| |
Posted on 12th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Mike's Darkroom
We made a lot of progress in die Dunkelkammer over the weekend. Carpenter Jim Shoemaker was here both days and completed most of the wet side—I'll show you that in a few days. In the meantime, here is a brief report of progress on the dry side, mostly in pictures.
Jim bolted two 2x2's to the west wall for me. Here, a section of the wall is taped off for painting.
Painting completed. I didn't worry about all the little voids and pinholes in the concrete—you know what they say, "the perfect is the enemy of gittin' 'er done." Maybe that's not the right expression, but that's what it should be for me.
For the enlarger bench, I'm using the bottom half of a cheap wire shelving unit I bought at Menard's, the local building supply superstore (similar to Lowe's, Home Depot, etc.). It cost $60, made in China (thank you, Chinese persons), and I chose it mainly because it is about the right height and it has adjustable feet, which makes leveling easy. Er. Easier. Anyway, here I'm working on getting it level before putting the top on.
So here's the enlarger bench. For the top, I used an old piece of 2' x 5' butcher block I had stored away. The shelving unit on the left is also a leftover, pilfered from elsewhere in the basement.
Wondering what that black- and cream-colored box on the shelving unit is? It's a paper safe. As you can see it has three shelves, each of which accommodate 11x14" paper (that's some old lightshot 8x10 in it now). The door is hinged on the bottom and has rather stiff springs to hold it shut. Of course it's light-tight.
The reason it's out at this early stage in the construction is this. When I'm standing where it's natural to stand while removing paper from
the safe, I like the paper safe to be positioned so that my body is in between it and the direct light from the safelight. A small detail, but exposure is cumulative, more or less, so I like to be conservative when it comes to protecting the assets in the safe.
Finally, I'll tie the tabletop to the wall, via angle-brackets screwed into it and to the 2x2's. Despite the heavy tabletop and the solidity of the wire shelving base, attaching the tabletop securely to the wall is crucial for stability. Before actually doing this, I'm going to wait a few days to let the bench "settle" and then do a last check on the leveling. Here I'm just holding the bracket where it will eventually go, for the picture. Mike
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. 
Posted on 12th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Ctein, Workshops
Our own Ctein will be teaching a one-day workshop at the Mpls Photo Center (2400 North Second Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA 55411) on Saturday, October 9: "Introduction to the Art of Digital Photo Restoration." See here for full details.
Ctein is the author of Digital Restoration from Start to Finish. If you have any interest in learning how to restore old or damaged photographs in particular, or in improving your digital processing skills generally, Ctein's workshop could be for you. Mike
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. 
Posted on 12th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Blog Notes
"In the end, I just can't shake off this damnable sense of perspective." David Mitchell's evenhandedly hilarious appraisal about the word "passionate" as corporate-speak. A reader named Tom pointed this out in the comments this morning—thanks to him for getting my day off to a good start.
In another random follow-up to a past post, I have to say that I now notice when I see books that made the readers' recommended list a few weeks ago. So, speaking of that, I wonder if the videocaster above is the same David Mitchell who wrote Cloud Atlas and The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet.
Writers really ought to change their names to something easily rememberable and friendly, don't you think? Like Hollywood stars: you might have heard that Hedwig Kiesler, Joseph Levitch, Tula Ellice Finklea, Webb Parmelee Hollenbeck, Issur Danielovitch Demsky, and Virginia McMath became, respectively, Hedy Lamarr, Jerry Lewis, Cyd Charisse, Clifton Webb, Kirk Douglas, and Ginger Rogers—or even that "Theda Bara" is (deliberately) an anagram of "death arab"—but did you know that Boris Karloff's real name was William Pratt? William Pratt—are you kidding me? Whoever came up with "Boris Karloff" is a genius. David Mitchell the novelist needs a name with Karloff-level creativity. I guarantee you that if you ask me three months from now who David Mitchell is, I won't have the slightest idea.
Bill Pratt
In a final follow-up, TOP reader Tim Bradshaw contacted Emma Duncan, the Economist Deputy Editor responsible for the "Obama vs. BP" cover, and has this to report: "Emma Duncan replied to my mail and it's fairly clear that this was a genuine mistake on her part rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. Now it's been pointed out, she also can see the picture the way most people do. She says they will be more careful about how pictures are edited in future. So I'm happy that this was a mistake, rather than something intentional." Thanks for that, Tim.
Mike
(Thanks to Bill Bryson for the star names)
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Craig Norris: "What would you suggest as a good pseudonym for a photographer or photography author? How about a book titled Mastering Rangefinders, by Lens Capoff. Or Repair and Maintenance of Large Format Cameras, by Leaky Bellows. Or Darkroom Techniques, by N. Larger." 
Posted on 11th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Cameras, new
B&H Photo and Amazon are both offering a free DMW-LVF-1 External Live View Finder with the purchase of a Panasonic GF1 Micro 4/3 camera and the 14–45mm normal zoom. The viewfinder normally sells separately for ~$130.
Here's the link to B&H's page.
To order the same thing from Amazon, here are Amazon's fine-print instructions, with the links:
Free DMW-LVF1 Viewfinder with the Panasonic Lumix GF1 Snap up the Panasonic Lumix GF1 and get a free Panasonic DMW-LVF1 External Live Viewfinder—a $150 value—with combined purchase from Amazon.com. Simply add the GF1
and viewfinder
to your Shopping Cart, and we'll automatically apply the discount at checkout. Offer good while supplies last; applies only to purchases of products sold by Amazon.com and does not apply to products sold by third-party merchants and other sellers through the Amazon.com site.
I don't have the viewfinder for my GF1, so I can't comment on it, other than to say it's necessary if you want to shoot outdoors in bright sunlight, where the live view viewing screen of the plain GF1 runs the gamut from "less than ideal" to "utterly useless." In some kinds of light I cannot see the LCD at all, and basically end up guessing at what I'm pointing the camera at. In other words, you need the viewfinder....
Mike
(Thanks to Ken Bennett)
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by james wilson: "The Hoodman loupe is still the best viewfinder for a P&S camera. It is a real SLR type experience. A little bulky perhaps but I keep it hanging around my neck and deploy it as needed."
Response by Edward Taylor: "I concur on the Hoodman loupe. It is bulkier, but much better than the viewfinder. Another plus is that I can use it on any camera to see the LCD clearly in bright light—even if I am just checking the histogram, composition or focus post exposure. Zacuto makes a more expensive one as well."
Response by Kirk Tuck: "I disagree with James about the Hoodman. I find the electronic viewfinder for the Olympus EP2 and EPL cameras [ there's also a black one that's out of stock at the moment —Ed.] to be much more usable. I don't have to do a two hand shuffle to use the camera and the view is wonderful. Also much smaller than a Hoodman Loupe. I do use the Hoodman Loupe when doing video on DSLR's but only out of necessity." 
Posted on 11th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Photojournalism
Very apropos our recent discussion about the Economist cover. Funny. From Abraham Lincoln's best friend, via Comedy Central, via John Nack on Adobe.
Mike
(Thanks to Carl Leonardi)
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 10th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Print Offers
Note: Sale ended 7/11, 3:56 p.m.
"An' a one, an' a two...."
Last Wednesday, we offered for purchase prints of "Summer Storm, Chicago," by Ken Tanaka. The run of 50 prints sold out in six hours and four minutes, and were gone before many readers even knew the sale had started. So, as promised on Thursday, we're now offering 50 (+ 10) more. This sale will start now and continue until noon Central U.S. time Thursday, July 15th, or until all the prints are sold, whichever comes first.
The picture was taken with a Phase One P65+ digital back on a Mamiya camera. Ken has produced an information sheet that will be included with the print that covers technical details, and also tells about the storm.
The regular size prints have an image area of approximately 9.5 x 12.75". The cost for U.S. orders is $155. Orders for international delivery (this includes Canada) cost $175; in both cases, shipping is included in the price. [Ordering information removed]
 Ken (as Kilroy) with the big print (the colors here are not very accurate; see top illustration for a more accurate idea of what the prints look like)
Meanwhile, after getting several requests, Ken has produced a very small run of much larger prints of this image, which he says are "jaw-droppingly good" and "un-[expletive deleted]-believable." (I've not seen one, but I'm getting one.) There are only ten of these. The prints are on 17x22" paper with a image area of 15x20". The cost is $450 for U.S. orders and $475 for international orders, shipping included. Although this is not a limited edition, Ken has agreed never again to sell any print of this picture of this size or larger for a lower price*.
[Ordering information for the large prints removed]
All the prints are inkjet prints made on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper using Epson Ultrachrome K3 inks.
Finally, let me again thank Ken for working with me on this, and all of you for your interest and enthusiasm. This has been fun. However, I must say that this will for sure be the last of this print sale! No more after this. Mike
*The same is true for the smaller prints as well.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 9th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Around the Web, Books
• I can't say this yet without violating The Pinker Rule*, but I got this book
the other day and I think I love it. (U.K. link .)
• I did not laugh at this video like the rest of the world is doing. I cringed. In total sympathy. I thought, poor guy. And I thought: yep, something like that could've happened to me....
No photographer can laugh when both the guy's cameras got dunked.
• Idea for a new law: Term limits for late-night comedians. It's gotten difficult to explain to 17-year-olds that yes, David Letterman and Jay Leno were actually funny once. And inventive. Edgy, even. Craig Ferguson is the only one who does an actual "monologue" any more.
Noticed how the word "edgy" no longer is?
• The strange Finnish light, high up on the slope of the world, must be having an effect on Saikat Biswas' brain. His strange and lovely Holga D dream....
• Photographer's life in graph form.
• And speaking of words, we're sick of passionate. Passionate has become the perfect corporate anodyne term. Mid-level office workers are required to be passionate about the company's mission. Passionate has nothing to do with passion any more.
• Another "lurid dream," this one from Canon.
• Say what? From an online article about LeBron James:
Oh, well, at least they didn't say "flashbulbs" like magazine and newspaper writers have been doing for decades.
• Latest perfectly good word ruined by pop culture: minions. They're cute, though.
Mike
(Thanks to Steven Ralser, Jay Smith, Adam Isler, and Tyler Monson)
*The Pinker Rule states that you are not allowed to recommend a book until you've finished reading it.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Note time stamp. This this getting to be a pattern?
Featured Comment by David L.: "Add 'epic' to the list of words overused, meaningless, and often applied to things that aren't. If you haven't heard it often, it is because you are over 30 or haven't been around surfers/snowboarders lately. Lucky you.... A few days ago I went for a full-day bike trip with some friends. I described it as a 'near-century' whereas one ride buddy dubbed it 'totally epic.' Ugh." Featured Comment by Arthur: "That graph doesn't have nearly enough dips." Featured Comment by Carl Blesch: "I'm passionate about avoiding corporate-speak. I knew it was time to leave my last job when my boss tore apart some talking points I wrote and told me instead to write, 'we have a laser-like focus on our market.' Spare me, please!" Featured Comment by Brad: "As a guy who used to do wedding photography for [you call that] a living, I also found nothing amusing in the video. What did strike me, however, was that the photographer fired off 21 exposures in about five seconds before taking his bath. Twenty-one practically identical iterations of the same 'moment.' "It's a different world. I used to expose about 80 frames of VPS 120 to cover a complete wedding, drop the film off at the lab on the way home, pick it up on Monday, stuff a proof book, and deliver it to the client the same day. Total post-production time: 30 minutes. Some would argue that he gets to choose among 21 iterations to get the best facial expression, etc., but we accomplished the same thing by planning, anticipation, and timing. I hear of guys who shoot literally thousands of images per wedding. I shudder at the thought of the post-production overhead." Featured Comment
by Hugh Look: "1) The new Gerry Badger book is very good: I'm reading slowly as I want it to last; 2) You are right about 'passionate'; this is what finally killed it for me:
 Featured Comment
by Patrick Snook: "Oh, I don't know, I could get quite passionate about a vending machine. Some of them are quite fetching in a frock. Or a company mission—never heard of the mission position? Very sexy! Try Googling 'our passion, not just our' and weep. I'm away now to see if I can stir the passion to go to the supermarket. Maybe I'll try the organic supermarket. Perhaps find an organic supplement to put wood in my pencil*. Organic...don't get me started on that one! *(N.b., not lead in my pencil. My son's school principal always asks the kids at the beginning of the school year to bring 'lead-free' pencils. Sigh.)" Featured Comment
to end all featured comments by MBS: "Glad someone is finally blowing the whistle on this disruptive situation: the thinning of meaning in the American Way of Life. Once words like 'passion' were dynamic, robust, value-laden expressions that could be leveraged in conversation for a number of special effects. These smart, scalable bits of linguistic synergy might be re-purposed to raise the tenor of the discussion to new, ground-breaking heights, or spin it into a next-gen, cutting-edge, market bleeding, enterprise class, cross-platform rap of cataclysmic, sticky, pure paradigm-shifting and -shimmering soup. I'm talking the secret sauce, here, man; the organic mindshare, the perfect storm of mental sign and signification! A win-win if I ever I saw one. Thank you for bringing this up. You're the man, the avatar. Words cannot express (not anymore, anyway)…. I only wish I cold adequately respond, but I just don't have the bandwidth."
Posted on 8th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Ctein, Film and Darkroom
 Darkroom unwrapped! About 270 degrees of Ctein's darkroom, showing the plastic sheeting walls and about half of the overhead lights. No lack of lumens here.
By Ctein
As numerous recent conversations have made clear, a big darkroom concern is stray light. I concur. My dye transfer printing required me to deal with errant photons at a level that no sane process would require.
As I've made clear, I prefer black darkrooms, equipped with lots and lots of lights. You may prefer differently. Talking about what color one's darkroom walls should be, one of the commenters in a previous thread remarked that "Dave is right Ctein is wrong." Nope. Dave's right for Dave, and I'm right for me. That's all you can say. The color you paint your darkroom is as much about ergonomics as anything, and that often boils down to what's personally comfortable. For example, I could live with a grey darkroom rather than a black one, but I could never deal with one painted a bright color. It would totally mess up my color vision. This is not just an issue for me as a color printer, it comes up when I do black-and-white work. If you're the kind of black-and-white printer who is sensitive to the tone (as in hue) of your black-and-white prints, it could very well mess up yours. Color constancy in human vision is something that is easy to upset and it can take hours to equilibrate, especially along the yellow-blue axis. I can't imagine working in a brightly colored darkroom trying to judge how warm-or cold-toned a print paper is, and whether I want to tone the processed print, and by how much. Neutral surroundings, please! Doesn't matter if they're black, white, charcoal gray, or middle gray. I just really, really want something that won't contaminate my color vision.
Be that as it may, this column's really about telling you how to find the stray light in your darkroom, not what color to paint the walls.
Step one. Turn off the lights. Sit down. Close your eyes. Meditate on how wonderful your life is for at least five minutes. Open your eyes. Do you see any light leaks? Plug them! If it's a few twinkles around window frames or joints in the wall or between the wall and the ceiling, black electricians tape works wonderfully. If it's light that's leaking around the frame of the door, put some weather stripping or flaps around the frame to baffle it. Make all that outside light go away.
Step two. Put a negative in your negative carrier, put the carrier in the enlarger, and set up the enlarger as if you were making a normal-sized print. Leaving the lens cap on the enlarger lens, turn on the enlarger and turn off the all the room lights. Once more, sit there, eyes closed, in the semi-dark and contemplate your good fortune. After five minutes open your eyes and look around the room.
Look at the light leaks from the enlarger and see where they go. Trace any patches of light on the walls light back to their sources on the enlarger head. You might have to get ingenious at blocking them. Sometimes black tape works, sometimes you'll have to build little baffles and hoods out of plastic, paper, cardboard, and tape; just do whatever it takes to trap the leakage from the enlarger. Be careful, though, not to close off ventilation ports that let cooling air into the larger head.
Pay extra special attention to any light that might be leaking down in the direction of the easel. You won't be able to get rid of all the stray light, but you'll be able to get rid of a lot of it. You'll likely have to repeat this step several times, making your modifications and checking your work, since doing the work in the dark may be difficult or even unsafe.
Test your success so far by taking a sheet of plain white paper, drawing a big fat black X on it with a wide felt tip marker, and putting the sheet of paper in your paper easel. Prepare the enlarger (and yourself) the same way you did in step two. After the obligatory contemplative five minutes, look at the paper easel. Can you see the X? You shouldn't! Or, at least, it should be nearly invisible—there should be that little light reaching your print easel.
Step three. Find a negative that has some area that is truly maximally dense. Perhaps a photograph you made where the sun is in the field of view? Doesn't matter what, so long as there's an area that is as close to D-max as possible. Got it? Put the negative in a carrier. Now, drop a bit of something totally opaque on top of the negative overlapping the D-max region. It can be a chip of cardboard, a hair, a bit of wire, anything that will make an absolutely black, sharp-edged shadow within the D-max area.
Put the negative carrier in your enlarger and focus the image sharply. Stop the lens down two or three stops to minimize flare and maximize contrast. Take a close look at the D-max area of the negative projected onto the print easel. Is the shadow of the opaque object within that area clearly much darker then the D-max of the film? If so, you're good!
If not, you'll need to figure out if it's flare or stray light within the enlarger system or light reflected off the print paper and scattered back again. A helpful diagnostic is to substantially reduce the magnification of the projected image. If you normally print 8x10, shrink the image down to 4x5 by lowering the enlarger head. That makes the projected image 3–4 times brighter, but it doesn't increase the amount of backscattered light. If the opaque shadow becomes much darker relative to the negative when you do this, then it's most likely backscatter that's causing your problem. You'll need to track that down.
If the relative clarity (or lack thereof) of the shadow in the projected image stays the same, then any problems you're having separating out tones of these dense areas are due to flare or light scattering within the enlarger head and/or the enlarger lens. You'll have to figure out what to do about that, but at least you'll know the problem isn't your darkroom.
Ctein's regular weekly column appears every Thursday morning, for some value of "morning." (Note time stamp on this week's column!)
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 8th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Print Offers
 First, my apologies for not announcing in advance the date and time of the "Summer Storm" print sale today.
Second, we are on for a second go-round. Ken Tanaka and TOP will offer 50 more prints starting on Saturday, July 10th, at noon Central U.S. time, and keep the sale open for five days or until the 50 prints are all sold. The prints cost $155 for U.S. delivery and $175 for international delivery. Shipping is included in the price. You can read more detailed information here, and the details will also be repeated when the second sale is announced on Saturday.
Third, please tell everyone you know in Chicago! Mike
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 7th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Print Offers
Okay, some folks are mad at me—no, not "mad"—miffed, melancholy, mildly dismayed—because I didn't pre-announce the starting-gate time for Ken's print sale, and the entire run was gone in six hours—hours which unfortunately were encapsulated completely within the workday of many North and South Americans. So some readers missed the sale altogether. Which doesn't even seem...friendly. I just got off the phone with Ken, and he says he honestly didn't expect to sell 50 prints in any amount of time, much less six hours. And the reason he originally picked the number 50? Because the packing material he's using to ship the prints comes in cartons of 50. He bought one.
Anyway....
If people want us to, we can run a "Part II" of the print sale. Ken says he's willing to print and ship another 50. Should we do it again? Say, starting at noon on Saturday, so everyone who wants to be prepared for it will be ready? Let me know. If there are enough people who want us to, we'll do it. Even if we don't sell out the second 50.
As an aside that probably shouldn't be just an aside, thanks to all those who bought a print today! Mike
P.S. Sorry...the price was in the PayPal button, which was taken down when the sale was over. It was $155 for U.S. delivery and $175 for international, shipping included.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 7th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Print Offers
 As promised, here's an opportunity to buy a print of "Summer Storm, Chicago" by Chicago-area photographer Ken Tanaka. The picture was originally posted as a comment to one of our posts, and so many people liked it that I asked Ken if we could offer a print to readers, and he agreed.
The picture was taken with a 35mm ultra-wide-angle lens on a Mamiya 645 AFD III with a PhaseOne P65+ back. It was taken at a slow shutter speed so there is very slight blurring in some of the cars, trees, and fountain, and there is rain falling in part of the landscape; and the print is dark and subtle and will need to be displayed in good lighting. But it's a gorgeous print, rich and dramatic. It's printed by the photographer on 11x14" Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper (image area approximately 9.5 x 12.75"). It's a 310gsm weight paper, 20% gloss (semi-gloss) with a "traditional" photo paper baryta base. Prints will be signed on the reverse.
Note: The sale is limited to 50 prints (unfortunately, that's all the printing Ken has time for). I'll keep the offer open for five days (until sundown, Sunday, July 11th) or until we reach 50 orders, whichever comes first.
~~~SORRY, SOLD OUT~~~
Shipping is included in the price.
An order via PayPal will automatically reserve a print for you. If you prefer to send a personal check, that's fine, but you will need to send me an email (just one!) with your name, shipping address, and number of prints you're purchasing to reserve your order. (Please, just one email!) If you only mail a check, the 50 print limit might have been reached before your check gets here.
The first orders will be shipped on Friday; last orders should allow up to four weeks for delivery (but probably won't take that long).
With PayPal payments, prints will be shipped to the address in the PayPal order, so please make sure I have the proper address with your order. If it's different than your PayPal address, you can add it in the "comment" field with your payment. Please do not count on emailing me separately with a different shipping address! (Really, you do not want to test my organizational [dis]abilities to that extent, take my word for that....)
We've settled on having four TOP print sales per year. This is the third of four sales for 2010; the last one for the year will be in September. My sincere thanks to Ken for making this possible.
Mike
UPDATE: As of 2:15 p.m. there are 19 prints left. UPDATE #2: Sold out, as of 4:06 p.m.
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 7th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Music Notes, News and Occasions
Ringo Starr by Chris Hatcher
 Not feeling quite old enough yet today? Here's one for you: Ringo Starr turns 70 today. That's seven-oh. Jeez. Geez!
When asked how he'd like people to observe his birthday, Ringo said he'd like people to give each other the peace sign* and wish each other "peace and love."
So: peace and love.
(By the way, people seem to just nab celebrity pictures off the web wherever they find them. It took me a while to track down the guy who took the recent shot of Ringo, above. His name is Chris Hatcher and here's his website. I couldn't find the photographer who took the young Ringo picture. Anybody know?) Mike
*To make the peace sign, in case you don't know, you hold up your first two fingers in a "V" with the folded thumb and fingers facing forward. Like Ringo's doing in the top picture.
Posted on 6th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Editing and Portfolios, Photojournalism
As a follow-up to the "KGB'd!" discussion:
Ctein noted in one of his comments that "As for
immodest cropping, yes that can (and in fact has, at times) violate
ethics by eliminating substantial elements of importance to the veracity
of the scene."
Unlike adding or deleting pictorial elements, cropping is to a much greater extent a "gray area" in photojournalistic ethics (a subject on which I am not an expert, by the way). It's a given that every photograph is "cropped," literally, or effectively by the mere act of pointing the camera, and it's a form of possible non-objectivity that we're used to and that everyone assumes. (And, of course, one that's most often done just to fit an image to an available space.) And yet Ctein's right. Here's an example of a crop that changes meaning. In my opinion that's an example of an unethical crop.
We should have a contest...like one of those contests where you have to change the meaning of a word by changing only one letter, or the meaning of a phrase by changing one punctuation mark: change the entire meaning of a famous picture using just a crop. Here's my offering:
And in case you're not smiling at that, here's the whole picture.
(I added the lettering just because I didn't want to unleash into the wilds of the internet such a gross misrepresentation of Weegee's picture, lest my Bowdlerized version take on a life of its own.)
Before the comments start, a reminder: when we talk about the ethics of cropping, we're only talking about journalism, not all kinds of photographs. The rules are different. Mike
(Thanks to Peter Erbak)
ADDENDUM: A reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent me this comparison, which should make it more clear to all that the issue with the Economist cover is not a matter of cropping (and that an even longer lens would still not have made the cover shot possible as an unmanipulated image).
ADDENDUM #2: A number of people have forwarded to me other Economist covers that are clearly illustrations, such as this one:
I still call foul on the Obama cover, however, despite not being keyed in to the Economist's typical practices. The reason is that the illustration cover is obviously an illustration: not one person in a thousand would mistake it for an objective, unaltered photograph. But, as Ctein put it, "The President photo...looks exactly like a straight, unmanipulated photo and that is how people will read it."
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Gordon Lewis: "What I find most troubling about this type of digital manipulation is that it allows for an insidious double standard. Large organizations such as The Economist can justify the image manipulation to their readership as photo illustration. They have lawyers on retainer to protect them against claims of factual distortion. The individual photographer who tries the same approach, however, is much more likely to catch hell if and when caught. No wonder so many photographers these days are caught stepping over the line: The line is always moving. The question is, who's moving it and why?" Featured Comment by Jim Hughes: "As we all know, things are rarely as they seem, especially in publishing. I don't know where you found your 'uncropped' Weegee 'Critic,' but it too was cropped. Look again; it is rendered in an almost square format, and Weegee of course photographed with Graphics, 4x5 format. I have a framed print in my living room of that photograph, enlarged on an 8x10 sheet but keeping its typical 4x5 dimensions. But I already knew, as your version shows, that in my print, the bottom was cropped off. Your square shows more of the elegant ladies' garments, and more of the so-called critic's much plainer coat. Years ago, at one of the NY auction houses' pre-sale exhibits, I saw, and handled, a full-frame, uncropped and probably very early print of that image that included significantly more in the background behind and to the right of the three players in this famous drama, including, as I seem to remember, at least one other (rather indistinct) person." Mike replies: Jim, your indistinct person on the right is there, along with three rather distinct persons on the left! See below.... Featured Comment by Pat C: "Mike, Check out this, which I found simply by feeding your cropped version to TinEye.com. It seems even your uncropped image is a fairly heavy crop too!"
Mike replies: Ah, beautiful. I like that one best. But now we're in to the dark night of "what Weegee intended." A photograph is like a statement, and the statement is the photographer's to make (although often with the "collaboration" of an editor or some other person). The crop I chose is similar to the way the picture appears in Naked City (at least as I remember it there—I don't have the book at hand). But then, if that shows more than the original print Jim owns, who decided to crop it that way for the book? An editor might have. What was Weegee's intention? Seems clear he was after the juxtaposition of the fancy ladies with the poor one. Surely the title ("The Critic") is his—check out this one that he signed, presumably (!) shown whole and entire:
Posted on 5th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Seeing
Part I is here.
By Christopher Lane
At the end of April I met with my surgeon, Dr. Elizabeth Davis, to discuss my upcoming cataract surgery. Dr. Davis is an ophthalmologist associated with Minnesota Eye Consultants [there is music at the link—just in case you're somewhere where you shouldn't be surfing —Ed.] and is a graduate of Cornell, Johns Hopkins and Harvard. Her sub-specialty is corneal, cataract, and refractive surgery. After our interview, I felt very comfortable with her training and experience. After conducting a series of tests to confirm that I did indeed have cataracts, Dr. Davis advised me that the surgery was required, the sooner the better. We scheduled my right eye for the end of May.
During the procedure, which takes about ten minutes, my natural lens was replaced with a plastic one. My doctor has chosen a TECNIS Aspheric Intraocular Lens (IOL) manufactured by Abbot. The TECNIS IOL is an acrylic wavefront
lens with an aspheric design. Wavefront analysis involves beaming light into the eye and then "mapping" how light waves travel after they are reflected off the inner back of the eye (the retina). Wavefront analysis allows lens manufacturers to design lenses that are able
to correct common refractive errors (nearsightedness, farsightedness and astigmatism). According to Abbot, the TECNIS IOL can improve functional and night-driving vision. Also according to Dr. Davis, the TECNIS IOL is the equivalent of a Leica or Zeiss camera lens.
 On May 24th, I was admitted to have my right eye done. I was amazed at how pain-free the entire process was from the insertion of the IV right through recovery. At no time was a bothered by any pain at all. In addition, all of the medical personnel that I encountered tried to put my mind at ease, recognizing that this can be a nerve-wracking experience.
Once I was prepped, an IV was inserted to administer some sedative during the process. No general anesthetic is used, but local anesthesia is administered directly to the eye. A Zeiss microscope, which uses a brilliant white light for illumination, is lowered on to the eye. I then experienced what I can only describe as a helluva psychedelic light show, swirls of color—red, purple, blue, orange and some without names. Apparently this is very common and it sure takes your mind off what’s going on, which, incidentally, you are well aware of since the team is communicating with you. The entire procedure took eight minutes from beginning to end. Before I knew it I was whisked away to the recovery room for some juice and pretzels.
I had the second surgery on June 14th and the experience was much the same. I wondered about the lack of any pain and the optometrist informed me that there are no nerve endings in that particular area hence no pain. Total recovery will take about 40 days for each eye.
The only thing that I can criticize about the whole experience is the underestimation of the recovery period. Immediately after the surgery I was
effectively blind in that eye so I couldn’t drive. Although I could see light and shape it was like looking through a very thick fog bank. It was two days before I could see well enough to return to work and over a week before everything was back to normal.
Well, not exactly normal. My vision is vastly improved. Everything is extremely sharp and colors are much more vivid and true. I am really seeing again. Unfortunately, the surgery did not improve my near vision so, at some point, I will have to use reading glasses. Although no one likes to go through surgery, cataracts are no longer the life sentence they once were. Just find a good doctor and get them taken care of. You won’t regret it—and I bet your photography improves as well as your vision. Chris
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Posted on 5th July 2010 by Michael Johnston in Photography
Legal and social issues, Photojournalism
So news photographers can't alter images in any way, but new publications can? Shame on Emma Duncan, The Economist, and Reuters.
The original picture was taken by Larry Downing of Reuters. The cover crop and alteration was the responsibility of Emma Duncan, Deputy Editor of The Economist.
Why include Reuters? Implicit complicity: "Reuters has a strict policy against modifying, removing, adding to or
altering any of its photographs without first obtaining the permission
of Reuters and, where necessary, the third parties referred to."
I'd love to hear from Larry Downing.
Emma Duncan said, "We often edit the photos we use on our covers," and that "the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers."
I call foul on that. If the way you read pictures is on a simple, dullard level, as design, then, no, it doesn't matter. If the way you read pictures is more subtle, to discern meaning, then the meaning of this picture has been changed. Alone, Obama looks to be hanging his head in an attitude of dejection or despair. Actually, he was most probably listening to local parish president Charlotte Randolph, the woman who got KGB'd out of the picture. That's how I read the original.
And the MM wonders why its sustainability is such a greased pig these days? Betrayals of trust, large and small, left and right.
Here's the story, by Jeremy W. Peters, at the Times' Media Decoder blog. It includes Emma Duncan's response.
Mike
(Thanks to Alessandro Berno)
Send this post to a friend
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Hugh Crawford: "I also put this on the Times site: It seems more puzzling to readers without Ms. Randolph than with. With Ms. Randolph (and the beach) it is obvious that the President is standing on the beach listening to someone shorter than himself. With Ms. Randolph and the beach removed, it is puzzling. Is the President noticing that he stepped in some oil? Is the President surprised to be actually walking on water? Praying? About to seal the well with his x-ray vision a la Superman? And what's that thing in the background? Didn't that BP platform blow up and sink? When and where was this photo taken anyway? That is puzzling to readers."
Featured [partial] Comment by Hugh Look : "As with so many of these 'manipulation' questions, it's not so much an absolute principle, more when a line has been crossed. It was here; you've called this one right, I think. Duncan's comment that 'I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated' seems both confused and disingenuous. In fact, probably without realising it, she's isolated a significant problem in reporting today: the Romantic focus on the heroic (or otherwise) individual as the crux of story. Why does she want readers to focus on Obama? Here we see a photograph being used to divorce him from the complexity of the situation, from the need to take counsel and find solutions that involve many people and start from shared, rather than heroically individual, perspectives.
"Duncan is no more guilty than most in the media as they buy into the cult of personality and use images to support it. It's used just as much to vilify as to endorse, and in both cases the ways it's used is as unsophisticated and unintelligent as it is unethical and, let's face it, untruthful."
 Featured Comment by Stan B.: "While not falling into the parameters of photojournalism, I think what Outside magazine did with Lance Armstrong is even worse—photoshopping 'BFD' on his shirt with the number of his age. Although they fess up to it in small print on the cover, they did so without so much as alerting him in advance."
Mike adds: The article calls Armstrong "none too pleased" and says the cyclist Twittered that the cover is "lame bullsh*t." Featured Comment by Wil Macaulay: "I've been a long-time subscriber to The Economist and I always assume that their front covers are illustrations, and only coincidentally photographs. I do agree they should make it clear when a photo has been manipulated, however." Featured Comment by John J. Guglielmi: "Their manipulation changes the entire tone of the photograph. As a recently retired photojournalist (40 years in the business) and picture editor, heads would have rolled at the papers I have worked at. Information comes at us from all directions these days and it is becoming harder to filter the news from opinion." Featured Comment by Semilog: "The problem that I and many others have is not with the use of photocollage or photoillustration. The problem is making an image manufactured—not merely selected, but manufactured to look like a straight photo, and then not copping to it. I used to subscribe to The Economist, too, back when it was a more substantial magazine than it is today, so I was well aware that many of its covers are illustrations. Nevertheless, when I saw the present cover I did not assume that the photograph was manipulated. It is a very real breach of ethics from a once-proud and always feisty journal, and I am disappointed that so many of the obviously intelligent commenters below just don't seem to understand that, or to care." 
African Photography Blog – South Africa Photographic News, Articles, Tutorials is Digg proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache
|
