Strange Thoughts: A Short Wordless Film

June 13, 2024

A Strange Cruise [2017 original with AI enhancements]

What are we going to do about this AI problem, you and I? Are we going to throw it all in the trash because it uses copyrighted images to learn? I have trouble doing that because, if we’re honest, we’ve all used copyrighted material to learn. In fact, when it comes to photography, it’s pretty much impossible to not use copyrighted material to learn. We look at others’ work, form our opinions, and then either try to duplicate what we like or avoid what we don’t. AI is doing the same thing.

Okay, using AI to try and convince people that something happened when it didn’t is wrong; it’s the same as lying only with pictures. We shouldn’t do that and we should call out people who do.

HOWEVER, creating images that either cannot happen or are extremely unlikely to have happened is something that sounds like fun, especially when we’re using animals. One thing I never did much was work with animals. The animals I wanted were always big and scary and there never was a male lion around when I needed one. AI takes away that danger. Of course, its accuracy on the lion isn’t always that great, either, but sometimes that’s part of the fun. I created a lion with two tails earlier this morning. I didn’t use it, but it was fun.

So, here is a short film containing 16 images that I reprocessed this morning with AI additions to them. And animals. I wanted to be sure and include animals because, especially with the alien in the mix, I didn’t want anyone thinking that I’d stolen an image from the DoD archives or anything. None of this is real except for the people. At least, I think they’re real. I’ve not seen any of them in a while, you know.

Art / Photography

Kodak Returns To Film

January 7, 2017

charles i. letbetter - Ektachrome Returns

Photographers said they want it, but will they use it?

For the past five years, photographers everywhere, especially us old guys, have lamented the loss of film. When Kodak filed for bankruptcy we saw the writing on the wall. Films began dropping one by one until the only films the once-dominant company still had on the market were Kodak Gold 200, Kodak Ultra Max 400 and a series of professional films. Kodak’s premier color film, Ektachrome, was killed off in 2012.

However, what was old is suddenly new again. Take music, for instance. Vinyl had been declared dead a long time ago, but in the past two years it has begun making a comeback and now accounts for eleven percent of the music market. Could the same thing happen in photography? Is it time to bring back film?

That’s the gamble Kodak is making in announcing that it’s bringing back the Ektachrome film line later this year. They’re hoping that the difference between a good film image and a digital image will be enough to spark a retro revolution that will produce an increased demand for film. The timing seems to be right. The film has been off the market just long enough for old-school photographers and photography school instructors to start missing it. This could be the next big thing in photography.

Maybe. Even if Ektachrome takes off in popularity, there are still some photographers face in using the film, and the first one comes with the cameras themselves. Anyone who has started in photography in the past 15 years without going to photography school hasn’t used a film camera. That’s going to be a problem because film cameras don’t have all the onboard tools that many digital photographers have come to rely upon. Want to change ISO? Have to change the film. Spot metering? Doesn’t exist except in hybrid cameras. Connectivity and GPS? Uhm, check your phone. There is no “landscape” mode, no “black and white” mode, and definitely no “art” mode. You have to know the film, know how it works, and adjust your settings manually to get the best shot.

The second issue, especially for photographers not in major metropolitan areas, is going to be finding someone who can actually process the film. While Ektachrome isn’t quite as challenging as Kodachrome was, it still takes a technician who knows what they’re doing with the chemicals or else it comes out looking like garbage. And if you need to modify the film, good luck. It is extremely challenging to work with as a slide film. While there are still several places that have the ability to process the film, almost all are in major metropolitan centers. That can be a major pain in the backside for anyone who lives and works in a rural area. And do we even want to start talking about turn around times?

Yeah, there are some problems. Yet, for those clients who really want film, this is quite possibly the film they want, especially if you’re shooting outdoors where Ektachrome does its best.

Now, I can hear digital shooters saying, “Yeah, but I can get the same effect with a Photoshop action.”

That produces two questions. First, if you’ve never shot the film then how do you know how the digital emulation should look? I’ve looked at four different popular emulation action sets and all four of them produce dramatically different results. How do you know which one is correct? The answer is: you don’t unless you have shot with the film. A lot.

The second question is WHY? Why would a digital photographer want to emulate a film look other than for the fun of it? Okay, maybe that’s enough reason for some people. But while there may be a market for film prints, the market for emulated digital prints doesn’t exist. Then, once again, there’s also that nasty problem of emulators not being especially accurate. Let me give you an example.

One of the most flexible film emulation filters is located within the Nik Collection, which happens to be free. The emulation within the Nik Collection is preferable to a Photoshop action because it actually gives the photographer the ability to make adjustments to allow for situations where the software misreads the photo in some way. Where actions require the photographer to compensate for a yellow/red saturation that is too high, the Nik Collection filters allow one to adjust those channels and bring them back into the range of something that’s actually usable.

Does the end result match what is achievable in film? I suppose it’s possible, but one has to be ready to work with the software on pretty much every image.

Here’s what I’m talking about. Below, we took five outdoor photographs and processed them using Nik’s Ektachrome 400 emulation. For the sake of comparison, we left the default settings in place. We’ll show the raw image first and then the emulation.

original

emulation

original

emulation

Original

emulation

Original

emulation

original

emulation

You’ll have to decide for yourself which version is preferable. You can see through the succession that the emulator tends to have some challenges with yellow and red. This is interesting given the actual film tends to push saturation on blue and green. Can it be adjusted within the filter? Yes, but one would have to know exactly which adjustments to make where, wouldn’t they?

I’m not against film emulators. They can be fun and interesting study tools, but they don’t take the place of actual film. One has to shoot differently with film than with a digital camera. There are no short cuts. “Fixing it in post,” becomes a matter of cost and skill, not convenience.

I’m excited about the return of Ektachrome and I may even dust off my old Canon F1 and shoot a roll or two if I come across some extra cash. Make no mistake, though. It’s not shooting with a digital. Don’t think you can just grab your grandfather’s camera and start shooting. Film is still for people who actually know what they’re doing behind a camera.

Take care.

Fashion / video

Our 5 Favorite Fashion Films For 2016

December 21, 2016

A different way of looking at fashion

Custom film has become a major factor in how brands communicate their message and even establish some level of dominance. Part of a complicated, multi=-million-dollar marketing campaign, these films are stories unto themselves, dialogues that express a unique perspective on what it means to wear a brand’s clothing. The best frequently employ award-winning directors and several also include recognizable actors.

We’ve watched dozens of fashion films this year, but these five stand out. They go beyond just presenting a set of clothes. They capture our imagination and give us aspirations for how our lives might be should we wear these clothes.

What’s especially interesting is that almost all fashion films are presented without dialog. The viewer is left to interpret the story for themselves, just as we must ultimately interpret a brand’s clothes for ourselves. Labels want to send a strong message that the clothes don’t define the person. Rather, the person defines the clothes.

So here are my five favorites in no particular order. Pour yourself a drink and enjoy.

Christian Dior: Drift

Film by Vincent van de Wijngaard. A little stereotypical with the use of the LA Causeway, but still very well done.

Calvin Klein Jeans, Spring 2016

Featuring FKA Twigs and Kaner Flex

Gucci Stories: The Myth of Orpheus and Eurydice

This is a four-part modernization of the Greek myth that is quite interesting

KENZO: Snowbird

This award-winning film by Sean Baker was shot entirely on an iPhone

https://youtu.be/Bkgc6rqOc8w

PRADA: Past Forward

This very futuristic and esoteric film by David O. Russell is a beautiful piece of noir. Be sure to look for appearances by John Kaczynski and Sasha Baron Cohen.

Art / PotD

Color In Life As In Pictures

October 18, 2016

Oh, half of what’s out there is worthless. The only pictures I like are the ones I’ve taken. —William Eggleston

charles i. letbetter - color in life and pictures

What color brings to pictures is the same thing it brings to life: excitement, variance, and a different way of seeing things

I had difficulty choosing pictures to go with this article. I just finished reading the New York Times interview with William Eggleston that was published yesterday. Times writer Augusten Burroughs calls Eggleston, “The pioneer of color photography.” I’ve also heard of him referred to as the godfather of color photography. Whichever title one chooses to use, the man has done a lot to further color photography. So, choosing images that really match that topic involved a mental argument as to exactly what color photography represents.

Being brutally honest, I’ve not always been the world’s biggest Eggleston fan. I’ve seen the images from his 1976 exhibit at the New York Museum of Modern Art, which the article casually glosses over with little more than a side mention. I understand why critics at the time weren’t impressed. Eggleston’s work has, at times, been the sort that one looks at after a few years and thinks, “Oh, now I get it.” Just casually browsing through his images without taking the time to understand them can, depending on one’s level of photographic comprehension, leave one disappointed and unimpressed.

What Eggleston’s work did, though, was bring color photography legitimacy in a world that was stuck looking at things in black and white. As color film and processing changed over the years, color pictures changed our perspective of life. We were forced to look at things differently, something that a lot of people don’t find comfortable.

The Color Of Emotion

Photographers who have never shot film, and there are millions who haven’t, don’t understand the challenge of having to choose whether to shoot in color or black and white. Digital cameras inherently take color pictures. Even if one has a camera with a black and white setting [which is never a good idea, in my opinion], the sensor still “sees” in color and then makes the conversion. When using film, though, one has to make a decision before the pictures are taken, often before one even stops onto the set. Sitting in art meetings over the years, whether to use color or black and white film was almost always one of the first arguments the team would face. Opinions both directions tend to be strong.

Critical to this discussion is understanding that color changes the emotion of pictures. If I were to set two pictures side-by-side, one color, one black-and-white, your opinion hinges not on different qualities of processing, but on how the different images make you feel. Consider the image at the top of this page. Here it is processed in black and white:

Emulated Fomapan film with LAB processing

The question is not whether one version is better than the other; both have their distinctive qualities. What matters is which version best communicates the emotion I was attempting to capture with the image. In this case, I prefer color if for no other reason than the striking contrast of red blood in the water.That aspect is so muted in the black and white version that one might miss it entirely if just casually glancing at the photo.

One can argue that either version of the picture is better than the other and be technically correct. Are we shooting merely for technicalities, though, or are we taking pictures that allow people to feel something? When we choose color, we make a choice in how we want to direct viewers’ emotions.

Color In A Black And White World

Because photography started out monochrome, there have been, and always will be, those who are strongly adamant that black and white is the only legitimate format for professional photographs. The Times article makes that point when the author asks Eggleston what he thinks of Ansel Adams. Eggleston replied:

We didn’t know each other, but if we did, I’d tell him the same thing: “I hate your work.”

The sentiment runs both directions, though. The article recounts a conversation between Eggleston and renowned photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson in which the latter tells the former, “You know, William, color is bull shit.”

Not everyone wants to see the world in color. Not everyone wants to feel the emotions and challenges that color brings to pictures. Black and white gets straight to the point, emphasizes the facts, and allows some things to become lost in the shadows. We all know people who are the same way. The rules are the rules and either one follows them or they don’t. People who view the world in black and white tend to be very precise in their judgments, they appreciate the clarity of strong, well-defined lines and the clean contrast that black and white affords.

Color brings more freedom to the world, and to imagery. Color opens up possibilities that maybe the rules are bendable, or not necessary at all. Color lets us see what’s lurking in the shadows, enjoy the subtle gradients of light, and feel the warmth, or the coldness, of an image. You almost certainly know people who are colorful, who take chances without regard to the consequences, who explore beyond traditional boundaries, and are very open about how they feel. Their emotions are obvious and their communication often louder than we might appreciate.

Analysis Paralysis

If I have a favorite quote from the article, and Eggleston provided plenty of good ones to save for the archives, it would be this one regarding critical discussion of his work:

The only thing one can do is really look at the damn things. It’s just not making much sense to talk about them.

We are guilty, far too often, of analyzing both photographs and life to the point that they begin to lose any meaning. We too often need to justify our reasons for either liking or not liking a photograph, or a situation, or even a person. Some of us are color people. Some of us are black and white. And there are many who cross back and forth, constantly wrestling with the emotional and visual exchanges between the two.

I’ve no problem admitting that I am of the latter camp. I find pleasure in both forms of photography and both forms of people. While mixing the two doesn’t always work, I would hate to live in a world where either one fails to exist. What Eggleston’s work teaches us, if anything, is that we need both. One might be more appropriate for a given situation, but fundamentally neither is better than the other. They are, simply, different, and that difference is wonderful.

Life is the same way, is it not? The sooner we accept that both color and monochrome has value, perhaps then we can get on about the business of loving and caring for each other rather than this stupid arguing we’ve been doing. We’ve not been making much sense with our petty picking and fussing. Enjoy the pictures of life. We’ll all be better for it.

Advertising / Social Commentary / video

Awareness You Can’t Escape

July 1, 2016

The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival. —Aristotle

Awareness sometimes requires cultivation. Other times, one cannot escape it.

Awareness is a state of consciousness, the point at which we realize something exists and are able to understand that existence, at least, in part. Sometimes, awareness has to be carefully cultivated. Physics, for example, holds various levels of awareness, the deepest of which only come with intense learning. Other matters, however, are more straightforward, perhaps even blunt. All one needs to know in order to respond appropriately can be said in a matter of seconds. Fire, for example, is hot. Even a baby understands after the briefest experience that fire is hot.

Every day, we develop more awareness. Perhaps we see a new store or read a new book. Maybe we have a conversation with a friend. Everything we do has the potential to increase our awareness. Even watching commercials.

Each year, at Cannes, the best advertising campaigns are presented and given awards based upon the quality of work. Some do an amazing job of selling a product. Others blaze new trails in technological innovation. What always strikes the hardest, though, are those that create awareness. These are the ads that make you stop and think, and give you information that leads you to act, become involved, and begin conversations.

Of this year’s winners in the film and film craft categories, four gold winners did an amazing job at creating awareness. I want to share those with you. Watch each one and let them change you.

Make Love, Not Scars

Acid. The word immediately raises warnings of danger for most teens and adults. While there are many legitimate uses for acid, however, one of the most frequent is as a weapon of personal destruction. We don’t see as many acid attacks in the United States. Awareness is low because it is usually treated as a felony assault and handled through local justice systems. Elsewhere in the world, however, acid attacks are devastating. In countries were various forms of acid are sold openly and are easily obtainable, acid attacks are a common form of personal vendetta. Most of the victims are women. Many victims are under the age of 18.

Ogilvy & Mather Mumbai created the following piece to raise awareness of this horrible issue. Incidents involving acid attacks are growing, but governments are doing little to stop them. The piece is short. Please watch. If you are inclined to investigate further, please visit Acid Survivors Foundation.

Never Alone

For many gay people, coming out to one’s family and friends is one of the most frightening experiences of their lives. One can never be quite certain how people might respond. Will they be accepting? Will they be angry? Will this be the end of relationships?

If one is captain of the Wales national rugby team, that fear is overwhelming. Rugby is a tough sport, one of those games allegedly created for and played by only the manliest of men. Gareth Thomas faced that fear. What he discovered, however, was that he was part of a team that had his back, no matter what anyone said. With millions of fans, there were inevitably some who didn’t understand. Still, the team supported Gareth and they continued to win games.

Guinness sponsored the award-winning film piece developed by AMV BBDO London and produced by Stink London. There’s no mention of beer here, though. No one goes out and has a pint at the end. Instead, the emphasis is on the power of a team, supporting those whose lifestyles are often vilified and misunderstood. Everyone who comes out as gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender needs a team behind them. Be part of the team. The version that won the award is below. You can watch Gareth’s full story here.

https://youtu.be/rBOTKSQ89M8

Manboobs

Censorship on social media is severe. Most apps assume that anything on your computer or especially on your phone is accessible to minors. Argue all you want, I know all too well how difficult it is to keep sensitive materials away from little hands and prying eyes. Once children reach a certain age, the more one tries to deter them the more determined they are to see what’s there.

However, that censorship becomes a complete pain in the ass for organizations trying to raise awareness for things such as, oh, let’s say breast cancer. Talking about breast cancer becomes exceptionally difficult when one can’t show real breasts. How does an organization teach women how to check for lumps, an extremely important form of early detection, if they can’t show breasts?

Some brilliant minds at the David agency in Buenos Aires came up with a creative way to address those problems for an Argentinian awareness and support organization, MACMA. The spot comes with a bit of humor but is also extremely informative. Viewers are then encouraged to make their own video. If you care to do so, let me know. We’ll be happy to help.

https://youtu.be/Ais88Os_CTg

Dear Daddy

Our final piece hits really, really close to home. Until I had a daughter of my own, I didn’t think much about the vocabulary I used and tolerated from others. I didn’t give as much thought to what might be harmful. In watching and helping Tippy grow, I’ve learned that even the most innocuous, unintentional things we do and say truly matter.

We are moderately aware to the sensitive nature of body image. However, this piece developed for Care, Norway, raises awareness to a whole new level by putting it in terms that are inescapable. Just imagine if your unborn daughter could write you a letter. This short film is one of the most moving pieces I’ve ever encountered.

Conceptual credit goes to ad agency Schjaerven Reklamebyrå and production company Tangrystan, both of Oslo. I dare you to watch this film and not be moved. If you’re a daddy, or about to become one, I dare you to not cry.

The majority of ads are not all that serious. The majority of ads aren’t worth our time. These four, though, hit us with an awareness we need. There is no escape. You have now been enlightened. Go, enlighten others.

Fashion / Photography / PotD

Film Returns To Fashion

May 27, 2016

What you have caught on film is captured forever… it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything. —Aaron Siskind

While camera makers talk about breaking the 100-megapixel threshold, fashion editors are turning to film for their editorials

Film photography is wonderful, and in many ways, I still prefer it to digital. There is an artistry to using a film camera that is lost with a digital box that does most the thinking for you. Clients have to trust their photographer more, a lot more, and the photographer’s own talent and skill set actually matter. Working with film requires a bit more imagination, a bit more creativity, and a lot more precision. I love it.

So, you’d think that when Business of Fashion publishes an article headlined, “Fashion Photographers Return To Film,” I would be thrilled, right? Get out the old analog cameras, drop some Kodak TMax in the back, and let’s get rolling, right?

Hold on, not so fast. There are some issues here before we all dump our digitals. As enticing as the article makes film photography sound, and it does do such a good job of highlighting the positive aspects of using film, We have to consider whether this trend is sustainable and, beyond that, whether or not it even makes good sense. Let’s take a look at the issues the article doesn’t mention.

The article highlights the work of four very talented but nonetheless young photographers. This looks like fashion photography’s hipster movement and, like everything else hipster, just because the elements are “retro,” doesn’t mean we “old folks,” you know, the ones with all the experience in film are invited to participate. Nevermind that we begrudgingly made the switch to digital some twelve or so years ago. This is a youth-focused retro moment and just because we old guys can do film better doesn’t mean anyone is going to pay attention.
The retro styling of film photography matches the retro movement within the fashion industry itself. Void of any serious creativity for the past several seasons, fashion has gotten stuck looking back, especially at the late 1960s and 70s stylings. The film look works for those fashion lines because it matches the clothing lines. Should fashion ever decide to snap itself out of this ridiculous trend and actually do something creative, that film look isn’t likely to be as appropriate.
The support system is no longer present. When photographers made the switch to digital, and we all did it pretty much within the span of three to five years, we killed off a lot of people’s jobs. Prepress shops are virtually extinct now. There are still a handful of color houses running around the country, but the dramatic decrease in volume has forced them to severely increase their prices. No one even makes black-and-white paper anymore and the film options themselves have severely diminished. 20 years ago, AGFA and Kodak were invested heavily in imagesetters, but neither company even sells those behemoths now (though you can still pick up used devices if you’re really desperate). While I suppose that support system could be revitalized if everyone started using film again, there’s no indication that’s about to happen.
Even if one shoots on film, magazine layout is still digital. Again, the extinction of prepress shops is critical here. Everyone uses digital layout methods now and going back to analog just to accommodate a photography style doesn’t make sense. That means, even if the image is shot on film, it still has to be scanned and digitized and is likely to be photoshopped. That means the images being used are no more “pure” than those shot with a Canon EOS 5D. Bodies can still be reshaped, colors can still be manipulated, errors can still be fixed. So, what’s the point in using film, again?
The photography industry, as a whole, no longer supports film for general professional use. Canon has been showing off a 120-megapixel prototype that could, allegedly, be on the market later this year. Hasselblad’s H6d also offers a 100-megapixel option in full-frame medium format. Meanwhile, Sony continues pushing mirrorless options that grow increasingly sharper with each new update. Even the quality of cell phone cameras is growing rapidly. The photography industry is done with film and has moved on. I don’t see it backtracking. Ever.

I gotta admit, though, the lure of going back to film sure as hell sounds enticing, doesn’t it? To hear that click/whir of an auto film advance, the ability to get really creative and do multiple exposures on camera, trading backs from polaroid to TMax, and just the way a good, solid film box feels in your hand are all pieces of photographic nostalgia that I sometimes miss.

But without prepress and color shops, we’d all have to do our own processing. I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t have room to safely set up a dark room anymore. Even if I did, do I really want those highly-flammable chemicals in my house? Yeah, I know we didn’t give it a second thought 30 years ago, but once we came out from under the influence of those fumes we started seeing just how dangerous an improperly ventilated dark room could be. Then, there are the costs. Products more difficult to find, there aren’t as many options, paper is horribly expensive, and you still have to pay for a high-end drum scan to have the image digitized at sufficient quality. My estimates are a final price tag of about $150 per 8″x10″ image! I don’t know about anyone else, but that’s well outside my budget!

I love the idea of using film for fashion shoots; it certainly fits a number of different styles currently on the market. I fear it’s little more than a pseudo-hipster, anti-establishment, anti-capitalistic trend, though, and like all trends, this will pass. The world is digital now. The world relies on digital imagery and the information a picture can carry in its data packets. As much as we love film, we’re not going back.

Sob.

Advertising / Current Issues

LGBT Obstacle Course

March 30, 2016

Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit. —Mahatma Gandhi

You think your life is a nightmare? Try having your very existence marginalized

What does it feel like to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered? For those of us who don’t identify with any of those sexualities, understanding what their life is like and the obstacle course they face can be challenging. To the point we have difficulty empathizing as both individuals and as a society, the less likely we are to be understanding and tolerant of those whose identity is different from our own. The ad below is trying to help us fill that gap.

The ad, which might be more appropriately considered as a short film, was created by TWBA/Paris for Inter-LGBT, a French non-profit focused on support and advocacy for the LGBT community. With the approaching Pride marches across France in June, the organization “wanted to convey a strong message and remember that human rights are not negotiable and we will continue to advance for it.” The film does an excellent job of conveying their message without using many words. Yet, for some, especially those who live in more conservative environments where they may be the only person nearby who identifies as they do, this film may be a bit too real. You may have already experienced this nightmare. This obstacle course is a part of your life.

The film puts the viewer behind the eyes of a marginalized person. The scene starts at school with the bullying and taunting, then moves to exclusion at parties, the butt of jokes, on the ground surrounded by bullies, a father’s rejection, a mother’s tears, and all the closed doors. I know many who have been through these exact situations, and some who are still there. For too many people, this nightmare is their daily reality, and it hurts at a depth the rest of us rarely try to understand.

At the end, the film concludes by stating, “Until society progresses, we will keep moving forward.” In the meantime, though, the obstacle course is still there. If anything, life throws a new obstacle or two at marginalized people on a daily basis.

On its website, Inter-LGBT expresses the struggle in this way:

We argue because we refuse that fear wins.
We argue because we have decided to live at any cost.
We move forward because we think that love is stronger than hate.
We argue because we have faith in society’s ability to reinvent itself.
We move forward because that is how we change society, by showing the way.
We argue because we know we are not alone.

Recent political actions in both Georgia and North Carolina remind us of how the struggle is so very real everywhere you look. We cannot simply look at this as an LGBT issue and leave them alone to fight against the obstacle of oppression, the obstacle of cruelty, and the obstacle of dehumanization on their own. We all must take up this cause and commit to the elimination of each and every obstacle that unfairly blocks all marginalized people.

Take a look at the film. Understand the nightmare of the obstacle course for yourself.

Art / Fashion / Music / pop culture / PotD

Popped Culture Implosion

February 29, 2016

Creativity is putting your imagination to work, and it’s produced the most extraordinary results in human culture. —Ken Robinson

There is a lack of truly defining moments in contemporary culture that dooms us to boredom

No, I did not watch the Oscars last night, and no, it wasn’t because of any boycott, though the issue of racism in Hollywood needs a lot more than just platitudes thrown at it. I didn’t watch the Oscars last night because there was absolutely nothing about the show worthy of holding my interests for three-plus hours after a long day that started at 3:00 AM EST. To have stayed up that late would have required feeling passionate about some element of the show and there was nothing deserving of my passion. I had a much better time putting my head on my pillow and going to sleep.

2015’s Oscars views were off by 18% from the previous year, hitting a six-year low. Last night’s numbers aren’t in yet (7:00 AM EST), but I will be tremendously surprised if they’re all that much higher, if any at all. And while it might be tempting to blame things such as #OscarsSoWhite, the reality is that popular culture has popped, imploded into a pile of monotony that is about as exciting as the underside of a dog house. There was no reason to stay up and see what won the Best Picture award because I hadn’t bothered to see any of the nominated films. Spotlight, the film that won, hadn’t even managed to cross my radar before last night. What is it about? Apparently journalists at the Boston Globe, from what I’m reading, and I’m sure there are plenty of people who think it is a very good film, but am I going to drop $20 and an afternoon to see it? Probably not.

This period of cultural boredom isn’t just limited to film, unfortunately. I have spent the past three weeks totally consumed in covering ready-to-wear fashion for Pattern magazine. Earlier today, we finished up the shows in Milan, which should have been one of the most exciting weeks of the year. It wasn’t. If anything, it was anti-climactic at a level that I don’t remember having seen before. Worse yet, this has been a five-year trend that isn’t showing any sign of improving. An article in Business Insider this morning addresses the problem that such complete and total boredom with fashion is a leading cause of declining sales at department stores. Why shop when what we see on the rack is not substantially different from we already have in our closet?

Is music any different? Regrettably no, and music is the one place that our culture should be constantly reinventing itself. This year’s Grammy awards, which should be the biggest night in music, lost a half-million viewers from last year, which wasn’t exactly the most stellar statistic in the first place. With autotuning and digitally precise engineering, all new music has begun to sound too similar for anyone to care all that much about buying new albums. Scream all you want about how streaming services are cheating artists, what really matters is the fact that no one is buying the latest album because it sounds exactly like the one before it and the one before that and the one before … you get the idea.

What has happened to American culture? Where are the distinguishing artists that once shone out like beacons, names like Elvis, Hank Williams, Three Dog Night, or Ray Charles? Where are the icons of culture such as the Dorsey Brothers, Fred Astaire, Lucille Ball, and Norman Rockwell? Who is replacing Edward R. Murrow, Huntley & Brinkley, Bob Woodward, and Norman Mailer? Where are the underpinnings of our culture that give definition to this second decade of the 21st century? So far, all we have are hipster beards and oversized eyeglass frames and, quite honestly, both of those have lost their panache. We need more. We need something new to help define the next four years.

Why is our current culture not more significant? I have an interesting example. Tonight begins a new season of The Voice. Approximately 40 outstanding vocalists will be given a chance to work with experienced professionals, presumably to help get their music career jumpstarted. This is the tenth season of the show, which is a ratings hit for parent network NBC, but when we look at its actual impact on our culture, what have been the results: Nothing. Zero. Why? Because by the time the contest works its way down to the final four artists, the unique voices that started the show are gone. In their place are packaged, over-produced, tightly managed singers who are fed into a corporate music machine and promptly spit out on the other side having had little to no affect on our culture at all. Everyone sounds the same.

American Idol closed under exactly the same fate. While finalists from the first two seasons have done well, no one from this decade has managed to even get a glimpse of the Billboard charts. Nada. Zip.

Why was the literary world so wildly excited about what was ultimately a disappointing new book from Harper Lee, one which she had, presumptively, never wanted to be published? Because even contemporary literature is in the doldrums. We were wildly hopeful that a writer who had set culture on fire back in the 1960s might possibly be able to thrill us where more contemporary authors have failed.

Our culture has become far too boring. We, as creatives, have become too risk adverse, too unwilling to rock the boat, and the corporate entities that now control most everything we consume have choked the life from our movies, our music, our literature, and our life. We don’t need more Jackson Pollock, thank you. We need the next iteration of Pei Wei. We need people who can turn Banksy on its ear. We need people who give Giorgio Armani a reason to retire.

As I sit here ranting, of course, I have to ask myself what I’m willing to do to become part of the solution. I have some ideas. Who’s willing to help? Our culture is deficient of creativity. You and I can make a difference. Start now.

Advertising / PotD / video

A Final Thought

August 15, 2015

Film as dream, film as music. No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls. ― Ingmar Bergman

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I have had a number of thoughts this week about converting still photographs to video, more than a few of them born out of frustration at not having a clue what I’m doing at any given moment. I had this same feeling about twelve years ago when I first made the leap from film to digital photography. The difference is that the change then felt imperative, that there was no option but to change or be left behind in the dust. I don’t get that feeling about video, but I do have a final thought or two on the subject.

First thought: Video isn’t going away and photographers who want to remain commercially active in the field need, at the very least, a cursory understanding of the medium and the tools involved. My biggest frustration this week has been not knowing the tools. I understand Adobe® Photoshop™, and am comfortable with what I can achieve with that tool. I also understand its features well enough to know that a little goes a long way and that less is often better. I’m not sure those rules apply to video and felt lost more often than not. Perhaps there needs to be classes specifically oriented toward photographers, taking what we already know and translating that to video.

Second thought: The dangers that were present with digital photography are present in digital video as well. Just like Photoshop™, Premiere Pro™ has a lot of different capabilities built-in to address a wide variety of needs and challenges that are common to the medium. A number of the effects and presets are meant to be used in various combination with each other, but exactly how to do that isn’t necessarily obvious. So, there’s the danger of misuse and overuse. That is one of the points we try to make in the first half of today’s project. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. There’s a sense of discretion needed and just as with photography when that judgment is lacking it will drive the rest of us crazy.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Third thought: Video is not going to replace still photography. When I started this project, in the back of my mind were the moving, animated pictures mentioned in J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. The more I’ve played with things this week, the more I’m convinced that the difference between a still and moving picture is too emotionally complex and different for one to fully replace the other. Sure, as technology provides different applications for viewing both we’re going to see popularity wax and wane. They’ll still remain to distinct forms of visual media, though, and each will have its own purpose.

Fourth thought: For the time being, short formats, such as the 30-second ad-styled projects we’ve done this week, may be better for still photographs than trying to stretch them into a long format. Tutorial material would be the exception to that thought, but beyond a couple of minutes a still image in video format feels forced. We expect video to move, to do something, to change in some way. When a still image remains static in video format it’s a different emotion than just looking at the same image in purely photographic format.

Final thought: I don’t want to be a videographer. I’m quite happy with my still images, thank you. Video editing is far too complex and highly specialized for my brain to even begin to make that leap. I can’t imagine ever having the patience necessary to edit actual video segments. One thing I take away from this week is a new respect for those who manage to edit video quickly and efficiently on a daily basis.

We hope you’ve enjoyed our adventure this week. Next week we move to something more sedate. We hope you’ll join us. Today’s original photograph is below.[/one_half_last]

Pinup Revival (2009)

Photography / PotD

Double Exposure: Did You Mean To Do That?

August 2, 2015

Natural Beauty. Model: Destany Harte

When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence. ― Ansel Adams

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]I like quiet Sunday mornings; the kind where I can sit here at the computer and read, drink my coffee, and listen to music in the headphones without being interrupted. I’m only mildly annoyed that we’re not out shooting in this perfect light because I was up way too late last night to have been thinking lucidly early enough to actually take advantage of the situation. I’ve been behind a camera long enough now that I don’t have to have one in my hands every waking second, I don’t have to shoot every day to feel complete, and when I do shoot I’m much more likely to be concerned about the emotion of the image rather than the technical aspects. If I’m not feeling a concept, there’s little use in pushing through and shooting it; there’s little point in taking more bad pictures. We’ve had our fair share of those plus a few.

Not every Sunday morning is quiet, though, and not every bad shot is a waste. I remember, early in my career, getting a phone call at some ungodly hour of a Sunday morning telling me that yet another tornado had ripped through yet another small town in Oklahoma. I pulled on clothes in the dark (the advantage of a monochrome wardrobe), grabbed my camera and a half-dozen packs of film and headed out. One of the dangers of early-morning shooting, especially when the matter’s urgent, is that one tends to not check their camera bag as thoroughly as they should, and I didn’t. I knew I had film and my lenses with a selection of filters for effect. I didn’t bother checking for backup batteries for the film advance.

It seems almost silly now, and is one of those problems that new shooters will never experience, having to manually advance film. The batteries that powered that function were often specialized, expensive, and impossible to find outside a camera store. Finding one on a Sunday would be impossible. So, I kept a couple of spares. On a shelf. And they were still sitting there when I drove off bleary-eyed into the night rain. This was one of those moments when I was second-guessing my profession and spent most the drive thinking about going back to college and working on my masters degree. Being a photographer just seemed like a ridiculous way to try and learning a living. No one ever asked a symphony conductor to be up before dawn.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Arriving in the small town forced me to focus on my job. The tornado had skipped through town obliterating the two-block commercial area before taking out a church building, a handful of homes, and the school gym. There were trees and power lines down everywhere, making the situation a bit dangerous. Highway patrol and electric company officials were already there keeping people away from live electric lines. Miraculously, no one had been seriously hurt this time. I pulled my camera from my bag, slapped in the first roll of film and started shooting. I was about a dozen shots in when I noticed I was hearing the click of the shutter, but not the whir of the film advance. I took the battery out, wiped it on my shirt, and stuck it back in the camera, and it gave me a few more shots before dying completely. That’s when I discovered I’d left the backup batteries at home, some 70 miles away.

I did the best I could,trying to remember to manually advance the film after every shot, but I knew I had missed a few and warned the lab that there would be a few double exposure shots out of the batch. I apologized for the wasted film. Monday morning, the lab called to let me know that there were a couple of those “wasted” shots might be worth keeping. Specifically, the double exposure had placed the rising sun coming up right behind the destroyed church building. The effect was rather striking and totally unique, one of those things one can never reproduce.

Double exposure doesn’t naturally occur with digital cameras, but we can re-create the effect with some careful layer work. There are several different ways of achieving the effect, layering one image over the other, then adjusting the layer blend mode and opacity, then tweaking the levels and curves. One can easily get bogged down in the details, but double exposure really has to do with emotion. If the image doesn’t create an emotional response then it’s a waste of time. So, this week we’re going to look at some specially created double exposure images that we’ve produced along a number of themes for the end of summer. This is different from what we normally share. I hope you’re ready to feel something. [/one_half_last]

Behind The Scenes / Photography / PotD

Subtle Touches

July 22, 2015

Kodak T-Max 100

Photography deals exquisitely with appearances, but nothing is what it appears to be. —Duane Michals

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Do you remember the first picture you ever took? Chances are it wasn’t 35mm, but rather a popular consumer-grade fixed-lens camera. Poppa wouldn’t let me touch his Brownie, but we did own a series of little 110 Instamatics that were passed around to whichever family member wasn’t actually in the photo. I remember dumping that film cartridge in the back and looking through the small viewfinder, trying to not cut off everyone’s heads as Mother tended to do. If we were inside, there was a requirement for flash, which most often came in the form of a cube that sat on top of the camera. Getting four flashes without having to change cubes seemed so much more modern than the single-use bulbs required for the Brownie. Never mind that they tended to over-light, casts horrible shadows, and were anything but subtle. We were just having fun with friends and family. No one took seriously anything shot with a 110.

Using a 35mm film was different and something I didn’t experience until I was in college. It was the summer of 1981, if I remember correctly, and we were going to a family reunion of sorts, back to Arkansas and the little farming community where Poppa grew up. A friend loaned me his 35mm, loaded a roll of color 36-exposure color film, and showed me quickly how to focus the lens. I put the camera in the trunk of the car, largely afraid to use it for fear of causing damage. When I did try to take a few pictures with it, I was frustrated by the fact that a subtle movement could throw the entire picture out of focus. I didn’t even use the full 36 frames. I was sure, at that point, that photography at any advanced level wasn’t for me.

So much of photography seems to center around the big, highly-produced, carefully manipulated, high-processed images that appear in fashion magazines that we tend to lose sight of the subtle, more nuanced images where careful attention is given to the detail. Finer points of an image are easily lost as we mismanage light or fail to pay attention to precise settings on the camera. Sure, maybe no one notices, and perhaps no one cares, but when I look back at archived images, which is where we find most of our #POTD subjects, detail, or the lack of it, is the first thing my eyes catch. Subtle touches can make a tremendous amount of difference.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]No black and white film I’ve used handles those subtle touches better than Kodak Professional T-Max 100. When I first started taking pictures, this was the film I wasn’t allowed to touch; it was more expensive, required a photographer that knew what they were doing, and was reserved for those special occasions when someone of national prominence was visiting. There is no finer grain, no better resolving power, no sharper lines than is possible with this film. T-Max enlarges well, it is consistent in tone from batch to batch, and it handles the most subtle of details with finesse. Art photographers have long loved this film, but I always liked it for portraits as well because I feel like it does a better job of capturing everything one wants to see in a face.

Okay, so there are times T-Max can be fussy, especially in development. There is dramatic difference between the 100 speed and 400 speed versions of the film. 100 speed prefers longer exposure times, which may be great for portraits and still life, but is totally inappropriate for almost any kind of motion at all. The shorter the exposure time, the more the film struggles. Variances in any portion of the development environment affect the contrast and tone of the final image. Even subtle changes in temperature can have strong results. Similarly, one has to be careful with the conversion to digital. I used these settings for black and white adjustment: reds-37, yellows-70, greens-33, cyans-64, blues-28, magentas-68.

Whether there is, or can be, a good digital equivalent of T-Max 100 is open for debate. With digital images, grain, or more correctly, noise is introduced by the camera sensor and is not something easily removed in processing. T-Max 100 has such a fine grain that any noise in the image discounts the accuracy of the conversion. One needs to be extremely careful with any contrast adjustment as well. Still, when one is starting with a good image, this is a good method to use and the subtle handling of detail makes a world of difference.[/one_half_last]

Behind The Scenes / Photography / PotD

Remembering Days of Film

July 19, 2015

Agfa APX

Photography is a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. What you have caught on film is captured forever… it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything. —Aaron Siskind

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]There are days that I really miss using film. Not enough to actually pull out my old Canon A1 and load a roll, mind you, but I do miss the click and whir of the film advance, the limited number of shots that could be taken without interruption, and that feeling drilled into my head from the very beginning that every frame was valuable and therefore not to be wasted. I sometimes think we took better pictures with film because we took the time to actually think about what we were doing rather than just snapping away mindlessly. Using film requires thought. Each picture is a mini-project unto itself and there was always the consideration before snapping, “Is this really worth capturing?”

Film is still available, of course, and there are still a number of photographers who use it. The practicality of such, though, is questionable and it has largely become the domain of hobbyist who appreciate the artistry not only of shooting with film but developing it as well. Even then, what we see today in terms of emulsions and papers is nothing like what it once was. There is no more black and white paper. Many emulsions have moved toward “green” chemicals that are not as hard on the environment. While the moves make economic and ecological sense, what was lost was a tonal environment that was only possible under very specific conditions.

So, all this week we are taking a look at attempts to recreate the tonal environments of some popular black and white films with digital photography. For this experiment, you should know what we are using the latest cloud version of Adobe® Photoshop™ and conducting most of the tonal changes using the sliders in a black and white adjustment layer. We’ve also taken careful consideration as to which image is best served by which film process. Not every photo renders well with various processes and careful consideration should be taken. We also applied color filters to some images, but not all. We’ll let you know which ones were so modified. Yes, the whole thing is a little geeky.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Today’s image attempts to duplicate Agfa APX film. I’ll admit I have a soft spot in my heart for Agfa, not so much because of any superiority of the film, but because one of the company’s founders was Paul Mendelssohn Bartholdy, the son of composer Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy whose music from A Midsummer’s Night Dream is more popularly known as the wedding march. Agfa began making camera film in 1898 and at one point enjoyed a popularity that rivaled that of Kodak. Today, unfortunately, after a disastrous attempt to split off the consumer imaging portion in 2005, Agfa is much smaller with much more limited offerings, operating primarily as a business-to-business concern in the field of medical imaging.

Agfa’s APX film is still widely available, especially online, and there are a number of photographers who still swear by it’s very fine grain and speed versatility. The speed of the film is questionable, though. If you have a camera that can do so, the 100-speed film actually works better at 80. 400 works best at 360. Obviously, not every camera can make that adjustment and it can modify the results. Digitally, this style is most easy to duplicate in an image with a light background behind a darker but well-lit subject. The black and white adjustment sliders don’t move a lot for this conversion: reds-50, yellows-91, greens-82, cyans-80, blues-33, and magentas-79. I also used a light green color filter on this image to correct some skin tone issues. Green, yellow, and orange filters work well with this setting. I kept the contrast moderate and added just the tiniest bit of grain to duplicate the older version of the film.

I much prefer how the photo looks using this process than leaving it in color. There’s a story in this picture and in black and white it compels us to imagine what that story might be. I won’t say that the duplication effect is 100% precise, but it’s close enough to give me warm fuzzies. This is going to be an interesting week. We hope you’ll join us every day.[/one_half_last]

Photography / PotD

In Defense of Color

June 1, 2015

A Splash Of Yellow (2010)

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

[one_half padding=”4px 10px 0 4px”]Color has been the Rodney Dangerfield of photography, struggling for respect from the moment the folks at Eastman Kodak labs tried selling it to the general public. Before then, it was considered highly experimental, one of those things that couldn’t be trusted, was hardly useful in a practical manner, and hardly worth the time it took to make it a reality. Black and white was where it was at, especially if one wanted a crisp, clear photograph. Anything else was just wasting your time.

I should probably clarify that when we talk about color photography now, more often than not what we are referencing is color process photography similar to what is achieved using negative film processing during the 1940s. Prior to that, there were plenty of experiments going all the way back to 1861 when physicist James Clerk Maxwell achieved a form of color reproduction by shooting three black and white frames using a different color filter, red, green, and blue, for each one and then superimposing them together. Through World War II, that stacking method dramatically improved but still lacked accuracy and refinement necessary to be effective on a large commercial scale.

When color negative film was first developed, the critical issue was the relationship between the negative and the dark room solution known as fixer. It was up to the fixer to accurately translate the negative and produce the correct color onto the specially coated paper. Results varied dramatically from one fixer to the next and even from one person to the next. Color labs began popping up with their reputations lying on their ability to accurately reproduce color negatives. Color reversal film, or slide film, finally came along in the 50s with dramatically more accurate results, but to achieve a print they still had to be translated back to negatives where the process was still less than accurate.[/one_half]

[one_half_last padding=”4px 4px 0 10px”]Given all the problems surrounding color film, it really is no wonder that the people who made their living in photography wanted little to do with the mess and uncertainty. Even museums and galleries refused to show color photography any respect for the longest time. The first gallery showing of color photography didn’t occur until 1976! When the Museum of Modern Art in New York showed William Egleston’s Guide response was still based more in curiosity with the medium than acknowledging it as a medium that had finally come into its own. For the best photo possible, photographers still turned to black and white film.

Digital photography has actually helped change color’s reputation. Unlike film, digital cameras capture a color image right from the start, even if the camera has a black and white setting. Digital imagery removes some of the guess-work, so images are more likely to come out looking closer to what our minds remember our eyes saw. Digital imagery using natural light may be the most accurate translation of color achieved on a regular basis to date. While everything can be manipulated and corrected during post processing, natural light and color photography are the best buddies that have been looking for years to find each other.

Yes, there are still plenty of challenges, not the least of which is the fact that most computer monitors are not accurately balanced to produce true colors. Yet, can you imagine how incredibly boring today’s picture would be if it were in black and white? Color conveys emotion, warmth, and contrast. We look at the picture and can wonder why in the world I would put powdered cheese dust over half the model’s body, and be intrigued by the effect it has on our eyes. In natural light, color photography finally begins earning the respect it deserves.[/one_half_last]

film

Share this:

Like this:

Photographers said they want it, but will they use it?

Share this:

Like this:

A different way of looking at fashion

Christian Dior: Drift

Calvin Klein Jeans, Spring 2016

Gucci Stories: The Myth of Orpheus and Eurydice

KENZO: Snowbird

PRADA: Past Forward

Share this:

Like this:

Oh, half of what’s out there is worthless. The only pictures I like are the ones I’ve taken. —William Eggleston

The Color Of Emotion

Color In A Black And White World

Analysis Paralysis

Share this:

Like this:

The ultimate value of life depends upon awareness and the power of contemplation rather than upon mere survival. —Aristotle

Make Love, Not Scars

Never Alone

Manboobs

Dear Daddy

Share this:

Like this:

What you have caught on film is captured forever… it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything. —Aaron Siskind

Share this:

Like this:

Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit. —Mahatma Gandhi

Share this:

Like this:

Creativity is putting your imagination to work, and it’s produced the most extraordinary results in human culture. —Ken Robinson

Share this:

Like this:

Film as dream, film as music. No art passes our conscience in the way film does, and goes directly to our feelings, deep down into the dark rooms of our souls. ― Ingmar Bergman

Share this:

Like this:

When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence. ― Ansel Adams

Share this:

Like this:

Photography deals exquisitely with appearances, but nothing is what it appears to be. —Duane Michals

Share this:

Like this:

Photography is a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. What you have caught on film is captured forever… it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything. —Aaron Siskind

Share this:

Like this:

And if a day goes by without my doing something related to photography, it’s as though I’ve neglected something essential to my existence, as though I had forgotten to wake up. I know that the accident of my being a photographer has made my life possible. – Richard Avedon – 1970

Share this:

Like this:

Login

Follow Us