ku # 550 ~ baby it's cold outside

-5F on the East Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenWe're having a bit of a cold snap as they say. Tonight's low could be as low as -30F.

That why for the past 48 hours I have been working like a madman on a backyard ice rink. 2 more coats of water and it should be ready for use. Maybe we'll have a skating party with a bonfire in the outdoor fireplace.

Today I went out at -5F to make a few "cold" pictures of which the above is one. If it is -15F or colder, I'll be out again tomorrow morning looking to make a really cold picture.

ku # 549 ~ shedding some light on the subject

Birch • click to embiggenThere are picture makers who think that photography is "all about the light" which, to my way of thinking, is about the same as thinking that writing is all about the ink. IMO, that's about as dumb as it gets.

Those who make pictures that are "all about the light" tend for the most part to use that phrase as a code which translated actually means the "right" light and the "right" light is almost exclusively limited to dramatic, hyper-saturated, end-of-the-day, golden light. On occasion they'll sneak in a little beginning-of-the-day drama and a smidgen of stormy-sky impending-doom one act play but those are mere diversions from their true fetish.

I, on the other hand, tend to agree with these 2 notions from Brooks Jensen:

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" photographic light.There is just light.

A good photograph is never "about light". Good photographs are about feelings.

And then there's this from Philippe Halsman

The word “photography” can be interpreted as “writing with light” or “drawing with light.” Some photographers are producing beautiful photographs by drawing with light. Some other photographers are trying to tell something with their photographs. They are writing with light.

That said, consider today's pictures (made about 25 minutes apart). IMO, neither picture is "better" than the other. Neither quality of light is better or worse. If, for example, someone requested that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like, either picture would serve the purpose quite well without, I might add, any caveats or reservations.

Each picture is equally "true".

Now, without a doubt some might prefer one picture over the other because of the feeling(s) imparted by the differing quality of the light found in each picture. It is on this note that I can start to think of light as "good" or "bad" in as much as light that has one specific quality or another - soft, hard, warm, cool, etc. - is better suited to conveying some feelings than others.

IMO, a picture maker who wants to "write" with light as opposed to "draw" with light understands that light has a rich and diverse "vocabulary" that can impart rich and diverse meaning(s) and feeling(s) in a picture. Instead of chasing / following / pursuing "the light", they tend to embrace the light that is present at any given moment / location and use it to tell us something other than "about the light".

That said, tonight I am going to chase the light - I am going to picture the bark on the tree in my front yard after dark just in case someone requests that I send them a picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like after dark.

BTW, I'm curious - which picture of what the bark on the tree in my front yard looks like do you like (and why)?

man & nature # 86 ~ the shallow end of the gene pool

2 views of a dead flower • click to embiggenOne of the things, photography wise that has changed with the advent of digital picture making is the photography characteristic of DOF (depth of field).

Actually, to be more more precise, the laws of optics hasn't changed at all, it's the "normal" / "statement" magnification factor of dslrs relative to slrs that has changed. Given the same aperture, lets say f8, the amount of DOF that is rendered by that aperture is entirely dependent upon the magnification factor of your subject. DOF is entirely independent of lens or camera format used.

In other words, if you are picturing an object (at f8) with both a 35mm film camera and an 8×10 film camera and that object measures the same size (lets say 1/2 inch across) in the view finder and on the ground glass, the DOF for both camera formats will be be identical. The same is true for a dslr - if the the same object measures 1/2 inch across in the viewfinder, at f8 the DOF will be identical to the other camera formats.

But, if you change the subject magnification factor by, say, having the object occupy the same amount of space within the frame of each different format, the DOF (at that same f8) will be different on each camera format. As the magnification factor shrinks with each progressively smaller camera format (keeping the same view/crop factor) the DOF increases.

That said, and considering that the sensor size of a dslr is smaller than the frame size of an slr, not to mention that the sensor size of a digicam is smaller than both, given the same crop factor digital cameras do, in fact, render more DOF than a 35mm slr.

All of that said, one of the things that I miss with digital picturing is shallow DOF. Not so much at the tele end of things, but most certainly at the wide-angle and "normal" end of the lens spectrum.

Full frame dslr sensors, of course, have exactly the same DOF characteristics as a full frame 35mm film camera, but until the price of those things drop more inline with "consumer grade" dslrs, shallow w-a / normal lens DOF will be a thing of the past or, at least limited to those using the big guns.

ku # 548 ~ some ins and outs

More rime ice above the West Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenContinuing with our POD theme, we move on to the blank page / content.

But, before going there, I would be remiss if I didn't mention one critical factor, in fact, the most critical factor in obtaining good results - your monitor and its calibration.

Simply stated reasonable monitor calibration is a must but notice that I used the word "reasonable", not "perfect". That's because, at least on the Mac side of things, there is a way to achieve decent monitor calibration without having to own a calibration device. For those of you using a Mac, that procedure can be found in your System Preferences / Display settings. It's a fairly intuitive process and even if you don't get it exactly right it will still be a lot better than not doing it.

Important Caveat: Monitor calibration - with or without a calibration device - should be performed in a darkened environment as should all image editing. The monitor screen should have little or no ambient light striking it. That's the way the "big boys" do it.

Workstation • click to embiggen
My workstation is on a countertop installed in an alcove. The walls/ceiling in the alcove are painted a neutral 50% grey. My monitor and keyboard sit on a large black desktop blotter. The room lighting is on a dimmer switch set to very dim.

I am certain that most of you will not go to these lengths but here's the important thing. Try to calibrate in the same light conditions in which you will do your image editing. In other words, DON'T calibrate in a room flooded with daylight and then edit at night with tungsten light. Try your utmost to keep the room light constant both in intensity and color temperature. Think of it as the correct "white balance".

Now, on to the blank page.

I do all of my book design and layout, to include typography, in Photoshop. Photoshop's type tools are pretty sophisticated at this point. No, they are not as good as InDesign but they are more than up to the task of the requirements of photo book design wherein pictures, not typography, is the feature.

Pro power-user that I am, I use the full version of PS. I believe that PS Elements has type tools as well. If you do not have either of these programs, in order to work with a blank page you must have a page layout program that allows you to work with type and images together and that also allows you to output / save the results as a PDF - although that PDF will have to be opened / rasterized in an image editing program in order to create a hires (300dpi) jpeg for upload to the service provider.

Leather cover with cut out window / first inside page • click to embiggenIn any event, I start in PS with a 300 dpi (ppi), white background, RGB file that is sized to the page size of the book I am designing. Typically, for me, that is either a 12×12 inch or an 8×8 inch size file. Therefore, as an example, my blank page is a PS RGB file that is 8 in. x 8 in, 300 dpi, and has a white background.

Copyright / Statement spread • click to embiggenAt that point, the real business of design/layout begins and, IMO, the guiding principle from here on out is keep it simple.

The first question a good designer asks him/herself is, "what's the point of this design exercise?" In our case, the answer is a relatively simple one, "to showcase pictures". The pictures are the thing, NOT typographic virtuosity or graphics wizardry. That is why in my books:

1. pictures are always presented with a white surround (essentially the equivalent of matting a picture for presentation).

2. type/text is (almost) always black or a shade of grey.

3. type/text is (almost) always relatively small.

4. graphic elements - lines, boxes, etc. are always small and subtle.

In short, because pictures are the thing, I like to keep all of the other elements of a photo book simple. The result of doing so will most always be a "clean" and "elegant" look and feel. Nothing gets in the way of viewing the pictures. They are allowed to speak for themselves. There are no distractions.

Picture spread with image title page • click to embiggenA word to the wise regarding pictures presented with a white background. I know that there are probably more than a few out there who listen to picture framers' advice regarding the color of matting when it comes to framing your photographs. IMO, and quite frankly that of the rest of the Art world, there is only ONE color for matting and that is NONE, aka - white (or any number of subtle shades thereof).

The reason for this is simple - and goes back to your workstation environment - any color that you choose to surround your picture(s) with will greatly influence the eye's perception of the colors in those pictures - the stronger the color, the stronger the influence. Colored backgrounds in photo books wherein the pictures are intended to be presented as Art (or even art) is strictly for amateurs. The same can be said for printing pictures right out the edges of the page, aka - full bleed. The exception here is covers where full bleed is most often the rule rather than the exception.

All of that said, here are a few time-saving tips:

Make a master page file that has repetitive elements on it - things like page numbers (I don't use them), titles, captions, graphic elements and guides for image sizing placement.

I like to present all of my pictures at the same size and in the same place on each page. Once I have determined that size/placement by dragging a picture (holding down the shift key in order that the picture will be centered on the page) onto my master blank page and playing around with it using the transform tool, I drag guides to the edges of the image (View>Snap ON). Then I delete the picture layer and re-save the master file.

Type elements like titles, page numbers and captions can be saved in position in the master file by creating any of the elements on the master page using the type tool. Make a separate type layer for each element and position the element where you want it to be using the typeface and size you want them to be - actually type in a title / caption / page number. Once determined, save the master file leaving the type as editable type.

Once you have a master page file, all you need to do to make a new page is drag (shift key) an image file onto it and resize it to the guides you have set up. Then highlight any text with the type tool and enter the appropriate info - new title / caption / page number. Then save the file with a new name.

Then start again on that file - delete the image, drag a new one in, redo the text elements, and save again with a new name. Keep repeating the same procedure to create as many pages as you need. Working in this manner means that you will have only one working file open at a time. This may be very important if you have a limited amount of RAM.

Once you are done making pages, you can open them one at a time. Flatten them and save them as jpegs for upload to the service provider. With both Shutterfly and SharedInk I save the jpegs with the Adobe RGB (1998) color profile embedded. To be totally honest, I do NOT know how important the Abobe RGB (1998) color profile is to the results I obtain. I live in an Adobe RGB color space world - I shoot with that profile, I edit with that profile, and save all my files with that profile. If you live in an sRGB color space world (a smaller color space world), you might want to ask the appropriate customer support for advice on that.

For those of you working with a page layout / design program to make your book (such as InDesign, Quark, et al) you are going to have to save out your book as individual page pdfs. Then you will have to open them in PS (or some other image editing program) as a rasterized file at 300dpi in order to save them as jpegs for upload. To my knowledge, there are no POD photo book service providers who accept whole document pdf files or pdf files with vector type embedded in them.

I hope this short-ish how-to helps answer some questions. I am sure many of you will have more. Ask away.

ku # 547 ~ 2 good reason to get the hell out of Dodge

Rime ice on a ridgeline above the West Branch of the Au Sable • click to embiggenRe; POD "standard" response, issue # 2 - the relatively confusing / non-intuitive nature of POD service provider's book making software.

What follows is directed towards dealing with Shutterfly.com's photo book making proceedures. To a great degree it also applies to SharedInk.com's preceedures as well.

FYI, SharedInk is my high-quality (high quality = high price) POD photo book service provider of choice. Their Professional Photographer program (which is "hidden" on their website - you must send an email request for info about it to get in) is really quite superb in features, options, etc.

The reason I use these 2 providers is simple. The quality of the product they deliver is consistently and predictably right on the mark. Up to snuff. As promised. No excuses. No hassles. Satisfaction guaranteed. Period. End of discussion.

Because of that, I have applied to become a member of Shutterfly's Affiliate Program whereby if anyone here on The Landscapist opens a free Shutterfly account through the link from The Landscapist, I'll make a couple bucks here and there.

I am also doing so because I will really be putting an emphasis on photo book making / sales in the foreseeable future here on The Landscapist. With the advent of the digital photography "revolution", there has been an adjunct revolution in heretofore unavailable photo book making that has been made available to Joe/Jane-the-anybody that could change the way pictures are being presented, preserved, and disseminated.

IMO, it's time that many more "serious" picture makers get with the program and I am going to do my part in making that happen.

Now, on to issue # 2 - Let's discuss choosing a POD service provider. As far as I am concerned, there are 2 key issues to address:

1). IMO, the absolute first obstacle a service provider must get by is the ability in their book making software to bypass their page layout templates. Or, more correctly, they must offer a page layout template that is a blank page (NO text boxes, NO picture boxes) with full-bleed (image printing right out to the edges of the page) capabilities. If they don't offer such a template, get the hell out of Dodge as fast as you can.

Why? Because a blank page template puts you in complete control of the design and layout process. That includes everything on the page - image placement, image size, number of images, text, text placement, typefaces, type spacing / kerning, background color(s), background textures/effects, and/or any other facet of page design. You take control. I don't know about you but I wouldn't have it any other way.

2). Once past that hurdle, the next issue is color - is there a method to obtain good consistent color results? In my experience, the best method is NO method at the service provider level.

Consider Shutterfly - they have as a default setting in their software their own idea of "image enhancement" called VividPics. This may be an effective enhancement for the uninitiated, but for those who know what they are doing relative to image adjustments (color, contrast, hue/saturation, and all of the other Photoshop or Photoshop-like image processing things) before they upload their pictures to Shutterfly, VividPics is NOT what the doctor ordered.

Shutterfly, as an example, recognizes this situation and provides for manual removal of this "effect". Good, in fact, very good, for them. However, I can not speak for other service providers other than SharedInk which, as far I can tell with their PP program, offer no image enhancement effects.

That said, the point is this - understanding what, if anything, is going to happen to your image files after they are uploaded to a service provider for book printing, is absolutely critical to obtaining good reproduction of your pictures. Just as in the blank-page layout scenario, the best results should be obtained by leaving you in total control of what the image looks like. As Shutterfly states in their FAQ regarding VividPics:

...if you have already edited your pictures for color, brightness, or contrast in an application such as Adobe Photoshop, we recommend that you turn off the VividPics setting for the edited pictures ... Pictures printed with this setting turned off will be printed exactly as they were uploaded...

Get it? "Exactly as they were uploaded" is exactly what you want. CAVEAT Be prepared. Because, without a doubt, what that means is that the old computer adage applies with full vigor - garbage in, garbage out. Of course, the flip side of that is something like - looks-like-a-rose in, smells-like-a-rose out.

Neverthless, my same advice applies to this issue - if a service provider doesn't offer info about their color management / "enhancement" techniques (if needed, contact their customer support), or, if they do but do not offer an option to turn it off, get the hell out of Dodge as fast as you can.

Now of course, I fully realize that having total control over page layout /design and image quality may be a form of absolute trepidation and intimidation for many. Without a doubt, my 40 years of experience in the photo, design, and printing industries makes these tasks about as difficult as falling off a log for me, which, in turn, with over 60 years of living behind me, is also a pretty easy thing for me to do.

I'll try in my next post to give you some simple tips on what to do with that blank page.

ku # 545/46 ~ attitude adjustment

West Branch of the Au Sable River • click to embiggenYesterday's entry received 2 of the "standard" response types that I have heard / read almost every time the idea of POD photo books arises - 1) that of "quality" (which usually considered to be quite questionable) and 2) the relatively confusing / non-intuitive nature of POD service provider's book making software.

Let me address issue #1 with a bit of a story from my experience, starting with this from Jörg Colberg @ Conscientious:

I have been thinking about landscape photography a lot lately. The problem with that type of photography is that there appears to be a sweet spot that is sandwiched between extremely decorative - some would probably prefer the word "kitschy" - work (everything you see in "National Geographic") and extremely boring work (think Ansel Adams). Both extremes typically spend too much time on technical details since they both resulted from a history in which the "combination of sharp focus, tonal richness, and clarity of detail [...] came more and more to be the subject of the photograph [...] rather than a tool for artistic expression." (Janet Malcolm, from "East and West", an article I found in her 1980 collection of articles "Diane & Nikon")

My first job as an assistant in a commercial photo studio was obtained because of my color printing skills and experience. The studio's most important client was Superba Cravats - at that time, the oldest and one of the largest manufacturers of neckwear in the United States. The account was a money-making machine - the company had several lines of neckwear (including the Johnny Carson Division) and every one of those lines needed advertising photographs for every season's new products. As long as the earth continued to spin and revolve around the sun, new neckwear spun out of Superba Cravats like calender clockwork.

Looking back on my experience with that account, it is very obvious that it was one of the most influential learning experiences I ever had in understanding both color picture making / printing and the reproduction (on a printing press) thereof.

As soon as a shooting session commenced - they could last up to 2 weeks - I was banished to the darkroom where I processed the 5×7 inch color negative films and began grinding out 16×20 inch color "C" prints under the demanding and watchful eye of the account creative director. To say he was "particular" about color is an understatement of gargantuan proportions. Over and over again, I would have to make prints with minutely incremental color changes in order to demonstrate / prove to him that the color of a given necktie(s) could not be reproduced given the constraints / limitations of the color negative / C print process.

Those constraints / limitations were, of course, one of the very reasons we were going the negative / print route - once we arrived a satisfactory print, it was off to the retoucher for corrections and further adjustments. With airbrush and dyes, a retoucher could obtain a closer color match on some of the more difficult to match photographically (if not impossible) product colors.

Once that was finished, the prints were off to the mechanical artist for final ad prep and from there to the pre-press bureau for the separations needed (insert here all of the constraints / limitations of the conversion to CMYK color space) for submission to the various publications in which the ads were running. Where, once they were on press, a whole other set of printing-press, ink-on-paper set of limitations were introduced.

What you ended up with on the printed page was an approximation of the original photograph, closer in some colors than others and, with some colors, really not very close at all. And, if you went to the aggravating extreme of laying a necktie from the picture next to/on the printed page, well, at that point, if didn't put a gun to your head, you'd have to wonder what the point, not to mention all the expense, of all the print fine-tuning and retouching actually was.

What I learned from this experience, aside form all the really valuable technical stuff about color photography / print reproduction (most of which I put to use every time I work in Photoshop), was that the client seemed to have missed the point of what we were doing. For all of his preoccupation with color, he seemed to miss the fact that nobody was walking into a haberdashery, printed page in hand, and trying find a tie that look exactly like the one in the ad. If that were the case, they would have never sold a single piece of neckwear.

So, here's the point relative to POD books - if you are expecting the printed page to look exactly like your pictures, get over it. Even allowing for medium to medium conversion differences, if you are expecting the printed page to be mistaken for a photographic print, get over it. If you are expecting it to look anything like what you see on your carefully calibrated monitor, get over it.

It's just not going to happen. It's not only not going to happen with POD book printing, it's not going to happen on an 8-color high-end non-digital press. That's because it's a reproduction of a printed picture. You need to think of it in the same way you do about the difference between the real world and the reproduction of it you get when you make a picture of it - neither reproduction is the same as the "real" thing. Similar, yes - exact, no.

On that note, let me also point out that I, as a viewer of a photo book (of any kind of printing), have absolutely no idea of what the picture makers original prints look like. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Therefore, I am not comparing anything. I am looking at pictures, which, unless there is some obvious and visually obtrusive reproduction problems, I just look at them at face value.

There's also another way to think about it. A bit extreme perhaps, but instructive and valuable nevertheless. Again, from Jörg Colberg:

...you could show me a Diane Arbus photo reprinted in a newspaper and it would still be a fantastic photo. Maybe that would be a good criterion for What makes a great photo: If the photo still looks great if you print it in a newspaper it's a great photo.

So, IMO, you "quality" whiners just have to get over it. My experience with several POD photo book printers (Shutterfly in particular) is that, once you learn the in and outs of their particular system, they all (with blurb being the one exception that I know about) deliver pretty high level of what is known in the printing industry as commercially acceptable reproduction. In fact, the level of reproduction they deliver from an POD digital press is actually quite better than that generally obtainable from a standard press only a few years ago.

Therefore, if "quality" is your excuse, let me amend yesterday's proclamation to read:

"Bullshit! Get over it. Just suck it up and get it done."

And, to walk the walk, and not just talk the talk, I will design and print, at my expense, a standard 8×8 or 8.5×11 POD photo book of the work of one lucky Landscapist contestant who can convince me (money is NOT accepted) why I should do their book over all others.

Just click on the "Email Me" link in the right column and start seducing me.

FYI ~ 1 down, 2 to go

Decay / Vanitas ~ the POD book • click to embiggenThe Decay / Vanitas book is all designed and ready to go with the exception of my Artist Statement and a page of Notes and Information. I'll complete those tomorrow and, viola, it's ready to print.

FYI, I'm using Shutterfly and printing an 8×8 book. By sticking with the standard 20 pages and a photo cover, the cost is $29.99. I will order 2 copies and with 25% off of the 2nd book, my cost is $26.25 per book. I'll be offering them for $35, most likely from one of Shutterfly's personalized Pro Galleries where they handle everything - ordering, payment, and shipping.

In my experience with Shutterfly (after learning all the in and outs of their system), I am certain that the printed quality will be excellent - very accurate color reproduction, very good paper quality, and way more than acceptable cover and binding materials.

IMO, if you know what you are doing, Shutterfly delivers great results at a very reasonable price. Of course, it goes without saying that the if you know what you are doing part is very important.

That said, I will be very happy to help anyone who steps up and bites the bullet. Have question? Any question? Just ask and I'll share the answer here on The Landscapist so that everyone can come along for the ride.

man & nature # 85 ~ it's the real thing

6003 • click to embiggenThere have been a smattering of articles recently - on blogs, on online editions of magazines and newspapers, and even in actual print - that in one way or another are all basically touching upon the same topic/issue. That same topic has been on my mind for quite some time. I have mentioned it here on The Landscapist a number of times in the past and have, on occasion, even tried to do something about it but few seemed interested in my ideas.

However, the recent spate of articles on the subject have rekindled my interest in attempting, once again, to address the topic/issue - that topic issue/being the demise of the printed picture.

To be precise, I am writing about the printed photograph as Art or, for that matter, as art. And, by "printed" I meaning the printed page (in a book or periodical) as well as photographic prints (originals or reproductions such as posters, postcards, etc.). Consider this excerpt from this article:

...the color print has evolved from an expensive novelty into an affordable, nearly ubiquitous object. What used to take specialists many painstaking hours can now be done by machine in a matter of seconds; 30 cents now buys an accurate, glossy color .... As an object, the color print has finally been perfected. And yet, the 100th anniversary of Kahn's project isn't so much a triumphant moment as an elegiac one. Like the shepherds, the color print has nearly vanished. Today, you get some glossies sent out as holiday cards, and some lucky ones get matted and framed, but the vast majority of color photographs now taken - and there are countless millions of them - pass before us, just briefly, on a screen.

Some might ask if millions of pictures passing before us on a screen is not a good thing. Assuming that you can get by the effects of information overload (in this case, picture overload), there is something else that is very important to consider / understand about the screen/online picture viewing experience, even if you are selective and discriminating viewer of online pictures, what you see is not necessarily, in fact, most probably, what you get -

What you see online is (typically) not what you get when you see an actual photographic print ... In reality, what you get after seeing it online might not only look different (colours and contrast shifted, enhanced, etc.), it might look better, or it might look worse. ~ from Jörg Colberg's Conscientious blog

Now I, for one, am growing ever weary of only being able to see pictures online. Sure, sure, I go galleries in NYC whenever it is possible, but the visits are relatively few and far between. What I long for most is to be able to hold printed pictures (of one kind or another) in my hands and be able to possess them so that I can view at my discretion. And sure, sure, I do have an ever-expanding collection of photography books which does allow to indulge some of my picture viewing desires, but ...

Here's the thing - the good thing about online picture viewing is that you can discover a real treasure trove of "undiscovered" body-of-work gems. The bad thing is that so few of these body-of-works are available in any form whatsoever other than online.

Indeed, some offer prints for sale and I have been tempted but, to be frank, I only have so much wall space and much more important to me, it is, more often than not, the body of work I am most interested in or, at least, a sampling of a body of work. That, of course, would be known as a book and books by the "undiscovered" are as rare as hen's teeth.

So, to get to the point, why is it that in this age of readily available and reasonably priced printed books-on-demand, so few have them available? Why? I really want to know why?

Why can't I buy a book of, say, Mary Dennis' Nature/Discordant series, or, the previously mentioned Noon series by Tom Gallione? To name just a few of the Landscapist "regulars" whose work I would dearly enjoy having in book form.

And, make no doubt about it, I have asked myself the same question - why is it no one can by a book of my pictures? The answer is probably similar to that of many of yours in as much as I can come up with 2-3 reasons why that is so, but, I have finally come up with a response to my own answer (and by extension ...) -

"Bullshit! Just suck it up and get it done."

I want to make it clear that I will, within 3 weeks time, have 3 books of my pictures available for purchase: 1)ku - A Sense of Adirondack Place; 2)Picture Windows; and, 3)Decay/Vanitas. They will be priced to move - I am not interested in profit, I am interested in distribution. And, even if there are no sales, at least I can state, as I talk the talk, that I have actually walked the walk.

Not that I don't already have about a dozen POD books of my own pictures hanging around the house. Books that have seen by many and used to show clients and such. But, I have never considered them quite ready for ... wait ... what's that I hear?

"Bullshit! Just suck it up and get it done."

I also want to make it clear that my previous invitation / offer still stands.

Here I am. You know how to reach me. What help can I offer to you to "get it done"?