As the baseball season winds down in the freezing rain, I think back to the beginning of the season when I made my own baseball comeback. This was the season that I forced myself to enjoy baseball again. I listened to sports radio where the Mets and Yankees were discussed endlessly. My mind was filled with the gnashing and meandering of sports fans. And more than anything, the prognostications of sports pundits.
How sure they all were about the outcomes for each team and each player. How wrong they were.
And then I made the connection to the political pundits. Here they were again. Telling us what was going to happen and how wrong they were.
I'm not talking about just the pea-brained, cable-news pundits. I'm talking about the big guys with their best-selling books. Wrong. All wrong. Well-intentioned (I like to give the benefit of the doubt when I can) but wrong.
All wrong. From the beginning.
The press was wrong because it was so excited about going off to war.
The intellectuals were wrong because... well that's not why I'm here. They were just wrong. But it's one thing to go on air or in the paper and say the Yankees will win it in 4 games; and it's another thing to say that Iraq will be the beginning of a democratic wave.
But for now - I can only suggest that we have an overarching need to know what is going to happen next. And this need for soothsayers is as old as delphi, maybe older. And I'm not against knowing what will happen next, but I would like to propose some sort of regulations. If you are going to prognosticate for a living, then you should be made to wear an electronic sign which shows your current won/loss percentage.
It's sort of like the eBay customer satisfaction rating.
I wouldn't take it too far. Politicians would be forced to wear the soothsayer rating label, but only while they're running for office. Once elected the electronic label will have to be removed for the good of the country.
Like they always say when we fail at something - if we can put a man on the moon - why not soothsayer badges?
Or as some have said before, badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges.
10/26/2006
10/24/2006
Corrupt Official
[Rick and Renault discussing Victor Laszlo's chances of escaping Casablanca]
Captain Renault: This is the end of the chase.
Rick: Twenty thousand francs says it isn't.
Captain Renault:Is that a serious offer?
Rick: I just paid out twenty. I'd like to get it back.
Captain Renault: Make it ten. I'm only a poor corrupt official.
Captain Renault: This is the end of the chase.
Rick: Twenty thousand francs says it isn't.
Captain Renault:Is that a serious offer?
Rick: I just paid out twenty. I'd like to get it back.
Captain Renault: Make it ten. I'm only a poor corrupt official.
10/20/2006
m3 / digicam
Brought the Leica M3 in to Panorama Camera Center to see what it was going to cost to fix the problem with the shutter (at slow shutter speeds). The repair guy looked it over and said the camera would need "a complete overhaul," and I believe him. Cost $240. Will be ready in a few weeks. Nice place. Felt comfortable there.
In the meantime, I've gone back to using the Bessa R2A. The main problem I have with that camera is that a) shutter is loud, not as loud as an SLR, but louder than a Leica and b) the viewfinder doesn't automatically switch frame lines when you put a lens in; and in fact, several times, the small lever at the top has moved without my knowing it and I've found myself shooting with the 50mm lens, while the framelines were set to 35mm. That just happened to me again. I'm going to just tape the lever down to 50mm marking since that's the only lens I've been using with the camera.
On the other hand - I'm sure you've got a more accurate and faster shutter in the Bessa, and you also get M7 features like Aperature Priority and even a button on the back to lock exposure while you press said button.
I guess I've come to the conclusion after lots of playing around, and lots of pixel peeping, that this stuff called film is still a better way to go for b&w. Definitely better results than with the p/s digicam. For color - I'd still have to recommend an dSLR with good lenses. In short, what I'm saying is that the lens and image quality of the A640 type of camera is only so - so when you compare it with a good lens. The resolution with the A6xx Canon line just can't be compared with resolution with a good lens and film. Oh well.
In the meantime, I've gone back to using the Bessa R2A. The main problem I have with that camera is that a) shutter is loud, not as loud as an SLR, but louder than a Leica and b) the viewfinder doesn't automatically switch frame lines when you put a lens in; and in fact, several times, the small lever at the top has moved without my knowing it and I've found myself shooting with the 50mm lens, while the framelines were set to 35mm. That just happened to me again. I'm going to just tape the lever down to 50mm marking since that's the only lens I've been using with the camera.
On the other hand - I'm sure you've got a more accurate and faster shutter in the Bessa, and you also get M7 features like Aperature Priority and even a button on the back to lock exposure while you press said button.
I guess I've come to the conclusion after lots of playing around, and lots of pixel peeping, that this stuff called film is still a better way to go for b&w. Definitely better results than with the p/s digicam. For color - I'd still have to recommend an dSLR with good lenses. In short, what I'm saying is that the lens and image quality of the A640 type of camera is only so - so when you compare it with a good lens. The resolution with the A6xx Canon line just can't be compared with resolution with a good lens and film. Oh well.
* * *
10/18/2006
Let's Go Mets
Yikes. Now it gets scary. If I have to listen to one more pundit say: good pitching beats good hitting - one more time. But - ya gotta believe. Why ya gotta believe, I dunno - but ya just gotta. Oy vey. It's true - the Mets have been gettin' by without starting pitching - but they're just gonna have to do it again - two nights in a row.
Whatever happens - it's been a great season. But I sure would like it to go on for a few more games. I can't get into football. I'm going to have to find some other sport to follow in the baseball off-season. Maybe badminton. I wonder why badminton never really caught on in the states. If you play it right - as we used to do in the Bronx - it can be very exciting. One rule we had was that if you hit the other guy in the face with the shuttlecock - you got extra points. And throwing the racket was also allowed.
Anyway - I will continue to believe - until it's over one way or another.
Whatever happens - it's been a great season. But I sure would like it to go on for a few more games. I can't get into football. I'm going to have to find some other sport to follow in the baseball off-season. Maybe badminton. I wonder why badminton never really caught on in the states. If you play it right - as we used to do in the Bronx - it can be very exciting. One rule we had was that if you hit the other guy in the face with the shuttlecock - you got extra points. And throwing the racket was also allowed.
Anyway - I will continue to believe - until it's over one way or another.
10/15/2006
Colorama
I've been pretty busy with commercial installations during the last few weeks, i.e. prints for offices, condos, buildings etc. and although I've been posting a lot of photographs, I haven't had a chance to go through the logic - if there is any - of what I've been doing as far as color / digital / b&W and all that stuff that just takes too much energy to put into words.
But let me try anyway. These are rules, more or less, about what works for me. But your results as they say - and the results I've seen for other photographers - definitely may vary.
If I'm dealing with street shots (and by that I mean those odd-angled, quick shots where strangers are prominent, and the picture has to do with confluence of human beings in the moment) then black & white works better.
Some of this may just be historical - what I'm used to looking at - but some of it may be because we (and I speak here for the human race in general) want to see ordinary things - but only if they are abstract and black and white does that. Abstraction distances the viewer so that the ordinary can be seen as "art."
The blurry guy jumping across the puddle by the railway station works in b&w because it is more abstract then if color had been used; who knows if color might distract from the concept of the picture; and even the blur helps to make this an "everyman."
There are exceptions to the "street b&w" rule - where color has either been made to play a part in the street image - or is actually important in the shot - but again - these are exceptions. Again - I want to place emphasis on the proportion and the importance of the people in the shot. I'm not talking about tiny people in the audience or on the street.
City Landscapes. Again - there may be people in the shot - but they're not that prominent. Now here I think you've got more choices. If the color is either more or less "real" - i.e. more pictorial, then how we actually see color - then you can distance the viewer so that they feel that it is easier to achieve an aesthetic feeling. But the same could be said for black and white. So the urban landscape is a toss up.
It's a tricky business. We say that we want to see ordinary things - but want we really hunger for - is ordinary things - seen in an unusual way.
Sunset is popular because the atmospheric effects are recognizable - but rare. If the entire day was sunset, and there was only 1/2 hour when the sun was bright, glaring and glaring down at you - would that 1/2 hour be the most beautiful time of day?
How boring would it be to always be looking at an orange sky?
In other words - as far as color goes - the subject matter can be banal: a doorway, a fire hydrant, a building - but intensified color or black and white can give an air of abstraction that allows the viewer to see the form as if for the first time. And the reason that this is a little bit easier for the artist to achieve - as opposed to shots that are more "of the moment" is simply that there is more time to contemplate how the pieces fit together in terms of color and/or black and white whereas to get the pieces to work on various levels with the "quick shot" seems to be nearly impossible for me. And I say "for me" because I have seen this trick accomplished.
And if you can do it - more power to you.
But let me try anyway. These are rules, more or less, about what works for me. But your results as they say - and the results I've seen for other photographers - definitely may vary.
If I'm dealing with street shots (and by that I mean those odd-angled, quick shots where strangers are prominent, and the picture has to do with confluence of human beings in the moment) then black & white works better.
Some of this may just be historical - what I'm used to looking at - but some of it may be because we (and I speak here for the human race in general) want to see ordinary things - but only if they are abstract and black and white does that. Abstraction distances the viewer so that the ordinary can be seen as "art."
The blurry guy jumping across the puddle by the railway station works in b&w because it is more abstract then if color had been used; who knows if color might distract from the concept of the picture; and even the blur helps to make this an "everyman."
There are exceptions to the "street b&w" rule - where color has either been made to play a part in the street image - or is actually important in the shot - but again - these are exceptions. Again - I want to place emphasis on the proportion and the importance of the people in the shot. I'm not talking about tiny people in the audience or on the street.
City Landscapes. Again - there may be people in the shot - but they're not that prominent. Now here I think you've got more choices. If the color is either more or less "real" - i.e. more pictorial, then how we actually see color - then you can distance the viewer so that they feel that it is easier to achieve an aesthetic feeling. But the same could be said for black and white. So the urban landscape is a toss up.
It's a tricky business. We say that we want to see ordinary things - but want we really hunger for - is ordinary things - seen in an unusual way.
Sunset is popular because the atmospheric effects are recognizable - but rare. If the entire day was sunset, and there was only 1/2 hour when the sun was bright, glaring and glaring down at you - would that 1/2 hour be the most beautiful time of day?
How boring would it be to always be looking at an orange sky?
In other words - as far as color goes - the subject matter can be banal: a doorway, a fire hydrant, a building - but intensified color or black and white can give an air of abstraction that allows the viewer to see the form as if for the first time. And the reason that this is a little bit easier for the artist to achieve - as opposed to shots that are more "of the moment" is simply that there is more time to contemplate how the pieces fit together in terms of color and/or black and white whereas to get the pieces to work on various levels with the "quick shot" seems to be nearly impossible for me. And I say "for me" because I have seen this trick accomplished.
And if you can do it - more power to you.
10/10/2006
Secret Agent Man
There's a man who leads a life of danger.
To everyone he meets he stays a stranger
With every move he makes,
Another chance he takes.
Odds are he won't live to see tomorrow.
Secret Agent Man.
Secret Agent Man.
They've given you a number.
And taken away your name.
10/06/2006
On Ice
"Do you know what blood looks like in a black and white video?
Shadows.
Shadows. That's exactly what it looks like." Lake Marie John Prine
* * *
I've been printing color all day today. One thing I'll say is that I have a lot more flexibility with color than I've ever had before. I'm doing all my printing on the silver rag paper. Rich air-dried look. I have a lot to play with and compare: the new things from the A640, and a years worth of shots from the Canon Rebel and the 20D. The one obvious difference between the point & shoot and the SLR is the sensor size and the resulting greater amount of noise at higher ISO that you get with the A640 type of camera. There are one or two small sensor cameras with less noise at higher ISO, but they are missing other features that I like. There is also at least one P/S with a larger sensor on the way from Samsung.
I still vote for the turn / swivel LCD screen for composing. It gives a 100% view, which is more than I can say for some of the dSLRs. I've had very little clipping (chopping off highlights); and it is okay at ASA 400 if run through Noise Ninja. (I made noise profiles for the A640 which work a lot better than auto-profiling).
All that being said, I need two cameras. One for daylight walking around (A640) and one for low-light, or more static stuff.
But the SLR is necessary as the second camera for low-light, or more static stuff. At that point you just go nuts because in the Canon line there are so many choices it can make your head spin. If money was no object (which it is) than I'd spring for the 5D with a couple of prime EF lenses.
But money is still a consideration - and given the rate at which I go through cameras - I think for now I'll just stay on the sidelines and work with the A640 until I find out that the 6D is out and the price of the 5D has been cut in half - or something like that or buy EF Canon lenses for use with say the 400D - and know that when I do spring for the full-frame, I'll already have the lenses.
Shadows.
Shadows. That's exactly what it looks like." Lake Marie John Prine
* * *
I've been printing color all day today. One thing I'll say is that I have a lot more flexibility with color than I've ever had before. I'm doing all my printing on the silver rag paper. Rich air-dried look. I have a lot to play with and compare: the new things from the A640, and a years worth of shots from the Canon Rebel and the 20D. The one obvious difference between the point & shoot and the SLR is the sensor size and the resulting greater amount of noise at higher ISO that you get with the A640 type of camera. There are one or two small sensor cameras with less noise at higher ISO, but they are missing other features that I like. There is also at least one P/S with a larger sensor on the way from Samsung.
I still vote for the turn / swivel LCD screen for composing. It gives a 100% view, which is more than I can say for some of the dSLRs. I've had very little clipping (chopping off highlights); and it is okay at ASA 400 if run through Noise Ninja. (I made noise profiles for the A640 which work a lot better than auto-profiling).
All that being said, I need two cameras. One for daylight walking around (A640) and one for low-light, or more static stuff.
But the SLR is necessary as the second camera for low-light, or more static stuff. At that point you just go nuts because in the Canon line there are so many choices it can make your head spin. If money was no object (which it is) than I'd spring for the 5D with a couple of prime EF lenses.
But money is still a consideration - and given the rate at which I go through cameras - I think for now I'll just stay on the sidelines and work with the A640 until I find out that the 6D is out and the price of the 5D has been cut in half - or something like that or buy EF Canon lenses for use with say the 400D - and know that when I do spring for the full-frame, I'll already have the lenses.
10/05/2006
10/03/2006
Mets
They're running out of pitchers... But it doesn't matter... Willie said that if John Maine couldn't start tomorrow they were going to give the ball to Julio Franco.
10/02/2006
It's been a
busy couple of weeks - business-wise. I just caught up with everything: a couple of images for textbooks; two large prints for business offices; and a bunch of regular orders. And enjoying the A640 - taking it with me everywhere - and continuing down the color road: full steam ahead.
I got to see the Carbon / Silver Walker Evans exhibit. Just a quick note about that - I was initially disappointed that they didn't say what paper / printer / ink they used for the inkjet renditions (which were superb); but then as I was thinking it over - I thought: oh - why do they have to disclose the specifics... When you see silver gelatin prints in a gallery do you see which developer / paper / enlarger was used? No. That's up to you to investigate if you want to find out more.
There are many large prints - which are stunning. The exhibitors make a point of saying that they were able to "open up the shadows" and show details that you don't ordinarily see in the work. That was true - but personally - I probably would have left the contrast as it was in the original work - but that's just my taste.
It was a stunning exhibit and any chance you get to see Walker Evans photographs, whether they're original contact prints, inkjets, or posters - it's always a good thing.
It's at the UBS Gallery: 1285 6th Avenue, until Nov. 9
I got to see the Carbon / Silver Walker Evans exhibit. Just a quick note about that - I was initially disappointed that they didn't say what paper / printer / ink they used for the inkjet renditions (which were superb); but then as I was thinking it over - I thought: oh - why do they have to disclose the specifics... When you see silver gelatin prints in a gallery do you see which developer / paper / enlarger was used? No. That's up to you to investigate if you want to find out more.
There are many large prints - which are stunning. The exhibitors make a point of saying that they were able to "open up the shadows" and show details that you don't ordinarily see in the work. That was true - but personally - I probably would have left the contrast as it was in the original work - but that's just my taste.
It was a stunning exhibit and any chance you get to see Walker Evans photographs, whether they're original contact prints, inkjets, or posters - it's always a good thing.
It's at the UBS Gallery: 1285 6th Avenue, until Nov. 9
9/25/2006
color workflow
I will try to write a little bit about my own color workflow but honestly, it is very fluid and different for each image. What is the same is that whatever camera I'm using - I want the camera to do as little as possible in terms of saturation / sharpness etc. If the camera has RAW capability than I will go with that. With the jpg / A640 it is set to neutral which I think is even less saturated than normal mode.
The fun begins by trying to imagine different looks for the image. In the "Thirsty" image (for example) there are about 15 layers, each with a squarish piece of the image - some pieces burned with multiply, some dodged with screen; and trying to make some pieces more or less prominent by the pieces around it. In other words - and I've mentioned this before - the color work is like painting and less real than the b&w work. Why that should be - I'm not sure.
I have a lot of choices with the Exposure plug-in in terms of film-looks - but some images are part Kodachrome, part Ecktachrome... It's like playing with a puzzle.
The image below of Dunkin' Donuts - is pretty straight foward. After the usual noise reduction is run, the image was converted to Kodachrome 64. Then pieces that I wanted to stand out - the windows - a bit of the parking sign - about 10 different pieces - were screened so they'd stand out in the darkness.
I don't think that I've used the Saturation adjustment layer at all - though I don't know why not. But saturation and de-saturation is achieved by using color / multiply blending and sometimes by making use of a b&w conversion layer for desaturation or to pump up the blacks.
What I'm trying to say is that it's like working on a mosaic - esp. the urban landscape which is all squares and rectangles with an occassional circle tossed in.
Why choose Kodachrome 64 for Dunkin' Donuts and not the EES which I was using for the Coney Island stuff? I don't know myself but the Kodachrome has a pinkish glow that seemed right for Donuts!
Did you ever stand in front of a bare room while a designer showed you paint swatches? That's sort of what it's like. You hold up swatches and try and imagine what an entire room with that puce swatch will do for you. In the case of The Poe Cottage shot - I wanted a moldy, greenish, decrepit look. For Thirsty - the more garish the better. It is, after all - freak shows and Coney Island.
The fun begins by trying to imagine different looks for the image. In the "Thirsty" image (for example) there are about 15 layers, each with a squarish piece of the image - some pieces burned with multiply, some dodged with screen; and trying to make some pieces more or less prominent by the pieces around it. In other words - and I've mentioned this before - the color work is like painting and less real than the b&w work. Why that should be - I'm not sure.
I have a lot of choices with the Exposure plug-in in terms of film-looks - but some images are part Kodachrome, part Ecktachrome... It's like playing with a puzzle.
The image below of Dunkin' Donuts - is pretty straight foward. After the usual noise reduction is run, the image was converted to Kodachrome 64. Then pieces that I wanted to stand out - the windows - a bit of the parking sign - about 10 different pieces - were screened so they'd stand out in the darkness.
I don't think that I've used the Saturation adjustment layer at all - though I don't know why not. But saturation and de-saturation is achieved by using color / multiply blending and sometimes by making use of a b&w conversion layer for desaturation or to pump up the blacks.
What I'm trying to say is that it's like working on a mosaic - esp. the urban landscape which is all squares and rectangles with an occassional circle tossed in.
Why choose Kodachrome 64 for Dunkin' Donuts and not the EES which I was using for the Coney Island stuff? I don't know myself but the Kodachrome has a pinkish glow that seemed right for Donuts!
Did you ever stand in front of a bare room while a designer showed you paint swatches? That's sort of what it's like. You hold up swatches and try and imagine what an entire room with that puce swatch will do for you. In the case of The Poe Cottage shot - I wanted a moldy, greenish, decrepit look. For Thirsty - the more garish the better. It is, after all - freak shows and Coney Island.
9/21/2006
9/20/2006
color notes
I posted the first recent color shot on 8/29/2006 - less than a month ago. I see that I had been getting bored with my usual walking around street stuff and had been going through lots of old b&w photos.
I don't think there was any conscious decision to switch to color - it just happened - the same way that I might suddenly decide to listen to Miles Davis instead of Randy Newman. There had been jabs at new forms such as infrared that petered out; book projects that didn't go anywhere (my fault) - and other sporadic or maybe the word is spasmodic gestures.
At the same time - a couple of other things happened: Markus mentioned Alien Skin Exposure - but for how good the b&w conversion was; that was on the back-burner somewhere; the M3 acted up at slower speeds and I was wondering whether I wanted to get it overhauled; but to be honest - I was prob. just bored. In a funk. Road closed ahead.
And so - one thing leads to another (as it usually does) - and I find myself back in digicam world. Not - however so that I could do b&w conversions - but so that I could do color and compose on the LCD with the tic-tac-toe grid.
And Alien Skin - and various Photoshop blending techniques (b&w + color film blends) was giving me this roll your own recipe: take two layers of Tri-X 400 and blend with Kodachrome 64 in screen mode at 34% mix. (Don't take that literally but you see what I mean).
The color palette became manageable for the first time. Result of the plug-in plus n number of years working in PS, plus time spent printing digitally, plus my own personality, plus Miles Davis playing constantly.
I think that Dylan and John Prine are excellent for b&w; but if you want to do color - I suggest jazz.
Also - b&w - I still opt for film. Color - right now it's digital. I say "right now" 'cause I know myself and nothing you read here has little hope of being permanent. Everything I say should have a footnote, a caveat, and a disclaimer: these thoughts are of the moment - and should not under any circumstances be taken as gospel. I do not stand behind them at all. Not only do I not stand behind my ideas - I stand in front of them! They are swiftly approaching and will knock me on my can if I'm not careful.
I don't think there was any conscious decision to switch to color - it just happened - the same way that I might suddenly decide to listen to Miles Davis instead of Randy Newman. There had been jabs at new forms such as infrared that petered out; book projects that didn't go anywhere (my fault) - and other sporadic or maybe the word is spasmodic gestures.
At the same time - a couple of other things happened: Markus mentioned Alien Skin Exposure - but for how good the b&w conversion was; that was on the back-burner somewhere; the M3 acted up at slower speeds and I was wondering whether I wanted to get it overhauled; but to be honest - I was prob. just bored. In a funk. Road closed ahead.
And so - one thing leads to another (as it usually does) - and I find myself back in digicam world. Not - however so that I could do b&w conversions - but so that I could do color and compose on the LCD with the tic-tac-toe grid.
And Alien Skin - and various Photoshop blending techniques (b&w + color film blends) was giving me this roll your own recipe: take two layers of Tri-X 400 and blend with Kodachrome 64 in screen mode at 34% mix. (Don't take that literally but you see what I mean).
The color palette became manageable for the first time. Result of the plug-in plus n number of years working in PS, plus time spent printing digitally, plus my own personality, plus Miles Davis playing constantly.
I think that Dylan and John Prine are excellent for b&w; but if you want to do color - I suggest jazz.
Also - b&w - I still opt for film. Color - right now it's digital. I say "right now" 'cause I know myself and nothing you read here has little hope of being permanent. Everything I say should have a footnote, a caveat, and a disclaimer: these thoughts are of the moment - and should not under any circumstances be taken as gospel. I do not stand behind them at all. Not only do I not stand behind my ideas - I stand in front of them! They are swiftly approaching and will knock me on my can if I'm not careful.
9/17/2006
9/16/2006
New Yorkers: Helpful and charming
With my A620 dangling from my wrist, standing in Times Square station by the shuttle, looking at the signs - a man approached me and asked with great sympathy where I was trying to go and whether he could help me with directions.
Ah - but if I'm so much of a New Yorker - why was I looking at the signs? Truth is, I am subject to momentary spells where the design of the sign becomes compelling. Why did they make this a circle and that a square. Why was that yellow and that red? These spells generally pass without incident but there may be new drugs to take care of it.222
"Can I help you sir" from a fellow New Yorker means that you have really hit the New York Photography Zenith. It means that you are now the helpless tourist. Congratulations.
I told him that I was trying to figure out the best way to get to B&H Photo and asked if he had ever heard of that store, and that I thought it was on 34th street but I wasn't sure how to get there from 42nd street and that was why I was looking at the signs.
He thought about it a minute and suggested either the R, the W, or the 1, 2, 3. I thanked him profusely for his kindness - told him that the subways were just so confusing and that I was from Milwaukee. He said he was glad to help and then went on his way.
Hooray. I have finally made it into the true photographer tourist hall of fame. Next stop: get taken in a three-card monte game on 10th avenue.
Ah - but if I'm so much of a New Yorker - why was I looking at the signs? Truth is, I am subject to momentary spells where the design of the sign becomes compelling. Why did they make this a circle and that a square. Why was that yellow and that red? These spells generally pass without incident but there may be new drugs to take care of it.222
"Can I help you sir" from a fellow New Yorker means that you have really hit the New York Photography Zenith. It means that you are now the helpless tourist. Congratulations.
I told him that I was trying to figure out the best way to get to B&H Photo and asked if he had ever heard of that store, and that I thought it was on 34th street but I wasn't sure how to get there from 42nd street and that was why I was looking at the signs.
He thought about it a minute and suggested either the R, the W, or the 1, 2, 3. I thanked him profusely for his kindness - told him that the subways were just so confusing and that I was from Milwaukee. He said he was glad to help and then went on his way.
Hooray. I have finally made it into the true photographer tourist hall of fame. Next stop: get taken in a three-card monte game on 10th avenue.
9/13/2006
untitled 0492
Canon A620 @ ISO 100 --> Noise Ninja --> Photokit Capture Sharpner --> Alien Skin Exposure --> EES Subdued --> Photokit Sharpner for web --> Photoshop Save for Web
Leica M8
Luke sent me a link and in this link (in French) a guy is actually using the Leica M8. There is a also a video.
Here is the Leica M8 link.
Thanks Luke.
Here is the Leica M8 link.
Thanks Luke.
9/11/2006
color
Adams said that the negative was like the musical score, and that printing was the performance - and I think this is fitting for black and white. In fact, with manual dodging and burning in the darkroom there actually is a physical performance to making a print (lots of waving of arms like a conductor).
I would say that the color capture is just a blueprint. Someone still needs to construct the building. The color capture is just a sketch that needs to be painted.
The explanation for this is pure mathematics: black and white - x number of variables. There are simply more - exponentially more - color variables. And, just about all of these color variables can be messed with (uh manipulated) in Photoshop.
Oh sure - composition - some idea of what the photograph is about - technique - still important in the color shot - but nowadays the color capture - whether it is for fine art, or commercial purposes - is just the beginning.
Do you remember contrast masks for film? Registration issues? Cross-processing?
Could you really do all this at home?
Now that we live in this grand undreamed of future - the color darkroom is just a program and a printer. Skill and imagination are just as important as they always were - but just as the blog has made everyone an author and publisher - the color printer and Photoshop have given everyone - a shot at doing sophisticated color work. And just as some blogs are going to keep you hooked by the author's skill - the same goes for the digital color darkroom. Oh, you know what I mean.
I would say that the color capture is just a blueprint. Someone still needs to construct the building. The color capture is just a sketch that needs to be painted.
The explanation for this is pure mathematics: black and white - x number of variables. There are simply more - exponentially more - color variables. And, just about all of these color variables can be messed with (uh manipulated) in Photoshop.
Oh sure - composition - some idea of what the photograph is about - technique - still important in the color shot - but nowadays the color capture - whether it is for fine art, or commercial purposes - is just the beginning.
Do you remember contrast masks for film? Registration issues? Cross-processing?
Could you really do all this at home?
Now that we live in this grand undreamed of future - the color darkroom is just a program and a printer. Skill and imagination are just as important as they always were - but just as the blog has made everyone an author and publisher - the color printer and Photoshop have given everyone - a shot at doing sophisticated color work. And just as some blogs are going to keep you hooked by the author's skill - the same goes for the digital color darkroom. Oh, you know what I mean.
9/09/2006
Camera Design
I was asked by Canon to design a camera for them. OK. I wasn't asked, but I'm going to do it anyway.
Take one of their "A" series cameras, say the A620 and make the following modifications.
1) It already has a flip out revolving LCD with a 2 inch screen. Please make that a 2.5 inch screen.
2) Remove the "optical viewfinder." It is more than useless. Anyone that takes pictures while looking down that tunnel should have the camera removed from them.
3) Give it IS (image stabilization). But don't pump up the zoom lens. The zoom should be in the 35mm equiv. of 28mm to 90mm.
4) RAW. It doesn't have to be the quickest thing between shots, but it should have RAW capability.
5) In the software - have a way of disabling menu choices that are never used. Take out idiotic stuff like the ability for the camera to "swap" colors.
6) Remove all the stuff about printing directly from the camera.
7) Make the body black.
8) Let me shoot in the Adobe RGB color space rather than sRGB if I want to.
9) And that's about it Canon. You have the technology. These features exist separately in several of your cameras. You've already got IS in the new Point and Shoots. But they don't have the flip screen, or they've got ultra long lenses. And none of the PS cameras in current production have RAW. So just put them all together and what will you have - a great street camera. Oh - how many pixels - just keep increasing them as you've been doing. That's fine with me.
Take one of their "A" series cameras, say the A620 and make the following modifications.
1) It already has a flip out revolving LCD with a 2 inch screen. Please make that a 2.5 inch screen.
2) Remove the "optical viewfinder." It is more than useless. Anyone that takes pictures while looking down that tunnel should have the camera removed from them.
3) Give it IS (image stabilization). But don't pump up the zoom lens. The zoom should be in the 35mm equiv. of 28mm to 90mm.
4) RAW. It doesn't have to be the quickest thing between shots, but it should have RAW capability.
5) In the software - have a way of disabling menu choices that are never used. Take out idiotic stuff like the ability for the camera to "swap" colors.
6) Remove all the stuff about printing directly from the camera.
7) Make the body black.
8) Let me shoot in the Adobe RGB color space rather than sRGB if I want to.
9) And that's about it Canon. You have the technology. These features exist separately in several of your cameras. You've already got IS in the new Point and Shoots. But they don't have the flip screen, or they've got ultra long lenses. And none of the PS cameras in current production have RAW. So just put them all together and what will you have - a great street camera. Oh - how many pixels - just keep increasing them as you've been doing. That's fine with me.
9/08/2006
Exploding House, 2006
I know - you're like - man - what the hell is going on here.
What's going on is that they are filming a Law and Order episode near my house - based on the doctor who blew up his house recently.
The set people made a house and blew it up (84th street). The production assistants kept shooing me away - but I made a pest of myself and finally got to a position where I could shoot the Dr. Boom House appearing to collapse and explode. One PA would kick me off one side of the street; I'd circle around; they'd yell at me; blah blah blah. Everyone's always talkin' at me. I don't hear a word they're sayin'.
Man - they kept telling me I was going to get hurt. They couldn't be responsible for anything that happened to me. And they kept calling me "sir." I came very close to telling them to go do something to themselves.
Anyway - I got my exploding house shot - and they got their opening for the episode. And no humans were hurt in the process. Man, I swear - give a production assistant a bit of power and they go nuts. Okay, not their fault - that's their job. But I have a job to do also and it involves covering explosions.
9/06/2006
SharedInk
The SharedInk Photographer Program (you pay a one-time fee) and the cost of the books - is absolutely the best in terms of giving real information about how your books / images should be formatted. They are using a 4-color Indigo Press - and they tell you up front that there may be a slight cast when doing b&w through 4-color. How noticable it will be - I don't know but good for them - at least they address the issue up front. Yes, you can give them a grayscale file but you won't get the same richness. They even go into colorspaces, conversions from one space to another and all that other good stuff that I like to know rather than throwing my files into a black hole.
And - if you join the photographer's program you can even get a sample page from the press before the book is bound! What a concept.
So that's where it stands. I'm working on getting the files in proper shape and in a day or two should be able to finish and order the book. And oh - you can choose the type of paper you want - four types available. All of this is in the Photographer Program section. I think the business model is actually really good: one large area for the retail make your own baby book, and another smaller section with more options for professionals or just especially nitpicky people who will pay extra for more options.
* * *
Here is a nature book printed by SharedInk.com
* * *
Next up in the never ending quest for high-quality POD photography book is: SharedInk.com
"What is the cover label?
The cover label is an adhesive label, printed using the same 4-color true ink digital offset press that we use for the pages of the books. The covers of our books feature a recessed area in the cover where the cover label picture is affixed on top of the linen material. This means that the cover label lies flush with the rest of the book and is not raised. This recessed area adds quite a nice finishing touch, that is unique to SharedInk."
What is promising about SharedInk is that they are using ink on paper (as opposed to toner on paper) and they even give you a fair idea of what sizes and resolutions to use. Also as noted above, I'm guessing the overall quality is better and they even tell you the size of the book block etc.
Cost: twice as much as Snapfish, i.e. $39 for 20 images. But that's okay with me if overall print quality is what I'd call high-end-ish.
I wrote to Winkflash.com yesterday - trying to get a little bit of info about file formatting issues etc. but haven't heard anything from them. Winkflash - on screen - looks like a good deal but they don't tell you much about how they produce the book (what printer etc.) SharedInk even tells you stuff like effective lines per inch for their printer (which is helpful to me in terms of sharpening). That's all for now folks. I'm off to waste some more money probably.
BTW - it makes sense now - that most of these processes are going to be better than the Lulu experience (except for MyPublisher which I've only heard bad things about) because Lulu is not primarily for photobooks. They are a general POD company.
And - if you join the photographer's program you can even get a sample page from the press before the book is bound! What a concept.
So that's where it stands. I'm working on getting the files in proper shape and in a day or two should be able to finish and order the book. And oh - you can choose the type of paper you want - four types available. All of this is in the Photographer Program section. I think the business model is actually really good: one large area for the retail make your own baby book, and another smaller section with more options for professionals or just especially nitpicky people who will pay extra for more options.
* * *
Here is a nature book printed by SharedInk.com
* * *
Next up in the never ending quest for high-quality POD photography book is: SharedInk.com
"What is the cover label?
The cover label is an adhesive label, printed using the same 4-color true ink digital offset press that we use for the pages of the books. The covers of our books feature a recessed area in the cover where the cover label picture is affixed on top of the linen material. This means that the cover label lies flush with the rest of the book and is not raised. This recessed area adds quite a nice finishing touch, that is unique to SharedInk."
What is promising about SharedInk is that they are using ink on paper (as opposed to toner on paper) and they even give you a fair idea of what sizes and resolutions to use. Also as noted above, I'm guessing the overall quality is better and they even tell you the size of the book block etc.
Cost: twice as much as Snapfish, i.e. $39 for 20 images. But that's okay with me if overall print quality is what I'd call high-end-ish.
I wrote to Winkflash.com yesterday - trying to get a little bit of info about file formatting issues etc. but haven't heard anything from them. Winkflash - on screen - looks like a good deal but they don't tell you much about how they produce the book (what printer etc.) SharedInk even tells you stuff like effective lines per inch for their printer (which is helpful to me in terms of sharpening). That's all for now folks. I'm off to waste some more money probably.
BTW - it makes sense now - that most of these processes are going to be better than the Lulu experience (except for MyPublisher which I've only heard bad things about) because Lulu is not primarily for photobooks. They are a general POD company.
9/04/2006
Snapfish Book
The Snapfish Memory Book (9 x 11 hardcover) arrived today. Having a part of a page glued to the cover doesn't work for me. I suspect that I could pull the paper off the cover, or learn to live with it. But the cover is black linen.
Open the book up. There's a nice black interior. Turn the page, there's an acetate see-through page.
And now we've made it into the book itself and the paper / printing for b&w. You know what, it's not bad. It's better than Lulu - because there is little if any tinge. The major issue is that the blacks are not black enough. But this is probably always the result from even the best toner based printers.
There is a slight magenta tone to almost all of the photos in the middle tonal ranges. You'd rather be without it, but at least it is consistent throughout the book. Again - it's the type of thing that not everybody would notice.
And there are some sharpening artifacts - but I figure that's my fault because this stuff shouldn't be sharpened before handing it off to Snapfish.
Oh, and on the last page before the flyleaf page - there's a fairly big logo that reads:
personally customized at snapfish, a service of HP with a fish icon and an HP logo. I don't know - is that so bad? Don't publishers usually fill lots of pages with published by BIG PUBLISHING COMPANY, first published by blah blah blah. We like that stuff. What's wrong with Personally Customized at Snapfish. Oh well - I'm doing my best rationalizations.
In fact - this whole thing is promising. It's the right price. And the image rendition is pretty good. Not for the expert on art-books, but for the regular Joe who just wants something nice to look at. I need to seriously look at their site again to see what options are for this process.
Open the book up. There's a nice black interior. Turn the page, there's an acetate see-through page.
And now we've made it into the book itself and the paper / printing for b&w. You know what, it's not bad. It's better than Lulu - because there is little if any tinge. The major issue is that the blacks are not black enough. But this is probably always the result from even the best toner based printers.
There is a slight magenta tone to almost all of the photos in the middle tonal ranges. You'd rather be without it, but at least it is consistent throughout the book. Again - it's the type of thing that not everybody would notice.
And there are some sharpening artifacts - but I figure that's my fault because this stuff shouldn't be sharpened before handing it off to Snapfish.
Oh, and on the last page before the flyleaf page - there's a fairly big logo that reads:
personally customized at snapfish, a service of HP with a fish icon and an HP logo. I don't know - is that so bad? Don't publishers usually fill lots of pages with published by BIG PUBLISHING COMPANY, first published by blah blah blah. We like that stuff. What's wrong with Personally Customized at Snapfish. Oh well - I'm doing my best rationalizations.
In fact - this whole thing is promising. It's the right price. And the image rendition is pretty good. Not for the expert on art-books, but for the regular Joe who just wants something nice to look at. I need to seriously look at their site again to see what options are for this process.
8/29/2006
Some Color
Woman With Hat, Subway
Cat in Window, Brooklyn
The cat in window shot is a beautiful print. One of the first color shots that I enjoy looking at. I haven't figured out with color why the web image looks more saturated than when I'm working in the Adobe RGB colorspace; and the print on silver rag is very close to what I see in PS on the screen. The web shot seems to be closer to the PS screen when I convert it to sRGB with Perceptual Intent set. But what's usually the hardest part - going from PS Screen to print - that was pretty easy. I set the printer driver to Adobe RGB; print options in PS set to Adobe RGB. Seems too easy.
Also - at least at this point, when you see a color shot, you can assume it has been heavily "fixed." This one is more like a painting in the sense that almost each section has the color / saturation / and exposure that I want - or think I want at the time. I should post the un-photoshopped version but oh - I don't think at this point I should be explaining color manipulation (since I hardly understand it myself). Although I suppose that hasn't stopped anyone before.
8/28/2006
Another Book
Fastback.com really does seem to offer the best quality and best choices and they are serious about bookmaking in the sense that they tell you not to use JPGs and to use TIFFs instead and they give you all the info you need as far as color profiles, calibration etc. to use. In short, they do it the way it should be done. They offer the nice "butterfly flap" on the softcover which I like. And they've got a small gallery / office in NY. Only problem - pricing. What else.
Here's a link to the sample pricing.
So if I make a hardcover with 40 images and some text pages, cover, dust jacket etc. and it costs me $125 to make. What in the world am I going to do with it? Pass it around at parties?
Just as a note - in going through all the reviews - the most horror stories were about MyPublisher.com
File this under the category of "I'll give it a try."
Eugene sent me an email with some new stuff that Snapfish was doing bookwise. I logged in and I put together a book called, Central Park - in about an hour. I gave them 300 dpi rgb jpgs saved at max. res., and hope for the best.
It costs about $20 for hardcover book with 20 pages. 9 x 11 landscape. The program for uploading, and placing the images was straight-forward.
I have absolutely no idea whether this book will be as crappy as the Lulu b&w book I did, but even if it is - it will be crappy in hardcover (smiley face).
They charged me NY Sales Tax. And shipping was - well put it this way, it began as $20 and ended up as $29 for the book. I need to see if there's a way for someone else to buy it from their site at a markup - but I don't think there is.
There is a 25% discount if you order more than one.
Oh, one more thing. They say they will ship within 2-3 business days. If true, that is amazing.
Here's a link to the sample pricing.
So if I make a hardcover with 40 images and some text pages, cover, dust jacket etc. and it costs me $125 to make. What in the world am I going to do with it? Pass it around at parties?
Just as a note - in going through all the reviews - the most horror stories were about MyPublisher.com
* * *
Snapfish:File this under the category of "I'll give it a try."
Eugene sent me an email with some new stuff that Snapfish was doing bookwise. I logged in and I put together a book called, Central Park - in about an hour. I gave them 300 dpi rgb jpgs saved at max. res., and hope for the best.
It costs about $20 for hardcover book with 20 pages. 9 x 11 landscape. The program for uploading, and placing the images was straight-forward.
I have absolutely no idea whether this book will be as crappy as the Lulu b&w book I did, but even if it is - it will be crappy in hardcover (smiley face).
They charged me NY Sales Tax. And shipping was - well put it this way, it began as $20 and ended up as $29 for the book. I need to see if there's a way for someone else to buy it from their site at a markup - but I don't think there is.
There is a 25% discount if you order more than one.
Oh, one more thing. They say they will ship within 2-3 business days. If true, that is amazing.
* * *
That is amazing. Book has been shipped. (2 days to produce).
That is amazing. Book has been shipped. (2 days to produce).
8/26/2006
Landscape Screensaver
Right-click on image, save link as, to download.
BeckermanLandscapes.exe (5MB)
Free. New Screensaver (39 New York Landscape Images). Self install. You can add your own music playlist if you like.
No adware, spyware, or nagware. Just 39 images.
Windows only.
I wanted to add music - but I don't know - because that was really increasing the size of the file. And you can pick your own music to play with this thing when you set it up.
I've done a bunch of screensavers - years ago - and they were downloaded by the thousands. Especially after they were picked up by the screensaver sites. As a marketing idea - the screensaver is a good one - similar to having your name stamped on pens.
Anyway - this is the best one I've done.
8/22/2006
Grand Central Interior 2
Been looking through the 4 x 5 stuff for a good Grand Central shot. I think this is it.
Most Annoying
The Female Version:
A woman with her child is waiting on line to get onto something - is it the playground or a bus - I don't remember. But another mom with her kid cuts the line. There's a brief exchange and the first hapless mom utterly defeated - she's just lost all her dignity. Hapless mom sees and ad for a Hummer and in a couple of quick cuts she sells her mini-van buys a Hummer and is happily cruising away. The graphic says: Get Your Girl On - and the song in the background is strong and powerful, though the lyrics say something about "I put it in the pot..." which I don't get. Probably I'm in the wrong generation to get it.
The Male Version:
Man is standing on line in grocery. His grocery items are all modern wimp man stuff like Tofu, carrots and the cashier has to swipe his Tofu a couple of times. Behind him on line is a "real" man who has various types of meat - ribs, steak, and gives the Tofu guy a strange smile. Tofu guy - feeling unmanly - also sees an ad for the Hummer and after another couple of deft cuts he's happily moving down the road in his new fortress.
Ads for big ticket items like a Hummer aren't just made up on the spot. There are tons of focus groups; and long meetings where each detail is examined. So the blatent message of the ad: if you feel like other people are stepping all over you and you are powerless in these little exchanges between peers - then buy a hummer. Buy it for the power it represents. It is the magic suit of armor you've been dreaming about at night.
Now - when I was a kid, there was always an ad in the back of comic books where there'd be a little runt that got sand kicked in his face by the big bully. I think the ad was for the Charles Atlas method of bodybuilding.
I thought those ads made sense. Someone made you feel insecure - here was how you could build up your body so you could defend yourself. And here is the same idea - in highly polished, carefully conceived million dollar ads - saying that if someone kicks sand in your face, just go out and buy a big car.
A woman with her child is waiting on line to get onto something - is it the playground or a bus - I don't remember. But another mom with her kid cuts the line. There's a brief exchange and the first hapless mom utterly defeated - she's just lost all her dignity. Hapless mom sees and ad for a Hummer and in a couple of quick cuts she sells her mini-van buys a Hummer and is happily cruising away. The graphic says: Get Your Girl On - and the song in the background is strong and powerful, though the lyrics say something about "I put it in the pot..." which I don't get. Probably I'm in the wrong generation to get it.
The Male Version:
Man is standing on line in grocery. His grocery items are all modern wimp man stuff like Tofu, carrots and the cashier has to swipe his Tofu a couple of times. Behind him on line is a "real" man who has various types of meat - ribs, steak, and gives the Tofu guy a strange smile. Tofu guy - feeling unmanly - also sees an ad for the Hummer and after another couple of deft cuts he's happily moving down the road in his new fortress.
Ads for big ticket items like a Hummer aren't just made up on the spot. There are tons of focus groups; and long meetings where each detail is examined. So the blatent message of the ad: if you feel like other people are stepping all over you and you are powerless in these little exchanges between peers - then buy a hummer. Buy it for the power it represents. It is the magic suit of armor you've been dreaming about at night.
Now - when I was a kid, there was always an ad in the back of comic books where there'd be a little runt that got sand kicked in his face by the big bully. I think the ad was for the Charles Atlas method of bodybuilding.
I thought those ads made sense. Someone made you feel insecure - here was how you could build up your body so you could defend yourself. And here is the same idea - in highly polished, carefully conceived million dollar ads - saying that if someone kicks sand in your face, just go out and buy a big car.
8/21/2006
my retrospective
I've covered most of the interesting shots from the past 15 years. I learned a couple of things from this review:
a) That Delta 400 film was bad news. It is a skinny negative and hard to get into the medium format film carrier without all sorts of cursing. If under-exposed, it looks absolutely awful. The early rolls (when the film first came out) - all turned purple. And it is definitely grainier than other 400 films.
b) Cameras: Whether you've shot it with a 4 x 5, or a 35mm - if you didn't "get the shot" it doesn't matter what you shot it with. And for me the odds of "getting the shot" are increased exponetionally with a 35mm camera.
c) Especially in the beginning, I shot the same things so many times it's nauseating to look at. For example, I had a fixation with photographing a group of people crossing the street towards me. I knew what I wanted, but I never got it. About ten people crossing, about 15 feet away - all doing something interesting, and none of them noticing the camera. I don't know what put that idea in my head but I must have about 1000 shots with this premise - all of them boring.
These fixed ideas are all over the place. Sometimes they eventually pay off with one good shot and then I never go through it again. But flipping through sheets of negatives I hear myself saying - oh man - not that idea again! On the other hand - I guess that any sort of art is mostly about some obsession, otherwise, why bother?
d) Of all the cameras that I used over the years - the only camera that did not give me one good shot was the Pentax 645 which I used for about six months. I have no idea why. I got more shots with the Pentax 67 than the 645.
Now it's back to making some new negatives.
a) That Delta 400 film was bad news. It is a skinny negative and hard to get into the medium format film carrier without all sorts of cursing. If under-exposed, it looks absolutely awful. The early rolls (when the film first came out) - all turned purple. And it is definitely grainier than other 400 films.
b) Cameras: Whether you've shot it with a 4 x 5, or a 35mm - if you didn't "get the shot" it doesn't matter what you shot it with. And for me the odds of "getting the shot" are increased exponetionally with a 35mm camera.
c) Especially in the beginning, I shot the same things so many times it's nauseating to look at. For example, I had a fixation with photographing a group of people crossing the street towards me. I knew what I wanted, but I never got it. About ten people crossing, about 15 feet away - all doing something interesting, and none of them noticing the camera. I don't know what put that idea in my head but I must have about 1000 shots with this premise - all of them boring.
These fixed ideas are all over the place. Sometimes they eventually pay off with one good shot and then I never go through it again. But flipping through sheets of negatives I hear myself saying - oh man - not that idea again! On the other hand - I guess that any sort of art is mostly about some obsession, otherwise, why bother?
d) Of all the cameras that I used over the years - the only camera that did not give me one good shot was the Pentax 645 which I used for about six months. I have no idea why. I got more shots with the Pentax 67 than the 645.
Now it's back to making some new negatives.
8/20/2006
books
Man, I should've thought of that. This morning I was watching the news when a couple came on to plug their new book: The Bridges of Central Park. (Sounds like the Bridges of Madison Avenue). There on the cover is the Bow Bridge and the book is comprised of historical and current shots of the various Central Park Bridges. The twist is to show historical pictures of the bridges, then how they are today - and fill it in with some historical info. Available in bookstores tomorrow.
I can just see myself being interviewed:
Host: What a great idea! When did you first decide to do this book on the Bronx?
Me: It was back in the 90's, actually.
Host: The 90's! Let me just remind you that it's now 2025! Are you saying that you've been working on this book for over 35 years?
Me: Book? Can you repeat that question?
Host: (Slowly) Are you saying that --
Me: Oh, yes, I remember! Yes! It's taken me a long time. But actually I only worked on the book for a year or two taking the photographs. The rest of the time was spent figuring out the order of the pictures!
Host: You're kiddin'? Right?
Me: Every few months I would take the pictures out and re-arrange them. But I was never happy with the order.
Host: Amazing! Are you happy with the order of the prints now?
Me: Mostly... (reaches for glass of water and takes long gulp - some dribbling and some of it gets on the book in my lap). Do you have a shmata, Miss?
I can just see myself being interviewed:
Host: What a great idea! When did you first decide to do this book on the Bronx?
Me: It was back in the 90's, actually.
Host: The 90's! Let me just remind you that it's now 2025! Are you saying that you've been working on this book for over 35 years?
Me: Book? Can you repeat that question?
Host: (Slowly) Are you saying that --
Me: Oh, yes, I remember! Yes! It's taken me a long time. But actually I only worked on the book for a year or two taking the photographs. The rest of the time was spent figuring out the order of the pictures!
Host: You're kiddin'? Right?
Me: Every few months I would take the pictures out and re-arrange them. But I was never happy with the order.
Host: Amazing! Are you happy with the order of the prints now?
Me: Mostly... (reaches for glass of water and takes long gulp - some dribbling and some of it gets on the book in my lap). Do you have a shmata, Miss?
8/19/2006
Grand Central Interior
An old '4x5' negative. I know the time will come when people will ask: "negative? what's that?"
It may be here already. And then the long explanation that will end up with something like: "oh, it's like one of my new mega-square cards, dude. i didn't know you had so many pixels back then. that is awesome!"
8/18/2006
Amongst Us!
Yes - the camera is on the ground. (Seemed like a good perspective at the time). It reminds me of a cheap sci-fi movie from the 50's. But it's New Years Eve, 2004 in New York.
[The more I look at this, the more I like it. I don't like my title though. I think I'm going to keep it as the top post in the blog until someone can give this a fitting name.]
8/17/2006
we don't need no stinkin' photographers
"Fujifilm says that the S6000fd can give precedence to the faces in an image, ensuring that they come out looking crisp and well lighted. The camera can pick out up to 10 faces in a scene and is not thrown off by eyeglasses. " From today's NY Times
I think that's more faces than I can pick out in a scene. Now, all they have to do is figure out which face has the most dramatic look, which can be done by programming the camera for Happy Photography, Depressed Photography, Ironic Photography etc.
Meanwhile, Kodak, Sony and Apple Computers have combined to create a new technology called, Master Photography Program (MPP). Although not officially announced yet - the rumor is that MPP will be emulate a number of well known photographers. So far, from what I've heard they have Ansel and Edward Weston programs and more are on the way.
I think that's more faces than I can pick out in a scene. Now, all they have to do is figure out which face has the most dramatic look, which can be done by programming the camera for Happy Photography, Depressed Photography, Ironic Photography etc.
Meanwhile, Kodak, Sony and Apple Computers have combined to create a new technology called, Master Photography Program (MPP). Although not officially announced yet - the rumor is that MPP will be emulate a number of well known photographers. So far, from what I've heard they have Ansel and Edward Weston programs and more are on the way.
8/15/2006
european vacation (1994)
Church Interior, Paris
If I do put this up for sale, first question will be: Which Church is it?
It would be nice if I knew but how do people do it when they come back with thousands of negatives - or captures - and ten years later they can tell you the name of the Church. At any rate I'll just say "a rose by any other name would still smell..." or something like that.
Paris, Park
But let's take a little time to visit the country that American's love so much. My time in Paris was heaven. I lived for two weeks in a tiny room in Pigalle? section - or wherever the cheap rooms were. I had a hot plate and bought my own stuff at the local bodega - and cooked in my room. I had one meal in a restaurant. I'm sure I missed most of the tourist hot spots. I would just walk out of the hotel and just like in NYC I'd wander around.
The morning light in Paris is special. Sometimes, usually around the beginning of Fall in New York when there is that nip in the air and a light mist - I feel like I'm back in Paris.
Bethel, Bronen's
i'm on webster ave. have managed to track down the old music store where i used to rent my trombone. bronen's used to be near Fordham but they've moved a few times. Bronens (since 1915) is boarded up. On the corner to my left, standing in front of a bodega are six teenagers - black - wearing white tee-shirts and white rags on their heads.
I'm sitting in my sister's black toyota. As I step from the car wtih the m3 around my neck I see them sizing me up. Not out of corners of eyes - but straight glare. Straight glare means - what the f--k am I doin' here.
I don't care and don't return the stare. The cat spit up hairballs at 3 a.m. and kept me up for hours - so I'm just as irritable as they seem to be.
As camera comes to my eye to photograph the old store, two teenagers approach from both sides and they're on cells. I swear they're talkin' to each other.
I would like to be able to explain that I don't care about them - I'm just an old white guy that's come over to photograph the place where he rented instruments as a kid. It brings back memories of my mother. My mother was a real musician - piano and later cello. I used to go with her to pick up the cello.
One of the teenagers stops in front of me and says in a friendly way: just don't take pictures of us.
Me: Oh, no problem. I'm just photographing the music store.
Him: Music store?? Man that place been shut for years. It's a real shame. I used to get my horn there.
Me: I used to play the trombone when I was a kid --
Him: Oh, man - the trombone! That sucks!
Me: I hated it. I always wanted to play the trumpet. I used to live around here, y'know. Up on University.
Him: Man - musta been a long time ago.
Me: Yeah, like 45 years!
Him: Cool. Listen - just watch yourself around here - lot's of shit goin' on.
Me: Thanks. I'll be out of here in a second or so.
Him: OK. Too bad about Bronen's. I used to like that place a lot.
fixing the M3
I am having trouble with the M3 with slower shutter speeds. I noticed it first when I was shooting the infrared stuff - but now I see an uneven curtain pull at speeds of 1/60th or slower - sometimes. Anyway the camera needs a thorough going-over.
Any advice as far as a repair shop for old Leicas? I guess I'd sort of prefer if they were in NYC and I could drop it off and pick it up when ready.
The other thing - the M3 will not focus as close as modern Leica lenses are able to focus. I think this can also be fixed by a repair person.
Any advice as far as a repair shop for old Leicas? I guess I'd sort of prefer if they were in NYC and I could drop it off and pick it up when ready.
The other thing - the M3 will not focus as close as modern Leica lenses are able to focus. I think this can also be fixed by a repair person.
8/14/2006
What I'm Listening To...
While Four Rolls of Film Dry...
There are two or three shots that I can't wait to see...
The summer is always the slowest shooting time for me. I don't like the light. I don't like the heat. Man - I can't even hit the 68F water temp unless I keep some in the fridge. Oh - I know you can do it at 70F or 75F - but once I get a formula I like - not gonna change. Superstitious that way...
Every step of the way we walk the line
Your days are numbered, so are mine
Time is pilin' up, we struggle and we scrape
We're all boxed in, nowhere to escape
Well my ship's been split to splinters and it's sinking fast
I'm drownin' in the poison, got no future, got no past
But my heart is not weary, it's light and it's free
I've got nothin' but affection for all those who've sailed with me
- Dylan, Mississippi
There are two or three shots that I can't wait to see...
The summer is always the slowest shooting time for me. I don't like the light. I don't like the heat. Man - I can't even hit the 68F water temp unless I keep some in the fridge. Oh - I know you can do it at 70F or 75F - but once I get a formula I like - not gonna change. Superstitious that way...
Every step of the way we walk the line
Your days are numbered, so are mine
Time is pilin' up, we struggle and we scrape
We're all boxed in, nowhere to escape
Well my ship's been split to splinters and it's sinking fast
I'm drownin' in the poison, got no future, got no past
But my heart is not weary, it's light and it's free
I've got nothin' but affection for all those who've sailed with me
- Dylan, Mississippi
8/12/2006
8/11/2006
Two Shoes
Whenever I see abandoned shoes in the city, I wonder who left them and how they got there. Sometimes, they just seem to have been perfectly placed. Other times just dropped in a random way on the sidewalk.
8/10/2006
What's Wrong?
This was shot from the window where I used to work facing east across sixth avenue (between 21st & 22nd street).
It hasn't been doctored in photoshop.
a) What's wrong with this picture.
ANSWER: THE CARS ARE MOVING THE WRONG WAY ON SIXTH AVENUE. SIXTH AVENUE RUNS UPTOWN. THE CARS ARE MOVING DOWNTOWN.
b) What could the reason be?
CLUE: THE FIRST THREE CARS ARE ATTACHED TO EACH OTHER. You can clearly see the bar attaching the first and 2nd cars. The link between the 2nd and third cars is less visible but it's there.
AND THE FINAL CLUE IS: SAMUEL L. JACKSON
YES:
Die Hard: With a Vengeance They did at least one big car crash / explosion on 6th Avenue. The film came out in 1995, so figure this was shot around then. I waited for a while on 6th avenue with my Hexar, for the explosion but they kept having glitches and calling it off. Finally I had to get in to work so I went up to the 4th Floor, and there was a window that you could actually open - leaned out and shot this as the cars were moving DOWN sixth avenue. When I first saw the negative the other day - I was just wondering about the odd configuration of the cars. When I looked closer, I saw the bar and chain holding the first cars together and remembered the movie shot that day.
8/09/2006
Church in Parking Lot
I was always tempted to call this, Church of the Holy Parking Lot. But now looking back on where I was standing (WTC Plaza) when I took it - it doesn't seem that funny. The longer I photograph, the more temporary everything becomes.
Photography is good at grabbing these scenes for posperity. What struck me as an odd juxtaposition years ago - turns out to also be a record, in this case of a scene that was blown away in an instant.
(Detail from one of the signs).
I shot this on a tripod with the EOS 50mm f1.4. You can easily read all the parking rates, and even the make of the air-conditioner sticking out of the back of the church. The monthly charge for cars was $329.81 plus: 18.25% city and parking tax. (And this was with the rather grainy Delta 400 film). I don't think the 50mm f1/4 was their cheapest lens - but it surely was one of their best.
Two Chefs
Early shot of the Metropolitan, with Canonet on tripod at dusk. This is the Egyptian Room. In 15 years since this shot was taken, I've never seen a catered affair at night in this spot.
8/08/2006
Weber
Matt Weber's next show will be at: the Pierre Menard Gallery in Cambridge. I put this in the blog because he's a friend and a talented photographer. "Talented photographer" is a banal phrase but it's the best I can do right now.
Looking for Seat
I've been having problems with my scanner lately. I've been scanning in straight street shots but they keep coming out with these surreal patterns. I called Lester to come over and fix it but he said there was nothing wrong with it and the picture looked correct to him.
Fifth Avenue Escalator
This actually began as another homage to Feininger, but I couldn't leave well enough alone.
Memphis Man
Okay - the backstory: this was on the corner of 23rd and 6th. Used to be a parking lot there.
I often stop to talk to street musicians before photographing them. I asked him where he was from and he told me Memphis. He had that hard Muddy Waters sound. I asked if he could play Crossroads and he paused for a second (this shot) and then began to play the Johnson Crossroads. I stopped and listened without taking any other shots. He was the real thing. I gave him a few dollars, walked on to work, and never saw him again.
8/07/2006
Rockefeller Center
I did a 16 x 20 of this one yesterday. Beautiful. I read that they opened the Top of The Rock restaurant (or whatever it's called). I want to visit.
8:26
I love the hands coming out to hold what I guess is a torch - not really sure what it is (above the clock). Madison? Lex? Midtown.
etc.
I'll be matting and packaging all day and then I should be caught up. After that a couple of choices:
a) go out and force myself to shoot
b) watch the DVD of I Robot which I swiped from my sister's house yesterday and plan to return without her knowing (I need a caper once in a while)
c) Go back to - or start - workin' on the freakin' book which I've been too busy to deal with
d) None of the above. (This last choice has the most appeal for me. It involves a reclined position where I stare blankly at the ceiling fan trying to calculate how many times per minute it revolves before falling into a deep sleep.)
This entry is tagged as "blog drool."
a) go out and force myself to shoot
b) watch the DVD of I Robot which I swiped from my sister's house yesterday and plan to return without her knowing (I need a caper once in a while)
c) Go back to - or start - workin' on the freakin' book which I've been too busy to deal with
d) None of the above. (This last choice has the most appeal for me. It involves a reclined position where I stare blankly at the ceiling fan trying to calculate how many times per minute it revolves before falling into a deep sleep.)
This entry is tagged as "blog drool."
8/05/2006
Dave Gets Banned
From: | FlickrHQ |
Subject: | You have been removed from the [ Group ] |
| Hi there... |
Now that was exciting because I've never actually been kicked out of a group before. This is just a virtual group - so I guess it's not the same as being kicked out of a real group. But still --
So what did I do to the Flickr group? Did I say something wrong or something? (Tom Waits) The group is private and although there is a link to ask the administrator for an explanation when I click on it I'm told that I don't have rights to view the group or find out the rules of the group. Since it is a PRIVATE GROUP I can't even find it. So how did I get into the group in the first place - someone invited me. (Guess that was a mistake).
Since I haven't posted anything to the group in about two weeks - I can't imagine what I did to deserve being banished - but I have to say - it's a great feeling. Rebel without a cause and all that. If you haven't been banned from a group - you don't know what you're missing. In fact - it was so exhilirating that I may join up with more groups just so that I can enjoy the feeling of being kicked out.
8/04/2006
Homage
Okay photogs - what photographer was I (emulating, ripping off, copying, doing an homage to).
* * *
The answer - maybe - is that you are all winners and that I'm the mixed up one. Andreas Feininger did a famous shot (seen here) of a person with the camera aligned to give a robotic look. One day, after my eyes were examined, I asked my optometrist if he'd mind sitting behind the eye gizmo for me. And that's what you see here.
At the time I was thinking of a Feininger shot the way I remembered it. But I could have sworn that his shot was also of an optometrist. Now that I go back through Feiningers images I see that I may have transfigured his camera shot into the optometrist shot. Or maybe there is an optometrist shot by Feininger but I can't find it anywhere.
So possibly this is an "inspired by" shot that has some originality of it's own (unless I'm still wrong and Feininger actually did an optometrist shot somewhere). At any rate, that let's you off the hook because according to contest rules if I myself can't even be sure - then certainly you, the contest winner are no longer eligible to buy me Leica lenses.
"No one can do inspired work without genuine interest in his subject and understanding of its characteristics." -Andreas Feininger
"A technically perfect photograph can be the world’s most boring picture." -Andreas Feininger
8/03/2006
42nd Street, 1995
Well at least in this shot I can definitely say it was 1995. I'm not sure if you can still walk on the Pershing overpass these days with a tripod without being swarmed on by security. Even back then it was a little iffy as there is a very narrow curb and the cars are zipping around behind you. I remember one leg of the tripod had to be stuck through the railing.
8/02/2006
Sprinkler on 6th
Somewhere on 6th Avenue near entrance to Central Park. Seems like a good one to post today since it is sweltering in NYC. 2003
8/01/2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)