Just enjoying the images I captured on my day with Paul.
One more roll to scan. I’m about to go on a business trip to Seattle, so I won’t be able to scan anything until I return.
Category: Black n’ White
Leica M6 TTL
Posted by – August 28, 2010
HP5, Xtol, and a 50mm Summicron . . .
Before you start reading, just take a look at this image for a sec.
Look some more.
Ok.
Now we can start the post.
This past Sunday I spent with Paul Lester in Akron, Ohio, and we swapped cameras; he shot with my Bessa R2a mounting my 35mm Zeiss Biogon and I used his Leica M6 TTL with the accompanying 50mm Summicron. As we were parting, Paul said “I can’t wait for your write-up on the Leica, you don’t miss details and I want to know what you think.” So as to not make him wait, I summarized my off-the-cuff thoughts, then drove home, thought a lot more and have ruminated every day since then. Some of those ruminations made their way into my last post, about Brand Loyalty. I finally developed the rolls of HP5 last night, looked at the negs, scanned some, and wanted to share the impressions I have gathered.
Rangefinders in General
I’ve wanted a Rangefinder camera for the longest time, even going back to my FTb days. I had my aim on a Canon Canonet back around 1975. I remember shopping for one in the 47th Street Photo catalog. I can’t remember when I first came across the description of a rangefinder and the sense of “seeing beyond the framelines” when shooting with one but I had always wanted to try that idea. I never got one back then.
When I got back into photography, and realized that, in addition to shooting with my new Canon digital cameras, I would also continue to shoot film, I started to research rangefinders and finally realized what “Leica” meant. In 2004 or so I didn’t even know Leica had an SLR line, and when I read about the idea that one could buy a Leica lens and mount it on their Canon body with an adapter, I thought that *any* Leica lens could do that. When I found out the author was talking about an ‘R’ version of a Leica lens, not the “M” version, I was crestfallen. But I knew I still wanted to audition some of that Leica magic.
But, oh the cost. So, I bought a combo I could afford: a Bessa body and a Zeiss lens. The rangefinder experience is as great as I thought, and there is no doubt in my mind that I’ve captured some very nice images with that combo. But I had always wanted to try the real deal. Especially after I discovered Steve Huff’s web site. His write-ups of Leica gear got my blood boiling again, his passion for the gear comes leaping off the page. So, when Paul let me know we would get together in Akron, I couldn’t resist asking him if I could use his M6 that day. He agreed. I shot two rolls of HP5. So, what did I think?
The M6 TTL body
Solid is as solid does. There is absolutely no doubt that as a piece of camera hardware, the Leica M6 TTL is in a class by itself. The construction and the feel is better than anything I have ever handled. The only camera that even comes close is a Canon F1n, a lone copy of which I owned for a couple weeks a year-and-a-half ago. I had bought a used copy from Adorama, there was a problem with the AE finder, so I returned it for repair. But they took forever to fix it, and I eventually canceled the order. The F1n was as close as anything has ever been to the Leica, but not really. The Leica’s fit and finish is wonderful. It handled great, and it was invisible in my hands. Interestingly, however, the Bessa has one advantage. On the back of the body, where you would rest your thumb, the Bessa has a hump of sorts which allows you to grip the back of the body with your thumb and this does give you a sense of security when you hold the camera. The Leica does not have this hump, and I immediately missed it. So did Paul after he shot with the Bessa for a while and then returned to the Leica. One could buy a grip, of course, to make up for this slight difficiency.
The Leica’s shutter is indeed quieter than the Bessa’s, and noticeably so.
Bottom Plate/film loading
The Leica famously has a bottom plate which must come off to load film. Much has been written about how clunky and weird this is. There is also a back door which opens so you can position the sprocket holes after you’ve dropped the film canister in the body. As soon as Paul showed me how to set this up, I could see how it would be easy to load film time after time after time. Paul mentioned a story about Annie Leibowitz where she can apparently load film in a Leica M while running full-out, and with the set up of the back and lower plate I can absolutely believe it. Why anyone would complain about this admittedly quirky way to load film I cannot imagine, because it is absolutely easier than opening the door, threading the take up reel, etc. The only weird thing I can think of is that there have to have been cases where people dropped the bottom plate and lost it. That was my big fear. But the process was extremely easy.
Exposure guides
The Bessa has more exposure info in the frame window than the Leica, but I liked the Leica’s simple right and left arrow much better. The Bessa shows you the proper shutter speed it wants by flashing the speed if the proper one is not currently selected, and it’s kind of annoying, actually. The Bessa has Aperture priority exposure if you want it, which is nice when you DO want it. But I wish they had chosen a more elegant way to display the exposure info.
Overall, while I did truly enjoy the picture taking experience with the M6 TTL, on a pure cost point of view, the price difference between the Bessa and the M6 is large enough that I would stay with the Bessa. You could buy three Bessas for the cost of one used M6 TTL, and while the M6 is a better-made camera, it’s not THAT much better. Do I want to own an M6 TTL some day? Yes I do. But that purchase is not at the top of my list.
The Summicron
Well, here is the deal, eh? I LOVED LOVED LOVED the lens. The lens is as special as I have heard. One reader of the blog confided in me that the 50mm Summicron was his favorite lens ever, and my-oh-my do I see what he means. While the low-res JPEGS in this post are nice enough, they don’t compare to the look of the full-res images on my screen. While I truly love the look of HP5 and Xtol, I have never seen that combo look as beautiful as it does when combined with the Summicron.
Remember, I just developed rolls of HP5 in Xtol from my Disney Hall shoot, shot with the Canon 17-40L, and I can say without any doubt in my mind that I had to tweak those scans much, much more to get the images to look the way I like as compared to the images captured with the Summicron. When I tried the default settings for contrast and clarity I had just used with the Canon images, the Summicron images were too harsh by quite a bit.
The black & white film I shot with the Summicron looked just wonderful to my eye, not too contrasty but plenty sharp enough. I wish I had shot some color chrome or negative film while I had the lens, because the color rendering with the lens is supposed to be stunning, and the lens’ reputation with black&white film was certainly borne out by my experience. I just wished I had some Delta 100 with me that day, because the HP5 is just amazing. Why, Tri-X might even look good! (grin)
I have been looking for a 50mm lens to use on my Bessa for a while, and the search is officially over. I have now begun saving for a 50mm Summicron in an M mount, and I am thinking of somehow auditioning a 50mm Summicron R lens with an adapter on my 5D.
For me, this is a case where the ‘cult’ of the hardware has been borne out by experience. At least in my case.
Thanks so much to Paul for lending me the camera for the day.
Brand Loyalty
Posted by – August 26, 2010
Disney Concert Hall. EOS-3, 17-40L, HP5, Xtol
“We all have, deep within us, a desire to be part of a Tribe. Not just any Tribe, but a successful Tribe. Because only successful Tribes continue on. This desire can be traced all the way back to those early campfires, where we would tell stories about how we succeeded at the hunt that day. We’d sit around, eat that day’s capture, and revel in the shared nature of the Tribe’s success, as personified by our tribe’s best hunter. If our tribe wasn’t so good at hunting, our tribe wouldn’t last very long. So much of our ‘modern’ social interactions are simply echoes of our desire to be part of a tribe that ate well, and survived.” — David Mamet, American playwright
Marketers use the term ‘brand identification’ when they talk about how consumers decide whether a product is one we wish to purchase. While it is sometimes true that we buy products for the product itself, we all-too-often buy the product in an attempt, on a subconscious emotional level, to acquire some of the attributes of the product in addition to the product itself. Attributes that the marketing team have ‘connected’ to the product through their ads. Ads for dish-washing liquid don’t just talk about how well the soap itself works, but imply (through the actors chosen as spokespersons, and the way those characters’ homes look, and what their kids look like) that happiness, well-behaved children, and financial success all come from choosing the correct dish-washing liquid (which their liquid personifies, of course).
The message deep beneath the ad is ‘people who buy our dish-washing liquid gain all these qualities,’ or, put another way, ‘members of OUR tribe all buy this dish-washing liquid, and see how happy we are?’
Tribal behavior includes outward displays of identification, such as wearing logo t-shirts or camera straps, using similar vocabulary and body language (“Acronyms for $20, Alex”), and unique shared activities. Families are the smallest tribal unit, and racial groups are the largest. Individuals identify with their tribe, and view people inside the tribe as ‘same’ and people outside the tribe as ‘other.’ This tends to happen to us without us being aware of it all the time, and influences a great deal of what we think and know and feel about ‘same’ and ‘other.’ It also infuses those discussions with a degree of emotion that often exceeds common sense. Example #1 that we are all familiar with is: Apple and Microsoft. All you need to do is bring up their names in a room of tech geeks and someone is bound to make a comment.
And think also about how Apple is a master at communicating to their customers that ‘our tribe is cool.’ I’ve always liked their products, mind, but I am also aware that they are selling the illusion of cool, and MS has struggled for a long time to find an answer to the Apple cult of cool. Vide the many different directions the MS marketing has tried in an effort to deflect the ‘cool’ tag Apple has adopted. Whether Apple deserves the tag or not is irrelevant, actually.
While I am aware of the desire we all share to be part of a successful ‘tribe’ (defining success in our current shared universe as ‘mastering photography’ in some form), and I am just as much a victim of this effect as the next blogger, My next post (currently in draft form, awaiting a scan of an image) is about my experiences recently using a Leica M6, and perhaps no other camera brand is as driven by the cult of ‘Tribe’ as Leica. In that post I will talk about my struggle to separate what I truly experienced in the moment with the camera in my hand while shooting as distinct from what I had bouncing around in my head about what I ‘should’ feel, as had been described to me by card-carrying members of the Leica tribe.
The point of all this? When you react or choose in an arena where there are Tribal forces at work, keep your head! Pick up the camera or shoot with the lens, try it for yourself. And then when you have the object in your hands, be CONSCIOUS. Try to be neutral. Observe your breathing. Be here now. It is just too easy to be fooled into this tribal thinking, too easy to convince yourself you see things that aren’t actually there because you want them to be there so that you can belong.
One example from recent events for me personally
However, as I said, I am just as vulnerable as the rest of us. I just went through a very similar thing, and I almost succumbed. As you know, I was weaned on Canon FD gear. The tribal influence at that time was very pro-Nikon, as my teacher was a Nikon geek. I didn’t have the cash to buy Nikon, but I could buy Canon, so I did. I resisted the tribal pull, and found that Canon gear worked just fine for me. Even today, the feel of a Canon FTb just feels right in my hand. I have never regretted it back then or now.
I read the forums of APUG to learn more about film and film processing, and I follow a particular poster and his discussions, because I have found him to be knowledgeable. He happens to shoot Canon FD gear (amongst many other film cameras). He recently made a statement in a post that the one of his favorite lenses was a Canon 50mm 1.4 FD S.S.C. lens. I own the later version of the lens, the 50mm 1.4 FD (not S.S.C.). This poster mentioned he liked the way the lens ‘drew.’ Now, with all the Canon old FD gear increasing in value these days (you can buy adapters for Micro 4/3 cameras that take the FD lenses) I looked at prices for the S.S.C. version on eBay. I came very close to buying a copy. I came close on multiple listings to buying a copy. But WHY was I doing this? Had I ever actually shot with the S.S.C. version of the lens? No. Did I know whether it was actually different than the non-S.S.C. version? No. Even if there WAS a difference, did I know whether I LIKED that difference? No. But I WANTED THE LENS ANYWAY. Now, the lens isn’t really all that expensive (they used to go for around $40, and with the recent inflation, they are now going for $60-$70, with the occasional poster looking to make a killing at $100+. When I sat back and carefully examined my longing for the lens, I realized that it was in part to be part of the Tribe that APUG poster belonged to, ’cause, after all, given what he knows, how could he be wrong about the lens? Yikes!
Now, maybe I will eventually get myself a copy of the lens to audition. And, if I don’t like it, I’ll sell it off. But I’ll be conscious about what I am doing (hopefully). When you read my soon-to-be-posted Leica thoughts, use this post as a filter for that post.
Be Here Now.
#300: Prints & Printing
Posted by – August 23, 2010
Canon 5D Processed in Nik Silver Efex
“If you want to be a better photographer, then you must become a better printer.” — Vincent Versace
I mentioned late the week of August 13th that I had ordered proof prints from Aspen Creek to begin the process of realizing one of my goals for the year, to begin seriously printing my images. Over the past year-and-a-half I have succeeded in getting out of my own way in terms of publishing my images to the web, mainly through this blog. This is my 300th post, a number I never thought I’d reach, so I think I can celebrate that a little bit. Yea!
As part of that celebration, I wanted to create an entry with some deep thought behind it, and I considered meshing my desire to generate and mount and display some prints with the opportunity to share some thoughts about that process, not just as it relates to me personally, but the concept of ‘hard copies’ of our images. So, that led me to really thinking about the creation of prints, the act of making an image ‘real.’ And the week began, and lo and behold the 2000-pound gorilla in the photo blog world, The Online Photographer, begins a two-part essay written by Peter Turnley, no less, about printing traditional silver gelatin black and white prints and stories about a particular well-known master of that craft. You should all go and read those articles.
That two-part essay, along with Mr. Johnson’s follow-up, kind of eclipsed any efforts I might make to editorialize on the process of creating prints (artifacts) of the photographic process. In that way, my timing vis-a-vis this subject could not be worse. I pretty much have to assume that any reader of this blog already knows of The Online Photographer and has read those brilliant, wonderful, humbling articles. If you haven’t, do so mow. Articles like that made me want to get my darkroom setup pronto (which I am almost done with now).
To the Point
But, on to the print (point)! First of all, circling back, I received my prints from Aspen Creek and was appalled and depressed. Not because they didn’t do their job, on the contrary, they did a great job but rather that the creator (me) didn’t do his so much. There were so many issues with the prints, and all the issues brought with them thoughts of my days in the darkroom. I’ll list the issues in bullet form and then explain:
- Sharpness: So, when I export images to the web, I use a Lightroom plug-in which allows me to just ‘sharpen for web content’ upon export. I don’t have to think about it much. This plug-in also has a setting for export for a print, and both settings are just general in their methodology. I experimented a bit when I exported, using Nik Sharpener Pro for one file, and when I looked at the images upon their return, I realized that I really need to understand this whole sharpening thing. I kinda got my first clue about that when I attended an online ‘webinar’ workshop with Vincent Versace where he described how you resurrect an image that is a bit soft through multiple layers of sharpening using multiple Nik tools (heh, he calls it the Lazarus Effect). This very educational session really opened my eyes to some of these issues (I remember him talking in the webinar about how, since the screen is only 72 or 90 DPI, you have to ‘over sharpen’ on the screen — “make it look a little crunchy” — so as to get the right sharpening in the print). Oy, this is a topic I know nothing about. I have never learned really anything about sharpening digital images, but it is obvious to get really great prints, you need to become an expert here. The screen as a delivery medium lets you be sloppy.
- Focus: As I remember all too well from my darkroom days, as you enlarge an image, any defect in the focus becomes magnified. When I printed traditionally, I rarely made prints larger than 8×10. And I didn’t make 8x10s very often. I shot mainly FP4, and so to get 5×7 prints shot on FP4 to look out-of-focus in a 5×7 print, you REALLY had to screw up the focus on the day. But my proofs from Aspen were 8x10s from which I was going to choose images to print 16×20. Well, lordy, a number of those images were not going to make that cut, even though they had looked great when I exported them and showed them on the web at 92 DPI. Of course, there is an interrelationship between the Sharpness issue above and the Focus issue here, but man, I was a bit shocked. The size of images on the web makes you sloppy.
- Color: Most of us know about color profiling your monitor and such. In fact, Aspen gives you an ICC profile for soft-proofing your color. But, of course, the feedback loop, even if you HAVE the ICC profile, is problematic, because I can use the ICC profile on my ‘profiled’ monitor, but if I am off, I won’t know until the proof comes back. In this particular area, I feel a bit at sea without using my own printer in house to close the feedback loop.
- Crop: This, of course is a small issue compared with the others, but it is an issue nonetheless. I pre-cropped all the files and then sent them off the printer, but looking at the print in a real size at 360 ppi made me re-think the crop a bit.
Putting all of these issues together reminded me of the days when I would look at a contact sheet of images, circle a few, and then head off to the darkroom, only to emerge hours later and wonder why I would have chosen those images and how I could somehow capture the look of the small contact image when I blew it up. I was always disappointed, and this experience with Aspen made me taste that bitter pill yet again. And so thus I arrived at the tag line for this post:
Images on the Web are all Illusions, shadowy representations of the REAL image
Yes, they are. Tomorrow I’ll talk about the nature of prints and what they represent, and why I believe they are even more important as we go forward with digital photography than they ever were.
Hope Again
Posted by – August 14, 2010
We broadcast Hope 24/7
While I was in LA, I visited Freestyle, a brick-and-mortar store dedicated to the film photographer. This building was across the street. Just love the look of Delta 100 in Xtol. I’m gonna run the digital – film test again soon, this time with Delta 100 and the 5D. That will be interesting, I’d bet.
* * *
I was cleaning the office today and I organized the un-scanned frames of b&w film. Normally, see, what I do is wait until I can develop two or three rolls of 35mm at once in the same soup. This makes the most of my darkroom time, mixing the chemicals, washing, etc. My tank can handle up to three rolls at once, so, unless there’s a specific need for only one roll, I’ll let things slide until I have three of the same film (or at least, same developing time).
However, scanning takes much longer than developing. So, what I often do is scan only one roll or a few frames from one roll, note what I learned from the experience (such as above: holy smoke I like Delta 100 even more than Pan F) and make a note what to do (order more Delta 100, for instance). But then I usually have more rolls to develop, so the extra roll or frames go un-scanned. Well, I keep them folder between pages of a large heavy collection of Ansel Adams’ work in order to help flatten them.
But, until today, I had no idea how many rolls I had un-scanned stuffed into the pages of the book.
24.
Yup, that’s right, I counted 24 rolls of 35mm black and white film un-scanned in the book. That’s roughly 24 x 36 frames, or 864 images waiting to be scanned.
Yikes. Some of those rolls are from December of ’09. Wow. I had no idea. I need to come up with some system where I can scan only the promising or ‘keeper’ images. When I get my traditional darkroom running, I’ll just make a proof sheet and scan only the ones that look good. But until then, wow.
* * *
One of the best things about the blog-o-sphere is the information and inspiration that I learn from other bloggers. Some of my newer friends have really got me thinking. For instance, from Sabrina Henry I came across Steve Huff, who is now one of my daily reads. He has single-handedly re-lit my desire to own a Leica and made me even more passionate about using film (as if that were possible). And his writing style has really made me consider what I write about and why.
Then there is Mark Olwick, whose incredible Holga work has made me think through what I am trying to achieve with the look of my work, and how I need to leverage what film can do different from digital.
* * *
The next post is gonna be my 300th. See ya then.
Delta 100: Dawn at the Disney
Posted by – August 13, 2010
Delta 100, EOS 3, 75-300 EOS Zoom, Xtol
Along with the Pan F, I had loaded a roll of Delta 100 into the EOS 3. The last time I used Delta 100, I developed it in FG-7, and I didn’t like it much. This time, wow! The image above was just as dawn was coming over Bunker Hill (that’s what that part of downtown LA is called, btw, Bunker Hill). Hence the lower parts are in shadow while the upper ‘sail’ is just getting the light.
But the images on this roll are really impressing me. I guess that FG-7 just didn’t do the film justice. There are a number of very pleasing images on this roll, and here is another sample:
It’s hard to see in this small JPEG, but there is a wealth of detail in the extreme shadow side of the facing wall.
A note on process for these images: on all the Pan F and Delta 100 images, I spot metered everything and placed the highlights and shadows. It was part of a process I’ve instituted for myself, where I’ve changed the metering on both my 5D and my film cameras. I pick a tone, meter for it, and then consciously place where I want that to fall. I decided I needed to take more control of my exposure, and all these images show that process (for better or worse, I suppose).
Found Image
Posted by – August 12, 2010
Pan F, EOS 3, 17-40 Zoom, Xtol
One of the things I enjoy about shooting film are the surprises. Since I can’t chimp, all I can do is see an image, try and capture the image, hope I got something interesting, and then move on. It’s only when I look at the negs (or, sometimes, after I scan an image in) that I get a sense of what I came away with. And since there is usually a delay of hours, days or weeks until I see it, there is always possibilities of surprise.
That’s what happened above. I was walking back from my first session at the Disney, both the 5D and EOS 3 hanging off my neck, and I saw this pattern on the street. I raised the EOS 3 up, captured a couple frames, and moved on.
As I was scanning the remainder of the roll last night, I came across this image. Just quite liked the mood and the play of shadows and reflections on the right-hand wall, is all. But until I scanned it, I had quite forgotten all about the frame. I’m glad this was Pan F, as I might think about blowing this up a bit.
Ilford’s Pan F
Posted by – August 11, 2010
EOS 3, 17-40 L, Pan F, Xtol 1:1
I continue to scan in the roll of Pan F I captured at the Disney Concert Hall. Every frame is a surprise as the qualities of the film and developer combo deliver beyond my expectations. It’s an odd combo is that it seems both soft and crisp at the same time; soft in the way it captured the subtleties of the tones and reflections of the wall; crisp in its grain structure and sharpness. The way the curves on the curved wall in the center of the frame above are very pleasing to me, as are the range of tones in the details frame left.
And the dynamic range really shocks me. In the frame below, understand that the late-afternoon sun is coming from off-frame left; you can see the shadow from an off-camera part of the building on the vertical wall. The overhang at the bottom of the frame is in the shadow on the shadow side of the building. I didn’t really calculate the stops of range on site (I should have, I know) but there is clearly detail on the vertical wall as well as detail in the shadow overhang. One of the real technical challenges of the building is the dynamic range of the reflections. While you can certainly use the explosive highlights artistically, you always have to be aware of them as you shoot.
I kept copious notes when I shot the 120 rolls of Pan F (developed last night and looking good on the light table), but I didn’t take notes when I wielded the 35mm cameras the day before (this is from that first walk-around). I still have a roll of HP5 to develop and then I think I’ll have access to all the images I captured while on site at the Disney. I’m thinking of doing a Blurb book or something of the best ones.
* * *
The school year approaches and I’ve made arrangements to use the medium-format scanners in the university’s darkroom/photo lab. There they have a Nikon 9000, an Epson 750, and a Imacon high-res scanner. Along with gaining the ability to scan my medium format negs, I plan to do some testing where I take a 35mm neg, such as the one above and scan it on the Imacon and compare with the Nikon 4000 scan above. Just to see what I’m missing, as it were.
Lastly, I recently received some prints back from Aspen Creek. One of my New Year’s resolutions this year was to begin making prints of my work, and so I sent out a dozen images to get back 8×10 ‘proofs.’ That was a very enlightening experience, but it deserves a post of its own.
Pan F visits Disney Concert Hall
Posted by – August 8, 2010
Pan F, Xtol 1:1
I shot both film and digital while I visited the Disney Concert Hall. On the film side, I used Pan F (both 35mm and medium format), Delta 100, and my trusty old ally, FP4. Most rolls have yet to be developed. This image is from the first six frames from the first roll of Pan F. All of those so far have a lovely tonality. Very sharp, and very little grain. Early in the fall I think I’m going to re-visit the film and digital issue with Pan-F developed in Xtol, using the same lens on both sides. That will be interesting, I think
Customer Relations; compare Topaz and Ilford
Posted by – August 4, 2010
Nik Silver Efex
It’s been a little quiet on the blog since my return from SIGGRAPH (just getting back to work), but an event transpired today that prompted me to relate both that event and also two encounters I had while at that show.
SIGGRAPH, if you didn’t know, is a long-standing trade/educational show for professionals and educators in the computer graphics field. If there was a continuous spectrum of depth and breadth of information about the ins and outs of computer graphics, SIGGRAPH is at the far left end of the spectrum (very technical) while, say, a workshop given by Tamron at your local camera store is at the opposite end. Photoshop World would be smack dab in the middle. This conference isn’t for consumers, and the person ahead of you in line at the pizza cart might be the guy or gal who wrote the C++ code for the RAW translator built into Photoshop CS5. It’s that kind of show.
The kinds of software tools on display there are also not for consumers, either. Adobe didn’t attend the show, but Autodesk did (the makers of Maya and 3d Studio Max). So, that’s the kind of user at this show.
Nik software was there, but mainly as partners with Wacom, who had a booth where they displayed their latest pressure sensitive tablets and full-sized screens, like this. Boy, do I want one of those. So Nik did some sessions on their software using those Wacom pressure sensitive screens, and I also listened to that lecture about noise in digital sensors I related last week. But it wasn’t a photography-centric show.
The only software vendor that had a booth was Topaz. Earl had talked a lot about their software, and displayed some beautiful images, so I was extremely curious about their tools, and I visited their booth. I met a rep, and inquired about the suite.
Before I went I had just left a session with Nik, where their trainer had discussed in some detail how their noise reduction software worked. Not in excruciating detail, mind, but given the audience at the show, she had explained the approach:
“Dfine looks for areas in the image that have no detail. Examining patches without detail, it looks for irregularities and assumes those that it finds are noise, and then smooths them out.”
Not too technical, but enough for me to understand. Nik, a software company I like, made me like them even more with their explanations (Just a note: I saw a demo today of Nik’s soon-to-be-released HDR software package and it is ASTOUNDINGLY better than Photomatix or CS5 or any other HDR package I’ve ever used. Think Silver Efex Pro – meets Viveza II all wrapped up into an HDR package. Oh my lord!)
So, since I had just heard the Nik explanation of Dfine, and one of the things I knew about the Topaz suite was that it had a noise reduction package, so I figured I’d ask about it.
Maybe it was late in the day. Maybe the Topaz rep was tired of getting asked questions. Maybe he had just had bad Chinese food in the food court. I don’t know. All I do know is that, here at SIGGRAPH, you don’t know the background or job description of anyone you’re speaking to. But you can safely assume they’re not dolts.
I ask about the suite. He launches into the worst kind of high-level marketing pap about the wonders of the tools in the package. Each one gets about 15 seconds of techno-babble exclamation-point-speak. He had a monitor and computer right there where he could’ve shown me images displaying images after the suite had done their thing and then explained what each tool did; he didn’t bother. There are six or seven tools in the suite, and he was done with the schpiel in about two minutes, max.
I was a little frustrated. I’m in the booth; I sought them out; they don’t know whether I’m shopping for one copy for myself or 60 copies for a lab at my employer. And he’s basically blowing me off.
I then say, “Well, I’m particularly interested in your noise reduction software which I’ve heard good things about. Can you tell me a little about how it works?”
And he literally then said (remember where we are) “Well, see, we have a magic proprietary software solution which out-classes any other tool in the industry. It goes in there and removes all the noise without softening the image at all, so the difference between the image before noise reduction and after is undetectable.”
Really? Magic? Undetectable? I see.
I stand there in silence, hoping he’s gonna try and recover from this load of nonsense, and he starts to figit, clearly acting as if he couldn’t wait for me to leave.
Which I did. I smiled, said thank you, he sighed in relief, and I moved on. The software suite obviously has advantages. The suite does some interesting things. It seems like a quality piece of software, so don’t misinterpret my criticism. I am commenting instead on how they treated this particular potential customer.
More than likely I will never buy anything from that company. That is example #1 of how NOT to relate to your customers.
Now for an example how to treat your customers as if they mattered.
As you may know, I generally prefer Ilford film. I’ve shot it for years, in fact, for most of that time I *only* shot FP4 in black & white. I recently purchased a 100′ roll of HP5 so I’d always have some on hand, and could ‘roll my own’ to lengths that suited me. If I wanted to do a quick experiment with exposure or developer, I could roll out a 15-or-20 shot roll, use it, develop it and see what I got without wasting a 36-exposure roll. And, to boot, it’s a little cheaper frame-by-frame that way.
Well, on the first roll off the spool I developed it and on one frame was a bit of ‘schmutz.’ Dried something or other the size of the head of a pin. White, crusty schmutz. I certainly MIGHT have gotten on the frame in my home while I handled it in my darkroom. It would have had to get on the film in the short amount of time between taking it out of the canister and loading it onto the reel before developing, which naturally I do in complete darkness. There’s really no way to verify it didn’t happen then, but it is unlikely, I believe.
I then contact Ilford to tell them about the schmutz. Their president, Simon Galley, trolls the halls of APUG. So I send him a private message telling him about the schmutz and attach an image of the schmutz on the frame, which I had cut off the roll.
Clearly upset, he asks me to send him the frame and promises me a free 100′ foot roll of HP5 in compensation for the film with the schmutz. He tells me to destroy the roll I have, lest there is any more of the schmutz.
Today in the mail not one, but two 100′ foot rolls of HP5 arrive free in the mail from Ilford’s American distributor. Simon doesn’t know me from Adam, doesn’t know that I didn’t fake the schmutz, hasn’t yet received the frame in the mail. But now I have 200′ of HP5 (200′ translates to about 28 rolls of film, or about $112 worth of film at the cheapest mail order price.
That’s how you treat customers. Not that Simon had to do anything to keep my loyalty, but after this communication, I will look first for any Ilford product to do what I need before I’ll look to any other supplier of black & white film or chemistry.
