2 youtube items of interest have been brought to my attention of late - my thanks to Sean McCormick and Paul LaBarbera.

Regarding the youtube piece about art, Creature Comforts USA- Art, Sean wrote: "The question has been answered. You can shut your blog down now -- nothing left to discuss." BTW, this piece is from the same folks that brought us the Wallace & Gromit movies - some of my all-time favorites. After you watch the art piece, you might want to watch the other video that is titled just "Creature Comforts" (no sub-subject) - subtly funny and somewhat melancholy look at animal life in a zoo.

Regarding the PS "tutorial", You suck at Photoshop, Paul wrote: "I found this YouTube series that is supposed to be a tutorial to learn how to use Photoshop. Entitled ”You Suck at Photoshop” and variations of that. It is funny, crazy, but actually is a great lesson, too. Enjoy all 8 lessons that are linked to this one .... Laughed my ass off! (I love this guy)" - this one doesn't seem funny at first, that is until the instructor suggests that when choosing a photo to work on "maybe you've got a photo of the Vanagon that your wife and her friend from high school spend Friday nights in" (which he just happens to have) as a place to start - 1 part PS tutorial, 4 parts relationship angst.

Sink and sun • click to embiggenYesterday, I mentioned the notion of light itself as a compositional element. Here's another picture with light as a compositional element to look at.

One of the problems using light in this manner is the extreme dynamic range of the light itself. In this scene the range was so great that it took 3 separate exposures in order to record the highlight and shadow detail. In Photoshop, I used the lightest exposure (for maximum shadow detail) as my base layer and then proceeded to add bits and pieces of varying exposure from the other 2 frames to achieve the desired "full dynamic range" result.

Why not just merge to HDR? Because, it does "its thing" (a one size fits all and, IMO, somewhat weird tonal compression) and I like doing my thing by hand.

In any event, it's time to get out the trusty old Nikon, load it up with color negative film and do a direct comparison test - digital vs. color negative capture of the same scene. I'll keep you posted.

Cantaloupe with sunlight • click to embiggenYesterday, after waiting for almost an hour at the scene of what is now known as the lunch break incident for the State Police to show up and make an accident report, I walked home to eat my lunch.

In the kitchen, I found the subject of that morning's decay picturing right where I left it but it was now bathed in some streaks of direct sunlight. I liked what I saw so I pictured it again. What I like about the afternoon redux is that the light itself, independent of the quality of the light, becomes a compositional element. I also like, by the manner in which I divided the picture along a diagonal line, that a jittery unease is created by the competing areas of soft mellow tones and colors and that of the contrast-y tones and more vibrant colors.

I mention this stuff because this manner of seeing and picturing stands in stark contrast to that of my early commercial still life heyday during which the operative paradigm was a very soft single light source (no "fill" lights allowed) applied with a strong directional angle.
The Hawken, one of my "Marcos" • click to embiggenA technique that yielded a kind of "soft" high contrast with deep but detailed shadows and delicate detailed highlights - a very "romantic" style of light that mimiced that of early Flemish still life painters.

In the era before the digital darkroom, the challenge of this technique was to achieve this look using inherently contrast-y Ektachrome transparency film which had, and still does, in difficult contrast situations, a tendency to blow out highlights and block up shadows. This was difficult in the extreme to achieve in a manner that enabled a printer (printing press printer) to put that range of tone and detail on the printed page.

The acknowledged master of the technique at that time and the photog in whose photo-technique image I fashioned myself was Phil Marco. A measure of his success in the 70s (he still at it today) was his 49 ft. yacht which was aptly named "Ektachrome". Eventually, I was both pleased and delighted to have my still life work used interchangeably with his by select group of clients.

However, I never got a yacht. I've had to settle for 4 canoes.

Yesterday I'm out and about, running a few errands and my last stop was at the Hometown Deli to pick up an assorted italian sub with l&t, provolone cheese, NO onions, light on the mayo and italian dressing.

I'm standing at the counter and there's a really loud thump/crash. My first thought, since it's Spring, was "there goes another big lump of snow/ice letting go from the roof." However, that thought was interrupted by loud exclamations of "Oh my god, they hit your car." Hustling outside and sure enough, there was my car pushed about 6 feet forward from where it had been parked, knocking over a cedar post in the process.

There were 2 women yelling and pointing down the road, "there he goes". The SUV was far enough away that we could not read the plate number but we got a good description so it was into the deli and a call to the State Police - we have no village police. In the deli, the proprietor blurted out, "that guy was stinking drunk". And sure enough, when the SP caught the guy - 20 miles way in another village - he was, in fact, very stinking drunk.

Eventually, I went home and ate my assorted italian sub with l&t, provolone cheese, NO onions, light on the mayo and italian dressing.

<Cantaloupe & scallions • click to embiggenHere's a question for you all - has anyone recently gone out on a limb, photography-wise? By that I mean, has anyone tried something new lately? You know, tried to get outside of your personal "box"?

I am fairly certain that most of you were/are drawn to The Landscapist because its focus has been (primarily) on landscape photography of one sort or another. So, my assumption is that most of you practice one form or another of landscape photography. That's not too much of a stretch, right? So, that said, has anyone tried their shutter finger with, say, still life or portrait photography, for instance? Or, maybe more to the point, have you ever felt the need or even the slightest inclination to try something "new".

I'm curious because I am considering something "new", which is actually something old mixed with something new - a return to film - most likely 120 color negative film, square format, of course. Film is the "old", digital darkroom is the "new". This possibility is on my radar as a result of my recent 8×10 color negative scanning. The unsurpassed dynamic range and smooth tonality of color negative is singing its siren song loud and clear. Or, should I say, soft and sensuous.

The trouble I am having with this is with the fact that I am, by no means, done with my Adirondack ku which is 100% digital capture. I don't dare start doing ku with color negative - the difference in picture characteristics would be far too great to mix together in a single body of work. Nope, I can't go there.

I am also fairly certain that I have neither the time nor the energy to strike out on something completely new and different. At least, not until ku appears to have an end in sight. There is the possibility of swithching from digital to film with my decay series. I still still have all of the decayed stuff hanging around and I could recreate my work to date without too much effort.

But, I just don't know how to scratch this new itch without over extending myself, photograph-wise. Maybe I should just figure out how I am going to do it, camera-wise and then just see what develops.

PS my thoughts, camera-wise, are to use my 120 6×7 roll film holder with one of my 4×5 cameras and my 90mm Super Angulon lens in order to have the convenience of roll film and the deliberative picturing process of a view camera.

Spring # 3 • click to embiggenJust to lighten the mood a bit, here's another glimpse Spring.

While I was busy absorbing the delicate colors of the sea of emerging buds, the wife spied some delicate lace-like ice on the small stream. But, one of the most intense signs of Spring is the emergence of those signature Adirondack dark tannic-brown streams. They're still very cold but, nevertheless, a sure sign of warmer times to come.

It finally seems that Spring has come in earnest.

Evening rain • click to embiggenFine Art photographers and commercial photographers have a number of things in common, not the least of which could be labeled their individual visual "style".

In the Art world, most could immediately recognize an "Adams", a "Burtynski, or a "Hobson" (the Cinemascape Hobson, not the ku Hobson). The same is true in the commercial photography world. In my commercial heyday, most everyone in the biz could immediately recognize a "Marco", a "Meisel", or an "Avedon". In either field, individual photographers have/had developed individual visual "styles" that set them apart from the crowd. By "setting themselves apart from the crowd", photo-practitioners from either persuasion are able to command high fees (aka rewards) for their work. The reason for this is simple, especially in the commercial field.

In the field of advertising, the best way to sell a product is to establish an identity for that product that sets it apart from the crowd. An identity that is immediately recognizable and, of course, favorably viewed by its potential customers. This is part and parcel of establishing a "brand" and one of the more important elements in establishing a brand is creating a consistent and attention getting visual look and style in your advertising.

One of the most memorable examples of this was from a European liqueur. They started an ad campaign with a simple photograph of a hand holding a glass of the liqueur and their logo. Each successive ad had a new picture of a hand holding a glass of their liqueur - different hand, different glass, but both in approximately the same configuration as the very first ad. Eventually, the logo was dropped and the ads featured only a photograph of a hand holding a glass of their liqueur. The logo-less ads ran very successfully for years.

Obviously, the visually consist photography in the aforementioned ad campaign played a big part in establishing an immediately recognizable visual identity for the client and their product. There is absolutely nothing rocket-science like about this. You don't have to be amongst the best and the brightest to understand this. It is advertising /branding 101.

And, most certainly, you can bet your bottom dollar on the fact that nothing about the liqueur campaign was done on the cheap. But, to certain extent, that's somewhat irrelevant to creating successful branding. What is relevant is that a photographer who could deliver a consistent and consistently identifiable visual look was hired to do so.

Now, TourPro, in his response to my scumbag entry of yesterday, states that "Everyone I know will tell you I hate to see resources wasted. Especially cash. In other words, I’m cheap ..." and ... "I’ll bet you’re tired of paying huge professional photographer fees and expenses only to get a dozen usable photos."

From this "reasoning", TourPro deduces that the only solution to "paying huge professional photographer fees" is to search out photography for free. This is specious reasoning at best, downright dumb at worst.

First and foremost, if anyone thinks that they can assemble of collection of photographs of vastly different quality and visual styles - paid for or not - and from that develop really effective visual identity, they are far out on an advertising limb.

Second, if anyone thinks that "going cheap" is the only solution to high-priced photography fees, they are obviously lacking in the professional skills of identifying, fostering and cultivating the professional resources they need to get the job done right.

There are plenty of photographers who can deliver the goods and who will provide services for fees that are well below "huge". They are willing to negotiate hard-cash fees that are palatable to all concerned in exchange for a whole host of other "rewards". Just to name a few - consistent and dependable work, working with a product they love, community service, pride and recognition, a challenge, and, just for the heck of it, let's throw in - because the account is "fun" to work on.

It seems that TourPro, in his "new business model" zest for "free", has lost sight (assuming that TourPro ever had it) of the value of developing ongoing relationships with the resources that it takes to create really effective advertising and branding. If the only resource TourPro values is "cash" and that spending that cash on photography that helps to establish a highly effective brand for his product is a "waste", then maybe he really does need to lose his job and beg on street corners, because he's dispensing really bad advice.

Or, maybe TourPro might want to buy me a beer and listen to the story of how an ad agency lost one of their most valued tourism clients not once, but twice by adopting that same "going cheap" way of doing business.

After the sun goes down • click to embiggenFYI for those of you linking from adirondackbasecamp.com - you may want to read today's ... what you pay for entry as well.

On my recent entry, living large in the Adirondacks, Sean wrote : "Our last economic development officer kept suggesting that I should "donate" images to her very well funded (using my tax dollars) office ... I told her I would be thrilled to just as soon as my much anticipated "donation" of a 1Ds MkIII arrived from Canon. I'm still waiting for it."

It's hard to criticize too severely (but not without some vigor) someone for trying to get something for nothing while stating so in a forthright manner - that seems to be part of human nature - but when they do it with a slight-of-hand photo-rights grab photo contest they have stepped over the line. At that point they are nothing more or less than scam artists.

Copyright and use-right issues can be an expensive and tricky business when dealing with most professional photographers and with a substantial number of informed amateurs. Corporations and professional organizations, to include tourism organizations, are acutely aware of this. Rights-grab photo contests are their way of avoiding the issue.

What easier way to get pictures for nothing than to prey on and take advantage of the uniformed.

Although, greater legal minds than mine will have to grapple with the legality of this practice. What I do know is that copyright law states that:

§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership

(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

Whether a mouse click check mark on an online Terms & Agreement statement qualifies as "in writing" and "signed by the owner of the rights conveyed", is probably open to question. Maybe it's legal, maybe not. I don't know, but, there's "legal" and then there's "ethical".

Some major corporations - HP and Adobe amongst them - have been caught with their hand in this cookie jar and been roundly castigated for it. For the most part, their response has been to issue a 'humble' mea coupa, then blame the lawyers, and then to promise to never do it again. There is little doubt that they didn't know exactly what they were doing. The only thing they didn't know was the amount of outrage that they would encounter.

That said, the practice is not about to go away any time soon. Sad to say, a tourism organization in the Adirondacks - The Adirondack Regional Tourism Council - has been conducting an ongoing photo contest with exactly the same MO. In order to merely submit a picture to the "contest", a person must agree to terms and conditions that state (in part):

... I agree that all photographs submitted shall become the property of The Adirondack Regional Tourism Council (ARTC). ARTC reserves the non-exclusive right to use any photograph(s) in publications or for promotional purposes...

In the pre-rights grab past, no such blanket conditions existed just to enter a photo contest. Winners were often required to grant use rights to the contest sponsor for promotional use relative to the contest but rarely, if ever, to the sponsor for use in their business advertising. It should also be noted that, even in the era of the rights-grab, there are still many photo contest sponsors who do not practice such scam-artist grabs. More power to them.

As an example, from the T&C of a photo contest sponsored by Nikon:

The organizer reserves the permanent nonexclusive right to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, and show on screen any winning photograph on Web sites, photo exhibitions, tradeshows, or any other media which is under the management of the organizer for the purpose of promoting the contest .... A separate agreement will need to be reached should the organizer, its subsidiaries or affiliates wish to publish a submitted photograph for purposes other than the promotion of the contest (my emphasis).

As for the people at the ARTC and those who convinced them to engage in rights-grab activities under the guise of a photo contest, I hope they all lose their jobs and have to beg on street corners. And, as long as I'm hoping for the best, I hope they all lose their jobs and have to beg on street corners for rest of their lives. Seriously. Hell, while I'm at it, I hope they're all young so that the rest of their lives is a really, really long time.

Any questions about where I stand on this issue?