Category: Abstract

Brand Loyalty

Posted by Chris Klug – 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 Chris Klug – 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.

Ilford’s Pan F

Posted by Chris Klug – 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 Chris Klug – 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

The Danger

Posted by Chris Klug – August 6, 2010

This is not a photograph

The image above is something I was playing around with last night, it is a riff on an image I grabbed the morning I stood outside the Disney. I post it today as a lead-in to the discussion topic. For me, it has strayed beyond photography into something else. Just so you know.

  • I don’t have the ready cash or the reputation to test gear. Nikon doesn’t send me their new DSLR to see what I think . . .
  • Adobe doesn’t run their latest RAW converter by me to see whether I like it better than their last beta version, or care about whether my work flow is better or worse . . .
  • I have applied for Beta test status at smaller software companies, so I can play around and also so that I can write about it . . . the crickets chirping loudly, and it is the only sound I hear in response
  • All I’ve got are my experiences and what I am doing today. What’s on my mind, as it were.
  • So, the issue for me is: what should I write about, long-term?

Paul’s post of the other day about blogging was, I speculate, a riff on a discussion he and I were having off-line about why we write about photography. I had mentioned to him about how, when I write about the art of it (which is really what I care about) I do not generate as much of a response (read: blog hits) as when I veer off into some tech-related issue (read: for example, calculating noise in your sensor).

I am too much of a theater dork not to care about the audience. Ove, Paul, to me, the effort and time required to simply write in my journal about my photographically related thoughts is a lot less than the time required to maintain this blog. So, while I can’t post stuff that isn’t me, the blog isn’t just FOR ME. If it was just FOR me, it would be easier on me to pull it down and be done. I’d still photograph and experiment and shoot; that’s not going to stop. The blog, for me, is a CONVERSATION. And it’s a little staggering that my biggest audience days are when I talk about tech instead of art. That may be simply a function of the internet and why people troll it, but still . . .

I have to say, up front, that the public nature of the blogging changes the contract between journal and magazine, and if I could wave my magic wand, I’d want to discussion here to be about the images (mine as well as others), not about the tech or the lenses or, well, customer service. I wrote the customer service article to be a little funny, to give kudos to Ilford for stepping up, and to tweak Topaz a little for losing a potential customer.

I like to write, don’t get me wrong.

But the image? I didn’t mean for it to be an afterthought. It isn’t an afterthought. For me, it should always be anchored in the image.

So, the danger about letting the conversation stray into a more technical discussion is that I will become lost in the process.

I’d love to hear what you think.

Dappled Light

Posted by Chris Klug – July 3, 2010

HDR + Nik Silver Efex

I know there is a dreamlike quality to many of these images from Muir.

What’s Old is New

Posted by Chris Klug – May 12, 2010

Dreamy Tri-X

A while back (over a year, to be exact) I posted some color digital images I captured with my 10D when I visited a construction site in Phoenix where the architect had erected some tent-like structures as thematic accents. Veteran readers might remember those images. That same day I also had with me my trusty Ftb loaded with Tri-X. That roll sat undeveloped until mid-February of this year, and those negs sat unscanned until this weekend. Phew! Long time coming, but I’ll be posting some of them in the upcoming week or so.

Tomorrow I travel to Seattle for business and come the weekend, I’ll be visiting my friend Ray and his home city of Port Townsend, WA. Looking forward to that. I plan during that trip to run a digital/film experiment. We’ll see how that goes.

Homage to Mr. Eggleston

Posted by Chris Klug – April 25, 2010

It's a poor comparison, but I just couldn't help myself

When Peg and I were out driving around last weekend, and I grabbed that image of the pain of glass, across the street where we parked the car I saw this little scene. And, in my brain a voice whispered “this is the kind of thing Eggleston might find interesting.” So I raised the camera, captured the image and got back in the car.

When I saw it loaded in Lightroom, I thought that same thing, but then after my post about Eggleston didn;’t generate much discussion, I just moved on.

This past week, The Online Photographer ran a couple entries about the same show I saw in Chicago, and mentioned in their posts (here and here) how people don’t ‘get’ Eggleston. I figured as much when I saw the show, ’cause I suspect he’s an acquired taste. But the posts did talk about his singular vision, and I considered posting the image I had captured anyway.

I went into Lightroom today, processed the image in an effort to capture Eggleston’s color palette. I don’t think I got it quite right, but I just had to try. Made me smile.

Drama

Posted by Chris Klug – April 11, 2010

5D, Capture 1

I’m a sucker for a few things; one of them is dramatic lighting and a particular flavor of dramatic lighting, strong backlight. This frame was captured the other morning and processed in Capture 1 to isolate the flower from the background. It’s processed almost to the point of abstraction, I understand, but I still liked the arrangement of the petals and the texture in the center part of the flower, the technical name of which escapes me now. It breaks some rules, I’m sure, ’cause the sharpest part of the image is set against a much brighter OOF area, but what the heck. If I can’t experiment in this blog, where can I experiment, eh?

Spring

Posted by Chris Klug – April 4, 2010

This morning with the 5D

A moment in spring