What I think about stuff: Film Cameras and lenses

They all take the same exact pictures. It's literally a machine that opens and closes a curtain to let light reach film in specific "quantities". 

What makes an analog camera better than another? Price, reliability, and repairability.

Different digital cameras produce results different from one brand to another. Film cameras don't. They produce the exact same results.

You can opt for a fully manual camera, or a programable automatic camera to do the job for you. The pictures will still be the same though.

It's funny back in the day photographers hated grain, and film companies like Fuji and Kodak were always trying to get the finest and most unnoticeable grains. Nowadays it's not quite so, grain and imperfections are sometimes desirable and more attractive.

I think most film photographers nowadays are just hipster snobs, but there is also some people interested in making longer enduring images, negatives that contrary to a digital file they can manage with their hands, pass on to another person, images that will slowly decay over with time and develop new characteristics, like these very same people are getting biologically older!

I've shot many different film cameras, both stills and motion, and many digital cameras, with many different lenses. I don't think one is better than the other, but I do think digital has reached a point where it has technically become "better" than film, and now you can easily replicate a film look with a digital camera. We don't project film anymore, we see it in our digital screens, we edit it with digital software, and we have digital cameras that have far more dynamic range and resolution than film, so I honestly believe you can get the same look. But it's not about the difference in look that matters to me. It's mainly how we relate with the "shortcomings" of film, and how that experience of only having 36 exposures or 5 minutes of expensive motion impacts our workflows and our minds. 

Film is good at reminding us that there the pursuit of perfect is futile, and what truly makes something special relies solely on how excited or focused you are when doing it. Film easily puts photographers or a film crew "in the zone". Like if they were all smoking this metaphorical joint. Of course it feels special, you can't control it so much because you can't imeditally see its results, and its expensive and requires development and all these photo-chemical wizardries... In an age of the instantaneous gratification of the digital, film teaches about slowing down and embracing imperfections. I believe that's a good thing.

But I honestly prefer digital, any time of the day, any project... Or maybe, let me put it this way... I want to prefer digital. 

I think about this:

If I were to visit a community of people who never handled any type of camera, and I would give them two cameras to choose from to film their daily lives or stories, one film camera and one digital camera. I think the excitement and commitment to producing special images would be greater on the digital camera, because the look is irrelevant to them, they would just want to see the images they're getting. I want to be that way. I want to feel as inspired with a digital camera as I am with a film camera. I've learned everything about film procedures and workflows, I developed my understanding on what makes it special, now I try to take that approach into the digital domain. And there's a lot amazing vantages, its so much cheaper, it produces much less waste and consumes much less resources, etc.

I've been a fan of Fujifilm X digital cameras because I embrace the film emulations as if they were real film stocks, I tuck away the back screen to fool myself I'm making something special, but I use full auto on 95% of my photos, and that sponteneity has given me results I really like! I only shoot JPEG, dont care about raw. There is nothing more to go after in post production that will add meaning to the photos.

If I were a DOP on an artistic job I would shoot with LUTS and Textures baked in the camera, dont care about colorist or DIT. 

You know what they're doing with movies shot on film nowadays? Including in many films I worked on as Focus Puller? The colorist removes all the "noise" from the scan, with these new AI algorithms, make them perfectly clean and digital, and then they add digital grain to the image! I look at the results and say "wow, that looks good". But... Something just seems wrong here... You imagine the chemical waste that developing film generates? And besides that - I know what I'm talking about, that's why I'm not a YouTuber - what's the point of shooting film? So we shoot film now just to make the DoP and Director and team feel special and more engaged with the job? The answer is yes. Is that worth it? My answer is NO.

I'm a bit tired of being a Camera Assistant, because I see times and trends passing and transforming. And now I feel that we spend hundreds of thousands in gathering conditions that make the team feel special about what they are doing, and thus that will result in a better film. Yes, I believe that happens, whenever I shoot film everyone is more engaged and focused. But again, is it worth it? Now that we are digitizing film, denoising it, and applying another film look on top? A DoP earns a lot of money, so does a director. Do they really deserve to feel special in being given the opportunity to shoot kms of film? Isn't there a resource and climate crisis going on? And also an economical one?

I love digital, and I love film. But honestly, we would be building a better future if we killed film and all its resources and chemicals. Maybe digital just need a new revolution, and I believe Fujifilm started this revolution with the film simulations and the tucked away screen of the X-Pro3. That hybrid Fuji Instax Evo or whatever its called, its a digital camera with a printer built in, maybe this is the right approach. Trying to make digital more palpable and less predictable.

I forgot to speak about lenses, what I think about lenses... I love lenses and optics, I would love to study more about that topic as I find it fascinating for scientific purposes. For narrative or artistic purposes, I find it a bit futile discussion... There are more "perfect" lenses and less "perfect lenses". They are responsible for at least 50% of the final look, but I don't really care about them... I like lenses that are small, light and weather resistant, and I also love auto focus (I'm focus puller, lol). But I also love old lenses that breathe and distort and vignette. So I'm not sure what to tell you about lenses. Get the cheapest, if you're shooting motion, get the one that breathes the least. Ordinary people notice breathing on lens rack focusing, and I believe it takes them a bit away of "the zone". It's like a subconscious visual reminder that what they are seeing was staged and someone is behind the camera manipulating it. But that can be desirable in some project, I just personally dont like it that much. I also don't like super sharp lenses, neither the most common of mortals. We like a bit of imperfection, a bit of glow, a softer contrast, a naughty flare... But hey, your audience doesn't care what lens you used, so my main advice about lenses is: don't waste much time thinking about them, just choose something you like and live with it.

This is an interesting topic for me, so maybe I'll update it in the future.

This series of what I think about stuff is written in the most informal way I can, I dont delete anything and just type as if I were whatsapping someone.

What I think about stuff: Microphones and Amps

 If you've read the previous post, I mostly apply the same thought to Amps and Microphones.

Yes, there are differences in how they are build, different operating principles and topologies.

How much I believe that matters to a successful tune/album? 5%

Good and expensive gear sounds better, mostly because you know they cost 50x more than cheap gear. I would bet 70% of common mortals won't notice any difference between a Telefunken U47 (11.000€ mic) and an SM57 (100€ mic). And I bet if the ones that note any difference had to choose the one they "preferred" the score would be tied 50/50.

95% won't notice a difference between a free digital compressor plugin and a 2000€ vintage FET compressor.

The same applies to amps, pedals, and any other gear.

It's all bullshit. Don't waste your time and hard earned money on gear. Just get the best deal and forget about other options. Spend your money on trips, or buying yourself time to make music!

What I think about stuff: Electric Guitars

 Fender Stratocaster, Fender Mustang, Fender Telecaster...

They are all the same guitar, the only slight differences you hear are because of different electronic, different pickups, and different bridges with different breaking angles.

Gibson solidbodies are even less different from one another, SG vs Les Paul vs Firebird, all the same guitar, just different swag.

Now hollowbodies do sound a bit different than solid bodies, but only when played acoustically or with very low output pickups. Take a Gibson ES-335 and a Les Paul, put the same hot rodded pickups, they will sound the same through an amp. Put them your grandfathers Alnico II's, and maybe they will sound a bit more different.

I think electric guitar marketing is bullshit, especially when they talk about "tone woods". I believe you can make an acrylic guitar sound the same as an aged tone wood guitar, as long they have the same nut, bridge, scale length, and pickups. And hey, if they sound slightly different, who gives a fuck?? 

Electric guitar players love to philosophize whether they should trade their Les Paul for an SG, or their Ibanez AZ to a Fender Stratocaster or a PRS Silversky. What they don't want to realize is that neither will make them better, since they are all the same guitar basically. I was once in this rabbit hole, but really I was just stuck creatively, and Gear Acquisition Syndrome kicked in, and I spend thousands, and my musicality just got worse, since I was never fully satisfied.

I stopped playing electric guitar because I started to understand how ridiculous I was getting on this gear mania, I was tired of spending money, and my frustrations kept rising. I was deep in the rabbit hole, my old cheap and beat up classic guitar saved me. Honestly I think I'll never own another electric guitar, but maybe I'll buy an archtop guitar one day, with no pickups of course. 

Any guitar can sound how you want it, if you know what to modify/change. To me the fundamental of guitar tone is in the setup, string height, nut material, bridge material, scale length, and only then the pickups and amp. But really the whole tone is in the pickups and amp. Body design and tone woods IMO are so overrated. It's crazy how expensive electric guitars like a Les Paul can be. It's just a slab of hardwood glued up. 

I think real musicians realize how futile the whole "brand" and "tone wood" mystique is. Just play a guitar you feel comfortable with, any tone will be good as long as you play good.

I've had different guitars, from very cheap to very expensive (most expensive was a Gibson ES-335 figured top, because I was convinced the figured maple would sound better... Bullshit). What I've learned is, the best guitar is the one that has the better setup/playability. If you're thinking about "that tone", and tone woods, and body design... You're just wasting your time... Get a cheap guitar made in Asia, spend good on a pro setup, put some low output pickups on it, and buy a digital amp modeler. If you play metal, get an even cheaper guitar (could be made of plastic), and the cheapest amp modeler you can find. 

90% of electric guitar players are the worst kind of spoiled brats, a disgrace that really stain the guitar as an instrument, and brands capitalize on their phantasies of becoming rock stars, and they love it. Electric guitar tone is like 5% on what makes a good tune/album, just pure snobbery. Change my mind.

Contax T3 brief review

If you landed here you know what this camera is capable of and how amazing it is.

So I'll just mention what I don't like that often isn't referenced on reviews:

- The titanium shell is beautiful, but again its just a thin layer of titanium that scratches very easily. It's beautiful, but not rugged.

- The top dial has a locking button you need to press to enter aperture priority mode and then again to return to program. I wish it also locked from off to on position, as many times I accidentally turn it on while storing it and makes the lens hit and obstacle and not opening properly. Many times I open my camera bag to find the camera allready on with the lens halfway open.

- The lens cover has 4 blades that are very prone to collecting dust and thus not close or open properly. Mine is close to perfect but sometimes it just doesn't close perfectly unless I force it a bit (and smudge the lens in the meantime).

- The viewfinder is the best I've seen in a compact camera, but the frame lines are so dim that I rarely see them properly, thus having many shots not properly framed.

- The shutter button has 2 actions, one very light press to check focus and lock exposure, and all the way down to shoot. But it doesn't have good haptic feedback so it's a bit finicky. A bit too much pressure and you accidentally shoot and waste a frame. Especially difficult if you want to check focus distance or lock exposure and reframe. Requires some getting used to and very precise index pressing.

- Overall I believe the cameras light meter overexposes at 0 EV. Most of my shots at EV +0 (no compensation) look a bit overexposed. Correct exposure seems to be somewhere at -0.3 and -0.6 EV comp.

- Although the camera has maximum shutter speed of 1/1200 if you shoot at f2.8 you are "limited" to max 1/500.

- Filter/hood mount is some proprietary mount and not a standard thread, so it's difficult to find accessories to use filters and sun shades

- The flash is very weak (as expected)

- The camera is not that silent. The rocking of the lens when powered on is very noisy, and so is the focus. Winding noise is OK, but again not silent.

- Although it's not a problem after modding, why Contax went for 1 or 2 teeth sprocket makes no sense to me. My camera was modded with a tiny hook in place of the teeth and works fine. 

- Autofocus is most of the times accurate. But not always. Need to check focus readout distance on the top screen.

- Focus Lock button has to be pressed for 3 seconds to engage. Many times that feels like ages. Wish it was just instant.

- The small dial for adjusting +/- is a bit meh, many times I have to turn it 3 or 4 clicks to engage just 1 change. Not accurate.

That's it. You may find these negative points really not important, but it's a +2000€ camera nowadays. I was hoping for better. Selling mine for the same price I payed, 2000€. 

It's a fantastic camera, but for the price it's just not worth it... Let the celebs have them.

Fujifilm X100V brief review

 If you landed here you must really be interested in this camera... 

Here's a brief list of things I didn't like about the super popular Fuji X100V. Some are truly not that important, but still they sum up to what I believe to be an OK camera, and not an Excellent. 

These are my subjective and personal impressions, maybe you find them useful, maybe not.

1 - The camera is not really that compact. The Ricoh GR is a truly compact camera that also sports a Super 35mm sensor.

2 - The On/Off switch is a huge step down from the X100F, it feels cheap and loose, and it moves with too  little effort. I accidentally turned it on and off many times. X100F wins.

3 - Very few custom buttons, the swipe/touch functions are just bad IMO. X100F wins.

4 - The camera is just not comfortable to operate, very poor grip and overall handling.

5 - There is no way to quickly set custom WB. Sony wins. 

6 - The thumb and index rotating dials are redundant IMO, X100T has better design. Only useful for playback or pinching focus. You can't even set one of those as Color Temperature on Custom WB. 

7 - I wish I could delete a photo just by pressing the DEL two times, like Sony.

8 - AEL button is awkwardly placed, very small, and undistinguishable from the drive button by tactile feel.

9 - Drive button equally awkward to engage, making me block the screen/evf sensor all the time I wanted to press it, turning off the screen and not engaging the correspondent function. 

10 - The camera has an internal hissing electrical noise that's just feels like something is wrong with the camera. It's pitch sound goes up and down as you half press the shutter, it feels like it might explode or start burning at any moment. X100F is dead silent. The noise began when I first charged the camera via USB, so I recommend not charging it that way.

11 - Autofocus is noisy and sloppy, like early 2000's Canon 18-55. X100F is MUCH quieter. Tracking autofocus is poor and unreliable, Sony and Canon are waaaayyyy ahead in that game.

12 - EVF in my opinion is bad, very little dynamic range with crushed blacks and clipped highlights during live view. MUCH better when reviewing images. X100F wins.

13 - The aluminum chassis is IMO a stepdown from the Magnesium chassis of the X100F, it also scratches  and dents VERY easily.

14 - Internal ND filter feels of lesser quality than X100F, especially when shooting with direct sunlight, casting an unusable fog on the whole image.

15 - Bluetooth implementation is terrible, so is the app (IOS user). Sometimes it took me 2 min to establish connection, other times 15 minutes. Absolutely unreliable.

16 - 1600€ camera that doesn't come with a charger...

17 - No IBIS... Since the camera has poor ergonomics and is so light I got a lot of shaky images. I only tried to shoot video once, handheld is just unusable.

18 - I would prefer to have the shutter dial with 1/25, 1/50 instead of 1/30, 1/60, etc...

19 - Noisy high ISO's.

Now for things I really liked:

1 - Amazing JPEG and film simulations. Great colors (especially skin tones), great detail and great dynamic range. No need to shoot raw, pictures just come out amazing straight from camera.

2 - Very nice flash settings with high speed synch thanks to it's silent leaf shutter.

3 - Manual focus was surprisingly pleasing to operate, with choice of linear or logarithmic response, and also the choice for Clockwise or Counter Clockwise focus throw. Great depth of field preview scale.

4 - Hybrid OVF with the little small digital panel for focus check (with peaking) is really really nice, one of my favorite features.

5 - Color Chrome and Noise FX are very nice.

6 - People didn't feel intimidated by the camera pointing at them.

7 - Despite casting horrible blue fog with direct sunlight the internal ND is another major feature I really used a lot.

8 - The flippy screen is very well implemented, if you don't like it just dont use it and you will forget it can do that. 

9 - The lens is awesome and overall better than the previous generations, especially when doing close ups at f2.

10 - Being able to use film simuls in video mode, although videos are unusable if shot handheld since it has no IBIS.

Since I don't consider it a compact camera I much prefer the handling of the Sony A7IV. But then I also much prefer the JPEGs and film simuls of the Fuji, and the OVF is unique. Also it's a great street camera because people are curious about it and don't feel stalked.

For the next X100 here's my wishlist:

1 - Get rid of the rotating thumb and index dials and put back some more custom physical buttons.

2 - IBIS!!!

3 - A proper battery charger!

4 - Quieter lens with improved tracking.

5 - Better EVF

6 - Some more grip to hold on to

7 - I would honestly get rid of the video features and make it a photo only camera

8 - Better high ISO noise performance.

9 - Better bluetooth/app

Julian Lage "Emily" by Johnny Mandel music score & tab for guitar

Hey. I decided to share a link to a free pdf score with tab for guitar of "Emily" played by Julian Lage.

Here's the video

Here's the link for the free download of the Guitar Score/Tab:

https://mistletoemusicschool.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Emily-Julian-Lage.pdf

Completely safe & free.

Enjoy!

About "Boutique" definition, Brian Wampler and ReevesElectro 2n2Face

 

"I would consider Wampler not as much boutique, just high-end" - Brian Wampler. 

I totally agree and believe the same applies to many other pedal-makers we all love, like Earthquaker, Chase Bliss Audio, JHS, etc, etc. And this is not taking any credits from these companies by any means, I absolutely love my Tumnus and Ego Compressor mini and highly recommend them as great sounding and very high quality devices, as well as many other pedals that are mass produced and use surface mount components like MXR's Carbon Copy, etc. 

For me the term boutique represents what is demonstrated with this beautiful pedal, 2n2Face by ReevesElectro:

100% analog device with the most valuable components, top craftsmanship with minimum automated or machined processes, custom circuit layouts for simplest troubleshooting/servicing (very important IMO), and exquisite attention to detail. 

The quintessential boutique pedal would have every component handmade like handmade capacitors, handmade resistors, handmade transistors, switches, potentiometers... Which is absolutely insane and most likely wouldn't result in a "better sounding" unit! But it would undeniably add value to it, like a work of art! It's a display of craft and skill, and maybe also some kind of personal statement... At least that's how I like to think about it. I also don't think that producing a lot of units like 5000 units is bad for the pedal's "boutique reputation", as long as the human process is the same, I think it would be quite an achievement!

If NASA's Voyager 1 had a guitar pedal along with the golden records for some alien civilization to analyse it, I bet it would most likely be a very simple analog circuit, like a fuzz, but of course, a very VERY boutique fuzz. Just my thoughts! Cheers Mr. Wampler!!