Erwin Puts On Modern Kit Lenses
Jeremy
level of quality consciousness has been lowered during the last twenty
years. Even a simple $100+ bread and butter lens as the EF 28-105mm or the
current so-called kit lenses that are offered for a price below $100 can
simply not be good! The design is quite complicated with seven and more
lenses, fully glued together in plastic mounts by robots and with a low
level of quality control. Still most persons love the results and are quite
happy and if that is the case, why should we adopt more stringent criteria."
Chris Loffredo
But digital is *magic*:
Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming
close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results -
despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film", "as good as MF"
and even "approaching the quality of LF".
It's like discussing theology with a religious fanatic...
Malcolm Stewart
news:Ro2kg.6039$h46.3481@trnddc07...
I have probably the cheapest of the EF 28-105 lenses Erwin refers to, and on
slide film checked randomly using a decent lupe, I was quite pleased with
the results. (It's a very light lens and does cover a useful range, after
all.) Fortunately, before trusting it for use on a very weight limited
holiday with my EOS 5D, I ran some checks with it on my 5D - like printing
to A3. It stayed at home, and instead I took my original EF 28-80 f3.5-5.6
USM, and I wasn't let down.
(Anyway, who's Erwin? Is it the Putz (Puts) guy? and who's he anyway?)
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Jeremy
news:4fc7t1F...@individual.net...
>>
>
> But digital is *magic*:
> Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming
> close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results -
> despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film", "as good as MF"
> and even "approaching the quality of LF".
> It's like discussing theology with a religious fanatic...
Puts does admit, with some degree of resignation, that digital is here to
stay. But I found his comments to have much insight--certainly a lot deeper
than the typical "Film vs. Digital" arguments that have been going on Ad
Nauseum on USENET. At least he says that it's time for everyone to get over
the debating and recognize that each domain has its own strengths and
weaknesses. See Below:
"The transition from chemical (film-based) photography to digital imaging is
a fact. We may deplore this phenomenon, but progress cannot be halted. The
technical quality and impact of photographs is still superior to the results
that can be generated form the digital process. But the margins are thin and
are nullified by the convenience and real time experiences of the digital
way of making pictures.
It is best to stop the current debate raging on all internetforums and in
the press about the advantages and disadvantages of analogue versus digital.
Professionals and consumers have overwhelmingly chosen the digital route.
Signs of the time are the selling of the Agfa film business to a group of
investors, the feeble position of Ilford, once the masthead of B&W film
technology and the innovation stop at Kodak with respect to film. The
announcement that Technical Pan will be killed, will no doubt not be the
last we will hear form Kodak.
The traditional B&W worker will occupy a very tiny niche were a few small
firms will produce high quality goods and make a decent profit. I hope we
will see this happen quite soon, as it will indicate a healthy state of the
business. As it is now, analogue products are the legacy products of
companies that want to survive in the digital world. And these products are
very vulnerable because no one has any interest in continuation of
production as soon as profit margins are shrinking.
The choice for film-based B&W photography is nowadays a deliberate choice
for an enchanting medium, a certain style of work and a cultivated approach
to picture taking. You go for analogue photography because you like the
technique and the results. The endless and useless comparison to digital
imagery should be evaded. It is a medium in itself and with a certain
philosophy. 'Picture taking' has a very different connotation than 'image
making' and these words indicate in a nutshell the difference in approach.
Drawing, painting and photography have always been dissected in two big
parts, the artistic and the technical. From the beginning any artist has
made a choice: depict reality as it is (technical) or as it appears to the
viewer/artist (artistically). Photography started its life as a tool to
depict reality as it is. The early photographs were instrumental in aiding
the artist to recreate reality as it is. A major industry in the beginning
was the accurate reproduction of nude models for the artists who could
afford themselves a real life model to pose for them. The relationship with
today's glamour photography is quite evident.
The early travelers and discoverers were very excited about the photographic
instruments. These tools allowed them to reproduce buildings and scenes of
interest without being expert craftsmen in drawing and painting.
The journalistic tradition stems from these origins. And photography has
always provided the tools and means to reproduce the reality as closely as
possible. Optical and mechanical and chemical techniques worked together to
provide the optimal images that reproduced the world in front of the camera.
The Leica camera and the celluloid film cooperated to produce the best
possible results.
In our days, the digital imagery is tending in the other direction. Digital
photography has more affinity to painting than to reproduction. The growing
importance of digital photography reflects the trend to self-expression and
the visual diary of the box camera. Here we see a technological evolution
that is merely reproducing the trends of older days: the simple recording of
memorable events as a visual diary.
In my view, photography is a craft that tries to reproduce reality as
honestly as possible and the best means to do this is the film based
photography. I accept and agree that digital imagery has its advantages."
Scott W
Chris Loffredo wrote:
> But digital is *magic*:
> Take a lens that won't form a decent image on a film camera (not coming
> close to film's limits) and put it on a digicam; suddenly the results -
> despite a smaller capture area - are "better than film
It really does not take much of a lens to have the limit of detail be
the film and not the lens.
Scott
Bandicoot
>
> Puts does admit, with some degree of resignation, that digital is here to
> stay. But I found his comments to have much insight--certainly a lot
deeper > than the typical "Film vs. Digital" arguments that have been going
on Ad
> Nauseum on USENET. At least he says that it's time for everyone to get
> over the debating and recognize that each domain has its own strengths and
> weaknesses. See Below:
>
> "The transition from chemical (film-based) photography to digital imaging
is
> a fact. We may deplore this phenomenon, but progress cannot be halted.
> The technical quality and impact of photographs is still superior to the
> results that can be generated form the digital process. But the margins
are
> thin and are nullified by the convenience and real time experiences of the
> digital way of making pictures.
This is well said. Acrylic paint is (can be) faster in use than oil, and
can produce very similar results. At one time people thought it might
replace oil, but it hasn't because they are _similar_ but not the same -
some painters prefer oil and don't mind the slower drying times etc. No one
now suggests that oils are dead, though there are certainly fewer painters
using them relative to those who choose acrylics (and alkyds).
It will be nice if the film/digital debate eventually reaches this position
and people can see them as two different picture making routes, not rivals
or potential replacements for one another.
Peter
Bandicoot
news:1150387643.3...@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Resolution is a system: ie. the end result is a function of the resolving
power of every step (lens, stability of camera, accuracy of focusing, film,
enlarging lens or scanner, printing paper or digital printer...) NOT simply
delimited by the lowest resolution of any step in the chain. Thus it does
still help (considerably) to have a lens that has more resolving power than
the film/sensor - assuming one is also making the effort with all the other
steps in the chain.
Peter
Jeremy
>
> It will be nice if the film/digital debate eventually reaches this
> position
> and people can see them as two different picture making routes, not rivals
> or potential replacements for one another.
>
What is wearisome is that so may amateurs have become so insistent that they
have the Ultimate Truth, and that film must be dead (and don't date try
telling them otherwise!)
Puts hits the nail on the head when he suggests that the major difference is
that digital photographers create images--with the digital camera being only
one step in the chain--while film photographers "take pictures."
The practice of first taking the photo on film, then digitizing and
digitally-manipulating the resulting image, blurs the distinction that Puts
makes.
But he at least shifts the focus away from the adversarial arguments and
attempts to remind us that, although there is some degree of overlap, the
two domains do have mutually exclusive uses. When amateurs say that "Film
Is Dead," what they are really saying is that film is dead for THEIR
particular applications.
Some of the classic portraiture results from custom labs look darned good as
prints made from film, and there is the distinct possibility that people
will one day see digital prints as the "same ole' same ole', and just might
revisit the unique qualities of prints made from film cameras and classic
lenses. Wouldn't it be something if Carl Zeiss, for example, became the
premiere manufacturer of top-shelf lenses for film cameras--whose optical
properties were distinctively different from that of digital cameras?
As one example, consider digital point & shoots. I have one, along with
virtually every consumer that owns a digital camera. Depth-of-field is so
deep that EVERYTHING is in focus, virtually all of the time. That can be a
real bummer, because the prints are always "busy," and the viewer's
attention is constantly shifting from the foreground to the background
objects. Those p&s models have "consumer" stamped all over them. Heck, a
K-1000 and a normal lens offer so many opportunities to creatively utilize
defocus. But the consumer only notices that his digicam has a ZOOM LENS!
There was an article some months back in the NY Times, where a photographer
commented that everybody in the business was using the same three or four
lenses, and that the images all had the same look about them. He did some
photos on a Speed Graphic that really impressed people, mainly because they
looked different.
So buy up those mechanical cameras and classic lenses before the public
realize that they are tools that enable their users to breakaway from the
digital fold..
Scott W
This is true to some extent but not as much as you might think. Blur
circles do not add as you might think, if the film blurs by say 0.015mm
and the lens by 0.05 the combination is not 0.020 but rather 0.0158 mm.
The larger factor tends to dominate the over all performance of the
system.
Note this is not to say that a poor lens or camera shake, can't
degrade the final image, but it does say you will run into the limits
of film pretty fast. Unless you use something like gigabit film, which
has fantastic resolution. To me this photo shows what a 35mm camera
can do, if the film is not the limiting factor.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tobermory_SH_crop_1000.jpg
That is a photo and scan by Max Perl and is by far the sharpest scan
that I have seen.
Compare that scan to one that Max did using Velvia, which is one of the
higher resolution color films. Here again Max's scan if one of the
best that I have seen for color but does not come even close to the
resolution of his Gigabit scan.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/Tabert_crop_1000.jpg
Max went to pretty extreme lengths to get the color image so I don't
think it limited resolution can be an issue of technique.
Chris seems to feel that image are more limited by the lens then the
film and feels that if he is using a really good lens there is no way a
digital camera using a lesser lens (say his prime against a Zoom on the
digital) can produce a better image.
This is not a simple comparison to make since resolution is only one
part of what maked a good image. Just about anyone who compares large
prints make for a 20D and a film like Velvia will like the 20D print
better, even though the Velvia print will have some more visible
detail. When looking at the same areas a camera like the 20D way out
resolves any color film that I have seen. The 20D has a pixel spacing
that is very close to 4000ppi (3955 ppi) so you can pretty much compare
a 4000 ppi scan of film directly with the pixel from the 20D. In doing
this you will see just how much detail the lens if capable of producing
but that film just can capture.
By far the biggest limit in color 35mm film photography is the film.
Scott
Scott W
> But he at least shifts the focus away from the adversarial arguments and
> attempts to remind us that, although there is some degree of overlap, the
> two domains do have mutually exclusive uses.
film SLR. It is all just photography and by no means mutually
exclusive. I think what bothers some people is the idea that more and
more everything is getting encoded as a bunch of numbers. There were
and still are people who just can't stand the idea of this with
regards to music and by the same token there are those who just can't
accept the idea with regard to photography. But even in film
photograph the image that is captured on film is reduced to nothing
more then numbers.
To some film is almost like a living breathing entity with personality,
but to the film engineers it is just transfer functions, deterministic
and predictable.
Some people will just be happier working with film, but they are not
doing a service to themselves if they believe that they are the true
photographers and the people using digital cameras are somehow lesser
photographers. Buy the same token using film does not make one a
lesser photographer, but in some cases it does make your life harder.
Scott
Gordon Moat
Jeremy wrote:
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message
>
>>It will be nice if the film/digital debate eventually reaches this
>>position
>>and people can see them as two different picture making routes, not rivals
>>or potential replacements for one another.
>>
>
>
> What is wearisome is that so may amateurs have become so insistent that they
> have the Ultimate Truth, and that film must be dead (and don't date try
> telling them otherwise!)
>
> Puts hits the nail on the head when he suggests that the major difference is
> that digital photographers create images--with the digital camera being only
> one step in the chain--while film photographers "take pictures."
>
This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to
"take pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted
in a computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach
to imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies.
> The practice of first taking the photo on film, then digitizing and
> digitally-manipulating the resulting image, blurs the distinction that Puts
> makes.
>
Depends a bit upon the level of manipulation. At a certain point, it
goes away from being photography to become photo-illustration, or
design. Those are not bad things, nor are they lesser things, just
different from photography.
> . . . . .. Wouldn't it be something if Carl Zeiss, for example, became the
> premiere manufacturer of top-shelf lenses for film cameras--whose optical
> properties were distinctively different from that of digital cameras?
>
I would state Schneider, or maybe Rodenstock (Linos), though definitely
Zeiss do some great design work. Shame they got out of large format,
though maybe they will head back in that direction at some point. Not to
be too critical, the large format offerings of Nikon, Fuji, and Cooke
have also been quite good, and tougher to find bad choices amongst any
of these companies.
In small format lenses, Zeiss and Leica have been more consistent than
other companies. This also does not mean other companies cannot make
great lenses; we can find nice choices amongst most 35mm manufacturers.
> . . . . . . . . . .
> There was an article some months back in the NY Times, where a photographer
> commented that everybody in the business was using the same three or four
> lenses, and that the images all had the same look about them. He did some
> photos on a Speed Graphic that really impressed people, mainly because they
> looked different.
>
This argument has been used by many pros, those mostly a statement of
many photojournalists using Canon gear. David Burnett has been the guy
with the Speed Graphic at news events. Many would find his images are
different, or just stand out, regardless of what camera he chose to use.
> So buy up those mechanical cameras and classic lenses before the public
> realize that they are tools that enable their users to breakaway from the
> digital fold..
>
>
Shhh . . . you're going to drive the prices up.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Jeremy
>
> This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to "take
> pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted in a
> computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach to
> imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies.
>
That scenario may be a bit of an exception. One of digital's advantages is
that the photographer can manipulate the image in ways that were previously
unavailable. I think Puts was making the case that the use of the digital
camera was only one step in a longer workflow chain, as opposed to analog
slide film images, where the camera was the only step ("making images vs.
taking pictures).
Digital involves a different mindset. Puts makes the argument that it is
precisely that difference in mindset and workflow that will keep film
photography alive.
Personally, I am put off at the prospect of shelling out money every 2-3
years to replace equipment and lenses that have been eclipsed by more
up-to-date replacements. But, regardless of what position one takes, at
least Puts adds depth to the debate. I'm tired of the same old "Film vs.
Digital" debates. We can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of
each style, while in our sleep.
Scott W
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> >
> > This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to "take
> > pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted in a
> > computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach to
> > imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies.
> >
>
> That scenario may be a bit of an exception. One of digital's advantages is
> that the photographer can manipulate the image in ways that were previously
> unavailable. I think Puts was making the case that the use of the digital
> camera was only one step in a longer workflow chain, as opposed to analog
> slide film images, where the camera was the only step ("making images vs.
> taking pictures).
>
> Digital involves a different mindset. Puts makes the argument that it is
> precisely that difference in mindset and workflow that will keep film
> photography alive.
>
> Personally, I am put off at the prospect of shelling out money every 2-3
> years to replace equipment and lenses that have been eclipsed by more
> up-to-date replacements.
need to buy a new
camera very 2-3 years. There are people still very happy with their
10D, which came out
more then 3 years ago. And it is clear that the very rapid advancement
of digital camera has slowed way down. They continue to get better but
if you get a camera that works for you there is no need to replace it.
On the filp side I have had two film scanners and if I was to shoot
film ever again I would feel the need to buy another film scanner and
shell out a lot of money for it.
> But, regardless of what position one takes, at
> least Puts adds depth to the debate. I'm tired of the same old "Film vs.
> Digital" debates. We can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of
> each style, while in our sleep.
No you are not at all tired of the debates, if you were it would be
very simple not to join in
on these threads, but you do on just about every one. If people wish
to debate the merits of the two types of cameras what is it to you?
Scott
Ken Nadvornick
> I'm tired of the same old "Film vs. Digital" debates. We
> can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of each
> style, while in our sleep.
Amen to that...
It's one reason the ranks of film users have thinned out here and moved
elsewhere. After several years of online presence APUG is still adding
hundreds of new users per month. (Not directed at you. I know you already
know this.)
Ken
Gordon Moat
Jeremy wrote:
> "Gordon Moat" <mo...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>
>>This is where I disagree with Erwin. One could indeed use a D-SLR to "take
>>pictures". Just because the image could be manipulated or adjusted in a
>>computer does not mean it needs to be done that way. The approach to
>>imaging could be exactly the same using both technologies.
>>
>
>
> That scenario may be a bit of an exception. One of digital's advantages is
> that the photographer can manipulate the image in ways that were previously
> unavailable. I think Puts was making the case that the use of the digital
> camera was only one step in a longer workflow chain, as opposed to analog
> slide film images, where the camera was the only step ("making images vs.
> taking pictures).
>
That is to me more illustration or design than photography. Take a look
in my design portfolio, and you will see an image of a poster of a band.
A few of the heads were removed, and shirt collars put in place of the
missing heads. The original image was on a Kodachrome, then drum
scanned, then into PhotoShop for the changes. While it started on
Kodachrome, I consider that image as photo-illustration (or design)
because it is altered. My drawing skills made it work more than my
knowledge of PhotoShop. It should be noted there is not yet a "Remove
Heads" Filter in PhotoShop, though maybe in one of the future releases. ;-)
> Digital involves a different mindset. Puts makes the argument that it is
> precisely that difference in mindset and workflow that will keep film
> photography alive.
>
I saw similar comments from a few other published sources, one of those
the designer of the Nikon F6. He stated something to the effect of film
photographers having "respect for the image". Unfortunately, without
reposting that entire interview, the implied message in that will likely
be lost on some here.
> Personally, I am put off at the prospect of shelling out money every 2-3
> years to replace equipment and lenses that have been eclipsed by more
> up-to-date replacements. But, regardless of what position one takes, at
> least Puts adds depth to the debate. I'm tired of the same old "Film vs.
> Digital" debates. We can all recite the advantages and disadvantages of
> each style, while in our sleep.
>
>
Well stated. I find it interesting that when an advertising agency or
art buyer reviews a portfolio, it is extremely rare that they ask how
the images were created. The contrast of that might be many amateur and
enthusiast photographers who state or list all their gear on their websites.
I always have the approach that I am providing a service and creative
solutions, rather than attempting to be a gear rental outlet. While I
have used specific gear at clients requests, those are the rare exceptions.
Jeremy
\
>
>
> I always have the approach that I am providing a service and creative
> solutions, rather than attempting to be a gear rental outlet. While I have
> used specific gear at clients requests, those are the rare exceptions.
>
>
You make your living from creating images, and one would expect that people
in your position would be oriented more toward image creation than "taking
pictures."
I have an entirely different orientation, for what I believe are perfectly
valid reasons. I am an amateur. I shoot for my own pleasure. I work in an
industry that is totally unconnected with photography, art or design. When
I shoot, it is not because I am on assignment, or because I must try to
please an editor or because I am hoping to add to my stock of photographic
images in the hope of future sales.
And, after over 2 decades of being in denial, I now have come to grips with
the fact that I am no artist and never was one. My particular skill set
lies in other directions. That is how I was "wired." So I no longer try to
create images that consist of what I sometimes mockingly refer to as
"interesting shapes and colors."
Instead I utilize photography as a tool to preserve historic images of
things that are in a state of change. I shoot lots of areas that are
undergoing urban renewal. Like trolley car routes that are being replaced
by busses. Last year I did a series of shots of those bright red fire call
boxes that were mounted on poles throughout my home town, and that were
being decommissioned after 100 years, because now people can call the Fire
Department on their cell phones. I am currently working on a project of
creating photos of a group of municipal buildings that are scheduled to be
torn down to make way for luxury condos. The municipality has purchased a
large parcel of land and is now building all new Police and Fire
headquarters, municipal services buildings, a high school and other
facilities. In two years, none of the current buildings will remain.
Nobody else has even thought of saving images of those scenes.
There are places all across America that have never been photographed. I
got my inspiration for this work from seeing a series of books from Arcadia
Press called "Images of America," with each book featuring one town or one
neighborhood of a large city. When I saw the book on my own home town, with
photographs and paintings of places that were familiar to me--some of which
went back many decades--I became hooked. I was fascinated by seeing how
places used to look--places that I grew up in.
So for me the key word is "Realism." I do not want to manipulate an image
in any way. I want it to look just as it did when I snapped the shutter.
That means no attempt to use angles that flatter the location, such as
avoiding litter on the street or buildings in decay. I use the normal lens
almost exclusively, because I want to minimize the effects of apparent
perspective distortion. Perhaps I'm being overly flattering in my
estimation of the value of my work, but I do believe that my images will
have a great deal of historical value many decades from now. Too bad I
won't be around to find out for sure.
Manipulated images don't offer any spark for me. In fact, I find many
advertising shots to be boring, even though they may have been created using
cutting-edge techniques. But I could spend hours at flea markets going
through boxes of old photos. Looking at the clothing people wore, the cars
they drove, the buildings they worked in, the old street signs, the old
uniforms.
I spend many hours with the National Geographic CD collection--the one that
has every magazine they ever published. The old ads are fascinating. Some
people may find this all boring, but I am mesmerized by that stuff.
Given the type of slow (some might say "plodding"), intuitive kind of
photographer that I am (I routinely use tripods, lens hoods, cable
releases), the kind that takes several minutes to set up the shot, the kind
that goes to some pains to be sure that the horizon is perfectly level in
the viewfinder, the kind that brackets--can you see how, when someone posts
that I ought to get with the times and use equipment that will let me take
400 shots per session--that I just look back and say, "So what?"
Even on my digital camera I usually shoot while on a tripod, and I use the
camera's remote control as a cable release. If I shoot 80 images in one
day, that is a lot. I am just not oriented toward taking tons of shots, and
hoping that a few of them will be keepers.
Over the past two years I "updated" my equipment and have added 4 Pentax "P"
Series bodies and a couple of normal lenses from the "A" series--twenty
years old, and for me it is a big update! I probably should do large-format
photography, but I don't like the idea of lugging that equipment around, and
of paying a lot for a single shot. So I continue to use 35mm, but I operate
my equipment more like it was 4x5 than 35mm. The stuff I photograph isn't
moving. And I don't have to meet a deadline by which the images must be
ready for publication or broadcast. I can wait a few days to get my slides
or prints back.
I'll leave it to others to make images of "Interesting Shapes And Colors."
William Graham
than you are) But I take pictures for much the same reason as do you. I do
scan them and crop them sometimes, in Photoshop, if I see something
interesting in them. But there is nothing wrong with this....Realism is
"art" too......
Scott W
To all that you have said here I say right on. I also have the
National Geographic CD collection and love to look back at old photos
of either where I live or where I have visited.
As for you photos be of value you better start on that right now.
Things are not the same as 100 years ago where there were very few
photos. We have many billion a year now and unless you do something
yours will not stand out above the rest. My suggestion is to take the
very best photos around you town now and in 20 to 30 years contact the
local historical society and see if they are interesting in them. But
they better be well documented, particularly the date and place. And
be prepared that in 20 years from now you may find that they would
rather have digital files then negatives or prints.
For myself I am working with our club's (canoe club) historian and
getting her a bunch of photographs, for which she is delighted.
I am also trying to get very high-resolution photographs of our town.
I live in a tourist town and so there are about a million photos taken
of it every day. So if I want my photographs to be more then just a
few more out of of millions I need to get photos that others are not.
I also am photographing a lot of areas others are not, the vacant lots
and farmer's fields that will all too soon be gone.
Don't make the mistake that because historians are interested in a
given type of photo from 100 year ago that they will be at all
interesting 100 years from now in the same type of photo taken today.
Scott
Gordon Moat
once thought of being a photojournalist, though unfortunately in my path
through college it became evident that it was an extremely tough career
path with a questionable future. Not to state that creative imaging is
better, or not difficult, but the large conglomeration of news
organizations has somewhat diminished photojournalism.
Your imaging of buildings and changes can be a significant reminder of
history. I applaud your efforts.