Swordplay - Paris
3/14/2006
60,000
That is amazing. But last week I hit 60,000 page views, and one $25 sale. That is a new record in terms of popularity and dismal monetary conversion. As usual, a lot of these views are from hotlinks where one of my images is used as background material for a teenage blog. The web is the new teenage angst hangout. And angst needs an appropriate background. Enter Dave Beckerman - angst backgrounds incorporated. Okay, not incorporated - but dark and mysterious enough to put your stories about how so-and-so didn't look at you right - on.
In the old days - these were posters that you stuck up on your wall and drove your parents nuts with. Now those posters are in cyberworld. And your parents don't even have the password - do they?
Now you can stick anything you can find up - and it don't cost a dime. What I should do is hold a parasitic contest. It will be based on bandwidth usage and one of the categories will be "Best Use of a Hotlinked Photograph." Another category will be worst use of same.
Well, there you go boys and girls: 60,000 page views and one $25 print sale. You do the math.
In the old days - these were posters that you stuck up on your wall and drove your parents nuts with. Now those posters are in cyberworld. And your parents don't even have the password - do they?
Now you can stick anything you can find up - and it don't cost a dime. What I should do is hold a parasitic contest. It will be based on bandwidth usage and one of the categories will be "Best Use of a Hotlinked Photograph." Another category will be worst use of same.
Well, there you go boys and girls: 60,000 page views and one $25 print sale. You do the math.
3/12/2006
Camera Info
I added which camera was in the Prints for Sale section. I can't discern any pattern. I seem to like different cameras at different times - but the amount of sellable prints (that just means that I liked them and thought others would too) - per hour used doesn't change much. I might have shot more with the 20D but you are only allowed (you'll need to talk with the creative fates here) - you are only alowed a definite number of good shots per year. That number is about the same no matter which camera I use. However - and this is a big however - the number might actually be less if I didn't switch cameras - as very often the swap gets me out shooting again. It's the change that is useful - but it has nothing to do with what I'm changing for. And - as things would have it - to confirm this theory - many times I've gone back to the same camera I traded in - and enjoyed it for the same amount of time again before my eye began to wander.
The only caveat in the camera usage statistics is that I didn't differentiate between digital cameras. If it says 20D, it could have been the: 20D, the Rebel, or one of the powershots.
The only caveat in the camera usage statistics is that I didn't differentiate between digital cameras. If it says 20D, it could have been the: 20D, the Rebel, or one of the powershots.
Hexar AF Classic
I pulled out the old Hexar to use as a walkin' around camera because I wanted to shoot with a 35mm length lens, and don't have one yet for the Leica / Voigtlander. I remember the Hexar fondly - but it has shortcomings: top speed of 1/250th.
(I thought that it went to 1/500th in Program mode, but I haven't been able to confirm that - and it might have been another one of the early designer cameras I was thinking of).
That is a serious drawback for walkin' around stuff. And, although the viewfinder is sharp and contrasty - the way the frame lines are shown (they move in a bit for parallex correction) doesn't give you that great sense of what exactly is in the frame that you have with a manual focus rangefinder.
On the plus side: the camera is very easy and comfortable to hand-hold at your side. You don't need (nor do they make) any sort of grip for it. And in "silent mode" (which was removed from the camera at some point for legal reasons) - in "silent mode" it is the quiestest of any (including Leica) rangefinder - and that's saying something.
The quality of the lens is also excellent. But all in all the camera isn't a substitute for a nice manual rangefinder.
(I thought that it went to 1/500th in Program mode, but I haven't been able to confirm that - and it might have been another one of the early designer cameras I was thinking of).
That is a serious drawback for walkin' around stuff. And, although the viewfinder is sharp and contrasty - the way the frame lines are shown (they move in a bit for parallex correction) doesn't give you that great sense of what exactly is in the frame that you have with a manual focus rangefinder.
On the plus side: the camera is very easy and comfortable to hand-hold at your side. You don't need (nor do they make) any sort of grip for it. And in "silent mode" (which was removed from the camera at some point for legal reasons) - in "silent mode" it is the quiestest of any (including Leica) rangefinder - and that's saying something.
The quality of the lens is also excellent. But all in all the camera isn't a substitute for a nice manual rangefinder.
3/11/2006
D.U.M.B.O.
Down under the Manhattan Bridge Overpass
The Rollei TLR. The 4990 scanner. The Empire State Building (dead ahead). And my eyes and fingers.
3/10/2006
Quadograph Flags
P.S. I do find this kaleidoscope effect interesting. Recipe, begin with the shot in upper left corner. Flip horizontal and place upper right corner. Flip this one vertical and place lower right corner. Flip the original and place in lower left corner. You do have to schmear (I'll take a schmear of creamcheese please) the jointings a little. But almost any image that has something halfway geometric along the right and lower edges will give you this kaleidoscope effect.
I think I'll name these: Quadographs.
[Camera: Canon 20D / Post-processing effects by Beckerman Light & Magic]
27 Years Later Part 2
The things they say sound pretty cold
Hope I die before I get old...
And sure enough - that's what happened. Just about all the great ones died before they got old, at least in the wonderful world o' music. Mostly drugs - though disease and murder played their parts as well. Except for Dylan - my generation won't have to sit around and watch their idols perish.
Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Phil Ochs, Janis Joplin, Momma Cass, (Richard Manuel, Rick Danko - The Band), John Lennon (my favorite Beatle), George Harrison (the youngest Beatle).
Oh and there were the politicians as well - and that whole Camelot thing which I was too young to buy into and probably wouldn't have bought into it even if I were older. And the other brother slain - who I thought was an opportunist the way he tossed his hat into the ring only after seeing which way the wind was blowing.
But whatever. All gone. And so as I say - we won't have to sit around on our rockers and commiserate with each other about how so-and-so died at 89 (how young he was).
But - we haven't been entirely spared - because the actors - and I mean the male actors - of our generation - now they have survived and prospered.
Attica! Attica! We get to see the big trio: Pacino, DeNiro, and Hoffman - age and as I say - prosper. What we do have to look forward to is the day when DeNiro (and he isn't far from this yet in terms of film choices) will be pitchman for adult diapers. (You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?). Sorry - my hearings been going lately and I didn't hear you. Oh, you are talkin' to me.
For some reason (less drugs?) the major stars of my generation (even Clint Eastwood) are still going strong. Who would've thunk - that when you saw Dustin Hoffman step onto the scene in his scuba suit - that he'd still be a major star 40 years later?
I mean - even Bill Shatner is still going strong. Now the actresses haven't fared as well in terms of work - but they've not kicked off.
That's all. There might be some point to all this - but I forgot what it was. Oh yes, bejesus - that we would be spared witnessing the aging of most of my generations idols because they had all split so damned soon. That was the idea. And how they did change the world in their three decades!
Not tryin' to 'cause a big -- s-s-s-ensation.
Just talkin' 'bout my generation. (the Who)
Hope I die before I get old...
And sure enough - that's what happened. Just about all the great ones died before they got old, at least in the wonderful world o' music. Mostly drugs - though disease and murder played their parts as well. Except for Dylan - my generation won't have to sit around and watch their idols perish.
Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, Phil Ochs, Janis Joplin, Momma Cass, (Richard Manuel, Rick Danko - The Band), John Lennon (my favorite Beatle), George Harrison (the youngest Beatle).
Oh and there were the politicians as well - and that whole Camelot thing which I was too young to buy into and probably wouldn't have bought into it even if I were older. And the other brother slain - who I thought was an opportunist the way he tossed his hat into the ring only after seeing which way the wind was blowing.
But whatever. All gone. And so as I say - we won't have to sit around on our rockers and commiserate with each other about how so-and-so died at 89 (how young he was).
But - we haven't been entirely spared - because the actors - and I mean the male actors - of our generation - now they have survived and prospered.
Attica! Attica! We get to see the big trio: Pacino, DeNiro, and Hoffman - age and as I say - prosper. What we do have to look forward to is the day when DeNiro (and he isn't far from this yet in terms of film choices) will be pitchman for adult diapers. (You talkin' to me? Are you talkin' to me?). Sorry - my hearings been going lately and I didn't hear you. Oh, you are talkin' to me.
For some reason (less drugs?) the major stars of my generation (even Clint Eastwood) are still going strong. Who would've thunk - that when you saw Dustin Hoffman step onto the scene in his scuba suit - that he'd still be a major star 40 years later?
I mean - even Bill Shatner is still going strong. Now the actresses haven't fared as well in terms of work - but they've not kicked off.
That's all. There might be some point to all this - but I forgot what it was. Oh yes, bejesus - that we would be spared witnessing the aging of most of my generations idols because they had all split so damned soon. That was the idea. And how they did change the world in their three decades!
Not tryin' to 'cause a big -- s-s-s-ensation.
Just talkin' 'bout my generation. (the Who)
3/09/2006
Sales?
It's always deadly this time of year - no big holidays. No holidays at all.
I haven't had a sale for over a week now. My first reaction - which I will admit is perverse - is to raise prices.
But I'm thinkin' if they don't buy it for $75 might as well have 'em not buy it at $100.
Then I was thinking - do a one-of-a-kind print. One print numbered 1/1. The buyer gets the original negative cut into pieces with one part missing (in case they want to glue it together and make more prints). I like that idea. Instead of $75 for that print, I would do a bidding on eBay and start the bidding off at $1000.
I haven't had a sale for over a week now. My first reaction - which I will admit is perverse - is to raise prices.
But I'm thinkin' if they don't buy it for $75 might as well have 'em not buy it at $100.
Then I was thinking - do a one-of-a-kind print. One print numbered 1/1. The buyer gets the original negative cut into pieces with one part missing (in case they want to glue it together and make more prints). I like that idea. Instead of $75 for that print, I would do a bidding on eBay and start the bidding off at $1000.
Matt Weber (New Work)
Friends - go to Matt Weber's NEW WORK
Wait for the page to load.
Besides the great opening shot which is the Times Square that I remember, scroll down to the shot of the three guys with coffee cups (about the 12th photograph). Are the first and last guys twins, brothers, or am I seeing things. I was walking with Matt when he snapped that - and as he'll tell you a chuckled.
I'm not sure why I laughed. Recognition that this was a Matt shot. It all happened so fast. We had just seen the Gordon Parks exhibit (he died yesterday or the day before at 93) and were going for coffee.
I was on Matt's left. As we crossed the street the trio approached. I recognized a repeating pattern of cups and similarity of dress. But I didn't want it and besides wasn't quick enough and had the wrong lens on anyway.
Matt snapped and we continued. Then he berated himself that he should have tilted the camera down more. I think - and he can correct me on this, that he said, "I should've tilted down another 3 degrees. I think I missed their feet. "
I thought I knew what the shot would look like, but I was wrong. Matt had a wider lens than usual for him - and I didn't even notice the guy on the right at all. I also didn't have a sense of the distance between the trio. I did see that the third guy gave Matt the old why'ya takin' a picture of me and I'm on to you, eye. That I saw.
Anyway, we continued on to the coffee shop and juggling for the seat with the best view. Although in street shooting, no one knows where the seat with the best view will be. Can you imagine a bar called, The Street Shooter? Lot's of windows looking out onto the street. Revolving chairs. And the best street shots taken from those chairs on the wall?
Wait for the page to load.
Besides the great opening shot which is the Times Square that I remember, scroll down to the shot of the three guys with coffee cups (about the 12th photograph). Are the first and last guys twins, brothers, or am I seeing things. I was walking with Matt when he snapped that - and as he'll tell you a chuckled.
I'm not sure why I laughed. Recognition that this was a Matt shot. It all happened so fast. We had just seen the Gordon Parks exhibit (he died yesterday or the day before at 93) and were going for coffee.
I was on Matt's left. As we crossed the street the trio approached. I recognized a repeating pattern of cups and similarity of dress. But I didn't want it and besides wasn't quick enough and had the wrong lens on anyway.
Matt snapped and we continued. Then he berated himself that he should have tilted the camera down more. I think - and he can correct me on this, that he said, "I should've tilted down another 3 degrees. I think I missed their feet. "
I thought I knew what the shot would look like, but I was wrong. Matt had a wider lens than usual for him - and I didn't even notice the guy on the right at all. I also didn't have a sense of the distance between the trio. I did see that the third guy gave Matt the old why'ya takin' a picture of me and I'm on to you, eye. That I saw.
Anyway, we continued on to the coffee shop and juggling for the seat with the best view. Although in street shooting, no one knows where the seat with the best view will be. Can you imagine a bar called, The Street Shooter? Lot's of windows looking out onto the street. Revolving chairs. And the best street shots taken from those chairs on the wall?
3/08/2006
Promenade Redeux
Hi Dave
I thought I'd let you know that my 'Promenade' print arrived this morning.
Its amazing! You're right about the grey tones; there's a goregous three
dimensional quality as the trees fade in the distance; I could just take a
stroll down there! Its going next to Nightstorm on my wall so when I wake
in the morning I can see something that inspires me.
Print arrived in superb condition with no creases, bumps or bangs; you
have packaging down to an art too!
I'll have to start thinking about what I want next, 'Brooklyn Bridge
Crossing' or 'Roosevelt Island Tram' are high on the list. Hope you've
recovered from the trauma of international posting for Promenade!
Thanks again Dave, pleasure doing business with you!
Allan
* * *
One of the ironies of living through the switch from darkroom to inkjet is that an inkjet print still doesn't have the - je ne sais quoi - of a darkroom print. For the regular Joe out there - an inkjet print is still related to that junk that comes out of their home printer.
That will change someday just as I have pencils all over the house but can't draw a lick.
The irony, as you can see from yesterday's price list, is that the cost of producing the fine art inkjet print is probably double the cost of the same darkroom print. In fact, thinking about it, I'm ballparking it - the quantity of ink used increase with the square (the area) of the final print and so ink costs zoom at that rate - rather than at a linear rate. You know what I mean.
This is a good subject for someone out there to investigate - the cost of producing an inkjet print compared to a fine-art darkroom print. Other expenses come to mind for the inkjet print that have no equivalent on the darkroom end: software upgrades, cleaning cycles, storage for the digital files.
The major difference is in the time to reproduce the next one. It may take as long or longer to produce your first version of the inkjet print. Maybe you'll spend days making test prints and corrections in Photoshop. Maybe not. But once you feel you've got it - and if you've got your process down - then you leap ahead - as the amount of labor to make inkjet reproductions is minimal compared to the darkroom experience.
I thought I'd let you know that my 'Promenade' print arrived this morning.
Its amazing! You're right about the grey tones; there's a goregous three
dimensional quality as the trees fade in the distance; I could just take a
stroll down there! Its going next to Nightstorm on my wall so when I wake
in the morning I can see something that inspires me.
Print arrived in superb condition with no creases, bumps or bangs; you
have packaging down to an art too!
I'll have to start thinking about what I want next, 'Brooklyn Bridge
Crossing' or 'Roosevelt Island Tram' are high on the list. Hope you've
recovered from the trauma of international posting for Promenade!
Thanks again Dave, pleasure doing business with you!
Allan
* * *
One of the ironies of living through the switch from darkroom to inkjet is that an inkjet print still doesn't have the - je ne sais quoi - of a darkroom print. For the regular Joe out there - an inkjet print is still related to that junk that comes out of their home printer.
That will change someday just as I have pencils all over the house but can't draw a lick.
The irony, as you can see from yesterday's price list, is that the cost of producing the fine art inkjet print is probably double the cost of the same darkroom print. In fact, thinking about it, I'm ballparking it - the quantity of ink used increase with the square (the area) of the final print and so ink costs zoom at that rate - rather than at a linear rate. You know what I mean.
This is a good subject for someone out there to investigate - the cost of producing an inkjet print compared to a fine-art darkroom print. Other expenses come to mind for the inkjet print that have no equivalent on the darkroom end: software upgrades, cleaning cycles, storage for the digital files.
The major difference is in the time to reproduce the next one. It may take as long or longer to produce your first version of the inkjet print. Maybe you'll spend days making test prints and corrections in Photoshop. Maybe not. But once you feel you've got it - and if you've got your process down - then you leap ahead - as the amount of labor to make inkjet reproductions is minimal compared to the darkroom experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)