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.
9/25/2006
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)