:00

This is the Fender Squier Paranormal Series Supersonic guitar. Reverse headstock and all certainly one of the more bizarre guitar shapes ever. Now you are going to love this design or hate it. I bought it, so it's obvious that I love it. It is pretty much a left handed guitar flipped around. And it's part of the Paranormal series, which is Fender's idea of guitars with a difference. For me this is a good thing as guitar design hasn't really moved on from the 1950's.

It looks good, it plays good and it sounds good as far as I'm concerned and it feels very different when I'm using it. It also has two things that add to that difference. It's a short scale guitar and it has a very narrow neck. I have small hands and fingers so that appeals to me. It also has no tone controls. The two knobs are volume controls for eack pickup.

Now I decided to give it a good workout by recording an album with it.

As you can hear I use a lot of effects, but there are some sections with a clean sound. I am somewhat different in how I approach electric guitar. I've been playing the instrument for 60 years. After all that time I've not developed any particular preferences. I am happy using a rosewood or maple neck, using humbuckers, P 90's or single coil pickups. I've used heavy and light guitars, Fenders, Gibsons, Gretch, Guild and even put together a 'Partscaster'. Using different types of guitars and pickups gives me different sounds, but when the pedals and effects get turned on, everything pretty much sounds the same.

I'm always amused when one those YouTube reviews talks about 'tones' they then switch on some fuzz/overdrive that completely obliterates any subtle differences. I'm afraid I'm one of those who thinks that wood in an electric guitars makes no difference whatsoever. This was further demonstrated to me by someone who made a strat type guitar out of concrete. It sounded exactly like a strat. I also don't think the pickups make much difference either, apart from volume and depth. Though that can be fixed by making a few adjustments on an amp or via a mixer. I would however like to make it clear that acoustic guitars are completely different. These are stand alone musical instruments and don't use the somewhat crude ways to get an electric guitar to make a sound.

As to the music, this is my take on fusion music, coming from a rock background rather than jazz. I also believe in total improvisation and have no idea what I'm going to do when I sit down to create some music. Hopefully some might find it interesting, however I am aware that some might consider it complete rubbish! I can understand that and I do acknowledge that it is an acquired taste!!!

A final word on the Supersonic. That is also an acquired taste and it certainly is an opinion splitter. If possible try one out and if you can't, buy it from dealer where you can return it. I'm going to have a lot of fun with mine, but that's my personal taste. Not everybody wants to use something that different.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

My new (old) camera. The Nikon Df

2023-03-03T14:40:00.001+00:00

I've had this on off relationship with the Nikon Df. This is the 3rd. one I've bought. I sold the first two and always regretted it. It is a 16MP full frame camera and for me has the sharpest images of any Nikon camera I've used. It never got a good press when it was released, which I really didn't understand because of that wonderful image quality. 16MP really doesn't matter as when run through Photoshops Super Resolution function the image quality is still outstanding.

It is of course a DSLR, a soon to be extinct kind of camera,which is sad to see. I see no reason to make every camera mirrorless personally as I like using DSLR's, but I fear I am in the minority. The whole DSLR / F mount lens range seems to be phased out as far as Nikon is concerned is not a move to better cameras as far as I'm concerned And while the Z9 is a fabulous camera, there are those of us who still love that DSLR 'clunk'.

Regarding the Df it seems however that it is still valued by many photographers. You have to pay £1000+ to get one of these S/H, which is what I paid for the above camera. However it had a very low shutter count and looks mint, ao I'm hoping it will keep going for a while. I love the non electronic viewfinder and the phenomenal battery life. However there are a couple of issues.

The grip is awful. However as you can see I have a couple of grips for the camera, which I managed to hunt down on the internet. So now it handles fine. Another problem is that the info. bar in the viewfinder doesn't work great in bright sunshine, as it's very difficult to see. Yesterday I was working with the voigtlander 90mm f/2.8 sl ii-s apo-skopar nikon f mount lens and using the Nikon green dot manual focusing method had some problems. I did get great results, but it wasn't easy.

It is every camera manufacturers interest to keep us buying new cameras and not keep using the old stuff. However too often we miss the quality that some older cameras give is and newer is not always better. Nikon have never released a Df2 and I don't think they ever will. Their retro offering is now the Nikon Z fc. Now I have one of those as well (post coming soon) and it's a fabulous camera with a number of third party retro lenses which are great fun to use.

The Df is, as far as Nikon are concerned redundant, partly based on the undeserved negative reviews it got. Once bitten twice shy. However the camera obviously has it's fans because of it's high S/H price. And I am definitely one of those. It's (mostly) fun to use and I'm always blown away by the superb images it produces. (It's great in low light as well) So I'm planning to keep this one.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

The rebirth of the offset guitar - Fender Jazzmaster clone from Harley Benton, a Guild Surfliner and a Squier (by Fender) Starcaster.

2023-02-28T12:05:00.002+00:00

First of all an explanation of why it's taken so long for me to post again. As you may have guessed there have been some family issues, involving doctors and hospitals. Nothing life threatening but complicated and time consuming. However I now feel able to resume the blog and I will be posting again on photography and music, my two passions in life.

Firstly a couple of links to some new music I have produced -

https://soundcloud.com/david-taylor-hughes/sets/make-a-note

https://soundcloud.com/david-taylor-hughes/sets/the-last-chord

Above are the last three guitars I have bought. You may be aware they are all 'offset' guitars. i.e. non symmetrical. They seem to be in vogue currently and are usually derived from earlier (and usually not very popular) designs. Left to right in the top pictures are a Fender Jazzmaster clone from Harley Benton, a Guild Surfliner and a Squier (by Fender) Starcaster.

Offset guitars are not everybody's first choice. I mostly like them myself, with some exceptions. I'm not a fan of Gibson Firebirds or Explorers for example, as I find them very difficult to play. But generally I find them intriguing and something different. As to the three guitars above there is a specific advantage, they are cheap!!!! All three cost me less than £1000, letting me add to my small (but perfectly formed) guitar collection. This of course means I have more sound choices for my library music.

I am not going to do any kind of review because there are lots out there. And the last thing you probably want is me talking to camera, playing the same old licks and doing sample tones which usually means turning on some fuzz box and thrashing away for several minutes!!

What I would say is that for relatively cheap guitars they look good, play good aand sound good. These days with the lack of musical instrument shops, it's becoming more and more difficult to try guitars out. Buying stuff online is certainly more convenient and often cheaper, but you never know what you are going to get. In fact I had to do some fret smoothing on the 'Jazzmaster', but it only took me ½ hour and now it feels just fine.

New guitars always tend to 'freshen up' my playing and give me a different perspective on what I'm playing and I'm particularly impressed by the Starcaster as it's a joy to play. So hopefully these guitars will add some new ideas and new pleasures to my playing.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Things are changing

2022-07-03T12:49:00.003+01:00

I haven't posted for over three months. The main reason is that my wife has had some injury problems and I have been looking after her. The secondary reason is that I have been changing some things around regarding my photography equipment. And the main reason for that is I am shooting a lot more video. This is obviously the way things are going. With the constant improvement in internet speed, computers and phones it is now much more possible to publish video content without the viewing platforms grinding to a halt. So, with some exceptions, my gear reflects that change. With the purchase of an an iPhone 13 Pro and a Panasonic Lumix GH6 I now have the capability to shoot high quality footage. Plus switching to using Final Cut Pro on an M chip Macbook editing does not take so long.

So here's an example shot with the iPhone 13 using the Filmic Pro app. in Panoramic wide screen Cinematic mode. As you can see the quality is terrific. This was also shot hand held, so you can see just how good the stabilisation is. All from something that I can keep in my pocket.

While the video has definitely improved on the latest iPhone, the stills have remained pretty much the same. There is now an Apple raw format, which marginally improves things, but on the whole the stills output is OK, but nothing more than that. it seems that the small sensor is more suitable for video.

More later.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Harley Benton TE-20HH SBK Standard Series guitar. AMAZING value.

2022-04-01T11:21:00.003+01:00

The Harley Benton TE-20HH SBK Standard Series guitar is amazing. It costs £82 and can be bought here - https://www.thomann.de/gb/harley_benton_te_20hh_sbk_standard_series.htm

Firstly it looks great. It's all matt black, including the neck and it has a really nice tortoiseshell scratchplate. Secondly and most important, it plays great and sounds great. I used it on this track.

https://soundcloud.com/david-taylor-hughes/04-sugar-crack?in=david-taylor-hughes/sets/rock-fusion-disk-1

As you can hear those humbuckers have a real bite to them. Admittedly I'm playing it through a rather splendid Blackstar overdrive pedal, but even so it sounds great. OK, so it's not 100% perfect - the frets could do with a bit of dressing and I will probably replace the tuners with some locking ones. But this is £82 ($108 - €98) after all. I would also point out that it's also very light.

This shows that these days it's not that expensive to create an excellent playable guitar for a fraction of the prices that companies like Fender and Gibson charge. And I've had expensive guitars in the past that are worse than this. If you don't know who Harley Benton are see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Benton

As many of you know in addition to doing stock photography and video, I also compose and play stock music - see https://www.pond5.com/artist/instantclassix?tab=music and part of what I need to do is produce music in as many styles as possible. It also helps to have different sounding guitars. Companies like Harley Benton help me do that without costing me a fortune.

So if you are looking for a starter guitar, or a backup guitar I have no hesitation in recommending the Harley Benton TE-20HH SBK Standard Series guitar. For the money it's simply unbeatable.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Selfies have nothing to do with photography.

2022-04-01T10:22:00.001+01:00

Selfies are horrible. They are narcissistic snapshots from people who actually think that they are important. We get the horrors of Instagram and other social media platforms full of people who actually think that their lives are relevant and that they are more interesting than their surroundings. They are the visual ramblings of people so disassociated from the real world that they can only focus on themselves at the expense of everyone around them. And they are nothing to do with photography.

As far as I am concerned I have never taken a selfie and never will. The idea of putting myself in front of a scenic place, or an event or another person or group of people and grinning inanely into the lens strikes me as one of the worst things that the human race is involved in. It's an activity for losers, morons and the intellectually challenged. It has created other hideous uses of cameras including the awful TikTok.

We now have a self obsessed society that has all but eliminated creativity. (Just listen to the woeful bleating that passes for pop music these days if you don't believe me) At this moment in time a barely sane dictator is attempting to slaughter the population of a country that was never a threat. We are seeing truly dreadful images coming out of Ukraine showing just what a camera can do to show us the world. Yet there are billions living some kind of pathetic virtual life using their smartphones in an attempt to 'get a life' and ignoring it completely.

If the selfie was used to show us the world and what goes on there, then they might be useful. Instead we get a whole pile of nothing clogging up the worlds bandwidth and filling the worlds servers with complete drivel. There is no problem with using smartphone cameras, I do it all the time. And used in the right way they can show us the state of the world that others would rather we not see. No, the problem is not with the phones, the problem is with the users.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Using Adobe enhance with an M1 Mac

2022-02-24T14:10:00.000+00:00

An unremarkable stock image, shot on my Fuji X-Pro 111. However it is huge. It's 8000 pixels longest size and around 42MP. Which is bigger than the 26MP that came off the Fuji. It is also pin sharp. It was created using the enhance function in Adobe Photoshop Raw. Now this was always very impressive. (And do not believe people who say it isn't. They are are either lying or working for one of Adobes competitors) However this always took a very long time. Not any more. My Intel Macbook recently died and I've replaced it with the cheapest alternative I could find, a refurbished Macbook Air with 8MG of ram and a 256MB hard drive. And now the creation of a super resolution enhanced raw file takes 10 seconds, instead of nearly a minute. Now this not that much different to Olympus and Panasonics stacked images, high resolution functions.

And of course this is much more useful. I can shoot normally with my Fuji's and not have to wait while the camera creates the image. I was looking at the new Panasonic G6, which is VERY impressive, but realised that I would be paying for a lot of functions I didn't need. i.e. Video. The Adobe enhance function is in both Photoshop and Lightroom now, so it is available to most photographers. However you will need a fast computer to avoid waiting for it to create the file.

The new M1 chip Macs are indeed amazing. I now have two. The Macbook Air and a Mac Mini, which I use for music. The Mini is in fact the cheapest computer I've ever used and also the best. Astonishing. The software does in fact create a much larger image than the one at the top of the page, but most picture libraries won't accept files that big, so i reduce the size.

What of course this all means is there is absolutely no need to keep upgrading cameras just to get a higher pixel count. No need for 50MP+ files, no need for MF cameras. I checked out the results from my Fuji AP-S sensors using Adobe enhance against raw samples from the Fuji 100MP medium format cameras and I was hard pressed to see any difference. Now there may well be a difference if you print the size of a wall, but how ofter do we do that? I see great advantages from this Adobe software. It means I can use cameras I like without having to continually upgrade to get better quality.

I repeat again, the Adobe enhance high resolution software is spectacular. For me it's the greatest advance in digital photography in the past few years. It turns your run of the mill cameras into high resolution monsters, capable of incredible results. Why more people don't use it and rave about it bewilders me. I make my living from photography and never use anything that compromises quality and certainly the Adobe enhance high resolution software is no compromise at all.

There is also another use of this software and this is with smartphone cameras. The image below is the same size as the Fuji X-Pro 111 image at the top. Shot using my iPhone 13 in Apple Pro Raw mode using the 13mm (35mm equivalent) lens. And no it's not as good as the Fuji image, but is still capable for high resolution reproduction. A bonus for those who are looking for the best results from smartphone sensors and lenses.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

The nonsense of the vintage guitar market,

2022-01-13T13:50:00.000+00:00

I recently saw an add for a 1959 Gibson Les Paul Standard priced at £329,065.10. (I wonder where the 10 pence came from??) It was of course battered and belonged to some guitarist who apparently played with Paul Mcartney and Etta James. (I've never heard of him) Now who on earth buys instruments like this? Is it rock stars adding to their collections? Bankers buying it as an investment? It's certainly not your average musician. All of this pales into insignificance when you realise that the highest price ever paid for a vintage guitar is 3.9 Million Dollars for a Black Fender Stratocaster owned by David Gilmour, the guitarist with the Pink Floyd. It was bought by the owner of an American football team. It was actually at a charity auction and the money went to an environmental group, so it could be said that while it was bought by someone with too much money as some kind of status symbol, at least the money went to a good cause.

Personally, I have no interest in vintage guitars, previously owned by someone else. (Which is probably a good job since I can't afford them!!) I really can't see the point of buying an instrument that has been handled by god knows who, god knows where. I want a guitar that I have used, I have played and is part of my musical history, not anybody else's. I also believe that it's a complete myth that these old electric guitars sound better and play better. Now a vintage acoustic may (and I mean may) have some interesting acoustic properties that have improved over the years, though I'm a bit skeptical about that as well. But vintage electrics usually need a lot of work and of course if they are basically rebuilt they lose that vintage status.

As I indicated this is not a problem I will encounter anyway because these instruments are priced way beyond my income. There is also the point that while guitar shapes have remained the same for years and that Fender Telecasters, Fender Stratocasters, Gibson Les Pauls and Gibson 335's are still very popular, things like pickups, tuners and how woods used are constructed have all moved on. And it's certainly true that at the cheaper end of the market, 'starter' or 'beginner' models have improved significantly. There is also the myth that somehow these vintage guitars have history that goes with them. They were played by somebody famous or used on such and such famous album. For me they only carry the history of sweat, stale beer and god knows what else. If you think somehow that this history will rub off on your playing then think again. The only reason that guitars sound good is who is playing them. Everything else is a fantasy.

However, I suspect that none of this will go away. There will be lots of cooing and bragging about the ownership of vintage guitars. Just the same as with vintage anything. Personally I think that what is really important is the music that these instruments helped (marginally) to create. And we should treasure the musicians who made that music, rather some lump of wood and metal that they used.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Soundcloud

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

SOUNDIMAGEPLUS CAMERA OF THE YEAR.

2021-12-18T04:56:00.002+00:00

iPHONE 13 Pro

I bought the iPhone Pro a few weeks ago and I've used nothing else since.

As you can see it produces images with nice punchy colours and decent dynamic range. In terms of my library stock work it's ideal. So why have I used it so much?

It's so light and convenient compared to my Fuji mirrorless cameras.
It has 3 decent lenses. In 35mm terms a 13mm, 26mm and 77mm.
I can now shoot .DNG files with it. Whether they are genuine raw files I cannot say but they certainly offer more flexibility in Photoshop processing.
It's silent and fast. It can capture an express train travelling at speed at precisely the moment I want.
Apple have decided to keep the 12MP image size. However the files upsize nicely.

Now it isn't as good in terms of image quality as my Fuji's, but it is pretty good and there would be no problem in terms of reproduction up to quite large sizes. So this is my camera of the year.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

New Album

2021-12-06T10:56:00.001+00:00

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

STOCK & LIBRARY MUSIC - iPHONE 13 PRO

2021-11-28T07:15:00.001+00:00

Above is a link to my music portfolio on POND5 which is a media library selling Music, Video and Photography to those who need it. You often see the POND5 credit at the end of TV programmes as they have a lot pf historical video footage.

These days there are lots of media libraries selling, video, photography and music clips to those who have neither the budget or inclination to pay for their own unique products. There was a famous case of two large banks using the same photograph from a Microstock picture library. Both complained, but were told they got what they paid for, i.e. cheap and copyright free and they shouldn't be so mean!!

Stock or library music is by it's nature relatively bland. It's generally upbeat and cheerful, reflecting what advertisers want. There is an unfortunate abundance of ukulele music, for example, which I loathe, but people seem to like it. Anyway more on this later.

THE iPHONE 13 PRO

I've had to upgrade my iPHONE. My old 7 Plus has been carried around for four years and has seen better days, I tried using my Hauwei Pro as my main phone, but due to the suspicion that Huawei are all spying on us It runs a restricted version of Android. Ironic isn't it, that Google accuse someone else of spying on us!!! Whatever the reason the Huawei wouldn't load the NHS app. with my Covid passport. I've had my three jabs so far and the way things are going I might be required to produce it, so I've bought the iPHONE 13 Pro. I'm paying for it over 3 years to spread the cost. Here's a few samples.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

BLOG CHANGING TO INCLUDE MUSIC - SOUNDIMAGEPLUS THE MULTI MEDIA BLOG

2021-11-20T08:10:00.001+00:00

N.B. I've revised this post.

The Soundimageplus Blog is changing from Photography alone to including Music from now on. I haven't given up taking pictures, it's just that I feel that I'm struggling to provide enough material from photography alone.

Is there any future for 'conventional' photography in a world of smartphones apps and social media?

2021-08-14T00:29:00.002+01:00

As the smartphone revolution continues apace, there seem to be more and more exaggerated claims about what these things can do. There's lots of words written about the benefits of computational photography for example and the assumption is that we don't need stand alone cameras and lenses anymore, because these advanced smartphones can handle everything. I have both an iPhone and a Huawei P40 pro and yes I use them for my 'serious' photography, so have I succumbed to the notion that stand alone cameras and lenses are a thing of the past?

Well the answer to that is no. Yes Smartphones are very impressive these days and for most people who shoot snapshots and pictures for social media, they are mostly enough. Though trying to shoot in low light without flash is still a challenge. But photography, being an art form, requires more than a snapshot aesthetic. Just ask any wildlife or sports photographer whether they use a smartphone and you will realise that there are many forms of photography that smartphone cameras don't and probably never will handle the needs of many photographers.

The sensors are still too small
Smartphones are still very poor in low light
The lens options are seriously limited
A lot of the technology is 'clunky' and in many cases simply doesn't work
Computational photography is nowhere near as good as it's claimed to be
Some apps are simply a joke and don't do what they are supposed to do
You really can't just add a lot of megapixels and claim you are getting more detail
A lot of smartphone add-ons are poor quality
Believe it or not holding a smartphone vertically with one hand doesn't produce good results
There is way too much processing on smartphone jpgs.

And these are just some of the problems. For example Adobe have just introduced their amazing super resolution mode for creating huge blowups. I tried this on my smartphone images, thinking it might produce larger high quality images. Well it didn't. The increase in resolution just showed up the flaws in those small sensors and tiny lenses. Proving that you can't ignore physics after all.

The other thing to remember is that while smartphones are improving quickly, so are stand alone cameras. The things that some of the latest models are capable of in terms of resolution and speed are simply amazing. Lenses are getting sharper and the possibilities the new cameras offer are mind boggling. Now I've often said that sales of 'conventional' cameras are probably going to go back to film camera sales levels. It is obvious that camera companies will have to stop making cheap and cheerful compact cameras as smartphones have taken over that territory. Though I have to say, I do see a lot of people still using them. But overall the move to more upmarket pro and semi pro models is good to see. No matter what happens there will still be a market for serious photographers to keep using this kind of gear.

There is also the fact that not everyone likes using a smartphone. I like the big screens sure but I've just bought one of the 12.9" iPads and while the image on that huge screen is fantastic for composition, the whole thing is not a pleasure to use. And smartphones for me are too slippy, they keep turning themselves off to save power and even the best screens struggle in very bright sunlight. I also don't like fake bokeh. Because I can't control it. Some smartphones offer a range of 'apertures. But once you get down lower than f/2.8 they become unusable. I also don't like the idea of holding the thing out in front of me. I like viewfinders. Firstly using them close to me makes the whole thing more stable and secondly using a viewfinder helps to separate what's going on around me, which smartphones don't.

And yes, I have to say it, My stand alone cameras look cooler and are much more pleasant to use. As you know I have recently switched to Fuji cameras from Nikon and I just love the retro look and feels of them. I'm not the slightest bit bothered about the fact that smartphones are pocketable and I like carrying an aesthetic retro style camera. My Fuji X-Pro 3 is wonderful to use. I love the fact that I can hide the screen and stop 'chimping' every picture. It's a personal thing sure, but I prefer that way of working.

Finally and probably what puts me off a lot of smartphones is the results. I find my smartphone images are somewhat flat in terms of colour and contrast etc. Yes you can change the look of the photos but I always feel that smartphone makers don't seem to understand what makes an attractive image. There is also the fact that everything being in focus all the time also contributes to that flatness. I do have to process my smartphone images a lot in Photoshop to get the results I like and it seems no accident to me that a lot of social media sites, especially Instagram, have a lot of filters to change the look of an image.

I really don't have a lot against smartphones. I use them and they produce good results for me, however I like using 'proper' cameras much more. Now I've written about this before, but it does make a point. I'm often in my local Apple store and I've met a lot of keen photographers there amongst the staff. And none of the ones I talk to use iPhones. They are all DSLR users and in a couple of cases shoot on film. Now quite what that says is open to interpretation, but what I take from it is that those people who find they have developed a serious interest in photography find smartphones limiting. Now whether this is still the same in a few years time, we'll have to wait and see. But my suspicion is that things won't change that much. The only way it will is that smartphone cameras get bigger and surely that then defeats the point of them.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Do camera aesthetics matter? Fuji X Pro 3 - Show Pony or serious photographic tool?

2021-05-24T23:21:00.002+01:00

Almost all photographers like their cameras. They are after all seen with them when they are out working. (i.e. Having fun and getting paid for it in my case.) Some people like big DSLR's and huge lenses. They almost walk around flaunting what they have. And yes I've done it and you probably have as well. It's harmless and if it makes us feel good about ourselves, then what's the harm? I also like retro styling, rangefinder type appearance and in particular a combination of chrome, silver and black. So it was no real surprise that when I changed from my heavy Nikon outfit, I chose Fuji. Because for me the Fuji X system is one of the most aesthetic out there.

The inspiration seems clear. The old rangefinder film cameras of the last century and Leica in particular. But then Fuji produced their own film cameras and that DNA has transferred to their current cameras.

And let's not forget that the Fuji film camera company has been around since 1934 and they first started producing cameras in 1948. So there is a history there and just like companies such as Olympus and Nikon there is a lineage of manufacturing photographic equipment. So not just the company that produces Leica knockoffs!!.

For me that history is important and one reason why I can never get excited by Sony, for example. For me they will probably need another 50 years before I take them seriously. (should I live that long!!) I make no apology for using retro styled cameras and I find the X-Pro 3 and those silver lenses pictured above superb in design and operation. And boy they look good. This means, of course, that I love going out and using them. Just like I did with my Leica M's. But now I need AF and a little less weight than the Leica's. If you've never picked one up you might be surprised at how heavy they are. A Leica M10 is 660g, the Fuji X Pro 3 is 497g. Not a lot admittedly but at the end of a long days shooting, that can be important.

I'm also impressed by the quality of Fuji camera bodies and lenses. Not handmade in Germany like Leicas, but nonetheless beautifully made in either Japan or China. There is also a 56mm f/1.4 made by Viltrox above and that is absolutely superb as well.

You all knew the answer to my question - Do camera aesthetics matter? Well of course they do. Just like the aesthetics of musical instruments matter to musicians and the aesthetics of their tools matter to craft workers. We all look to buy the best looking car we can afford, so why is it any different for cameras?

But let's not forget that the X Pro 3 is a great camera as well that produces amazing images. So as well as looking good it delivers what it should in terms of a serious photographic tool. And these days it's actually difficult to produce a really bad camera. (Though the ugliest camera ever made, the £5400 Zeiss ZX1 may make that statement redundant. Should it ever appear!!) So we all have a choice and chances are we will get excellent results no matter what we choose to buy.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Fuji Colour + X-E4 and X-T4 cameras and 10-24mm f/4 Zoom Lens

2021-05-22T09:52:00.003+01:00

As you can see I've gone a bit overboard with my move to Fuji X from Nikon. The aim, as outlined in the last post, was to get a lighter, smaller system to get rid of the repetitive strain injury I've picked up from the heavy Nikon camera and lenses. Now if I hadn't got this I would still be happy the Nikons, but needs must and certainly now I've stopped using them my arm is getting better. So I've sold my D850, Z7 and Df and bought an X-Pro3, an X-E4 and an X-T4. I even managed to buy all the Fuji cameras new and still made a small profit from selling my Nikon gear.

And I'm actually very happy. I love the Fuji bodies, though I have bought some grips to make them handle better. They are beautifully made and have that sexy chrome retro look that I like. But the main reason I'm happy is the results from the 26MP sensor all the cameras have. I'm really impressed with the colour and it's a nice change from the Sony Bayer sensors that seem to dominate the digital camera world. Fuji have been through a lot of sensor changes since I last used their cameras and I'm now really happy with what they produce.

I'm not bothered that this is an APS-C sensor instead of the full frame ones in my Nikons. I certainly have no complaints about the image quality. Below are some examples of what I've been shooting with the Fuji bodies and lenses.

Some of the above were shot with the Fuji film simulations, which I'm experimenting with and some with my own presets.

FUJI X-E4

I was watching a review of this camera on YouTube and the 'reviewer' was complaining about how minimalist it was and how he couldn't do x, y and z and I thought "That's the camera for me."

As you can see it is very simple and I like that. The front however needed a grip as it was very difficult to hold properly. I added an L-Plate grip and that makes it much more comfortable.

Above it's fitted with the grip and the excellent 35mm f/2 lens. Which makes a nice inconspicuous combination. Now I don't really do 'Street Photography' but there are times when I like to be discreet so the X-E4 works for that. It makes a nice companion camera to the X Pro 3 and both have that Leica M look and feel, with of course AF. Now in the past I've used Leica M8, M9 and M10 cameras, but to be honest I'm no longer enjoying using MF lenses. So the Fuji's give me a 'rangefinder type' experience with the benefits of AF.

FUJI X-T4 and 10-24mm f/4 lens.

Above is the X-T4 body fitted with a Smallrig video cage and a Fuji 10-24mm f/4 lens. As regular readers will know I still do commercial work for Estate Agents shooting home interiors. So a wide angle zoom is essential. And the 10-24mm (15-36mm in 35mm terms) does that very well. I did sell my Nikon Df to pay for the X-T4. Now I loved the Df, but discovered that I liked the X-T4 even more. I can use it on it's own, with a grip or video cage and with a battery grip and an even bigger video cage. Because there are times when I need a camera that looks 'ptofessional'.

Now a lot has been written about the X-T4 and most of it is positive. Fuji have come up with a real gem here. I haven't used it much as yet, but I'm looking forward to that.

So overall I'm pleased with the change. I certainly haven't turned against Nikon, but I needed to start using lighter cameras and the Fuji cameras and lenses have made life easier for me. I've rediscovered the brand and found that it suits me very well. Watch this space.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Fuji X Pro 3 - The old school solution to a problem.

2021-05-03T10:23:00.000+01:00

I love using big cameras. My Nikon D850 DSLR with a battery grip is my idea of what a camera should look like and feel like. However, my body has other ideas. I now have a damaged and painful right arm. I had this before a few years when I used a Canon EOS 1Ds II, a particularly heavy DSLR and I had to stop using it and sold it. I am now in the same situation with my Nikons and have had to sell my D850 and Z7. I tried the much lighter Z50, but hated using it so I have sold it too. My Nikon Df is OK, as it's a much lighter camera, though I have started using it only with lighter prime lenses. For the time being I have also stopped using my Nikon F6 film camera. I'm not selling that, but I will have to wait until my arm recovers before shooting with it again. So what to do?

I looked around at what was currently available and decided that I would get myself a Fuji X Pro 3 and some lighter prime lenses. I did use Fuji years ago and I did buy an X Pro 1. However, at the time, there were issues using Fuji images with the X Trans sensor processed via Photoshop. All sorts of unwanted artefacts were appearing in the pictures, so I stopped using Fuji for many years. However, I always did like the cameras and the lenses and when I had to stop using my heavy Nikons I checked out lots of samples from the current Fuji range and saw that things had significantly improved. In fact the images from the 26MP APS-C sensor were actually rather good.

There is no doubt that the X Pro 3 is one of the sexiest cameras around. The Leica influence is clear to see. Since I last used Fuji some new lenses have appeared. So I bought the 16mm f/2.8 and the 35mm f/2. Both of these are small and jewel like and they produce beautiful images, even wide open. I have also bought a couple of the Viltrox X lenses. the 23mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. I bought them because of the cost benefit, but I have to say that they are beautifully made and work very well indeed. So my plan is to keep it to this. I have bought a Nikon adapter to use my Nikon lenses, but I doubt that I will use them very often.

Now a lot has been written about the rear screen on the X Pro 3. The fact that it is hidden until you pull it down. The back of the camera therefore looks like a film camera. To be honest this doesn't bother me at all. I'm used to using film cameras anyway, but the Fuji images are all perfectly exposed anyway. And since I don't shoot many 'action' pictures I don't need to keep 'chimping' to check what I've shot.

So what do I like about the X Pro 3.

I like the fact there is no brand name on the camera apart from a very small etched name on the top.
I love the minimalist styling and the aperture rings on the Fuji lenses.
The image quality is superb, even at high(er) ISO settings.
The jpgs are very good.
It is a smaller, lighter camera than I'm used to using.
The whole 'old school' look and operation appeals to me. (I'm very definitely 'old school!!' )

What I don't like.

The electronic shutter has a very nasty beeping sound.
The optical viewfinder is not very accurate and there are no frame lines for wide angle lenses.
The film simulation options are not that dissimilar. Fuji could have been a bit more adventurous with the differences. And of course they are nothing like the films they are supposed to be copying.

I haven't shot with it very much as yet, but my experience so far has been very positive. As explained above I like big cameras, which means that I dislike smaller cameras. I mentioned above the Nikon Z50, which was a lighter smaller camera and to be honest produced very decent images. But I've always hated that cut down DSLR shape, which I find very uncomfortable. However, a rangefinder styled camera is a different matter entirely. Regular readers will know that I used Leicas for many years including M series cameras. I found that with an added grip they suited me very well. However, it's worth pointing out that Leica M cameras are heavier than they look because of the all metal construction. The X Pro 3 is lighter than a Leica M, but not too light. In fact I find it almost perfect.

Now I hadn't planned for any of this. In fact, the idea that as of now I would be using a Fuji camera again, just wasn't on my radar and something I would have thought impossible. As far as I was concerned I was very happy with my Nikons.

Finally, I would like to discuss some examples of the film simulation modes.

The first thing I have to say is that the jpgs that the X Pro 3 produces are superb. I've always processed my images from raw. But these jpgs are sharp, have perfect exposure and great colour. I put some samples above. The top four are using the Pro Neg. Hi setting and the bottom three are using my own vintage film simulation modes in Photoshop. Now I don't dislike the Fuji modes, I do, but I don't find them that different. I find them a little bland. The Velvia setting is a little more saturated, but apart from that they are all pretty similar.

Above is what a scanned Fuji Velvia film image looks like. High contrast, high saturation and blue skies with a strong magenta bias. The Velvia simulation on the X Pro 3 looks nothing like that.

Now I'm not saying I don't like the Fuji simulations, I do. But I feel like they could have been a little more adventurous. I feel that they have pretty much played it safe. I do like the fact that they haven't warmed the images up too much, because that's what a lot of manufacturers do. The Fuji images look far more natural. But I do feel that if they really wanted to make their options look like film they could have offered something a little less bland. But then again this is all personal taste anyway.

So is this a professional camera? Not really. Is it good for action, sports, paparazzi? Not really.

It's a camera for those who like retro and old school, who use film cameras and like that way of working and for photographers who like something different. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Film processing, scanning and the Film/Digital hybrid reality.

2021-05-02T10:30:00.001+01:00

All of the above were shot on my Nikon F6 SLR Film camera and Kodak Ektar 100 ISO colour negative film. However the processing and scanning involved were somewhat different. I have been using colour negative film for some time time now, because it's getting really difficult to get slide/transparency film developed. Also colour negative film seems to scan better. In the past I have posted my films off to a lab, got the negatives developed and scanned them myself using either my dedicated scanner or my Nikon copier attachment on a Nikon 60mm Macro lens using the built in copying facility on my Nikon D850. (This will even show negatives as positives.) This process is OK, but it does take a while and it's expensive.

However the above files were processed and scanned differently. Shops have recently opened up here in the UK and a local photographic shop has done the same. It offers a C41 in house developing and scanning package. So a few days ago I dropped off 10 films and a few hours later I got the 17MP scans emailed to me. All at a reasonable cost. Not only was this very quick, but the scans were excellent. The shop is Photozone and here is a link to their website. Photozone. Obviously this is only for film photographers in the UK, but for those interested they do Mail Order.

One thing is very clear from this. For most people film photography is different to what it was. In the film Under Fire, which was actually one of the inspirations for me to start photography seriously, Nick Nolte who plays a photojournalist shoots on his Nikons and develops and prints his black and white films in a tent in a war zone. Now not all photographers develop their own films. And colour film, negative or positive has always been difficult in a home darkroom environment.

So what we have these days is a film / digital hybrid. And a situation whereby I drop my exposed films off and get the scans emailed to me is hardly what a lot of lot of people would regard as film photography. But it suits me because these days to sell images they have to be digital, no one is interested in prints anymore. And to be honest this is one of the reasons that film can still exist. Even though at this time, because of Covid, film is actually difficult to get. The shop mentioned above told me that until recently they just couldn't get any film anywhere to replenish their stocks. It just wasn't being manufactured. That has since changed and supplies are now trickling through.

So, shooting on film is complicated, expensive and not easy. And in many ways it is a process for enthusiasts. Yes, some upmarket magazines (e.g. Vogue) are using film again, but this is still very rare. There does seem to be a core market however. I enjoy doing it and for me I need no more justification than that. But I would would certainly not recommend it for anyone who hasn't done it before, unless they are prepared to put up with the hassle and accept the costs. To sum up, photography is my job and film photography is my (expensive!!) hobby. And I will continue doing it for as long as I can.

Available on Amazon

Available on Spotify

Stock photography by david martyn hughes at Alamy

Soundimageplus Website

Follow me on Twitter

Follow me on Facebook

Follow me on Tumblr

Follow me on Pinterest

Follow me on Instagram

Follow me on Google+

Follow me on Blogger

Follow me on Flickr

Vlogging - Narcissistic, Pointless and Annoying. What has it got to do with photography?

2021-04-22T13:33:00.001+01:00

Every time a new camera is introduced there seems to be a review of it's 'vlogging capabilities'. As if all contemporary photographers want to do is point the camera at themselves and spout a combination of self serving nonsense, repeat endless platitudes and present the before image from a skin care commercial. It may not have escaped your attention that coherent writing is a dying art as more and more photographic 'commentators' turn to the video camera to put across what they want to say. To say that this results in narcissism, pointlessness and annoying ineptitude is stating the obvious, however this doesn't seem to stop people producing and watching this crap.

It goes without saying that vlogging has nothing at all to do with photography. So why do manufacturers insist on telling us the vlogging capabilities of their cameras. Apart from anything else isn't a smartphone the perfect tool for doing this anyway? And in many cases cameras that we are told are good for vlogging are nothing of the sort. It seems that the manufacturers are trying to jump onto a bandwagon that doesn't actually exist.

Photography is about capturing a vision of the world through a photographers unique eye. This is an objective process, not a subjective one where the camera user (I refuse to call them photographers) becomes the centre of attention. And we all know what gets produced, narcissistic drivel. Like the dreadful selfie. I have never taken a selfie and never will. I also don't know anyone who has ever taken one.

I have to admit that I don't see any point whatsoever in people uploading their dreadful images or videos of themselves to social media. There is enough ugliness in the world without adding to it. I have looked at a few examples of all this and once spent a dreadful hour looking at the drivel on Tik Tok. Mind boggling awfulness, with people demonstrating just how talentless they are.

OK, it's a free country (well here in the UK it is) and people have a right to do what they like, within the obvious limitations, but why should camera companies get involved with this? The answer of course is to make money, or some misguided notion that leads them to believe that will happen. To me all it seems to achieve is to piss off serious photographers and make them think about switching brands. There is enough devaluation of the art of photography anyway and I see no point in adding to that process. Photography is now easy with a smartphone, but that doesn't mean that in most cases, any real quality work comes out of it.

I will acknowledge that there is SOME quality smartphone imagery out there, but quality video? For the vast majority this just isn't the case. But what worries me most of all is that vast majority of people in the world don't seem to care. All that is important is just doing it, no matter how awful it is. It strikes me that most of social media is nasty, bullying and entirely dedicated to some kind of oneupmanship. That the perpetrators of this trash make shitloads of money out of it is truly depressing.

And in terms of camera manufacturers they should get back to making quality cameras that we might want to buy instead of pandering to some lowest common denominator user base. And in terms of vlogging 'JUST SAY NO!!'