Tag: 17-40 ‘L’

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.

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.

Experiments

Posted by Chris Klug – May 14, 2010

5D with some Color Efex

On a trip to Seattle for some meetings at Microsoft. Tonight I had dinner at the home of my host for the meetings. The house is on the shores of Lake Washington, so I took along my 5D. This image was captured in his back yard. titled this post ‘Experiments’ because I had a comment on my last post talking about my images and how they were experiments. And, you know, they are.

Another fellow blogger and friend, Dave Beckerman, had a long discussion with me over the past week about digital and film. He shoots 100% digital now, but has nothing against film. But he also makes his living selling beautiful b&w prints to customers. That’s his only income, and, you know, when the situation is like that, I don’t know how much experimentation you can do. I, who don’t have anyone asking me for prints, can experiment all day long. Another reader, Anita Jesse (who made the comment) also sells beautiful color prints to clients.

The image above was dodged and burned a bit, and then put through Color Efex for two different passes. Below is the original image, just for comparison’s sake, so you can see what I did.

Pitt Panther

Posted by Chris Klug – May 6, 2010

5D Nik Silver Efex

Near the University of Pittsburgh and also Carnegie Mellon is a ravine called Panther Hollow. I would assume it got its name from pre-Revolutionary War times when there probably were panthers living there. The Pitt University mascot is a Panther. The Carnegie Mellon mascot is a Terrier. I think that says a lot about the two schools.

There is a bridge near the two campuses where statues of Panthers act as guardians. The image above was processed in Silver Efex and the version below in Color Efex. I include both versions for your viewing pleasure.

Jack London Square

Posted by Chris Klug – February 15, 2010

Balloons don't help sometimes

I’m in California on business this week, and yesterday went to Jack London Square in Oakland to do some street shooting with the 5D (first time for using that camera in that role). Functionally, it worked well, focussed quickly, exposed well, very nice, but four separate people walked by me and said some variant of “now THAT’s a camera!” (the 17-40 zoom with the lens shade is honkin’ huge). No bad vibes, no bad looks, it’s a tourist place so no one thought ill of me (I wasn’t the only one walking around with a camera) but for being ‘invisible,’ well, not so much. A smaller lens would be ideal for that role with the 5D; the camera worked wonderfully. If there was a pancake 40mm prime, it would be great. A big prime wouldn’t work (I’ve been looking at a Sigma 28mm f/1.9 prime, but the filter size is 77mm, so it’s probably similar in size to the 17-40).

I also brought the 645e with me and shot some images yesterday with the new 45mm lens I bought from a local PA photographer who’s selling all of his old film equipment. It’s kind of an heartwarming and sad story. His family owns a photography business and has run it for 60+ years. It’s based in Johnstown, PA (site of the famous flood in the late 1800s). His uncle opened the business right at the end of WWII, and it’s been in continuous operation since then. I don’t know how many photographers Johnstown supported in its prime (which is gone now; they had another big flood in 1977 that ripped the heart out of the town; Bethlehem Steel closed their plant after that flood and it’s been downhill ever since). But this guy’s business clearly was the main photography shop in Johnstown. High school portraits, family portraits, weddings, etc. All on film. He showed me a half-dozen Bronica medium format cameras, a half-dozen Mamiya 645s and 67s, all mainstays of his business. At one point he employed 24 people to shoot, process, print and matt/mount photographs. He showed me row upon row of negatives (high school portraits, mainly) that he is trying to give to the local historical society (and they’re not sure they want them!!)

But it is not an exaggeration to say that the history of this town over the last 60 years is sitting in the negatives this guy owns.

However, digital has ripped the heart out of this long-profitable family business. The reason is simple: he made most of his money from prints. He kept the negs. But, today, if he delivers a print to someone, they just scan it and distribute it to Aunt Marie and Uncle Joe and all his profit disappears. Not to mention that everyone has a cell phone with a camera built in. The only way he can make money these days is on the shoot itself, which, back then, was only the beginning of the business. Now I understand why top wedding photographers, whether they shoot digital or film, charge $10k. That’s the only profit point in the process anymore.

So now he packages DVDs of Quicktime movies of the images and distributes them. It’s just not the same. He’s closing the building downtown where he inhabited three floors for 60 years and selling everything inside. I had never really understood how a photographer like him made his business work when the business was in the volume, but now I do. You have a bunch of enlargers with mechanical rigs to, for example, exposed 8 head shots on a large piece of color paper that then gets cut up into wallet prints and stuffed in envelopes and delivered to the clients. Lots of pieces of hardware you never would think of being part of the photography business. He was part photographer, part printer.

Now he sends all his prints from digital (Nikon D200s all around) out to places like Mpix because ink jets burn through so much ink he can’t make that part of the business profitable. He employs five people now, and, as he put it ‘when they leave, they won’t be replaced.’

If digital has ripped away the ability for small-town photographers like this guy to make a living, we’ve lost something important in our society. Look maybe he just didn’t adapt, and I sure don’t know what alternatives existed for him. But the business that his uncle sold to his father that he inherited is done. There’s nothing left to leave to his daughter. That’s a shame to my way of thinking.

Pathways

Posted by Chris Klug – January 23, 2010

5D and Silver Efex yet again

Earl on his blog talked about how he captures images of pathways. That comment really resonated with me as I tend to do the same; I know for me it’s because I am fascinated with the road we walk. How I got here, which direction I am walking; where I am going. It’s not a strength so much, as I think that distracts me from being ‘here now.’ But, especially after Earl made his comment, I understood how much that fascinates me as well.

This is important insofar as I endeavor over time to find my ‘style’ or ‘voice’ as a photographer. Maybe (laugh) it’s capturing images of breakfast condiments, and maybe it’s roads/pathways. I don’t know, but I am aware that discovering that is one of my goals.

I have desired to do a blurb book, and it seems like I ought to gather together my pathways images into one volume and see how that feels.

Regarding the image above, I continue to be very happy with the 5D + Nik Silver Efex combo. This image was in a place near Seattle called Carkeek Park. There was a sign near this stream that the Salmon had returned here, and visitors were warned to take care not to disturb them (by doing things like throwing stones in the water as that might dislodge the eggs, etc.). This really caught my attention because I had no idea that Salmon would spawn in creeks this small and shallow, but there you go.

One last quick note: the replacement 645e arrived today from KEH, and so I’ll be heading out later today to see what’s up. I hope it works, I really do.

Tonality in Bothell

Posted by Chris Klug – January 22, 2010

5D & Silver Efex

This week I’ve been on a business trip in Ray Country visiting Microsoft. Looks like I might be coming back here again a couple times later this year. Got out today to do some capturing of images and liked the tones in this little still-life. Post more after I return tomorrow. I really like the Pacific Northwest.

This image above deserves some explanation. I have about a dozen of these images in my collection, from restaurants all over the UA. Every time I see this setup (table, sugars, creams, condiments) I want to shoot it. Don’t know, but I do. Today, as I was doing the b&w conversion in Silver Efex, I may have stumbled on some of the why. There is a nice little operetta of tones in the image. Partially, at least, I think it’s the balance of tones that attracts me.

Maybe I should just embrace this little quirk and do a book with these images. Then, perhaps, I could move on.

One Year Later

Posted by Chris Klug – January 17, 2010

It's a little bit weird, I admit

One year ago I began blogging. One year and 176 posts later, this is where I am.

Thanks to all the friends I’ve made and the people who have posted as well as the people who lurk.

Whether my images are good or bad or in-between, I hope at least I’m not boring.

And yeah, for the pixel peepers, this image  contains noise in the shadows I couldn’t get rid of. But there’s something about this image for me I just had to post it.

Enjoy

Gesture Revisited

Posted by Chris Klug – January 16, 2010

5D and Nik Silver Efex

One of my favorite photographic pastimes is to read posts on APUG and, well, learn more about my craft. For anyone interested in film photography (heck, interested in ANY KIND of photography) the discussions there are amazingly illuminating. Sometimes I even have been known to participate (grin). But I think there is hardly any area of my photographic journey that hasn’t benefitted from my time spent there.

Here we had a discussion a few posts back where I talked about Jay Meisel’s use of the word ‘gesture’ when talking about photography. Ray, who, in case anyone didn’t know, is a very accomplished sculptor (sorry for calling you out, my friend) and has a strong background in the fine arts, mentioned that since Jay comes out of that training, the word made sense.

This morning, while enjoying a rare day of sunshine and balmy temperatures here in Western PA (it might actually hit 50 today) I was reading this post about the intersection of drawing and photography, and how learning to draw a little can make your photography better (hey, Paul L, there’s yet another activity you can pick up! — grin). There, right smack dab in the middle of the discussion, was a post by a photographer who had a background in the arts. The poster’s forum name is ‘bowzart’ and he says:

Your exploring drawing/painting can be nothing but really good, as far as I’m concerned. Nowhere near enough photographers have the spirit to do that, and I think they don’t know what they are missing. There is an added dimension that comes of working with the hands in service to the eye. Photographers can become rather parochial; it often does not serve them well. Experience in other media tends to open the mind; the world gets bigger.

If I can suggest one thing, it would be drawing from the figure in a managed drawing group using models and varied timed poses. Short poses (you use a lot of newsprint fast) help train the eye to discern the important formal/gestural elements quickly. The longer ones enable one to develop a vision that perceives how forms work together and acquire a more subtle understanding of the relationship of surface and form, as well as detail.

The italics and boldface are mine, btw. This gent was trained in drawing/painting and also taught photography on the university level. Needless to say, I really agree with this thought. I think if there is any single area of photography that fascinates me, it would be this connection of photography and drawing, which, while I was in school, I never considered. I viewed them as two separate areas. Very short-sighted of me.

On my last trip, I had dinner with a friend while in SF and mentioned this to him. He is an accomplished filmmaker and worked for a while with David Lynch. When I off-handedly mentioned this connection to him as an area of interest to me, he kinda dismissed its importance (mind, he is a BIG fan of b&w photography and has asked me, when I visit again, to take portraits of his family, which, given his eye, was a great compliment). I was kind of stunned that he wouldn’t see/appreciate that connection, so stunned in fact that when the conversation moved on, I didn’t pursue the topic because I wanted to think this through before I went back to the topic. I still wonder why he hadn’t considered this.

BTW, I am proceeding in my exploration of the DeWolfe book, and some of my b&w images of late have ben consciously trying to apply some of this thought processes. The image above was worked with DeWolfe’s suggestions in mind. Any failures in the image are my, of course.