Old Soldiers and Cellphone Cameras

Boredom can sometimes be a wonderful--a great source of inspiration at least. While playing tonight at a wedding reception in Columbus, Georgia at the National Infantry Museum, I had a few minutes to kill and walked around looking at the uniforms on mannequins in glass cases. One of them really caught my eye and I had to try a photo with the camera on my iPhone. The result was pretty cool, almost lifelike. You just don't need a great camera to take a great photo.Just a little dramatic light and an eye for composition.

Taking the theme just a bit further, I tried running the image through PhotoToaster, an app I've had for a while from East Coast Pixels. It really is a healthy slice of Photoshop for the iPhone.From basic exposure and levels to cool presets imulating cross processing, film grain, texturizing, HDR, and other effects, this nifty app lets you put a very polished look on the images you've captured with your phone.

For just a few bucks, this app is a winner. The utilties and effects are quite convincing and it also gives you multiple options for saving your processed images back to your phone, to an email, or even Flickr or Facebook.

In Living Color - One for the Veterans

I had a unique opportunity and great honor recently to restore and colorize a photograph for a World War II veteran. The client brought me a large black and white print of the U.S.S. Nautilus (SS-168), a WWII navy submarine that saw significant action in the Pacific Theater, including the battle of Midway Island and insertion of U.S. troops on Makin Atoll. I delivered the framed print yesterday, just in time for the client to display the photo at a local Veteran’s Day celebration.

From a Photoshop standpoint, this was one of the most complicated projects I have undertaken, and one that brings some moral dilemmas.  Is this a historical document that shouldn’t be altered? Should I fix water spots and other blemishes? I finally decided that since I was essentially making fiction out of reality, I shouldn’t cower at cloning out existing pixels.

The photo has a lot to be colorized—grass, palm trees, mountains, and clouds—in addition to an almost black submarine in the original photo. The submarine was obviously grey and the sky was blue. Otherwise, there was nothing to tell me the color of anything. So this project was truly an exercise in discovering a plausible version of reality.

The other tremendous challenge was the appearance of a strong moire pattern when I scanned the document. Obviously, the print was made from an previously published photo, and the resulting banding was beyond distracting.  It virtually made the print unusable, scuttling the entire project. I tried three different scanners and every moire removal technique I could find. I was finally able to duplicate the image by taking a very high resolution photograph and then stretching the image in Photoshop to correctly

It was a tremendous thrill to see the client’s face when I unveiled the finished project for him to see. It was a small contribution to one of the many veterans who gave so much.

The London Olympics

Alas, the London Olympics begin today and I never got a call from any of the big sports networks or publications to cover the event. It's a shame, because sports photography can be fun. And frustrating. With an average "keeper" rate of something like one in twenty or worse, it can also be tough on the ego. Nonetheless, I'll be watching this year's Olympics from across the pond and in front of the television. But I will also be on the lookout for the countless great photographs that will appear on the internet and in print.

One of my favorite photographic styles is the sports portrait. So in celebration of the London games, here's a couple of my recent portraits of a great pole vaulter.

The Secret of My Success

Last Friday, President Barack Obama made the following statement while speaking in Virginia:

"If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Did the federal government make your small business a success? Or did you?

As the owner of a small photography business, I was shocked and mortified that any elected official in the United States of America would make such a grossly ignorant, condescending statement. “I didn’t build my business?”  “Somebody else made that happen?” For these words to have been uttered by the president during an election year is stunning. To suggest that small businesses, the backbone of the U.S. economy, are successful only because of the federal government is insulting and inexcusable. If there was any doubt that the president is a socialist, those thoughts have been erased.

According to the Small Business Administration, firms with less than 20 employees account for 90 percent of U.S. companies and 97 percent of job growth. Small businesses hire almost half of the highly skilled workers (think engineers, computer programmers, etc.) and generate 13 times the patents per employee than large firms. And it’s no surprise that in a 2012 National Federation of Independent Business survey, the top three issues given as “the single most important problem for small businesses” were 1) poor sales (22%), 2) government regulations and red tape (21%), and 3) taxes (21%).

I’m proud of the small successes I’ve achieved. I got where I am because friends saw talent in me and encouraged me. I’ve found success because of initiative, innovation, and creativity. As far as I’m concerned, I’ve enjoyed success in spite of the federal government.

President Obama’s words are particularly insulting to me because of what I perceive as his hypocrisy. As best I can tell from examining his work history, Obama’s only private employment during his adult life was as a civil rights attorney in Chicago. He’s never manufactured a product (aside from his book). He’s never risked his own capital on a business venture. He’s never had to staff a company. He’s never created a private job. But he seeks through unabashed class warfare, to vilify those who have.

And for the record, despite President Obama’s misconceptions, the Internet was created by the U.S. Department of Defense, purely for military purposes. Not for job creation. And not by Al Gore.

North Captiva Lightning

This Fourth of July found me on North Captiva Island again. It was my third visit to this secluded private island getaway. I had hoped that there would be professional fireworks close enough to see--and photograph--either over the island or the ocean. While the conventional fireworks never materialized, those from God provided plenty to shoot. Within a hour of sundown, a thunderstorm crossed out of the Everglades out and over the Gulf of Mexico.

Photographing lightning during the day is a matter of skill, reflexes, and largely luck. Using a few easy techniques for night photography elinimates a lot of the need for luck, leaving only a little skill.
To take great night lighting photos, you'll need the following:

1. A good thunderstorm (Hey, a little luck will always be needed)
2. A tripod
3. A shutter release cable
4. A DSLR/SLR with a "bulb" shutter speed setting.

By using the bulb setting and the right combination of aperture and focal length, you can set up a reasonably well focused composition where varied distances of lighting strikes will be reasonable sharp. If you really want to get technical when selecting a focal length, spend some time studying "hyperfocal distance". Unfortunately, reading the settings on the barrel of  a lens and making fine adjustments in the dark is not easy, if not impossible. For me, a little dead reckoning, some trail and error, and a little dumb luck paid off.

My greatest challenge in capturing this image was the full moon over my left shoulder. With a fairly long time between strikes as the storm dissipated out over the ocean, my shutter was open for a pretty long time.This particular shot was 65 seconds at f5. While the distance of the lightning called for a fairly wide open apeture, the moonlight on the clouds caused a very overexposed image. Again, a bit of trail and error fixed the problem. And as an added bonus, the moonlight helped make a nice composition out of the foliage near the beach in the foreground.

This technique works best with minimal light polution, so the shooting location on an isolated island was ideal. If all else fails, it's an excellent excuse to seek a secluded location while waiting for the right thunderstorm to come your way.

New Orleans Streetcars

New Orleans is a melting pot of cultures that brings an exotic blend of music, food, architecture, and voyeurism. As a musician, I’m captivated by the variety of tremendous music, from street performers to jazz greats. And a great meal is seldom more than a few steps away. But a hidden gem for me is the streetcars, particularly the St. Charles line.  So on a recent trip, I couldn’t help but take a few images of these museums that continuously move people through the city.

The St. Charles line dates back to 1835, when the streetcars were pulled by mules. At some point, the cars were briefly pulled by steam locomotives, but this practice was ended after female passengers complained of soot ruining clothing. In 1884, the 6.5 mile line was converted so that the cars would run on electricity. Amazingly, the current St. Charles line streetcars were built in 1923. Simply put, these cars are working museums on wheels. Just a much as a second-line band, these streetcars are a living pulse of New Orleans.

Time for Shock

So I’m listening to the radio today while driving to the airport. What’s the hot topic? Breastfeeding moms. And they are calling in droves, either angered or inspired by the sudden flurry of attention paid to one of man’s, and lucky babies’, favorite things. Once I reach the airport, I pop in a newsstand to pick up something to read on the plane. And there it is. I guess I should say there they are. I meant the mom and the kid. Seriously.

I’m not in any way opposed to breastfeeding. Actually quite the opposite—I think it’s pretty cool. What better way to feed a baby than something natural. And I’m not freaked out by moms breastfeeding in public. But I’ll have to admit, I’m a bit shocked by the sight of a child old enough to ask for dinner—or possibly enter kindergarten— standing at his mother’s side, latched on. And that shock was purely by design.

Time magazine was clearly looking to make a big splash with their latest cover. And they hit the mark. According to accompanying articles, the original plan was for a classic shot of a mom and infant. But Time needed something with more pop. And Martin Schoeller delivered with an image that grabs your attention, tells a story, and elicits immediate emotion.

A stroll through Schoeller’s website leaves no doubt that he was ideal for the job. Dramatic, often humorous portraits are his thing. And many of them feature kids in awkward situations. So there’s little doubt that the image, which borrows a bit from Madonna with child, would push some buttons. Whether it will keep Time in the limelight long enough to up magazine sales is the real question. But for now, it’s nice to see a photographer deliver a though provoking image in a print magazine.  

Understanding Thomas Kinkade

Thomas Kinkade died last week. I was very surprised to hear that he was only 54. I certainly knew of him and his galleries, but never had any great appreciation of or even familiarity with his work. After reading a few articles in the mainstream media about his life and death, I became increasingly intrigued. I dug into his gallery websites to see his body of work and poured through the dearth of articles by art critics, who almost universally vilified his paintings. I was left with two overriding questions—was Kinkade a better marketer or painter? And does it matter?

Before his death, Kinkade declared himself "America's most-collected living artist". Humble, eh? Supposedly, one out of every twenty homes in America has a Kinkade painting or print. Through mail orders and hundreds of franchised galleries, Kinkade sold paintings, prints, throw blankets, coffee mugs, calendars, and various other “collectables”. He even had a book ghost-written about one of his idyllic villages, which he later had made into a movie.

While perusing his works online, it became obvious to me that his painting style evolved—and for my tastes not for the better. Oddly, he painted from 1984 to 1990 under the name Robert Girrard, presumably to allow him to experiment with French impressionism. According to his website, it allowed him to use more colors. I'm not sure why "Thomas Kinkade" couldn't experiment at that point with color. Some of these paintings are quite good, lacking the commercial feel of his modern work. Apparently Kinkade thinks so, too. In the Girrard section of his website, Kinkade’s website claims, “The beauty of these paintings can be compared to the likes of Monet and Van Gogh.” Once again, at least he's humble.

And then there’s the light. At some point, Kinkade developed a style of infusing every painting with a trademark “light”—literally. He trademarked “Painter of Light”, as if he were the first and only artist to discover and use light in a composition. His saccharine paintings of cozy cottages, chapels, and creeks set amid a perpetual pink and purple spring are as typecast as William Shatner. Each comes with an inner glow—the light—that seems to come from everywhere and nowhere. Like several critics have observed, there is seemingly a large brushfire behind every cottage or chapel.

For me, the incongruity of art versus income is captivating. For Kinkade, perhaps it was consuming. According to his brother, he had an alcohol problem and had started drinking again prior to his death, in part, because of the impact art critics had on him. But did critics vilify his work because it was schlock, or because of his brazen commercialism? Or both? We romantically think of artists as starving eccentric geniuses who denied themselves while searching to master their medium. Many of history’s great artists, from Michelangelo on, had patrons. Michelangelo, like Kinkade, was a very wealthy man. But the mystique that society places on a Monet or Van Gogh vanishes once prints with custom framing appear online.

A few minutes of browsing through Thomas Kinkade’s website reveal the level of kitsch to which his work had ascended, or descend. The same critics who have castigated his work for years can’t like the litany of Disney, Gone With the Wind (complete with a hidden Prissy and Mammy and Atlanta apparently burning in the background), and NASCAR series featured for sale. Time will tell if the value that millions have placed in Kinkade’s work was warranted. One Kinkade print or painting in every twenty homes in hardly a niche. Of his own work, Kinkade said, “There's been million-seller books and million-seller CDs. But there hasn't been, until now, million-seller art. We have found a way to bring to millions of people, an art that they can understand.” That speaks volumes about the artist and his customers.

Chances are good that Kinkade’s work will never appear in any major museums. But how many “artists” would trade their souls to have his level of commercial success? That question defines for me the work of Thomas Kinkade.

Digging in the Archives

Took some time tonight to dig through some unprocessed images looking for an undiscovered gem. This shot came from several dozen images I took at Church Falls in Brevard, North Carolina. The post processing on this image was done with Alien Skin's Exposure 2, in particular, a Tri-MAX 400 emulation. You be the judge.

Bugs and Buds Don't Inspire... Yet

I recently had a graduate student interview me for a leadership class project. He asked me what I get inspiration from. From the standpoint of photography, the answer is always the works of my peers who generate incredible work. My eye is always drawn to edgy material, the darker and more intriging the better. Rarely, if ever, do photos of bugs or flowers inspire me. But strangely, they are the Subarus of the photography world. No one thinks they are sexy or even that fun, but you see them everywhere. I've had a camera in my hand a lot recently, mostly doing commercial work. I don't think this shot would inpire anyone, not even Georgia O'Keefe. But I do like the colors and it was a heck of a difficult shot to capture handheld with the wind blowing. For those of you who care about the specifics... 1/1000 at f2.8 with a 105mm lens. For those who care about bugs, I think it's a monarch butterfly catapiller. At least Spring is almost here. I'm hoping for some inspiration there.

Superbowl Ads

Superbowl XLVI (that’s forty-six, I think) is tomorrow. The Giants and Patriots will vie for NFL’s national championship. But the game within the game is the contest for the champions of the imagination. With an estimated 116 million viewers watching, the “one percent” of corporate America will fork out $3.5 million, about three cents per viewer, for a chance to dominate Monday morning conversations. Chances are good that a talking dog or what the GoDaddy actress was wearing will get more conversation than what happened between the commercials.

Superbowl commercials haven’t always been a big deal. Prior to the early 1980’s, the commercials airing during the game were just ordinary spots. The Mean Joe Green Coca-Cola spot, which continually appears on top ten lists, had been airing since the previous October. But one ad, and my all-time favorite Superbowl spot, changed the way Superbowl advertising was viewed forever.

In 1982, the ad agency of Chiat/Day began peddling a concept ad to numerous clients, including Apple. All turned them down. But in 1983, Steve Jobs saw the concept and was immediately sold. The visionary Jobs saw the ad as an opportunity to announce the coming of the Macintosh computer. Chiat/Day hired Ridley Scott, who had recently directed Alien and Blade Runner, to film the ad. It cost an unbelieveable $900,000 to film.



The ad features a room full of brainwashed skinheads watching a screen and listening to a Big Brotherish voice decrying “information purification directives.” Their savior is a lone female who runs into the theatre and throws a hammer into the screen just before she is captured by police. The narrator, who is first heard just eight seconds before the end of the spot, proclaims, “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like ’1984.”

When Apple’s board of directors saw the ad, they threatened to fire Chiat/Day and demanded that the spot not be aired. Not a single board member liked the spot-- they just did not understand it. But Jobs and Wozniak believed in the ad and paid for its costs out of their own pockets. Strangely, for all of the brilliance and hype, the spot only aired once, never seen in that form on television again. But in the advertising work, it’s considered legend. And it’s still seen on the Internet today.

In strange irony, from the standpoint of PC sales, IBM is a shell of what it was in 1984. While Macintosh computers have never really captured a significant amount of market share outside of “creatives” and loyal followers, its iPhones and iPads are a phenomenal success. As for Chiat/Day, the company merged with TBWA in 1995 and continues to represent Apple.

Headshot

Georgia has quite a few silly laws. For instance, it’s illegal to curse in front of a corpse in a funeral home, change the clothes on a storefront mannequin without shades on the window, house a donkey in a bathtub, carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket, or own a sex toy. Oddly, members of the general assembly cannot be written a speeding ticket while in session. Routinely, tax dollars are wasted for the general assembly to introduce and argue even sillier new legislation. The latest installment of frivolous bills comes complements of Representative Pam Dickerson (D) of Conyers, Georgia. Dickerson’s HB 680 would make it a misdemeanor to photoshop the head or face of someone onto a nude or lewd body and publish the photo to the Internet.

First of all, let’s be clear. If this bill had been introduced prior to 2008, Sarah Palin would have at least twelve of her fifteen minutes of fame left. But in predictable fashion, the Internet has been flooded with images of Representative Dickerson’s head pasted on every nude image imaginable. There’s a Facebook page encouraging photoshoppers to post their own Dickerson creations. And this week, Conan O’Brian got into the act with his own collection of very creatively photoshopped images of celebrities.

It’s been a busy time for Photoshop lately. In December, North Koreans caught the wrath of editors across the globe for photoshopping an image of Kim Ill Jung’s funeral procession. But what prompted Rep. Dickerson to drop this bill in December is a mystery. Perhaps she’s tired of seeing Palin in the red, white, and blue bikini. Should it make it out of committee, which is unlikely, it has little chance of seeing a vote. But for now, Dickerson has created her own Internet sensation, as HB 680 has become the laughing stock of the world.

And for the record, should HB 680 pass, I did not create this Sarah Palin photo. I merely posted it here for editorial purposes. Seriously.

The Writing on the Wall

“When I think back
On all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder
I can think at all
And though my lack of education
Hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall”

In case you were living in a cave or completely missed the 1970s, those lyrics belong to Paul Simon—Mama, Don’t Take My Kodachrome Away. Kodachrome was discontinued in 2009. Just two years later, the writing may be on the wall for this photography giant. Kodak is apparently days away from filing for bankruptcy.

There is little doubt that George Eastman made photography what it is today. When Kodak’s founder set out to create a dry plate process for photography, meaning that photography plates could be made ahead of time instead of right before a photo was taken, this high-school dropout endeavored to make photography easier. And when he developed flexible rolled film emulsions to replace glass plates, professionals balked at the innovation. He realized that to be successful, he had to take his film to the masses. "The idea gradually dawned on me," Eastman said, "that what we were doing was not merely making dry plates, but that we were starting out to make photography an everyday affair… to make the camera as convenient as the pencil."

Kodak—George Eastman made up the name because he liked the letter “K”—went on to put cameras in the hands of virtually everyone and create the concept of the snapshot. Kodak ads touted the idea of capturing family happenings, making nostalgia by easily photographing moments. The first Kodak camera was manufactured in 1888. It was fixed focus and held 100 exposures. The Brownie was released in 1900. In 1935, Kodachrome was introduced. Tri-X, the classic fast black and white film was released in 1940. And how ironic is it that in 1970, an engineer working for Kodak invented the digital camera.

The decline of Kodak likely started with the emergence of Fuji. Velvia cut into the Kodachrome market. Polaroid took a sizeable chunk, too. But Kodak’s Waterloo was the failure to consistently embrace digital technology. Despite leading in digital sales around the year 2000, Kodak could never translate the success of film into digital success. At one point, the company supposedly lost $60 for every digital camera it sold. In 2009, the company announced it would end the sales of Kodachrome. Noted National Geographic photographer Steve McCurry famously shot the last roll of Kodachrome produced in 2010 and it was processed by Dwayne’s Photo in Kansas. In December of 2010, the S&P500 dropped Kodak. By the summer of 2011, Kodak stock had dropped to $.54 a share. The company is currently trying to sell off a large collection of patents to generate enough cash to keep afloat while considering bankruptcy options.

Faced with a debilitating spinal condition, George Eastman died by his own hand in 1932 at the age of 77. It could be said that by failing to capitalize on digital imaging, his company did much the same.

“Kodachrome
You give us those nice bright colors
You give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away” – Paul Simon