Category: California

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.

Hope Again

Posted by Chris Klug – 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 Chris Klug – 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 Chris Klug – 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 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.

Dawn at Gehry’s Disney Hall

Posted by Chris Klug – July 29, 2010

A few days ago I had set up my tripod late in the evening and embraced the ‘one camera, one lens’ rule I was trying to live by so as to make my life easier. Concentrate on the shots, right? Not the gear, right?

So, two days later, I violate that rule by taking a film 35mm and my 5D, trying to get dawn images on both cameras. I also took a 17-40 zoom and my older 75-300 zoom. I regretted both decisions immediately. Too many choices, four combinations, complicated by one lens having a polarizer and the other not, and the film camera having Pan F (ISO 50) loaded while the 5D’s minimum ISO is 100.

Arrgh! I need to listen to my own advice. I got some nice images, but shoulda just brought the 5D and the 75-300. Wish I had my wife’s 70-200, I must admit, although the 75-300 acquitted itself nicely.

In these situations, where I’m juggling so many location variables (light changing minute by minute, people walking by, tripod needing to be manipulated, etc.) the variety of choices on the camera itself only complicates things. It was so much easier with the Mamiya 645 because all I did was take a shadow reading, take a highlight reading, place tones, change the shutter speed, focus, stop down, flip the mirror up, expose a frame, flip the mirror down, open the aperture, move the tripod, etc. So, the only thing I let the 5D do for me was focus, and then only some of the time.

More from LA

Posted by Chris Klug – July 29, 2010

Hand-held at night

Yesterday I went back to the Hall with my Mamiya and tripod (the image above was just from a drive-by later on with the 5D). I followed my own advice this time and took one lens and one camera. I exposed a couple rolls of Pan F and took lots of notes.

This experience was much better vis-a-vis talking to people on the street than Sunday. I met a few people on the street (more than one commenting on my film camera and giving me some ‘atta boy’s” for still shooting film). The overall vibe I got from them was that they were extremely proud to live or work (or both) in the same neighborhood at this building, knew what I meant to the identity of downtown LA, and were even more proud that people such as myself would come to LA and drag my tripod onto the street and shoot away.

One gent told me about a garden around the back of the building which I intend to visit during the day today. I had missed it because I just didn’t go up a flight of stairs I had passed as I walked along the street.

One last note about SIGGRAPH. In a lecture yesterday about software models for rendering light, one gent from SONY Imageworks commented “People as me all the time where I obtained my expertise in the area of light and recording/simulating the effects of light. There’s really only one ultimate source, and I refer to it all the time: Ansel Adams’ ‘The Negative.’ If you haven’t read it, you really should, and it should be required reading.”

More later today, hopefully.