What's New 2018

24 November 2018 » Recent dilemmas, part II

You may have noted that the images in the previous post were taken in Alishan National Scenic Area in Taiwan. On that trip, I also brought my Hasselblad 503CW medium format film camera with a 80mm lens and a few rolls of Provia 100F and Velvia 50 (and a light meter, of course). I have not used the venerable V–series system for about three years: ever since I bought the Ebony 45SU camera, all my film work moved to Large Format with the rest shot on digital. I hate when things lay around unused for so long, so I thought I would see if the Hasselblad may still have a future in my photographic undertakings. There were a few interesting revelations.

Alishan National Scenic Area, Taiwan #4
Panasonic Lumix GX9 camera and Panasonic Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 lens

Some photographers claim that M43 system has failed to deliver on the promise of "smaller and lighter", particularly with such cameras as the G9. I have come to disagree with this contention: M43 cameras have re–set my perception of what "large and heavy" is. Coming from Nikon F100 and later Nikon F6 and f/2.8 zoom lenses, I used to think that my Hasselblad V–series kit was relatively small and light; after using M43 for a while, however, the 503CW suddenly seemed unwieldy!

My brief reunification with the 503CW also confirmed my previous conclusion that, if I am shooting film using a tripod, a light meter and filters, I might as well do it with a Large Format camera as it provides the benefit of camera movements and larger film area but is not that much slower (at least with the Ebony 45SU camera—naturally, this would not be the case with a monorail camera).

Lastly, my mind's eye just does not see in square format anymore. It used to be as natural as it gets, but, having used 4X5 and M43 format for the past three years, it now feels as awkward as can be. Looking at successful square images is still as pleasurable as it has ever been, but seeing in square no longer comes naturally. Square still has appeal in comparison to 3:2 aspect ratio for, say, portraiture, but, to me, 4X5 is preferable in nearly all instances*.

What does it all mean? Well, if I am honest with myself, I do not envision using the V–series system in the future. In theory, I could get a CFV digital back for it, but buying a super expensive, discontinued piece of electronics would not be wise in the long run. The logical thing to do it let the kit go, but I cannot bring myself to do it yet. On the one hand, the camera is a beautiful piece of engineering and the lenses are outstanding. On the other hand, I realise I am firmly attached to it emotionally: I learned a lot with it over the ten years it was my main kit, it accompanied me to numerous fascinating destinations, and I produced some memorable work with it. So here is my dilemma: should I put aside all irrational considerations and let it go? Or should I keep it and, maybe, pass it on to my son in due course?

Realistically, I think I will bid the V–system adieu—but only when I am psychologically ready. It is only a question of time.

*Of course, you can crop any format to any aspect ratio, but in my view it does not make sense: apart from being an intended waste, there is the issue of pre–visualisation when shooting.

12 November 2018 » Recent dilemmas, part I — update

I mentioned in the previous post that the Olympus 17mm f/1.8 was deemed inferior to the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7. Well, just for the heck of it, I went out of my way and bought the lens to see for myself if this is the case*.

Instead of shooting test charts and brick walls and evenly lit surfaces, I took a few hundred images of different subjects at varying distances. While this is nowhere near proper testing, it is enough to give me a good idea of the lens' character.

Build quality of the Olympus is top notch (all metal). One may or may not like its look—personally, I prefer the cleaner design of the Pana–Leica. Autofocus is silent on the GX9; it is a bit slower than that of the Pana–Leica, but light years faster than that of the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. Pulling the focusing ring towards the camera to engage manual focus on the Olympus is easier and more intuitive than finding and fiddling with the stiff AF/MF switch on the Pana–Leica.

As far as optical performance goes, I should first note that, natively, the Olympus produces massive barrel distortion similar in degree and signature (simple barrel kind) to that of the Pana–Leica. I can thus reconfirm that the sky is blue, water is wet, and M43 lenses have designed–in distortion (but, as should be obvious by now, I do give a f***). Likewise, both lenses perform roughly similarly in terms of light fall–off, chromatic aberration (the Olympus seems slightly better) and bokeh.

Lastly, the Pana–Leica is sharper than the Olympus**. The difference is not huge, but if you look at enough images it really stands out. As an aside and to put things into perspective, the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 slots between the two—it seems sharper than the Olympus, but does not reach the level of the Pana–Leica.

So here we have it. Let's hope that Panasonic upgrades the 20mm f/1.7 lens to version III bringing its autofocus into this century and taking its optical performance up a notch.

*One of the attractions of the M43 system is that many lenses are relatively inexpensive: buying second–hand and then selling almost has no cost. But this perhaps explains the designed–in aberrations.

**This is assuming that I got average copy of each lens, not the perfect copy of the Pana–Leica and the worst possible copy of the Olympus.

7 November 2018 » Recent dilemmas, part I

As I was happily shooting away with my new Panasonic GX9 camera, an unexpected disruption halted my enjoyment: Lightroom 6.14, the last version of the software with perpetual license, does not support the camera and cannot open the files shot with it. Now that was fast: the software was released only about three and a half years ago but now is essentially a dead duck if you want to use a newer camera.

Alishan National Scenic Area, Taiwan #1
Panasonic Lumix GX9 camera and Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens

I first considered subscribing to the Adobe's milking scheme and upgrading to Lightroom CC Classic, but I quickly became concerned that, given Adobe's track record, this desktop version is likely to be discontinued rather sooner than later, too: keeping two versions of conceptually similar software (Lightroom CC Classic and Lightroom CC) does not make long–term sense; likely, Adobe just needs a bit more time to reach the point when transitioning everyone to Lightroom CC will maximise profitability. While I was sort of becoming receptive of the idea of paying monthly rent instead of owning a home, the near certainty that you will be asked to move elsewhere in a couple of years did not represent a great prospect. Moreover, renting your home and keeping all your stuff in a warehouse designated by the landlord (Lightroom CC is a cloud–based service—and the cloud is just someone else's computer) is a step I am not ready to make as yet. You'd better pay the rent on time—or else!

Alishan National Scenic Area, Taiwan #2
Panasonic Lumix GX9 camera and Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens

I quickly realised, though, that stepping away from Lightroom was not as easy as I thought. Software familiarity takes time to cultivate and workflow established over years becomes an old habit—and you know what they say about those, they die hard. For the time being I have adopted converting Panasonic RW2 files to DNG format; it adds the inconvenience of the conversion step, but I can live with that for the time being. In the meantime, I really have to get down to looking at alternatives. What is clear to me, though, is that even though we are rapidly approaching the third decade of the century, the software side of photography is still as much in a state of flux as it has ever been.

Alishan National Scenic Area, Taiwan #3
Panasonic Lumix GX9 camera and Panasonic Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 lens

And while on the subject of the GX9, apart from the software blues I also have a dilemma with... lenses. Wait, you will say, does not the M43 system have over 60 lenses from various brands to choose from? Yes, but in my view they are, collectively, mostly an uncoordinated hotchpotch. In particular, I struggle to find a prime lens in the 30–40mm range (35mm equivalent) that suits my needs: moderately fast (ideally f/2), not too large and heavy, with very good optical characteristics. I have used the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 prime for quite some time and, while I love the size, build quality and fast autofocus, the field of view still feels awkward and, as mentioned in my review of the lens, I continue to cringe at the software corrections—and resulting artifacts—the lens relies upon to rid of designed–in aberrations. The Olympus 17mm f/1.8 is an obvious alternative, but I gather it is even less attractive optically. In the meantime, I have bought and sold the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II pancake. I loved the form factor, but autofocus was so glacially slow and noisy it reminded me of the Nikon F80 with an old, large, screw–driven lens (the GX9 does not even allow it to go into continuous autofocus mode!); further, it is somewhat run–of–the–mill optically (corner sharpness and bokeh). Now, of course there is the super–duper, 15–element (in a prime!) Olympus 17mm f/1.2 PRO lens if I want excellent rendering characteristics, but I do not need f/1.2 and, more crucially, the weight and bulk (not to mention the price) scare me away. Oh well, it looks like I am indefinitely stuck with the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7 lens. Or maybe, it is time to play with some zooms!

19 August 2018 » Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm f/1.7 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. lens review

I feel it is fitting to start this brief review with the same paragraph I opened the review of the Leica Summilux 15mm f/1.7 lens with.

Properly done, lens testing is a weighty undertaking: you need to examine a number of performance factors at different distances and for a handful of lens copies to account for sample variations (and if you buy a zoom lens, good luck). I do not have access to multiple lens copies, and I am usually not interested in performance at close distances. Thus, the purpose of my tests is not to pronounce the ultimate verdict; instead, it is to determine whether my copy of a lens is an overall decent performer, how well it performs wide–open, what aperture setting delivers best image quality, as well as what aperture I choose for maximum depth of field. I further look at a lot of real–life images to see if any peculiarities draw my attention. Once I am satisfied that a lens is a keeper and know what I need to know, I move on.

Image: Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm f/1.7 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. lens

Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm f/1.7 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. lens (image courtesy of Panasonic)

The Panasonic Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 is a short telephoto lens for the M43 format advocated by Panasonic and Olympus. Its field of view is approximately equivalent to 85mm in full–frame (35mm) format, which is a classic focal length for portraiture or compressed land– and city–scapes. Indeed, it is my favorite focal length in the short telephoto range—nearly always, it is a natural and perfect match to how my mind's eye sees whenever I photograph people or visualize an image with compressed perspective.

The Lumix is well built and feels quite solid in hand, although it is not as dense or sexy as, say, the all–metal Leica Summilux 15mm f/1.7 lens. It is truly small and light, too–indeed, it is perfectly pocketable (the other day I shoved it into my shorts' pocket when changing to another lens to grab a quick shot; a few hours later I had to remember where it was!). Autofocus is swift and resolute on the Panasonic GX8 camera. Focusing ring is fairly wide and right there for you when you need it (there is nothing else to grab on the barrel, really); it is smooth in operation to boot. What sets the Lumix apart from its nearest counterparts–namely, the Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 and the Olympus 45mm f/1.8–apart from the obvious aperture and focal length differences is much closer focusing distance: 31cm of the Lumix vs. 50cm of both the Leica and the Olympus. To me, this was a deciding factor: I am not a macro shooter, but I do like to get closer to certain subjects than the other two lenses allow. What also differentiates it from the Olympus is built–in optical stabilization, which the Lumix has and the Olympus lacks. The Leica, of course, is a notably faster lens, but it is massive and much more expensive in comparison—you need to be sure you absolutely must have that extra brightness.

Optical performance of the Lumix is sweet. By this I mean that while it does not break any performance records and it is not a lens you would choose to brag about, whatever flaws it has are of such degree and nature that they are quite below the objectionability threshold and may even contribute to the lens' rendering character.

Centre sharpness is already very good wide–open and improves slightly as you stop the lens down. As can be anticipated, corner sharpness is a bit worse than in the centre at f/1.7, but the difference is in the range of "perfectly expected and acceptable". It improves as aperture setting gets smaller and nearly catches up with the centre. Overall sharpness peaks around f/5.6, upon which diffraction starts gradually taking its toll. The lens produces very mild barrel distortion that is of a simple nature and easily corrected in software without any consequences. Chromatic aberration can be easily noticeable, but it is not a thorn in your eye. While not "dreamy" or "smooth as butter", bokeh is nice and not distracting (but much less so when it comes to foreground bokeh). Below is a good example of all of this: if you look closely you may notice a lot of imperfections, yet overall image quality is far from objectionable (and this is the worst case I could find). All things considered, the Lumix's performance is, well, sweet.

Image: Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm f/1.7 ASPH. POWER O.I.S. lens sample photo

Panasonic Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 lens: flaws fail to ad up to objectionability

One question that you may have on your mind is whether f/1.7 on a M43 camera gets you enough out–of–focus blur, and if you can get your subjects isolated enough from the background for portraiture. Here, I feel the need to quote William Blake first:

The road of excess leads to the place of wisdom. You never know what is enough until you know what is more than enough.

So how much out–of–focus blur is too much? From my perspective, it is when you have one eye in focus and the other slightly blurred, or both eyes in focus but the tip of the nose and ears blurred, or when you have more than one person in the frame and one of them is slightly out of focus. Having used fast aperture lenses on full–frame cameras and done my share of chasing the shallowest depth–of–field possible, I am now of the opinion that the main advantage of super–shallow depth–of–field is bragging rights: "Look what I can do!" When photographing people, I now want the head of the subject—and of all subjects—to be in focus, with mildly blurred background and non–distracting bokeh. And for that, f/1.7 on a M43 sensor fully suffices. If anything, I often find myself stopping down to f/4 to get enough depth–of–field. If I were to be given a large, f/1.4 or faster, full–frame lens today, I would say thanks, but no thanks.

So what I found in the Panasonic Lumix 42.5mm f/1.7 is a warmly familiar short telephoto focal length with sufficiently fast maximum aperture but in a much smaller and lighter shape than what I am used to seeing it in. It still makes me smile. Although not a single aspect of its performance screams "breakthrough", the whole package is a lot more than just the sum of its parts. It boasts unexpected charm. In fact, I like this lens to the point that it has made me committed to the M43 platform: I recently sold my GX8 camera* and this lens has convinced me to go for the GX9 just so that I can continue using it**!

*It is a nice camera, but I disliked the very features most photographers seem to adore. To me, the GX8 felt quite a bit bloated, particularly given the sensor size, which I did not appreciate during travels. I did not like its articulated screen—swinging it all the way out was a nuisance. The sensor was quite good, but images lacked that extra bite because of anti–aliasing filter and required extra fiddling with sharpening in post–processing. So I passed the camera on to the next user while it was still fresh enough to command a decent selling price.

**Which is no mean feat in my book: when was the last time you stayed with a camera line so that you can continue using one particular lens? For one thing, the Leica Summilux 15mm f/1.7 lens, which many consider a desirable optic, could not get even close to achieving as much for me.

16 June 2018 » Panasonic RQ–L31 review

I hate to have to disappoint you, but no, this is not a new camera you wonder why you cannot find news about. It is... a cassette player. You may need to search the Web to learn what a cassette player is. Basically, it was a prevalent music recording and listening medium after it overtook LPs and before it was superseded by CDs. If this does not tell you much, I suppose I have lost you.

Panasonic RQ–L31

I discovered the player while my wife and I were going through some seriously old stuff in preparation for the arrival of a new family member. It was in a surprisingly good shape: I only had to disassemble it to clear out the remains of battery leakage. After that, it was pretty much as new.

I took the player from Taiwan back to Shanghai where I still—serendipitously, I should add—have a dozen of cassettes. These are from my university years, back from the nineties, just before CDs took over the world of music. Led Zeppelin, Lenny Kravitz, Jeff Buckley, you name it. I have not kept them because I cannot get the music on newer media; rather, they are more of a memento: gifts from people who mattered a lot at the time, or memories of buying smuggled, punched–through–but–still–usable cassettes with music that changed my world.

Recently I put a Led Zeppelin II cassette in and took it for a spin around the block. First thing that struck me was that sound quality was, well, dreadful. Somehow, I did not remember it that way—I recalled listing to clear, deep sound, not a shallow reproduction overpowered by noise. As I continued listening, though, the feeling of "dreadful" sound dissolved into perception of the sound texture of its time. Or maybe, it is just that music took over and the medium did not matter anymore.

How does this relate to photography? To me, it reinforces the widely–spread, oft–repeated, but tough–to–attain notion that content is king. Good content is just difficult to produce, let alone art. It is even tougher if you want to do it on a regular basis. Any particular medium may make it more difficult or help artistic aspirations take physical shape, but that is the extent any medium has influence. Billie Holiday still sounds sublime despite the poor quality of the original recordings, and a sharp image of a fuzzy idea still has no appeal.

Deficiencies of a particular medium also invariably become inseparable traits of the work created or reproduced with that medium. They are historical context of that work. When listening to Led Zeppelin II I did not feel the urge to switch to, say, my iPhone, which offers far better sound quality compared to the cassette player. Can you imagine last century's black–and–white images having the super–sharp, clean, grainless look of digital capture of today? It would be totally different work if you ask me.

I also miss the times when content was magic of and by itself and that was all I thought of; when I was not concerned with media or image and sound quality or any other technical minutiae. Alas, those innocent times are well behind me.

But this is supposed to be a review of the Panasonic RX. Not much to say here, other than that the player boasts built–in slide microphone and allows using optional external mic for recording, has voice activation, an LED battery level readout, a 3–digit tape counter, and a speaker on top of the lid. All of this is much, much fancier than what any cassette player I ever had back then offered. Call it a solid upgrade, then.

P.S. I just realised that I also have a Panasonic SL–SX510. No, it is not a camera, either—it is a portable CD player. You may be more familiar with these. Was my affection for Panasonic Micro 4/3 cameras somehow dialed in back then?

1 April 2018 » 220ppi vs. 72 ppi for critical image assessment and processing

I mentioned in the computer upgrade post below that one of the possible concerns of using an iMac retina display is that the display's pixel density (around 220ppi) may be too high to critically assess sharpness and process images. Honestly, I was hoping that this would not be an issue and that I would only need to adjust to the new image viewing reality by perhaps just peering a bit closer. Unfortunately, it did not work out that way.

As I was looking at some test files shot with the Panasonic 42mm f/1.8 ASPH. lens using my Lumix GX8 camera, I could not stop being impressed. Even at 100% magnification, the lens' performance appeared extraordinary no matter how closely I looked. I was about to conclude that it is a great optic, but the skeptical side of my mind thought, wait a second—this seems too good to be true. So I decided to look again on my old 20–inch Apple Cinema Display (ACD, pixel density: 72ppi).

I have now sold my early–2008 Mac Pro computer, but the ACD kept sitting in the corner of the living room all this time, wires wrapped around it. Partially, selling prices of this ancient piece of gear* are so low I did not want to bother ridding of it; more importantly, though, something told me that it may still be of use—and something turned out to be right.

Connecting the ACD to the iMac was a piece of cake: all I had to do is buy a cheap DVI to USB–C adaptor, dust the ACD off, and plug it in via the adaptor. Sure, I had to also tweak a few settings in Lightroom and Affinity Photo, but I was good to go in less than an hour.

Looking at the same images on the two displays, I was quite shocked—this is something you need to experience for yourself. At 100% magnification, pretty much everything looked gorgeous on the iMac while every image appeared coarse on the ACD. For the purpose of image assessment and editing, however, the picture was exactly the opposite: major flaws were hidden under the high pixel density of the iMac and sweeping adjustments appeared to have minor effects; at the same time, ACD's 72ppi revealed every pixel's characteristics and amplified even smallest adjustments. Suddenly, the Panasonic lens did not look as impressive (but it is still a good lens).

Essentially, it is simply impossible to assess image sharpness (including lens sharpness and camera movement or lack thereof), or apply sharpening, or remove noise—basically, all tasks that take place at pixel level—with any degree of precision on the iMac. To put it differently, any minor image defects visible on the iMac at 100% are massive on the ACD and normally would not be accepted; at the same time, visible smaller image defects and images carefully processed on the ACD invariably look immaculate on the iMac**. For any serious image assessment and processing you simply must have a low–ppi display.

My new dual–display setup: 2017 iMac on the left, 20–inch Apple Cinema Display on the right

So I am now firmly set to use the dual monitor setup, which is the best of all worlds (and I have a computer hidden behind one of them!). This, however, has me thinking: what does it imply for post–processing in general? Displays will certainly continue to trend towards higher and higher pixel densities, but photographers will likely continue to need low–resolution displays to critically assess and process images. We can continue sticking to our old low–resolution screens, but I doubt my ACD will last longer than a few years. Will there be software solutions, say, within Photoshop or Affinity Photo, that will allow to replicate evaluating images on low resolution screens, or will low–resolution displays become niche, expensive products featuring very wide gamut and allowing true and precise calibration and profiling? I bet on the latter.

*I bought mine back in 2006. It still looks as elegant.

**Of course, this is not news for photographers who have been printing from when 72ppi monitors were the norm: working on 72ppi displays preparing images for 240–360dpi output was a very regular exercise.

27 January 2018 » Update on my experience with Epson SureColor P800 printer

I have now used the Epson SureColor P800 printer for over a year, and feel that I have enough experience with it to share my longer–term impressions. Before I do, I should note that my usage is quite sporadic: I may print one print in a couple of weeks, or several prints every day during a week, or the printer may sit idle for a whole month. Ambient temperature and humidity also change during the year as we have to run air conditioning in summer and winter (read the air gets quite dry). With this clarified, here is an update on the issues I outlined in the original report.

Epson SureColor P800 printer (image courtesy of Epson)

The wi-fi connectivity issue I mentioned must have been related to my computer and/or home network. Last year I changed Internet service provider, and a month ago I upgraded my early–2008 Mac Pro to an iMac 2017. After this, all problems related to wi–fi connectivity disappeared (I blame the wi–fi card in the Mac Pro). Now wireless connectivity just works and I am happy to have it, particularly as I have had to place the printer in a room different from where the computer is.

Inserting print media through the front feeder continues to be a somewhat unnerving exercise: every now and then I still get paper corners creased. A considerable dose of patience and meticulousness is still recommended. And while speaking of corners, sometimes I still get smudging around paper corners even with seemingly flat paper (this seems to happen with smaller paper sizes, A4 in my case). I know this is not a solution for most, but Epson paper has the 2:3 aspect ratio while most of my images are square or 3:4, so I cut the sides of the paper anyway.

One area where the P800 has clearly come way ahead of 4880 is printer head clogging. There is no way to quantify this, but, subjectively, while 4880 required constant attention in this regard, it is mostly a non–issue with the P800. In the initial period of use I often thought, "Is not it time to clean the printer head?" But no, it was not. Of course, the P800 likely does the necessary print head cleaning when the printer is switched on and off, but it is done swiftly and without drawing attention in daily use. Also, heavy clogging after an extended period of printer sitting idle is done quickly and in just one cleaning cycle—with the 4880, it could easily take torturous four or five cycles.

After using up the two sample packs of Hahnemuhle paper my friend gave me, I switched to Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper and have been using it ever since. As I mostly printed on Epson Enhanced Matte Paper and Epson UltraSmooth Fine Art paper with the 4880, I cannot make direct comparison of print quality of the two printers. While prints from P800 do seem to have deeper blacks—again, subjectively—the difference is far from drastic; it is not something you would complain about—or praise—unless you closely examine identical prints from the two printers side by side.

The printer comes with initial cartridges that contain 64ml of ink. The time to start changing them came quickly, and I noted immediately that the ink of the P800 is much more expensive than that of the 4880. As of this writing, one 80ml cartridge for P800 costs USD54.95, or USD0.69 per ml, while one 110ml cartridge for 4880 costs USD58.99, or USD0.54 per ml (per ml cost of 220ml cartridges is even lower: USD0.38)*. It may be argued that the P800 has newer and better inks, but still, the difference is massive. Epson 4880 clearly is much more economical—even if you throw expired–yet–half–full 220ml cartridges away!

My overall conclusion is that the 4880 and the P800 are aimed at very different uses—with the main difference being the amount of printing that you do. If you print often and a lot, then robust construction, much better paper handling, and notably more economical ink cartridges of the 4880 (or similar printers) clearly have an advantage and make life easier; printer head clogging is a pain–you–know–where, but frequent printing may mitigate it somewhat. If, however, you are mostly into fine art photography—where usually fewer images are printed and more time is spent between test prints to let them sink in and fine–tune adjustments—then the P800 is a better fit. My needs happen to fall into the second category, and I am overall happy with the P800 for now—and likely for years to come.

*All prices are from bhphotovideo.com.

18 January 2018 » Impressions of the Pacific Ocean

I grew up in a place that, although called "the port of five seas", ironically is very far from any sea. The first time I went to a seaside was well in my twenties. Honestly, I was not impressed: just water, helplessly splashing over the shore in a repetitive fashion. Watching the Pacific Ocean from the east coast of Taiwan in Hualien, however, was something else entirely: I was totally captivated by the patterns on the surface; utterly subtle and ever changing, they were unmistakably perpetuated by immense power underneath. Add to that an equally delicate sky elegantly dancing with the surface of the ocean, and you have a subject matter you just cannot walk away from.

One may naturally be inclined to capture the classic near–middle–far type of landscapes when photographing the ocean, but I was transfixed by the patterns and the accompanying sky to the extent that I did not care for any sort of foreground; irrational as it may sound, I was compelled to photograph them straight on. I observed and photographed the changes in the surface patterns, the clouds and light in the morning, at midday and in the evening for three days. It was one of those rare "I want to have this on large format film" experiences, and luckily I did bring my Ebony camera with me. Below is a selection of images that speak to me most.