Irving Penn: Portraits

Cecil Beaton with Nude, New York, 1946
The Irving Penn Foundation © The Irving Penn Foundation
(from the National Portrait Gallery website)

A couple of weeks ago I spent a day in London and took the time to visit the Irving Penn exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery. It's a fairly wide-ranging collection of work, covering the entire span of Penn's career and displays a variety of print types from early vintage silver prints, through his later reprints and includes a number of his Pt/Pd prints as well.

The space is divided chronologically from the earliest works as you enter, working through a series of sections dedicated to periods largely grouped by photogrpahic style as Penn moved from full-length portraits to more and more intimate and close-up work as time progressed. Overall it's a pretty impressive collection of work.

One thing I think could have been included is a small section showing the development of Penn's printing technique. Something was made of this in the exhibition, as Penn turned to platinum printing to try and create his idea of the perfect print. Showing a small selection side-by-side highlighting this development would have been good. As it was, I had to move back and forth between the prints to study the differences and development.

It is clear that his prints became better over time, both as materials and technique developed. The early prints (such as the one of Cecil Beaton pictured her) are quite flat in coparison to later prints. Reprints are also better than the vintages. Much has been made of the higher value of his Platinum prints, both due to the method and the fact that they demonstrate a great depth and subtlety of tone. One thing that is clear, howeer, is that thePlatinum prints influenced the later silver prints, as those show tonal work dveloping over time to mirror the platinum prints. Personally, I prefer the later silver prints.

One large problem I have with the exhibition is the lighting. I can accept that they wish to kep the lighting subdued to preserve the prints (and there was a note posted to that effect) but more could have been done. Not only was the lightling low (read; dim) but it varied in intensity and coour throughout the exhibition and was far too warm 9read: yellow0 for my tastes. so much so, that it was near impossible to spot the difference in toning between the platinum and silver prints. with modern lighting technology, I expect more from a world-class gallery, especially when they're charging decent money to get into the exhibition.

And then there is the subject matter itself. A wide range of the great and good from the Forties to very recent (Penn was photographing almost up to his death in 2009). almost all are presented in distinctive style even though the posing of the subjects changed over time. The early works feel a little distant, maybe even impassionate, largly due to the stood-back, full length nature of the work. through the middle section, from maybe the late 1950s through to the early 1980s, the connection with subject grows. The portraits are deeper and deeper studies of character. What was then surprising was that the very latest works, maybe the last 15-20 years of work, appeared to be very flattering of the subjects. Well know faces, whose images have been seen thousands of times in recent years, all appear very much younger than their ages at sitting might suggest. Does this represent a softening of Penn's attitude to his subjects in his later years?

Saying that the work represents a distinctive style, three woks stood out as different. the first was the portrait of Beaton shown above, which is a pose and style more becoming the subject and quite unlike Penn's other work work of the time. the second was a portrait of Grace Kelly from 1954, shown in the classic Hollywood style that seems to be a feature of portraits of her at that time. The third is of Richard Avedon from 1993, which looks mre like an Avedon print (although against a dar background) than one of Penn's others.

A slight aside: there is a book that has been published to accompany the exhibition. You might have seen a review of tha here, too, if I'd been inclined to buy it. At £25 it's pretty reasonable but Istill didn't think it was quite worth it. the main reason being the print quality. Despite being tri-tone and capturing a good sense of the tonal range of the originals, they were all printed far too light for my taste - deep blacks becoming a little too grey and the darker tones a bit washy. Not the best reflection of the originals nor a great example of book-printing, IMO.

Overall, a high-quality, interesting exhibition (despite the crumby lighting) that is well worth a visit.

On comparisons

So the latest from Luminous Landscape is this short piece on making comparisons, in response to the minor debacle that was the comment on dynamic range comparisons. I'm kind of glad the later response went up, gives some balance and avoids me posting a rant against the original.

I agree that in print there are likely (I've not seen so can't say from experience) visible, visceral differences in output from DLSRs and Digital Medium Format (DMF). Large prints are almost certain to make that more apparent. Just as I can clearly see differences in the formats I shoot regularly once print size passes some threshold. All well and good.

Thing is, that goes no way to dispelling the myth propounded in the first piece that DMF has a larger dynamic range than DSLR. Unfortunately for LL, this is a measurable quantity and it doesn't matter what constraints you put on the range (such as the base signal to noise ratio), it is still directly measurable. And as comparisons over at DXOMark will show, there is precious little difference in modern DSLRs and DMF.

Another problem I had is that LL was using DR as a proxy for usable detail, although it is nothing of the sort. DXOMark has a separate measure for this (and the merits of that could be argued) in its tonal range measure. Again, objectively measurable. The one problem here is that when doing print comparisons, they re-base to a shrunk print - the lowest common denominator. It would be useful to see that also done for larger size (but then that would mean up-scaling lower resolutions, with attendant problems).

The biggest problem I had with the LL position is that they are using the subjective stuff, and ropey assessment of measurable values, to debunk the science as it doesn't agree with their conclusion. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Just because you don't agree with the measurements doesn't make them wrong. But likewise (to the chagrin of the measurebators) the numbers don't make the subjective preferences (opinions) wrong either.

Another way to level things

For quite some time I had been using a levelling base for my tripod head - an Acratech levelling base with a Really Right Stuff BH-40 ballhead. Worked pretty well, and plenty of load capacity. I did find, however that it could get a fiddly to use at times as the base had to be levelled before levelling the quick release. And then I'd move the tripod and have to repeat. There is also no way to properly bolt down the ballhead on the levelling base, once in a while it would loosen.

Recently I finally succumbed to buying the Really Right Stuff panning clamp PCL-1 instead. This replaces the quick-release on top of the head and provides levelling and panning. This means a 1-step levelling process. Panning can be a little fiddly if the knobs aren't lined up nicely, the panning release can sometimes be a bit tucked under the camera. That said, I found using a large format camera quite OK, even with the very large camera base. It's a minor complaint and easily overcome. Switching between lenses with and without a lens plate means turning the quick-release through 90 degrees, which I find much easier with the panning head.

One thing to note, the new set-up is lower that the old one, which means I have to extend the tripod a couple more inches. No big deal as I rarely use full extension anyway. The lower profile is nicer for on the rucksack during hiking trips.

So far, after 2 trips using it, I'm pretty impressed.

Kinesis Journeyman under punishment

After my previous use of the Kinesis Journeyman photopack in benign weather, here's an update under more trying circumstances during my recent trip to Cumbria.

First up - carrying stuff. Every day I carried my large format gear. The inner pouch (V090) just about carried the 5x4 field camera, 2 lightweight lenses (a 120 f/5.6 and a 210 f/5.6), small meter (The Voigtlander VC meter II), loupe and a roll film back. I also had dark cloth, film, filters stashed in the bag. The Gitzo 3540LS tripod strapped to the outside. Regular gear: waterproof jacket, lightweight fleece, lunch, small first aid kit, 1l hydration pack. That amounted to about 15kg (30lb) of gear, maybe a bit more. having the heavy stuff in the pouch meant the lighter stuff didn't get squashed - good news for my sandwiches.

The upshot is that the bag coped well. Having a proper harness system means comfortable, stable load carrying. Putting the heavy stuff at the top (all the camera gear) means better posture - it was easier to walk more upright, therefore less straining or tiring. having the load nice and close to the back and compression straps tightened meant little effect from cross winds.

Next up, weather. Whilst generally good weather, I did endure a few heavy showers, enough to test a bags waterproofing. Not a problem. The bag appears to be fully waterproof. That means no stuff sacks or rain cover needed, which makes the space more usable and keeps extra weight out.

There are a couple of weaknesses. The mesh pockets on the side have a tendency to go a bit baggy when loaded. On one side I had map case, a small bottle of drink and sometimes my lightweight raincoat rolled up. The pocket does stretch but that is a bit much for it. On the other side the mesh pocket was used for the legs of the tripod, which is probably a bit too much weight for it. The other problem with lashing the tripod was with the compression straps. The webbing used means they don't hold quite as tight. Occassionally the top strap hold the tripod would come loose, I had to be extra careful to fully cinch it before setting off (which would then mean no problem).

I won't carry that much gear in the pack that often but it's nice to know I can.

The true use for a pocket digicam

Untitled, Cumbria, May 2009
Lumix LX3, ISO 80, 1/15" @ f/8.0 handheld

Like Colin Jago, I've been a little frustrated in using pocket cameras, even my Panasonic Lumix LX3. Nice results, but a little slow for anything requiring speed of reaction. I've never been happy with the way it forgets zoom and focus settings when going to sleep. Around town it just doesn't compete with a rangefinder.

This last week, however, I was trying an experiment. As I was spending a week walking in the hills, I thought I would see how well it did as a general landscape travel camera. I know the image quality is good, so in situations where speed isn't essential it should be ideal.

Before I get to the verdict, a little background on my idea of a travel camera, and a little of what I was doing photographically in Cumbria.

I was after 2 things - testing gear in the hills to see what would be appropriate for a tip I'm going on this summer and also taking some shots to put together a collection of my views of the area. I took my large format camera, the EOS 40D DSLR and the LX3 pocket camera. I had a few specific photos in mind, scenes from familiar routes but was also open to interesting things along the way. This was also a walking holiday, so I didn't want to spend too much time stopping.

My use of LX3 extended to carrying it in a pocket all day, lens cap off. See a photo, retrieve quickly, snap and away. Not as fast as DLSR hanging from the harness but much smaller. I used the large format for the more deliberate stuff. In the end I didn't use the DSLR at all.

The main advantages of a small format camera in this use: small sensor = large DoF = large aperture = fast shutter. Makes it good in windy conditions when it's hard to stand still. Short actual focal length = low minimum shutter speed handheld = low light & motion blur. Good for forests, overcast conditions and water.

The initial results look good. Nice for smaller prints, web and books. Not fine-art quality but that's not the aim of a travel camera. It saves several kilos of gear and I can carry a much smaller bag. For hiking in the mountains, that's a big plus. An important thing to watch for is smears on the lens - I have several shots ruined because I didn't check. That also means always having a small lens cloth to hand.

Processing the images: Lightroom default seems to yield more natural colours straight from camera than for other cameras. White balance is particularly good. I took a lot less shots mainly due to the live histogram which means less bracketing.

Overall verdict - the LX3 is likely to become my travel hiking camera, with DSLR and/or rangefinder in support when a vehicle is available. There will be times I carry something larger when a main aim of the trip is photographic or the walking is easier but for the long trekking holidays I like, the LX3 seems to fit the bill quite nicely.

On the virtual tripod

Wall art and lamp, London, March 2009

UPDATE 06/04/09: Added the missing figure

You may have seen already the new image stabilising testing at Imaging Resource (posted at TOP yesterday). Alongside the reviews is their white paper on testing methodology. Being of the geeky persuasion in these things, I read the whole thing. I've noticed some very interesting things, besides the straight results that I wanted to air.

Overall, I think it is a good effort. They've fairly well achieved the goal of repeatable, comparable results. Highlighting the statistical nature of such things is pretty important - no one will get perfectly sharp images every time when hand holding, IS or no. Being able to compensate for the human factor, in a manner that has meaning for real results is quite important in this context.

The second big thing to take away is the importance of focus in achieving good photographic results. They talk about it at length. The testing method completely eliminates focus problems but for real shooting, that will be an issue. reading through the rest of the white paper, it's pretty clear that photographer technique is (as to be expected) as important as any of the technical assistance, be that in AF or IS. We would all do well to keep that in mind.

The big thing that came to my mind, however, was rather technical and concerns type of motion. Something briefly mentioned but not addressed in the testing protocol. Let me explain.

For the purposes of a discussion on IS, there are three directions of movement that we are interested in: vertical translation, horizontal translation (left-right) and rotation about the lens axis. (I realise that vertical and horizontal motion isn't pure translation but for the purposes of this discussion, and practically, it can be approximated to such. It is also a little easier to conceptualise than rotation about the other axes.) The Imaging Resource results seem to lump the translational results and don't mention rotation at all.

Why is it important to distinguish? It goes to how stabilisation systems work, how photographers move and how one relates to the other. I reckon there are 4 major movement effects going on that cause blur: high frequency "jitter" vertically or horizontally due to holding the camera, low frequency sway due to how one stands (try standing perfectly still without any kind of movement), and last some rotation of the camera as the shutter is released due to the force applied to the button.
Mechanical stabilisation systems are really designed to only address only the first two. And with those, the relative effect of each will be determined by how steady the photographer is in general and how the camera is held. The swaying effect is unlikely to cause problems except for long exposures.
But what about rotation? How important is it and can anything be done about it? As to importance, I would rate it pretty highly given what I see in photographs. When friends ask me about blur in their photos, I reckon the biggest issue is rotation. It's fairly easy to spot: look across the frame and you'll see vertical blur that varies markedly from left to right. As stabilisation is normally designed to work vertically or horizontally, rotation won't get corrected. For lens-based systems it is impossible to correct. But for in-body stabilisers it could be possible. See the figures below. The first shows the sensor and its possible range of motion. The second and third show vertical and horizontal shifts, the fourth shows a possible rotational shift.
And in the great debate of which system is better, this isn't ever mentioned: in-body stabilisation has the potential to cure a mode of movement that in-lens cannot.

Photography is not a performance

Dedication, London, March 2009

OK, not quite a photography post, but there is also a point.

Caroline le Barbier, violinist,
March 2009

On Saturday night I attended a concert put on by the ELLSO - East London Late Starters Orchestra. A friend of mine, Caroline (right) is a member, and she invited me along to listen.
The ELLSO is an organisation that teaches music to adults check out all the details on their website.
There was a fairly broad spectrum of abilities, divided into ability sections, each section putting on a performance. Overall it was an excellent evening. Great performances all around. Clearly some nerves around but it was thoroughly enjoyable. People enjoying what they do, making music and entertaining a large audience of friends and families.
Quite frankly I'm amazed that people can get up and do this. I have no aptitude for making music and hate performing in front of crowds (giving technical presentations doesn't count). And yet here are dozens who do just that and enjoy it.

There is a slight link to photography, hinted at in the title. Performance anxiety isn't something that should bother us. All the worry and fear exhibited by prospective SoFoBoMoers is nothing compared to having to give a live performance. As photographers we have time to get things right. Once we have the images in the bag, we have opportunity to work on them. If we're putting together prints or books there is time to work on the finished product. Even when we have a product, we can always edit after production.

The musicians effectively have one chance to get things right, and missed notes can't get taken back. My admiration to them all. More than I could do.

Richard Avedon at FOAM

Friedlander and Avedon

with a footnote on Gerhard Richter.

The first major exhibition of Avedon's work since his death, Photographs: 1946-2004 is a sweeping retrospective of his work currently on show at FOAM. It covers all of his work, from early fashion work for Harper's Bazaar, Vogue and others through to his later celebrity portraits. Virtually all of the work comes from the Avedon Estate, all original prints by the artist as none of his work has been reprinted since his death.

This is a large collection, more that 200 prints on display, taking the entireity of the exhibition space in the rather small FOAM building (thhe permanent collection has decamped across the road for the duration of this exhibition).

I had limited exposure to Avedon's work in the past, and certainly nothing in any kind of context. Starting with the early work, the fashion photography looks fresh and modern. The settings and poses seem very typical of fashion photography, until one looks at the dates of the work - they are all from the early fifties. It is clearly evident how Avedon was breaking the mould of static, posed fashion photography, turning it into a living, vital visual expression. One can see the origins of modern aspirational fashion marketing in Avedon's photographs.

Satchmo

One then moves through the galleries, away from the assignment-style magazine shoots into the portraiture for which he is probably better known. Here, again, there is a sense of innovation. These are much more that glamorous celebrity pictures or environmental portraits, with descriptive props all around. These are deeper, more intimate probing into the deeper character of the subjects. Avedon's use of white backdrops focuses attention on the sitter and the masterful prints have a sense of depth and solidity that makes these people real in way that I've not often seen in photographs. The quality of the prints really has to be experienced first hand.

Eisenhower and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee

The exhibition itself is well constructed to show the work to maximum advantage. The framing, lighting, and annotation all help to enhance the work by not detracting from it. Pairs and groups of images are selecting to draw comparisons between the work and the subjects. Even the free brochure is well done.

Regarding America (In the American West series)

I'm rather glad that I was delayed in writing this review as I have had a chance to visit the National Portrait Gallery in London, in particular the current exhibition Gerhard Richter: Portraits. It is not directly related to photography as Richter work from photographs to produce his paintings but it draws interesting comparison in artistic philosophy. Richter said that

"A portrait should not express anything of the sitter's soul, essence or character"

Working from photographs, Richter produced work that looks rather like photographs greatly enlarged but often distorted enough to obscure context and introduce abiguity of subject or meaning.

In contrast, Avedon expressly uses the ability of personal contact and the literal nature of photography to get beyond the surface impression of his subjects.

It was also interesting to view some of the photography galleries at NPG. After seeing Avedon's work, suddenly the other portraits I saw seem rather staid and derivative. It only served to highlight what a master of the form Avedon really was.

There is also a book that accompanies the exhibition which I was able to peruse at length at FOAM. While the reporductions don't have quite the depth of tone and certainly none of the impact of size, they are, nonetheless, excellent prints for a book. There are also some rather good essays to accompany the work. I would certainly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in portrait photography - it is almost a single volume masterclass in the genre.

Gerhard Richter: Portraits is at the National Portrait Gallery, London until 31st May 2009

Richard Avedon: Photographs 1946-2004 is on at FOAM until 13th May 2009 and then travelling on.

The accompanying book Richard Avedon: Photographs 1946-2004 is published by Louisiana Museum of Modern Art

First review at Photo Exhibit

Doug Stockdale is editor-in-chief of a newish blog Photo Exhibit for reviews of photography exhibitions, gallery shows etc.

I've agreed to contribute and have just posted my first review on the Man Ray exhibition at The Hague's Fotomuseum.

I think this is a pretty good endeavour, go check it out.

Unconcerned but not indifferent: Man Ray

Entrance poster

This has been a well-publicised exhibit, a large retrospective covering the whole of Man Ray's life and work at the Hague Fotomuseum. An ambitious undertaking but can it be completed successfully? Let me begin by quoting from the press material

Unconcerned, but not indifferent is the first exhibition to reveal Man Ray’s complete creative process: from observations, ideas and sketches right through to the final works of art. By establishing the linkage between art and inspiration, it gives a new insight into the work of Man Ray.

Lofty ambitions for any exhibition. This idea of creative connections, and how the artist is influenced by his relationships is always of interest to me - bringing that to an exhibition is what moves a museum past being a mere gallery. The work on display is divided chronologically across the 4 periods in Man Ray's life; his early life in New York, moving to Paris before the war, escape to LA and a final return to Paris in 1951 until his death in 1976. In effect, though, the first period has little coverage and serves as a mere foreword to the rest of the work. There is a wide range of material on display - much photography, obviously. But also drawing, painting, sculpture and some of the famous "Rayographs" and materials used. The photographs are not great prints, although originals. Man Ray doesn't seem to have been what would be considered a "master print maker" but that is in keeping with his general philosophy (from the exhibit):

The mass production of his work always appealed to Man Ray, who had always had a tenuous relationship to the aur of art objects. the act of making a unique object, he claimed, was validated by its reporduction, by means of which the inspiration, or idea, was disseminated.

The photographic prints are actually quite small, although framed in such a way to draw the viewer in. Often several are framed as a group together, which adds context. So far, so good.

A wide range of exhibits: sketches, paintings, sculpture and, of course, photographs

The drawback of this range and variety of coverage is that it is necessarily fairly shallow. No particular area gets into any depth. The explanatory texts are brief and few, so I got very little sense of the connections between the man, his relationships and his work. I was left with many more questions than answers: When did his first marriage end? How did that relate to his relationship with Kiki de Montmartre? There was evidence of changes in stles and work - was that driven by changes in relationship or conscious development as an artist? What exactly was his relationship to contemporaries in Paris? As presented, Man Ray seemed little more than a portraitist to the stars, which is far short of the truth. How did Man Ray's work progress through ideas, photographs, painting & sculpture - which lead and which followed? Did this change over time (as seemed to be the case)? I would have liked to see rather more in the way of explanatory panels and text throughout. So what is my overall assessment? I think a less ambitious scope would have allowed greater depth of coverage and more exploration of the ideas. In many ways the exhibition falls short of the lofty ambitions. However, it is definitely a worthwhile exhibition and worthy of the modest entry fee but a little effort would have made it so much better. Visitors would be greatly rewarded by a little Man Ray research in advance.

On safari with Andy Biggs

Lions at play, Tanzania, January 2009

This is a 2 part review of the photo safari I've just completed in Tanzania with Andy Biggs. The reason for the two parts: first the photography bit with Andy and second the general safari bit organised by Thomson Safaris who handled booking and Andy's logistics in Tanzania.

The safari I took was the Andy Biggs' photographic safari in Tanzania, booked through Thomson. It covered 10 days incorporating the Serengeti, Ngorogoro and Lake Manyara - a classic Tanzanian itinerary but specifically set-up for photography and the needs of photographers.

Part 1: How nice is Andy?

A really nice guy. easy-going, friendly, helpful. Patient in helping teach people about their cameras and photography. At every level he had useful material to improve the quality of your pictures.

But the important stuff is behind the scenes - picking camp locations that offer the best access to wildlife. Setting a schedule that maximises good photographic opportunities, including times and locations. Working with the guides to determine the best chances of success. Ensuring power is available on camp (for charging batteries, running laptops etc). Making sure the vehicles are photgrapher friendly - size, layout, power, viewing platform.

A schedule that allows time at any interesting sighting is also perfect. Sometimes it takes 90 minutes - 2 hours to wait for things to happen. When they do, it is always worth the wait. This may seem like you get less viewing, quite the opposite. High quality wildlife viewing like that is far better than breezing by lots of stuff without time to fully appreciate it.

I will definitely contemplate taking another trip with him.

Part 2: How good are Thomson Safaris?

In a word: excellent. Logistics went without a hitch, from the initial contact for booking to final departure to the airport. Pre-trip they keep you informed, respond to email quickly, send out lots of high quality information. From the time of arrival at Kilimanjaro Airport through the trip to departure everything was smooth. Using their own staff, vehicles, camps makes for a better trip. This is not camping in any way I know it - more akin to a canvas-walled hotel. Food was excellent throughout.

The guides were all friendly and knowledgeable scouts. If your guide doesn't know about and can't find the wildlife, it wouldn't be much of a safari. As it was they were able to spot stuff from miles off, get us in the best positions with an eye to photography and let us know what was going on.


It's been a great trip and one I'd fully recommend for those so inclined. Expect to see more from me about safari and the trip in future posts.

Voigtlander 28 f/2 Ultron

The Hague, November 2008
Photo cropped for height but not width

My not-quite-a-review of the M mount Voigtlander 28 f/2 Ultron (CV28U henceforth).

As with my other RF writings, as much written for the non-RF crowd as the die-hards (maybe I'll convert a few pagans).

I don't do lens testing: resolution, focus and all that jazz. Too much like hard work and doesn't tell me anything about the results I'm getting. Of course, as a gear head I read that stuff from others. Maybe this will mention some things they don't.

So, some observations. The first is how small this lens feels in actual use. Photographs of the lens make it seem quite large for an RF lens but that is slightly distorting. A fair amount of the lens extends into the body when mounted, thus it is much smaller in use. Compared to the relatively small CV 40 F/1.4 Nokton the CV28U only extends a further 2-3mm when the hoods are mounted. Both fit nicely is a jacket pocket. The other nice thing about the size is that the supplied screw on shade has the same diameter as the barrel, so the appearance is very clean. I also find this makes focus operation with the tab easier than to 40 Nokton. Focus is smooth and nicely weighted, aperture ring could be a little stiffer - I occasionally knock it out of place.

Results? Pretty good. this one is multi-oated compared to my single coated 40. I don't see much difference in contrast. Certain chice of film has a greater impact in real world use. Focus seems sufficiently accurate - user error is having more impact on focus as far as I can tell. Vignetting is slight. Being a wide-angle, bright light towards frame centre causes a fair amount of fall-off anyway. OOF rendering is pretty good, nothing to complain about. can't really tell about sharpness - I've only used it with ISO400 film so that's not an issue.

Personally, I like to use a 28mm indoors or other relatively close subjects (say 2-5m, 6-15'), otherwise it's a bit wide for me. At those sort of distances the frame lines on my Zeiss Ikon are very accurate. At further distance, the lens sees a bit outside the frame, but not hugely.

Overall, the lens is offering just what I want - good results and nice handling for reasonable money.

A nice little bag

Billingham Small Hadley, with the padded insert removed

For my city visits I've been looking for a small bag to carry my stuff in for a while. Typically it's something I need in the winter, when I carry not only the camera gear but hat, gloves, jacket etc. I was after something light, low key, easy to get into. I've got a large size courier bag but it's way too much for a day about town.

I finally bought a Billingham Small Hadley, after putting my hands on one in a camera store. I've bought the black nylon (FibreNyte) version, which is much lower key than the traditional canvas models (I've always thought the canvas bags scream "I'm a camera bag"). This is my mini-review.

The all important question - what does it carry? Well, I packed it into my carry-on holding my 40D plus 17-55 f/2.8 & 50 f/1.8, my Zeiss Ikon with the CV 28 f/2.0 & CV 40 f/1.4 and my Lumix LX3. I packed batteries and film separate for travelling. I'd stripped out the padding, which I always thing is superfluous in such a bag.

The kit as used in Berlin: Zeiss Ikon, 2 lenses, Lumix LX3, jacket, wooly hat (blue in the bottom)
Plenty of room for a water bottle or a pile of film (few rolls in front pocket)

Around Berlin I was carrying just the Zeiss and LX3, foregoing the DSLR. I had both cameras and the spare RF lens, a lightweight jacket, hat, gloves & a bottle of water. Front pockets carried the film (about 4 rolls) and batteries. It was easy to carry, I got no aches or pains and barely noticed I had it on. I carry it slung across the shoulder & chest like a courier bag which is more stable and more comfortable. It then sits nicely in the small of my back.

If I was going with the SLR, the bag could carry that, a small spare lens, jacket, hat gloves. If I decided to hand-carry the camera or put it around my neck, I could easily carry a 70-200 plus the other stuff.

It takes a bit of practice to work the quick release straps. Once I got the buckles set right (a bit looser than I might otherwise do) it became straight forward. I though the fixed strap would be a problem for packing but it is quite flexible and folds under the main flap for packing which is nice. The size is just right to drop in the bottom of a carry-on packed with gear so it doesn't really take up room.

All in all, highly recommended for the photog-about-town.

Back-up for the forgetful

That's me, Kristiansund, June 2008

I'm atrocious at keeping routines over extended periods. I often drift off doing something else and can easily forget to do something, even if it's something I do daily. Backing up my files is no exception. I've been 6 months or more without doing anything and then need a whole weekend to catch up. No longer. Now I've got the NAS box, I've been looking to make things more automated, especially so that I can get back-ups running in idle time due to my slow network. The back-up software I use is AllwaysSync (free for "moderate use" - after about 400GB of back-up it locked me out and asked to pay for a copy, $30 well spent). I'd had it configured for timed back-up, which can be a problem with power management, and also auto-on-connect for my external drives, which was a problem if I connected the wrong device (back-up being based on drive letter assignment). Then I found the magic setting.

Now I'm set for auto-on-idle. The software monitors the folders set in the auto jobs, when new stuff is written and the folders become inactive, it runs the back-up in the background. As I'm backing up over a network, I don't see any hit in normal operation. If I was working on the files to be backed-up, AllwaysSync would just wait for me to finish. In the week I've had this setting active, I've not missed a sync and not had to intervene. Perfect for the forgetful/lazy man.

Lumix LX3: reviews and reality

At Checkpoint Charlie, Berlin, October 2008
Lumix LX3, converted to B&W from RAW

Clearly I've bought the hot camera of the moment. Most of my recent traffic has been to read the stuff I've posted on the Lumix LX3, doubling my normal hit rate. It's winning in the RAWSumer poll. Michael Reichmann weighed in, as have dpreview. All round the conclusions are like mine: this is a great little camera producing real-world good results.

I've just read the latest from Laurence Kim, who's been writing some good stuff on the LX3 but I've a couple of issues with his latest post (apart from the garish colours he's using).

First up, DoF, aperture and diffraction. Yes, deep depth of field is nice which means larger apertures can be used, therefore faster shutters or lower light. But I take objection to the comment that the camera isn't as diffraction limited. Yes it is! Small pixels means lower diffraction limit - I bet the diffraction limit is somewhere around f/4-f/5.6 for this camera. As I said before, f/4 is (more or less, in practical terms) the equivalent of 35mm f/8. For modern DSLRs, diffraction limit is kicking in around f/11. No practical difference in diffraction limit versus DoF - as both phenomena are affected by sensor resolution, that's hardly surprising.

The second objection I have is about the metering. I find that the matrix metering is no better or worse than any other camera I own. The main limitation is in mixed light where highlights are over-exposed. I constantly have to dial in exposure comp in these circumstances, as I do with my other digital cameras. In even lighting, pretty much any camera I have produces decent metering results.

I do agree that out of camera jpegs are good, when it can get the white balance right and for decent lighting. Indoors or in low light, even at ISO400, the extra benefits of RAW are worthwhile. I'm not finding it onerous to do RAW processing, even via SilkyPix, so continue to shun jpeg. (I actually like the batch process feature of SilkyPix, which, despite what dpreview say, allows individual processing on each image in a batch, just like other batch converters.)

Last point - I much prefer separate B&W conversion to in-camera (photo with this post). My preferred B&W workflow is to do the conversion in Lightzone from either a converted TIFF or straight from RAW. With the LX3, my route is SilkyPix for base conversion, Neat Image (in Photoshop) for any noise reduction and then Lightzone for final black and white. This yields much more pleasing results for me than out of camera B&W mode.

Lumix LX3 and SilkyPix

Lumix LX3 test image, Kuala Lumpur, September 2008 f/2.8, ISO800
I used this for testing as it shows a lot of tricky image properties: highlights, shallow DoF, fine patterns in background, deep shadows

Previous posts on the Lumix LX3 itself here and here.

I said a while back that I'd write some thoughts on using Panasonic's SilkyPix Developer software together with my Lumix LX3, so here it is. It takes quite a lot of work to put these technical posts together, hence the delay. I'm using SilkyPix Developer Studio 3.0 SE: the bundled version that came with my LX3.

I was prompted to finally post this by the review of the LX3 at Luminous Landscape. I agree with pretty much all MR has to say, except 2 things: high ISO noise and use of the SilkyPix software. I'll come onto why later but first a definition (which may seem like a rant).

When I'm evaluating software, I have a clear idea and definition of what constitutes "intuitive". I do a lot of software evaluation, it's part of my day job. For me, if I cannot get useful output from new-to-me software in 2h without a manual, it's not intuitive. It may take you more or less time, you may want a manual or help files but this is my personal measure. Just because I wouldn't consider it intuitive isn't necessarily a Bad Thing but it is not a good sign in general consumer products. A couple of examples: Google is high on the intuitive scale - blindingly obvious what it does and how to use it, if you've ever seen a computer you'll be off with it. Adobe Photoshop, on the other hand, is as close to non-intuitive as possible; verging on the unusable. It's the only software in a long time (many years) I've needed instruction on how to even get going.
Just because a new piece of software doesn't work like similar products doesn't make in unintuitive, just as several products that work the same with similar initerfaces are not necessarily intuitive - copying bad practices just makes your product bad, not easy to use. So: intuitive software - easy to use without instruction, on the basis that you've never used something with similar intent. Bear that in mind for the rest of this.

Main editing tools	Hover to preview: "Natural" is selected, "noise reduction priority" is previewed

That clear, this brings up one of my objections to Michael Reichmann's comments: that SilkyPix is unintuitive (he's not the only one to state this). For photo software I think it is as intuitive as can be. I've not yet resorted to the Help function or manual. Once you start it up, it is fairly clear how to load photos and then the basic workflow is presented in the main tools along the left edge. Each slider is fairly self evident, and the preset options are pretty descriptive. Hover the mouse over any preset to get the image to show as a preview before selecting, click to make the change. This is probably the easiest RAW development software I've used, SilkyPix's great strength but also its weakness - if you're used to other RAW developers, this is another new interface. It's very much not like Photoshop (very good thing) which means long-term PSers may not like it. I'd say to them: get over it. I will concede that not providing a readily supported RAW format is a big problem for this camera (and many others).

Top menu options: layout options highlighted

Along the top, one finds the various view settings. I use the multi-view or single-view. Interestingly, one has a full range of adjustment available on selected images in multi-view which is unlike any other photo software with this multi-image browser interface. This makes it even easier to use with no need to switch modes to make adjustments.

Sharpening (left) and noise reduction (right) are 2 separate but linked tools

2 quirks: first is that output of the final image is termed "develop" and you need to use the Development menu option. The second is that the Sharpen and Noise Reduction functions work on a split button, which took a little while to deduce. This is actually a good thing once figured out - Panasonic are inherently recognising the trade-of between detail enhancement and noise reduction, evidenced by the presets. Of course you can try going for heavy sharpening and heavy NR at the same time but don't expect great things.

Advanced tools

A couple of less obvious tools are the ones presented bottom left. I've not investigated them all but 2 handy ones are the curves tool for tonal/contrast enhancements and the aberrations tool. The latter is pretty good with a wide range of distortion and fringing adjusters. thing is, I've not yet found any issues with files from the LX3. I've seen talk on the web that SilkyPix is automatically adjusting the RAW files for aberrations, which would make this tool superfluous but I'm not convinced. On using the camera, the screen shows no distortion and more do the out-of-camera JPEGs. If there is software adjustment, it is (also) in the camera, which would be impressive enough. Certainly, switching off the aberration tool in SilkyPix has no effect.

How does SilkyPix perform on LX3 files? Very well. I've found 3 ways to use it. First to batch several RAW files with no adjustments to full 16 bit TIFF files for further work in other software. Second for fine-tuning individual images (not used often) and the third is to create 16 bit TIFFs fom the in-camera JPEGs for further processing. I'll come onto this last in a minute. This leads me to the other objection to Reichmann's comments: noise in the images. Yes, this is not a super low noise, high-end DSLR. However, don't praise the RAW feature for the ability to do further processing and then condemn to straight from camera results. At ISO800 and 1600 the files are very good after noise reduction. I consider RAW files in light of how I process them, and that includes noise reduction. I use Neat Image as a Photoshop plug-in and get excellent results. Noise is sufficiently consistent in LX3 RAW files (after TIFF conversion) that I've been able to create a standard setting in Neat Image, which means just a couple of button clicks to clean up the files. Shadow & pattern detail is still good and smooth tones clean up nicely. I reckon you could enlarge the results quite a bit, although I'd be happier at A4 (8x12") prints. Well beyond my expectations for a small sensor camera, as I've written before.

File open is a jpg (EXIF information first line), "Save as" coverts to 16 bit

Now to the last point for this post: JPEG to TIFF conversion. I'm not quite sure how SilkyPix works underneath but it is able to convert 8 bit JPEGs to 16 bit TIFFs. dcraw has a similar function. I've tried a couple of tests and this works very well. The resulting TIFF file is much more suitable for further adjustment than a JPEG, although not as good as a RAW file. I might even use this feature for converting other JPEGs to allow me to do more work on them.

3 output options (L to R): TIFF from RAW (with Neat Image NR & sharpening); JPEG from camera; JPEG from camera converted to TIFF The 2 TIFF files have had WB correction, the JPEG is straight from camera.

So there it is: Panasonic's SilkyPix Developer software and the Lumix LX3 provide a good combination for getting really good results out of the camera. I'm not claiming the RAW development is best in class, but the workflow is simple

Panasonic Lumix LX3: further observations

Test shot, September 2008
Taken at ISO1600 with the LX3. Minimum processing of RAW in SilkyPix to 16-bit TIFF, NR with Neat Image, slight USM for output.

This is a follow-on from my first impressions post. I've now had the Lumix LX3 about a week and taken several hundred shots with it. There are a number of things I've found in using it that are worth mentioning. I was intending posting earlier but found some strange things in the RAW images which delayed me (I'll keep you in suspense as to what I found until later).

Firstly, however, is a clarification from the earlier post. Juha (who commented on my previous post) has been blogging on his experiences with the LX3. He found the interface to be quite complicated, whereas I found it simple and intuitive. This comes from our different ways of using the camera. I look at the interface from a setting-up the camera perspective. I don't use auto shooting modes and don't care about them (so no views on those here). Virtually all my shooting has been in aperture priority - I'm using this camera like I do my others - and so I'm interested in the LX3 as a serious tool rather than an auto P&S. Bear that in mind when reading my comments.

Most of this post will be in the realm of "things I wish it would do, but doesn't" - quite negative overall but bear with me. Not reams of test shots, as I don't feel I could really convey what I'm writing with web-sized pics. You'll just have to trust what I write (or go some place else).

The camera

Auto focus - there is a big problem with AF, speed 9or lack thereof). Not good for the decisive moment. Plenty accurate for static shots, however. There is also no way to do snap focus (e.g. a hyperfocal or infinity setting). Even the fast mode is too slow.
It does have a handy continuous mode, whereby the camera focuses as you move between subjects. trouble is it is ruined by the fact that the camera insists on re-focusing when the shutter release is pressed. Why have a camera focus all the time if it is going to focus again on taking the shot?

Manual focus - is my preferred method. I use the focus button when I want AF. Works well and is far more ergonomic that using AF and the AF-lock button. Also mean I can pre-focus or focus and re-compose with ease.
Actual manual focus is quite easy. I think the DoF scale is a bit conservative (I think there's more DoF than indicated) but haven't rigorously tested it yet. Great for hyperfocal or zone focus. I've got into the mode of f/4 and be there (approx equivalent DoF to f/8 on 35mm).

Zoom settings - this is a huge annoyance. There is no way to precisely set zoom point. No scale on the barrel (I can see the marker pen coming out), no step-zoom function and the zoom indicator bar is worse than useless (it shows 3 values - 1x for 24mm-e to about 35mm-e, 2x up to about 55mm-e and 2.5x at full zoom). Why can't I have either an electronic scale showing actual zoom position (in 35mm equivalent), or a scale on the barrel, or a step zoom function or better yet, all three? I reckon the 2 electronic options could be done in firmware, if they (Panasonic) set their minds to it.
The other rubbish thing is it doesn't remember zoom settings. It's not part of the remembered items in Custom mode and when the camera shuts down it always wakes up to fully wide. Madness! The sleep mode is quite good, and wake up is quite fast but not remembering the zoom setting is very annoying.

ISO versus shutter speed can be a bit variable. Sometimes it does a nice job of dropping the shutter speed right down, and sometimes it jumps to a ridiculous ISO. There is no way to set the minimum shutter speed in aperture priority, which is stupid: with the Mega-OIS, I'd be happy down to about 1/10 but it tends not to go further than 1/30 unless the ISO tops out. Of course you can always limit the ISO to lower values.

One big bonus is the camera is very quiet. Taking pics of people in museums, even the noise from a rangefinder was noticeable, no one noticed the LX3 (I've turned off all the beeps bleeps). Even the zoom is remarkably quiet.

Image processing & quality

Of course, this is where the crunch is. There will be a few LX3 images from me in the near future - some of the next PotDs from London will be LX3 shots. I'm liking the output.

The thing that delayed this post was something I was seeing in RAW images at high ISO. I took a load of mixed light, low illumination shots (my hotel room in KL). The JPEGs were nice, decent detail and good noise reduction even at ISO1600. The RAW seemed another matter - hot pixels, impossible to clean-up noise and SilkyPix (the Panasonic RAW software) couldn't touch it. Turns out to be user error (i.e. all my fault).

Once I found the NR settings and got working the software, and looking at the images properly, I have been very pleased.

I'm not going to claim overall image quality is up to DSLR standards, even with many pixels. But results are good. Sometimes WB gets confused, but that's a good reason to use RAW. Out of camera JPEGs are nice, but not a patch on what can be produced from the RAW. I've been using SilkyPix with basic settings to produce a 16-bit TIFF and then touching up in Photoshop. NR isn't bad with SilkyPix but doesn't come close to Neat Image.

And here's the upside - to my eyes noise is as good (maybe better) at high ISO than with my EOS 20D. Yes, you heard that right. I'm getting usable colour results right up to ISO1600 with a little effort. With the 20D, I'm in B&W only at that level. Who'd have thought that small sensors would catch up that well?
One big caveat - expose properly. Under exposing at high ISO and you've got nothing to play with. Those pixels are still coming from small buckets, so underlying noise is going to be high. But a decently exposed high ISO shot is perfectly good. Haven't printed any yet but I reckon 6x8" no problem, maybe even 8x10" from ISO1600. That is far beyond my expectation.
However, I'm normally limiting to ISO400 or 800, especially if there is good light. I think I'll set up the camera Custom modes with high ISOs for low light shooting.

The verdict

I'm just getting on and taking pictures. I like this camera very much. Use it in aperture priority and handle like any other decent camera and the results are very good. It handles naturally and produces good images even in low light. It is not, however, a dummy's P&S - a little care and craft are needed, I feel, to get the most out of its imaging capability but I'm fine with that. If you're a regular RF user, you might well get on with this camera. I can see this camera replacing my DSLRs in a whole host of situations, and might even become my preferred indoor camera.

Kinesis Journeyman field report

Yours truly in action in Ladakh, August 2008, photo by Caroline le Barbier
Notes on the backpack: on my left, the brown bag carries my tripod, left strap has a carabiner to hold hydration tube in place, right hip has water bottle pouch, strap hanging to my right is the camera stabiliser strap. camera not shown on chest - it's taking the picture.

Following my initial observations on the Kinesis Journeyman backpack system, here is a field report/review after using it on my trip to Ladakh.

How I used it

By way of an introduction, it's worth mentioning how I used the various components throughout the trip. As I mentioned before, I bought a buch of stuff with a number of possible configurations. This is the great strength of the Kinesis gear. As I was new to the kit, and the trekking was a new way to carry gear, I was keen to try as many options as possible.

These are the main uses I had:

Belt & pouches as a walk-around
Hydration pack as a sling pack
Internal pouch as a shoulder bag
Journeyman fully kitted as a daypack

All numbers are the Kinesis product numbers.

Observations on the small stuff

Belt kit - comfortable, stable and easily set-up. I'd prefer the attachment points to be aligned so I can fit a triple-wide (like the internal pouch) central on the belt. Having said that, I'm inclined to get a double wide anyway (see more on that later). typically I used just an A126 pouch and water bottle.

Hydration pack - I attached a shoulder strap from another bag, and added the water bottle pouch to the outside. This made a useful sling-pack, good for carrying food/water, light jacket etc on a short day, or for a spot of shopping around town.

Internal pouch (Vo90)- a nice, all-day touristing shoulder bag. Again I used a shoulder strap from another bag. I carried the Zeiss Ikon, 20D, 2nd lens, water, light jacket plus usual small stuff (batteries, cards, film etc). Worked well - nice size for a small outfit. I could have easily added the small pouch for some extra storage.

The Journeyman pack in action

Fitting & size - I found the fitting to be a bit on the large size but comfortable. I'd reckon that you need to be about 2" taller than Kinesis recommends for the large harness. Likewise belt sizes are generous by about 2".

Weight distribution - excellent. The pack is stable, the belt sits nicely on the hips and the overall pack seems to get more comfortable with increasing load. Being able to attach the inner pouch at the top of the sack is a huge bonus for weight distribution.

Tripod - straps nicely to the side. i stuck the feet into the mesh pocket. I was carrying a Gitzo 0540 tripod (one of the really small ones) to cut domw on weight, but trials with my 3540LS have been successful, too. I'm not sure I'll ever use the feet pouch (T164).

Camera strap on harness - this was the big bonus. Having the camera always to hand meant I took more photos. It also meant I wasn't constantly removing the pack, which made it more comfortable. having it attached to the shoulder straps made the weight diappear. using a longer lens (like my 70-200 f/4) was a bit cumbersome when climbing as the lens hangs down a bit, but great with the 17-55.

Water carrying - using a hydration pack inside the sack meant i drank more during the day (a good thing, especially in hot weather at altitude) and again meant less pack removal. In cooler climes (like the UK) I wouldn't bother with the extra water bottle.

Overall comfort - probably the most comfortable day pack I've ever used (and I've owned a whole bunch). It carries a load of gear, is great for weight distribution and has enough options for any photographer. I'm really looking forward to my next LF outing as a result. Don't worry about the size, though - the cinch straps make light work of shrinking the thing when lightly loaded.

Other stuff - it was a breeze to strip down for airlines. I took off the belt and aluminium stays, giving a full-size carry-on. I could easily have stripped it down further if needed. I'm inclined to get a lens pouch to put on the hip belt. Then I can have easy access to a 17-55 and a 70-200. With an LF in tow as well, that would be a good set-up.

Negative points

Not many, really. I wish there was a way to attach pouches inside the front pocket. It's qutie a large space and small stuff rattles around a bit.
Sizing guidance is a bit off - I was OK but definitely borderline despite what Kinesis say.
Personally I prefer a sack with a top lid rather than zip closure, but I'm willing to compromise on that point.

Conclusions

An absolutely top pack. Rugged, well made, comfortable and good for photo gear plus your regular walking kit. As close to my ideal pack as I think I could get without building it myself. thoroughly recommended for those of you who like to do some serious walking and lug a bunch of camera gear around at the same time.

Panasonic Lumix LX3: first impressions

I went out and splurged on a shiny new Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 this evening (got to love those Malaysian prices) - completely against my normal late adopter strategy (e.g. my DSLRs were both bought just a couple of weeks before their successors were announced). I thought I'd get some of my first impressions reported - I've had it all of 2h now. This is by no means a full review, I'm going to focus on the things that I felt were important in buying it.

Look and feel: solid little camera. Nice weight and size. Solidly built for a small camera. Nice lens cap, and it comes with a lens-cap keeper (a little cord to attach it to the camera). Positive feeling buttons. All give the aura of a quality product.

Interface: nice and intuitive. I've run it through most of the modes available without yet opening the manual. I've handled Panasonic Lumix cameras in the past and I like the way their interface is put together, the LX3 is no different. All the manual modes are also intuitive: easy to get aperture, Ev compensation, focus etc working from the off. I also love the live histogram and easy access to Ev compensation - very quick and easy to get good exposure.

Image quality: unscientifically, very good. I've been pushing it hard in rubbish lighting around the hotel and a quick review of the JPEGs (not got the RAW software loaded) shows good detail retention and acceptable noise for reasonable prints up to ISO1600. This is all I had hoped for it - I was going to be happy with that level of performance at ISO400. I've been shooting everything in RAW+JPEG so I can review the differences later.

Now the good stuff: manual operation and RAW.

First, shooting speed. Buffer is 3 RAW (or RAW+JPEG) deep, but truly continuous in single shot mode. Once an image is saved you're good to go for another. Buffer clearing with a slow 4GB card takes about 1.5s by my estimate. The first 3 can be shot as fast as you can push the button (about 1 shot every 0.5s). Very good performance. Burst mode is a bit different - push to button, get 3 shots in quick succession but then you have to wait for the buffer to clear before shooting again. I will be sticking to single shot mode. Haven't tried JPEG only, not interested quite frankly.

Manual focus is very intuitive, running off a little joystick. This is actually a pleasure to use even for such a small controller. Just the right balance of response and feel so that it is very difficult to inadvertently push it in the wrong direction: I'm finding it better than Canon's DLSR multi-controller. There are 3 manual focus modes - no assist (straight off the LCD), centre assist (small patch is zoomed to help focus) and large assist (small patch is enlarged to fill the screen). I find the middle option best. From my quick reviews, focus accuracy is good. In manual mode, pushing the focus button activates AF - I'm not seeing a whole lot of point in switching into AF mode. Focus speed is quite good. At the moment I haven't found a way to lock focus point when switching from MF to AF, so snap or zone focus are tricky. May have to get the manual out.

So what do I think - first impressions: the Lumix LX3 is exceeding my expectations in ease of use, speed and image quality. Definitely a worthwhile purchase.

UPDATE 28/9/08: I've now posted my further observations here.

Kinesis Journeyman: first impressions

I've just received my new Kinesis Journeyman backpack system. I'll run through some first impressions, but first some background.

What I want in a photobackpack

I was in the market for a new backpack, my old alpine style one being unsuited for camera gear and the padding long since compressed to nothing.

I've posted before about photo backpacks. I'm disappointed by all the offerings from big names. Pressing a regular backpack into photo service is also a non-starter.

What I need is a 30-40l daypack that can carry my photo gear and my regular stuff (like lunch, water, waterproofs) comfortably in the hills. I can end up carrying 10-15kg easily on a day out. I also need to to carry my tripod and a pair of walking poles, plus all the camera bits and pieces in an organised manner.

I also want to be able to carry the photo gear near the top of the pack for better weight distribution. I prefer the tripod lashed to the side. While this sets the weight a little one-sided (I've often got a side pouch on the other side anyway), it is also closer to my back, which is more important to me.

Must have a proper harness for comfort over longs days in rough terrain.

Where the market falls down

Photo backpacks come in 2 camps: the huge expedition size things or small set-ups. Almost all are designed with only photo gear in mind - clearly not aimed at those of us who hike stuff into the hills. Split compartments always put the photo gear at the bottom. Harnesses are mediocre at best. Weight is high due to all the padding. Quite frankly, I'm just as well off using my Think Tank carry-on.

Regular backpacks are really designed for hiking or climbing only. No real way to put camera gear in well. In the day-pack size there are almost no dual-compartment designs to allow me to stow camera and other gear separately. Lots are also coming with these new ventilated back systems where there's a tensioned mesh against the back and gap to the pack - this moves the weight away from your back which is bad, especially for heavy loads.

I figure in today's world, I don't need to compromise or buy lots to find something suitable. I just keep plugging away until I find someone who's got it together.

Enter Kinesis.

A bit of a one-man-band enterprise, this is a novel line up of photo gear. All modular in away that fits all kinds of packs, pouches, belts and harnesses together in anyway you chose.

Their backpack offering is the Journeyman, which can be combined with all sorts of options to create the perfect set-up for your application. It's a proper backpack, with the ability to hook-in camera pouches. Pole loops & tripod mounts as standard. A host of accessories to add on.

What I ordered

A lot of gear (see picture). Pack, hydration pouch, accessory pouch, interior pouch, straps & doohickies for lashing stuff on. Clip system to attach camera to the harness.

Kinesis Journeyman (centre) and components

Configurations

The stuff I've ordered allows me to do the following:

• Backpack, with or without camera.
• Removable harness, removable belt - great for carry-on.
• Extendible with the hydration pack as an extra pouch.
• Slap everything on for a big day out.
• Hydration pack only.
• Camera pouch & belt as a waist pack. Add hydration pack for a lightweight all-day set-up.
• Camera pouch as a shoulder bag.

Loads of options, great for travelling or sightseeing or hiking.

What do I think

Without using it in anger, here are the thoughts out of the box.

This thing is pretty large. Bigger than I'd expected. Pack measures 55x30x20cm (22"x12"x8"). It's a square shape, too, so you get full volume for your size. Weight is reasonable, not the lightest or heaviest. The harness is good, though, so the weight is light in the shoulders, which is what counts.

Journeyman harness system opened out
Back padding folded down & belt removed to show aluminium struts

Materials and construction are all top quality. harness sizing is pretty large. I would say larger than the website credits. I'm 6' tall, not too fat, and the medium/large harness is cinched right down when I've got it on - the smaller size would have been fine. Even then, the chest strap is at maximum extension. I went down a size on the belt and am glad I did. Side mesh pockets will actually be useful. Most sacks have very flat designs or they're small so everything falls out. Not these - expanding sides, large and a good stiff top band.

The internal pouch is excellent. The lightest I've come across for the size, and it's large. Fits easily my 4x5" field camera or the Mamiya RZ67. It's SLR plus 3 lenses territory - 70-200 stands up easily inside. Top opening is well designed. Most of the padding can be removed which is also useful.

Journeyman opened with inner pouch in place
The Pouch can it attached anywhere through the height of the pack

All of the accessories and pouches snap together easily. This is truly modular design. There are all kinds of ways to do things and I've been spending hours working out which will be best for me.

There are a few negatives. Harness strap design doesn't quite come down over the back of my shoulders as I'd like. I'd prefer the top attachment a bit further down the pack for this - allows better with distribution over the shoulders.
Attaching the inner pouch to the belt for a waist pack has a problem. The pouch is a "triple wide" which means it spans 3 attachment points. Trouble is, the attachments are evenly spaced from the belt centre so the waist pack is offset from centre.
Inner pouch attachment only has one attachment point so it hangs off the fixings. This means it's loose at the bottom which may cause it to swing around or gear to get trapped underneath. Time will tell, but I think a bottom attachment would have been good.
The front pocket, whilst useful for putting small stuff in, has no extra pockets or attachment points. In effect everything has to be loosely stored. even some Velcro strips would be useful.
Colour - it's not uniformly black but I'd like the grey side panels to have a red option. Red is a much better colour for visibility in the hills or poor weather.

I'll follow this up with an in depth review after my up-coming trip to India. It should all get a thorough working over on that one so I'll really know what it can do.

UPDATE 25/9/08: my field report now online.