Shutterfinger

What I've Been Doing Since My Last Post

I know: I said I was calling it quits to blogging, but I just can’t help making one or two more posts. After all, the street photography book that was one of the main reasons I stopped blogging was just published in late May. Since I mentioned Shutterfinger in the book and related promotional efforts, I’d be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the book here.

 The book’s title is “Street Photography: The Art of Capturing the Candid Moment,” published by Rocky Nook. The list price for the print version is $29.95, with an e-book version available for $19.95. You should be able to find either one on Amazon for less or, if you prefer, you can visit Rocky Nook’s website or a physical bookstore. If you'd to support my past and present efforts, I encourage you to buy a copy, if you haven’t already.

You may also be interested in a podcast I did with Derrick Story of The Digital Story. The topic was “Street Photography Ethics”—something I wrote about in the book but explored more fully in the podcast. I participated in a similar discussion of style in street photography, which should appear soon on Valeria Jardin’s Street Focus podcast, hosted on the This Week in Photo website.

Your feedback on any and all of these will be welcome here in the comments section. In the meantime, my next big adventure will a two-week trip to Ghana; specifically Lolito, a small town in the Upper Volta region. My family and I will be helping with renovations and upgrades to the local school. I plan to document our efforts via video and stills. Who knows? I may even post the results here on Shutterfinger.

Is This The Last of Shutterfinger?

Nothing in this world lasts forever my friends, including Shutterfinger. This is to confirm that I've decided to lay it down, give it a rest, cease and desist, or in other words stop posting. I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to all of you who have supported me throughout the years, either through donations, comments, suggestions, encouragement, or just quiet readership. It's not something I take for granted.

If you're wondering why, here are my main reasons, in no particular order:

1. I've accomplished everything I set out to do. I've had the chance to share my photographs along with what I know and what I've learned. One or two of my posts have gone viral. Readers have contributed positive and supportive comments. Some have even tossed a few bucks in my tip jar from time to time. It's been fun.
   
   
2. There's not much incentive to continue. I've never been in it for the money, so there's no financial loss to stopping. If I ever feel the urge to express myself I can contribute as a guest blogger on one of the more popular photo blogs and without the pressure of regular upkeep.
   
   
3. The Internet is awash with photo blogs. This is a good thing if you like reading photo blogs. There are plenty to choose from and practically all are free. It's not such a great thing if you're a photo blogger though, because it's hard to gain a readership and then once you gain one it's hard to maintain. Suffice it say that even if some of you are sad to see me go, you'll have plenty of other excellent blogs to choose from.
   
   
4. I have other things I'd rather do. I'll keep shooting, needless to say. I'll also spend more time practicing and improving my guitar skills. Guitars are more fun and provide more satisfaction than cameras at this stage in my life.

This site will remain up for at least several more months for the benefit of anyone who happens to stumble on it or anyone who wants to browse the archives one last time. Anyone who wants to contact me can send a comment or e-mail me. You can find my e-mail address by visiting my Shutterfinger photo portfolio on Zenfolio.

If you have a particular interest in street photography, want me to notify you when my upcoming book is published, or are interested in buying a print or two, send me your e-mail address. I promise I won't spam you, add you to a mailing list, or give or sell your address to anyone else. In the meantime, here are a few farewell photos. I hope you like them. This may be the last post you read on Shutterfinger but it won't be the last you hear of Gordon Lewis (I hope). In the meantime, here's wishing you a restful holiday season and a joyous New Year.

 

 

New Year’s Dump

I consider this my last good shot of 2012. I like how the graphic shapes, colors, and layout are being softend by soft, organic, moving, unpredictable flakes of snow. To see the rest of my best for the year visit Shutterfinger's Best of 2012.

Like most people, I get a few days off between Christmas and New Years Day. I spend most of my time relaxing with family and friends. I take a few photographs—again, mostly of family and friends. It’s also a great time to catch up on the novels I’ve wanted to read—“NW” by Zadie Smith, for example. That still leaves plenty of time for culling through each and every one of my photo folders, from January through December, and separating the wheat from the chaff. For those of you unfamiliar from this now archaic figure of speech, it means I separate the photos worth keeping from those that deserve to be deleted from my hard drive.

Yes, I know that hard drive space is cheap these days and that the incremental cost of not deleting photos is small. I know that editing photos can be a pain in the ass. I also know that having to wade through dozens of crap photos just to find the few dozen that give me real pleasure is no fun either, especially if I have to do it more than once. For me, editing my images is like editing my sentences: the fewer you use to get your point across, the stronger and clearer the statement.

 Everyone’s approach is different I suppose, but for what’s it’s worth, here’s mine:

1. I start with the images that obviously don’t deserve to live. I’m speaking mostly of the ones that even I, their creator, have no interest in: images that are out of focus, boring, repetitive, variations on other images, and pointless test shots. These are literally just wasting space and adding clutter. I delete them without remorse. (They can still be of great value though. It was while browsing through jusgt such a series that I noticed my 50mm f/1.8G Nikkor was back-focusing by a significant degree. I had to dial-in +10 of front-focus on my Nikon D7000 body just to bring it back to normal. More on this later.)
2. The next category is hardest. These are the in-betweeners. They aren’t good enough to be great, yet aren’t bad enough to merit instant deletion. Many of my vacation photos fall into this category. They bring back memories of places I’ve been and events I’ve seen and the memories alone have sentimental value. I still delete a lot of them, especially if, after a few months later, the people, places, and events don’t seem nearly as interesting as they once did. I’m much more inclined to be merciful in this category if the images contain friends and family or something else of great sentimental value than not. In that case I think about whether they might be useful in albums or collections such as “Summer Surfing” or “Dee’s 50^th Birthday.”
3. The third category is, in a way, the easiest. I have a very clear sense of what I like in a photograph and which best express my visual style(s). Most of these photos have already been adjusted, cropped, flagged or rated in some way. I can instantly recognize them as one of my best, at least for the year, and why. With these I may adjust the rating up or down as time lends more objectivity. I also use them as a basis for reflection on how much my vision has grown (or not), new directions worth exploring, and whether certain images are better as part of a group or individually.

 And that, my friends, is how I arrived at my “Best of 2012” collection. I invite you to give it a look and to comment if you feel moved to do so. I also encourage you to do the same. If you already have, send me a link. I can’t promise to post the link on Shutterfinger; then again, I just might. In either case, here’s wishing you a new year of photos that bring you joy and satisfaction.

Why It's Been Quiet

I'm posting this photo for no reason other than I like it and it captures the meditative mood I'm in at the moment. I shot this years ago with a Leica M6. I can't remember what lens I used, but one thing is for sure: it was amazingly low on flare and veiling glare.

You may have noticed that it's been quieter than usual at Shutterfinger of late. I normally post once a week. It's been more than a week since my last post. Assuming you've noticed at all, this is not necessarily cause for alarm. Assuming you have noticed, here's why it's been so quiet: I've been reflecting on why I started this blog in the first place and whether these reasons are sufficient for continuing.

The main reason I started writing Shutterfinger was to see what it was like. I wanted to see how many people were interested in my photographs and what I wanted to write about. I wanted to see how long I could do it; whether it would be fun or a burden; whether others found any value in what I was sharing.

I didn't do it for the money. Although it's certainly possible to earn a living as a photo blogger, those who are most successful at it approach it as a full-time job. They also have to cater to what most photography enthusiasts are most comfortable and familiar with, that being cameras, lenses, and other photo equipment. I know this from personal experience. The posts I've written that consistently receive the most readers and comments are equipment reviews. I've observed the same phenomenon on other photo blogs as well. Some consist of little else.

I say this not to denigrate photo equipment or reviews. Lord knows I can be just as fascinated with new gear as the next guy. (Gals are generally less gear-fixated than guys--or maybe it's just that they are fixated on different gear.) All I'm saying is that I'm not all that interested in writing about new equipment in and of itself, even if that would attract more readers.

I'm also not interested in attracting advertisers. You've got to write about lots of equipment and provide lots of links to associated products, services, and businesses to do that. Again, there's nothing wrong with it; I'm just not particularly interested in going down that path.

Finally, like most of you, I have an active life outside of blogging. I'm married, have three school-age kids, a full-time job, and prefer to spend my leisure time outdoors instead of sitting in front of a computer. Since I have yet to receive a single comment asking why I don't post more often, I assume you're generally happy with what you get, when you get it--especially since the price is right.

Still, nothing lasts forever. Should the day come when I decide to put Shutterfinger to rest, the thing I will value the most from this experience will be the acquaintances I've made, the people I've met, and the amazing work and insights you've shared. It's a big world out there, folks. Just knowing you're out there and that you care enough to visit from time to time makes it feel smaller and more friendly.

Best of Philly Street Photography -- 2010

I don't often take photos of people who are looking directly into the camera while I take their picture, but I can and I do. Fortunately for me, this gentleman seem to didn't mind at all. It consider it one of my best for 2010 because even though it was a grab shot, the placement of his head against the background and the placement the green foreground are anything but accidental.

I just thought I'd let you all know that I've added a new gallery to my online photography portfolio. It's called Best of Philly Street Photography -- 2010. Feel free to click the handy link if you'd like to take a look. There are 15 photos at the moment. I may add another five to make it an even 20. Some of you might be able to publish a gallery with 40 or more excellent shots that you've produced on a single subject in a single year. I'm not quite that good. On the other hand, 15 - 20 good shots is nothing to be ashamed of.

As always, feel free to leave feedback, either here or in the gallery itself. I'm particularly interested to know which ones you would personally buy and hang on your wall. (You are under no obligation to do so, of course. It's just a hypothetical question. If you had a genuine interest though, I wouldn't talk you out of it.) By the same token, if you see anything you think is weak and not worthy of display along the rest, say so. I can take it.

While you're looking at my photos, you might also reflect on your own work. How easily would you be able to put together a coherent "best of last year" photo collection? If it would be difficult, then why? Is it because it wouldn't be coherent, because none of your photos rises above the rest, or both? Is there anything you could do this year that would make it easier for you this time next year? If you want to be able to look back with pride on the work you've produced then there's no time like the present to do what it takes to produce it.

Nikon D7000 Mini-Review -- Part 2

Although it may not be obvious from a JPEG uploaded to the web, the 35mm f/2D Nikkor on my Nikon D7000 was able to resolve down to the twig level. Feel free to double-click on this photo to enlarge it to 800 pixels across.

Once I got the Nikon  D7000 set up to my liking it was time to take it to the streets. I was particularly curious to find out how well its 3D color matrix metering system would handle high-contrast lighting situations. Would highlights blow out beyond rescue without intervention on my part? I was also paying close attention to how well the auto white balance did in mixed lighting situations. Again, almost any camera can do a decent job with enough intervention. It’s the great ones that get you so close you often don’t have to change a thing. And let’s not forget high ISO performance. Low noise is great, but not if it means sacrificing fine detail or color saturation.

Last but not least on my list was focus speed and accuracy in low light, even with older non-chipped AI manual focus lenses. Since I own a few AI lenses I thought I might as well try using them. Would the D7000’s 39 focusing points give me 39 times ways to get the focus right or 39 ways to get it wrong? Read on to find out.

The D7000's matrix metering system tends to overexpose in situations like this one, where dark tones predominate. With center-weighted metering I can cheat the point of emphasis downward, toward the sidewalk.

Metering
The Nikon D7000 offers three metering patterns: matrix, center-weighted, and spot. The metering spot is fixed at 2.5mm in diameter (approximately 2.5% of the frame), however, you can adjust the size of the center-weighted area from 6mm to 13mm, or even remove the weighting entirely for full average meter. Non-CPU lenses default to an 8mm center-weighted pattern. Unfortunately, these areas are all rather abstract because there’s no indication in the viewfinder of where the metering area is concentrated.  A determined photographer armed with a small light source could probably figure it out, but I don’t have that kind of time.

My experiments indicated that matrix metering tends to be overly influenced by heavy shadows, with the result that skies and clouds are overexposed. This was much less of a problem with center-weighted metering, especially when I cheated the emphasis toward the highlights. That said, I most often used the D7000 in its Program or Aperture Preferred metering modes and, with few exceptions, got consistently good exposures.

Regardless of the metering pattern, usability was limited by the inability of metering scale in the D7000’s viewfinder to display anything greater than plus or minus two stops. There’s a digital indication (“+ 2.5” for example) in the viewfinder and other displays, but only when you’re pressing down on the exposure compensation button. I found that in the heat of shooting it was easy to forget whether I had set it and, if so, how much. I’ve consequently developed the habit of pressing the exposure compensation button simply to make sure it’s zeroed-out or set where I want it.

Situations like this one, where the foreground is lit by a different light source than the background, are tricky for any camera. Fortunately I could shoot raw, balance for the white counter in the foreground, and let the background colors fall where they may.

White Balance
Raw shooters tend not to be very concerned about in-camera white balance because it’s so easy to correct later with one’s raw developer of choice.  JPEG shooters need accurate balance from the get-go, because anything other than minor adjustments will cause posterization, blown color channels, and other irreparable issues. The good news is that D7000 has more than enough controls to allow a skilled photographer to get as close to perfect a white balance as one can get, either in-camera or in post. Better yet, the automatic white balance does a fine job of compensating for the most common indoor lighting sources such as tungsten/incandescent and fluorescent. Unlike some other brands I could name, photos taken under tungsten light look practically neutral. If you prefer a warmer rendition for tungsten, there’s an “Auto 2” option that will provide it.

One potential annoyance for those who change white balance often is that the button is located on the left side of the camera, along the edge of the LED monitor. It’s just above the ISO button, which as I mentioned in Part One of this review, isn’t conveniently located either. On the other hand, given that there’s no indication of white balance in the viewfinder, it’s probably just as well that you have to take the camera down from your eye to set it.

This was shot at ISO 1400 with my 35mm f/2 set at maximum aperture. As you can see, not only is the shadow noise low, the focus is spot-on.

High ISO
Let me be up front here: I’m not a high ISO junkie. I prefer to keep the ISO as low as possible while still providing a shutter speed I can use hand-held or that’s fast enough to stop most subject motion. If need be, I’ll even attach a portable flash unit to supplement or replace whatever light is available. That said, the Nikon D7000 produces better results at ISO 1600 than my Pentax K-7 does at ISO 800. (The K-7 is not known for its high ISO performance, however.) Its performance at ISO 3200 depends on what you’re shooting and how much you enlarge the resulting image. If you’re shooting detailed subjects in high- contrast situations, you’ll notice a loss of fine detail from noise reduction and an increase in shadow noise. This is less noticeable with bright, less detailed subjects and if you’re making prints 8x10-inches or smaller. ISO 6400 would be the limit for me, but it’s still better than most small digicams can produce at ISO 800.

Focusing
The D7000 focuses quickly and accurately in bright light, the only limit being the AF speed of the lens itself. Some lenses are faster than others. Low light focusing speed is more determined by the maximum aperture of the lens. As light levels drop, the smaller the maximum aperture of the lens, the less responsive the D7000’s AF system becomes, especially if you opt to turn off the AF assist light, which is a small but bright white LED on the front of the camera. (Trust me, the last thing you want when you’re trying to take discrete photos in low light is to shine a blinding spotlight on your subjects.) Fortunately, even with the AF assist light off the D7000 can manage accurate focus in dim light in less than two seconds.

For those of you who are considering using the D7000 with your stash of manual-focus AI or AI-S lenses, I’m happy to report that it works better than you might expect. You can program in the focal length and maximum aperture so they’ll appear in the EXIF data, but even if you don’t you can focus using either the manual focus indicator in the viewfinder or Live View on the LCD. The manual focus indicator has arrows that indicate which direction to turn the focusing ring and a green dot in the center that lights when focus is “spot on.” The focusing screen alone isn’t accurate enough to use for manual focusing, especially with fast lenses.
Live View is more of a “what you see is what you get” proposition. It works well if the camera is on a tripod, you’re focusing manually and you’re not in a hurry. For anything else--especially video, which isn’t one of my interests—the plethora of focusing aids, the comparative slowness of the AF, and the limitations on how to control exposure make it more trouble than it’s worth, at least for me.

This was shot at ISO 800 and lit mostly by a Nikon SB-600 flash unit bounced upward and to my right. The lens was a 50mm f/1.8 AI Nikkor, manually focused. Aside from the clarity if the image, notice the absence of shadow noise and the excellent separation between the singer's various black fabrics and the black fabric drape in the background.

Flash
Some photographers almost never use flash. Others (wedding and event photographers for example) almost never shoot without it. I fall somewhere in the middle: I don’t use it often, but when I do I expect a flash system that can perform to professional standards without time-wasting intervention on my part. The D7000 combined with a rented Nikon SB-600 flash exceeded my expectations. In rooms that had enough reflective walls or ceilings to allow bounce technique I could get photos that looked as if I hadn’t used flash at all. Better yet, it took a short learning curve and minimal effort.

Handling
Here is where the D7000 excels.  It feels great in my medium-sized hands; not too small, not to big, not too heavy. (Interestingly enough, even though the D7000 is 8.5mm taller than my Pentax K-7, both cameras weigh the same. Both feel durable, but the K-7, which is weather-sealed, feels more rugged.) The D7000’s controls are generally well located. Once I got used to the layout and what direction to turn the two main dials I could operate it quickly and intuitively. It always feels ready to shoot at a moment’s notice.

What I like most is the crisp feel and sound of the shutter combined with amazingly brief viewfinder blackout. In this respect it reminds me of my Nikon FM-3A film camera, which I keep around for exactly the same reason. Shooting with a camera that feels alert and responsive makes me  feel  the same way.

This photo of my son Cole was shot with the D7000 mounted on a tripod and lit with my Dyna-Lite studio flash heads. I used Live View to manually focus my 85mm f/2 Nikkor AI, which was set to f/11. The image is so sharp I can see flecks of dried milk around his lips. With some subject you might actually want to reduce the sharpness a bit.

Image Sharpness
You’ll need to visit the lab analysis sites for high-resolution pixel comparisons of the D7000 versus other cameras. My personal impression after using the D7000 with several of Nikon’s best performing lenses (the 35mm f/2D AF and 16-85mm f/.3.5-5-6G AF-VR among them) is that although the images can be impressively sharp, their micro-contrast is slightly lower than similar images from my Pentax K-7. This is the sort of thing you’d notice only if you pixel-peep or make huge prints, and then only if both cameras are tripod-mounted and accurately focused. It will be interesting to see how well the D7000 compares to the Pentax K-5, which uses a similar Sony imager.

Final Ruminations
Some might wonder why I would buy a Nikon D7000 if I already have a Pentax K-7 with several DA lenses. The answer is that I’m not a brand fanatic. I use whatever tools I like and have available to get the job done. Different jobs often require different cameras. I suspect I’m not alone in this regard.

As one example, Pentax’s flash system is not as well-designed and sophisticated as those from Canon and Nikon. The Pentax AF-540FGZ struggles in situations where comparable Canon or Nikon flash units produce consistent accurate exposures and color balance. When I’m covering a wedding or an event I need a flash system that makes the job easier, not  more difficult. The Pentax flash system isn’t quite there yet.

I also have an occasional need for lenses or specialized accessories that are readily available to rent for Canon or Nikon but hard to find for Pentax. In this respect the D7000 is more of a replacement for my Canon EOS 30D than a replacement for the Pentax K-7. The K-7 is still my camera of choice when I’m travelling and want to be able to carry a variety of excellent lenses in minimal space. The D7000 also can’t compete with the fact that any lens I use on the K-7 is image-stabilized. Being able to use a 55mm f/1.4 in low light with shake-reduction is a wonderful thing.

So in the end I’m still on the fence about the D7000. It’s an excellent camera but not so wonderful that I’m willing to invest in hundreds of dollars of large, heavy Nikkor lenses, especially when rentals are so readily available. I guess I’ll just have to wait until I can beg, borrow or steal a Pentax K-5 to compare it to. That might just tip the balance. In the meantime, I plan to put the camera reviews on hold and go back to doing what I enjoy most, which is taking photographs and sharing the experience with you, my loyal readers. Cameras come and go but good photographs live on as long as there are people to see them.

Nikon D7000 Mini-Review -- Part 1

One can't very well begin a review without a cheesecake shot, right? Here is the Nikon D7000 in graceful recline. The lens it's wearing is an old but still fashionable 35mm f/2.0D Nikkor.

I admit: I too can sometimes find a new camera so appealing that I have to try it out. In the case of the Nikon D7000, it's so popular and hard to find right now that I saw little risk in buying one. If I didn't like it enough to keep it I would have little trouble selling it. I haven't yet made my final decision. In the meantime, though, I thought I'd share my impressions with you. These impressions are based on having used the D7000 primarily for street photography, which constitutes the majority of my personal work, and secondarily for studio photography, which is what I do professionally if and when the opportunity presents itself.

For street photography I prefer a camera that is comfortable to carry and hold; relatively unobtrusive; available with small, fast primes; responsive; has accurate autofocus, especially in low light; and that takes only seconds to set and shoot. The less I have to concentrate on how to set the camera and the more I can concentrate on what’s going on around me, the better. The D7000 meets practically all of these requirements.

My studio photography needs are less demanding. The camera will almost always be mounted on a tripod and my subject will be lit by a powerful studio flash unit. A PC flash sync connector is handy but not necessary as long as the camera has a functioning hot shoe. What’s most important is that the camera is easy to set manually from the rear and with the camera locked down. The D7000 meets these requirements as well.

If you’re interested in how well, read on.

What's Your Excuse? (Redux)

This is a re-post of an article I wrote two years ago, when I was just getting Shutterfinger off the ground, out of the gate, or whatever metaphor you prefer. Some of you may remember it; for many of you it will be new. In either case, I think it's a point worth bringing up from time-to-time. If you're interested, read on.

What Your Choice of Camera Says About You

Just as the clothes you choose to wear, the food you like to eat, and the people you associate with say something about you, so does the camera system you buy into. The following observations are based on close association with the various groups of camera owners and from having belonged to each group at one time or another. Those who belong to the “lacking any sense of humor” or “offended at the drop of a hat” groups are strongly advised to read no further.

Canon owners
You appreciate the benefits of owning a camera system that leads in cutting-edge digital imaging technology and that offers a wealth of body, lens, and accessory options for every level of photographer, from lowly consumer to top professional. You will switch to Nikon.

Nikon owners
You appreciate the benefits of owning a camera system that leads in cutting-edge digital imaging technology and that offers a wealth of body, lens, and accessory options for every level of photographer, from lowly consumer to top professional. You will switch to Canon.

Sony owners
You believe that Sony’s innovations in consumer electronics and video technology, its leadership in digital imaging chip production, its in-body image stabilization, and its use of Zeiss optics results in a unique design synergy and products of exceptional value—because that’s what it says in the product literature. You also believe in astrology, UFOs and the Easter Bunny.

Pentax owners
You’re the sort of person who would buy a $1500 DSLR body so your stash of thread-mount, K-mount and M-mount lenses from decades ago (collectively worth $75.00 at a flea market or yard sale) won’t go to waste; either that, or you’ve never heard of a Spotmatic, Pentax LX or Takumar, you just think you look cool sporting a day-glo red camera that takes real pictures. You think people are laughing with you, not at you.

Olympus owners
You’re the sort of person who buys North Korean beer, Peruvian underwear, and French computers, not  because you actually like them but because no one else does. When people question your choice of camera system you respond that Olympus images have a certain “soul” and that photographs are what matter, not the camera. You have no friends.

Leica owners
You know that no other camera other than a Hasselblad gains as much instant respect among the cognoscenti as a Leica. Although this relieves the pressure of demonstrating actual photographic prowess, it increases the need to be familiar with the subtle differences in visual signature between an Elmar, Elmarit, Summitar, Summicron, and Summilux. You are either stinking rich, living in your mother’s basement, or one lens purchase away from a divorce.

Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, Minolta, Yashica owners and et cetera should be relieved rather than offended that they were not included. Comments are welcome as long as they are civil. Extra points will be given for self-deprecation.

11/1/10 Addendum: Thanks to one and all for your comments. I was overwhelmed by their volume as well as their good-natured sense of humor--so much so that I won't be accepting any more. Let this article and its 204 comments be a refreshing testament to the fact that we photographers don't take ourselves or our cameras too seriously. Feel free to link to it and share it as you see fit (with proper credit to the author, of course.)

Am I Still a "Black Photographer?"

So far as I know, there is no "Black Photographers Annual" planned for 2009. If you can find the 1973 version, however, you'll find the work of masters such as Roy deCarava and Anthony Barboza--both of whom defy easy categorization.

As demonstrated by the above "Black Photographers Annual" from 1973, there once such a thing as a "black photographer." Not only that, the term was in common use, at least among the other black photographers I hung out with.

As I understood it at the time, this descriptor meant not only that we were of African-American descent, but that there was an identifiable black consciousness in the way we expressed ourselves through photography. If you were to look at the photographs in "The Black Photographers Annual" you couldn't help but draw the conclusion that the primary requirement was to take empathetic black and white photographs of black people and their environs.

The problem with labels like these, as any good Zen student would tell you, is that it's easy to confuse the label with the thing itself; or rather, to believe that the label describes reality. This fiction starts to fall apart when you start asking questions such as:

1. Suppose a European, Asian, or Latin American photographer took exactly the same types of photographs. Would that make them a "black photographer?"
2. Suppose an African-American photographed nothing but naked white women. Would he no longer qualify as a "black photographer?"
3. What does any racial, ethnic, national or gender adjective in front of the word photographer really tell you about their work? "Wedding photographer" is a useful category. "Female photographer" is not.

No self-respecting black photographer should be without a portfolio full of images like this one.

Just to be clear, I take considerable pride in my African-American heritage. I also most definitely consider myself a photographer. So if someone calls me a black photographer I wouldn't be insulted, nor would I take issue with it. All I'm saying is that I'm glad that American society has progressed to the point that most people care more about the work than the race of the person who produces it. And what better proof of that than the current president of the United States?

Of course, this is just a minority perspective. What do you white photographers have to say about all of this?