urban ku # 187 ~ variables

St Francis of Assisi • click to embiggenA short while ago, I wrote about digital capture as an "immature" medium.

My assessment was based on many factors but prominent amongst them was the fact that there is so little consistency in image capture from one camera manufacturer to another, not to mention the lack of consistency within any given manufacturer's model line up. Add to that the fact that the results obtained from any given camera can vary considerably depending upon which RAW converter software that is used (and how you use that software), what you end up with is a very high tower of digital babble.

That said, I will concede the fact that with enough experimentation and fiddling around one can probably achieve similar results from a wide range of camera and RAW converter software combinations. I use the word "concede" because it would require a monumental amount of time and money to do a thorough comparison of the possibilities.

That said, my experimentation and fiddling around have currently - always subject to a change in the digital weather - led me to the regular use of 2 different RAW converters to get the results I am happy with.

RAW converter #1 - As my primary RAW converter I use RAW Developer by Iridient Digital. This is a Mac only converter and RAW processing is all that it does. No libraries, no web gallery creation, no printing / book making capabilities - just RAW processing. I like it because it produces the most neutral and film-like conversions that I have seen to date. The only thing that it lacks is a good highlight recovery function - an addition that is coming in the next update. So ...

RAW convert #2 - For highlight recovery I use Adobe ARC via Bridge. Overall, I do not like the conversions from ACR - too much saturation and a very un-film-like look, but, in my experience, this software seems to offer the best highlight recovery available. With the current state of the art in digital sensors - less than ideal in dealing with extreme highlight values - highlight recovery is what I most often need.

In today's picture of St. Francis of Assisi, the entire upper right quadrant of the picture had lots of blown out detail - the white siding on the house and the pool sign and building facade were especially bad. ACR brought them back to respectable values.

In order to have the best of both RAW converter worlds, after processing the image in both converters, I lassoed the entire UR quadrant from the ACR conversion (with an 80 pixel feather) and dragged it into the RD conversion file while holding down the SHIFT key for perfect registration.

Merge the layers and, viola - a picture with color negative-like dynamic range.

The moral of this lesson is simple - spend enough time (and some not insignificant amount of money) experimenting and fiddling around and, even with an immature medium, you can find a way to get what you want - at least until the next inevitable and never ending update of one (or all) of the variables in the equation.

Questions; Do you shoot RAW? Do you use only one RAW converter? Have you tried others? Or, with in-camera jpegs becoming better and better, do you just push the button and let the camera do the rest?

ode to Eggleston

Call me Oblio • click to embiggenLate Sunday AM, Hugo rolled into the kitchen with a wizard hat saying, "Pretend I'm the kid in The Point movie - Oblio."

So, of course, we called him Oblio for a while but I was immediately struck by an overwhelming desire to picture Oblio on his roll-y thing in the manner of Eggleston's tricycle picture. Now, if I can only sell the picture for something near the $250,000 Eggleston's photograph brought at auction in 2004.

man & nature # 9 ~ ups and downs

Flowers and hydrant • click to embiggenI have been spending some time surfing the web for photo blogs of interest - man, there is a lot of crap out there. A few gems have surfaced but along the way a few bummers have showed up. Two in particular, struck a note of interest with me.

One entry on What Was I Thinking is about photographer Chip Simons - a photographer whose work I have known about for quite a few years, mostly through commercial photography publications. His work always seemed kind of "out there", which I liked, and he seemed to be doing quite well in the commercial photo biz.

In any event, I haven't been following much about the commercial photo biz for a number of years, so this piece caught my attention when I came across it. Be sure to read his Bio for the whole story about a photographer who had and lost it all.

Then there was this piece, An Argument Against Photography, which is basically the opposite of the Chip Simons piece - a rant from a photographer who never got it (at least not yet) ....

These pieces are apropos of nothing in particular - I just found them interesting.

picture window # 7 ~ then and now

NYC window, East Village • click to embiggenPreviously, I mentioned John Pfahl's Picture Windows book from his 1978-1981 series of the same name.

One of the big differences between his picture windows pictures and mine is the nearly total lack of interior detail in his pictures. I am fairly certain that his "choice" of this approach was in fact a "Hobson's Choice" - the technology of the day simply did not allow him to capture the full range of light presented by such a scene. Consequently, he composed tightly to the window itself and the interior walls provided a mostly featureless "frame" to the exterior view. This was an effective visual device that lent emphasis to the outside view.

My picture windows occupy much smaller portion of the picture than Pfahl's do. There are number of reasons why I chose to picture this way, but, I was afforded an actual choice because of today's digital darkroom technologies - all of my picture window pictures are a blend (manual, not HDR) of at least 2 different exposures of the same scene - 1 exposure for the exterior scene and 1 for the interior scene.

I have chosen to picture in this manner because I am most interested in exploring the relationships between the inside and outside worlds - a task that was difficult but not impossible in the good 'ole analog days. A task that is much easier to pursue in the digital era.

IMO, one of the blessings and banes of the digital darkroom is the seemingly endless possibilities of image editing that are available. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of doing it because I can stuff being done that creates little more than technical showmanship and/or excesses. But perhaps that is to be expected when kids are given a new toy to play with.

picture window # 6 ~ an Aaron update

Ink, Inc. • click to embiggenAs I write this, Aaron and (his) the wife are on their way to NYC to attend the New York Photo Festival, the first international photo festival in the US and billed as The Future of Contemporary Photography.

Amongst the many activities and events scheduled during the 4 day festival is tonight's New York Photo Awards Ceremony. Aaron has the honor of being selected as a finalist in the Personal work / fine art series awards category.

Also of note, and not related to the NYPF, was a recent phone call from the Pittsburgh based Silver Eye Center for Photography. Earlier this year Aaron had been accepted into a juried group show at the Silver Eye. He subsequently donated one of his Cinemascapes, Steeltown to the SE benefit auction. The phone call from the SE was to thank him for paying their electric bill for the year. The photo fetched $3,000 at the auction.

For those of you not familiar with Aaron's Cinemascapes, or, if you want to check out his newer pieces, click here

man & nature # 8 ~ a "glossy picture" of sorts

Roadside nature • click to embiggenDid anyone watch the PBS program, THE ADIRONDACKS?

On a scale of 1-10, it gets a 7.0-7.5 in my opinion. That opinion is, of course, that of a "local" and was echoed by the wife about half way through the program at which point she stated/asked, "I'm not learning anything new, are you?", my answer to which was, "No."

The program touched on all the "standard" stuff about the Adirondacks, which, admittedly, most non-locals probably don't know about. From that standpoint, I would very interested to hear from any non-local who watched the program - did you learn anything new?

Where the program failed was in representing the real day-to-day life of the "average" Adirondack denizen. Sure, we have our share of poets, authors, artists / artisans, conservationists, environmental activists, etc. In fact, because the area is a magnet for such types, we probably have much more than our fair share. But, of the 100,000+ full-time residents of the Adirondacks, they nevertheless still constitute only a distinct minority of the population. By largely depending upon the "elites" to speak for the place, the producers almost totally missed the "true grit" of the place.

One thing they did get right was their choice of a photographer to highlight. Carl Heilman is a fairly accurate representation of the ubiquitous pretty-picture variety of picture makers who dot the region. I know Carl. I like him. He's a really nice guy. In fact, I featured him on one of my PBS Adirondack Outdoors episodes and, in my role as tourism marketing guy, I have purchased and used some of his work in various Adirondack tourism pieces. He has found a comfortable and somewhat unique - 360 degree panoramics - niche in the pretty-picture genre from which he makes at least part of his living and there's no knocking that. Although, like many locals, he has at least one other "job" - a snowshoe maker and instructor.

In any event and to repeat, I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who viwed the program.

Update on Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 02:59PM by gravitas et nugalis

Featured Comment: Gordon McGregor asked: "Are the PBS documentaries available for us non-TV subscribing people?"

my response: Yes. You can buy the DVD Here

civilized ku # 83 ~ the air you breathe

Appraoching darkness • click to embiggenYesterday I mentioned my friend Mel who is never without a camera. I don't how many pictures he makes in a day, a week, or a month but I have no doubt that the number is a big one.

Like Mel, I am rarely without a camera when I am out and about. Rare also are the times that I can make it from point A to point B without making a picture or two, or three, or more. Unlike Mel, whose pictures feature people, my pictures are mostly about places. People make appearances here and there, but rarely are they the featured subject (family "snapshots" excluded).

That said, if Mel has 1 zillion pictures, I must have 1/2 zillion pictures - which leads me to this question for you;

How often do you make pictures? Is it a "special" event, as in when you are in the mood or have the time? Or, do you carry a camera everywhere you go? Can you stop "seeing" or are you always attuned to the act of picturing? Ever wish you had a camera when you didn't have one at hand? Ever wish you didn't have a camera draped somewhere on your person?

In a nutshell, I guess what I am asking is how important in your life is the act of picturing?

picture window # 5 ~ oh my aching back

N. Jersey kitchen window • click to embiggenI am thoroughly enjoying a bit of downtime. The big tourism marketing piece along with several others is done and so is the biggest pain in my ass, the bedroom renovation - 2 bedrooms turned into 1 with the walkin closet of her dreams for the wife.

bedroom renovation

Looks like I'll have a bit of time to recoup and rethink, photography-wise. Item #1 on the agenda is to create a picture-only site for my photography. The time has come to present my pictures in category galleries -

ku - landscapes of the natural world
man & nature ku - signs of humankind in the natural world
urban ku - cityscapes (big and small)
picture windows - views of the world outside
decay & disgust - decying things on my kitchen counter

Can anyone out there recommend any gallery software or a hosting service with gallery templates?