Friday, January 29, 2010

The Professional Photography Forum



"Where pros can talk with pros - keepin' it real since 2009."

On to more positive things. As a result of all this hoo-haa, I was approached by a member of the Professional Photography Forum, and joined up after taking a look.

Here's what got me to join in:

A fresh start

by admin on Aug.17, 2009, under Uncategorized

Forums are a dime a dozen; good forums are few and far between; good photography-based forums are even more rare. Even of those that offer some value, none quite offer the right mix for a working pro (or even an aspiring pro) who doesn’t feel like dropping hundreds on a forum before they even see the contents, or whom doesn’t feel like wading through a tidal wave of dross in order to find a single nugget of value.

Fed up with the current state of the internet with regard to online sharing of information amongst photographic professionals, we have decided to start fresh – create a new forum where sharing is to be rewarded with further sharing by others and honest (which doesn’t always mean complementary) critique and/or discussion. A forum where immature sniping will be moderated and condescension banned, and where mutual respect and a common desire to raise our profession will rule.

So welcome – we are looking forward to having you join the discussion.


It's a small group and a great idea- I'd welcome any serious photographer to take a look, and if the fit seems right, join in.

Hope to see you there!

Thursday, January 28, 2010

My final post to DP Reviews, and a tip of the hat to Big Joe

Fun with DP Reviews? Done with DP Reviews.

I Googled my name recently (something I'd suggest any photographer do, by the way...) and came on a thread here at DP Review, now deleted, where I was being accused of using the identities Pixel Vaughmutt, WalterSobchak, SamuelElliott, and some ID he calls "Leaky". I just want to say, pure and simple, I've never, since I've joined this forum in 2002, used any name but the name shown here, and for a very simple reason. I firmly believe that if you have something to say, stand up and say it, and don't hide behind a fake or anonymous identity.

It's called accountability.

Along with these accusations were also accusations of spamming, something I also abhor, and, although I will link to other work I've done, my measure of a good post is to make a contribution to the forum, create a discussion that stays on the page, and contribute to the community. One of the last threads I started had over 100 contributions. Every group I'm on has different levels of what they consider acceptable, and I work very hard to stay within those limits. Being associated with these other identities is, at the very least, an insult to every effort I've made on this group. (I will admit, my last post here, I think, was a link directly to my Lady Gaga Polaroid video on my H2H blog- I simply didn't see any way to post the vid here, and, gee. I thought it was funny.)

I'll accept, and live within the decisions of the moderator on this group, but don't think for a minute that I will not stand up for anything I've posted here, and that I feel I need to hide behind some fake identity. Google my name, Ted Dillard, if you want to know who I am, what I'm doing, what I've done and what I stand for.

The member who accused me has no basis for this accusation other than his suspicions and coincidences. He actually said to me "Do make sure you can actually prove something a comment is slander though, before making that accusation in a public forum." (sic) Apparently that's more important to him than making sure the slander is founded in fact. Of course, his own profile is linked to a website that hasn't been updated since 2002 and there's no information on who he is or what he does. He's effectively anonymous, and I consider his comments in that context. Worthless. His behavior in this matter would have got him banned from any other forum I participate in.

I joined this group a long time ago to try to make a contribution to the digital photography community. I've taught many classes, given many workshops and clinics, written 4 books, maintain my own site and work on the H2H site for the basic reason that I'd like to give back to something I love, Photography, and help others love it too. The pathetic level of trolling, sniping and simple ignorant and asinine behavior on the DPR forums is astounding, and these accusations are the lowest point I've seen. When some member with nothing more than vague allegations can assault my name and reputation with no sense of accountability, and this is accepted by the community, it's time to move on.

My very first post at DPR was this, about DNG files, and turned into the worst thread of trolling and sniping I've ever seen, anywhere. Here's that link.

I wish I could say it's gone up from there... didn't think it could get worse.

I will say I've gotten to know, and corresponded with several great people I've "met" here, and I'm thankful for that... but enough's enough.

Ted

...by the way, it'd sure be swell if Pixel Vaughmutt, WalterSobchak, Leaky and SamuelElliott stand up and speak for themselves. ...but that's probably too much to expect from this stand-up group.


I've got to add. I'm really active on ElMoto.net, an electric motorcycle enthusiast group, and it is simply astounding to me the level of civility there. It's also amazing how little they tolerate spamming, trolling and sniping- even simple lack of manners and professionalism, and don't forget this is a group of, essentially, hobbyists. After a few months of being in that community, the Photo forum community is, well, an embarrassment, and I have to ask why that is. What is it about photography that makes people think it's alright to act like asses?

Labels:

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

stop playing with people.


Showcase: This Isn’t Show Business

via NYT LENS blog...


All I want to say is: stop playing with my people. Stop playing with my people. If you want to help, help. Don’t come here for show business. I don’t feel like anybody’s doing serious journalism work here.

They’re playing with the Haitian people again. They’re playing with them. The press is playing with them. The government is playing with them. The U.N. is playing with them. That’s the reason I’m not so excited when they talk about rebuilding Haiti.


oh wow. responsible journalism... hope somebody from PDN saw this and it keeps them awake at night.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

file this under "No SHIT sherlock": PDN on Haiti photogs


Photographers in Haiti Face Shortages of Fuel, Water, Housing, and Food

idiots. pure and simple.

no, seriously:
Photojournalists on the ground in Haiti covering the aftermath of Tuesday's earthquake are struggling with logistical challenges, including housing, food, water, transportation and communications. Safety is also a mounting concern.


Here's an interesting list. Staring at Death: Photographing Haiti
...photographers currently in Haiti:

How many photographers does it take to photograph a humanitarian disaster?

Juan Barreto / AFP / Getty Images
Bruno Stevens / Cosmos
John W. Poole / NPR
David Gilkey / NPR
Ramon Espinosa / AP
Luis Acosta / AFP / Getty Images
Jae C. Hong / AP
Minustah / Logan Abassi / AP
Julie Jacobson / AP
Francois Mori / AP
Chris Hondros / Getty Images
Win McNamee / Getty Images
Ariana Cubillos / AP
Ricardo Arduengo / AP
Olivier Laban Mattei / AFP / Getty Images
Sophia Paris / Getty Images / UN / Minustah
Gerald Herbert / AP
Uriel Sinai / Getty Images
Patrick Farrell / AP / The Miami Herald
Peter Andrew Bosch / Miami Herald / MCT
Carl Juste / AP / The Miami Herald
Melissa Lyttle / St. Petersburg Times
Dominic Nahr / The Wall Street Journal
Julie Platner / The Wall Street Journal
Ron Haviv / New York Times / VII
Heather L Rohan / NJ Star & Ledger
Nicholas Kamm/Getty Images
Gregory Bull / AP
Michael S. Wirtz / Philadelphia Inquirer
Federico Gambarini / EPA
Orlando Barria / EPA
David Fernandez / EPA
Juan Barreto / AFP Getty Images
Shawn Thew / EPA
Thomas Coex / AFP / Getty
Thony Belizaire / AFP / Getty
Julie Remy / AP / MSF
Julien Tack / AFP / Getty
Michael Laughlin, Sun-Sentinel / AP
Francois Mori / AP
Julie Jacobson / AP
Jewel Samad / Getty Images
Paul J. Richards / Getty Images
Joe Raedle / Getty Images
Mario Tama / Getty Images
Martin Oeser / Getty Images
Jody Amiet / AFP / Getty
Logan Abassi / AFP / Getty
Marco Dormino / AP / United Nations
Frederic Dupoux / Getty Images
Eduardo Munoz / Reuters
Cris Bierrenbach / AP
Jorge Cruz / AP
Maggie Steber / The New York Times
Tequila Minsky / The New York Times
Damon Winter / New York Times
Michael Appleton / The New York Times
Erika Santelices / Getty Images
Jonathan Torgovnik
Boots Levinson
Alvaro Ybarra Zavala / Getty
Jan Grarup / Time
Jeroen Oerlemans / Panos
Moises Saman / Panos
Zoriah
Carolyn Cole / LA Times
Rick Loomis / LA Times
Brian Vander Brug / LA Times
David Levene / Guardian
Francesco Giusti / prospekt
Samuele Pellecchia / prospekt
Emiliano Larizza/Contrasto / Redux
Carol Guzy/Washington Post
Lisandro Suero / AFP / Getty
Clarens Renois / AFP / Getty Images
Kena Betancur / Reuters
Ivanoh Demers / AP / Montreal La Presse
Sam Yeh / AFP / Getty
Gus Ruelas / Reuters
Carlos Barria / Reuters
Jess Hurd
Axel Oberg
(List not exhaustive)

'course, then there's always Andy Levin and his $1500 Haiti PJ workshops. Real stand up guy, Andy. Good job. With guys like you in the forefront of the journalism community, it's truly a mystery that pj is in the toilet and photographers are at each other's throats.

...really, not since the mid '90s when PDN, with no apology whatsoever, ran an interview with a photo buyer saying that photographer's pay was fine, though it had been level for 20 years, because they "had a great lifestyle" have I been so infuriated by what should be a professional publication, and by the behavior of photographers in general.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

goofin with Depth of Field, small sensors and old lenses...

I just HATE my Tamron 28-200 zoom, it's the very definition of a cheap lens, right down to the lack of AF and the way the zoom ring moves when the camera's (Nikon D5000) tipped down. I also have some of the best Nikon 35mm glass made. So, whether it's necessity being the mother of invention, or just plain curiosity, it got me thinking. How about I pull out the old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 and see what the depth of field looks like, wide open. Everybody KNOWS these digital cameras can't do shallow DOF, right?

Well, it's a little different from what we've all become used to, but it's hard to call it a challenge if you've shot, as I have, for 20 years with a camera without a battery in it. (Hasselblad 500C/M and Sinar 4x5). Armed with my trusty histogram and my rusty memory of approximate exposures, I started snapping away.

Here's a hand-held shot at ISO 200- 1/125 at f1.4. Depth of filed that would make even Martha Stewart weep tears of lust.



Here's a detail at around print size...



Think I'm starting down a strange, but somehow comforting new road...

(almost) Spring Color Tuneup!



This is clearly a case of the "cobbler's children...", but I've been struggling with my own printing lately, what with testing a billion color management systems, updating drivers, using several monitors... my profiles drifted, my printer settings got messed up. Even my Photoshop Color Settings needed to be looked at, since I'd been doing a bunch of different things, in different output workflows.

Sound familiar?

So, I sat down and got out the old trusty X-Rite i1Pro and ran a couple of monitor calibrations, after dumping some old, bad profiles from the Library. Then I sat down with my printer, the Epson R2400 and my new favorite paper, Ultra Premium Luster, and ran some nice profiles... I did some test prints, and I'm back on target. The prints I made to test the profiles were, well, yummy. My highest quality assurance rating.

While I was waiting for the ink to dry... literally... I had a thought. How many people are out there in the same boat? You get busy, you need to get the work out, and move on. Tweaking your color settings is about one step above organizing your sock drawer, that is, until it takes you three times as long to make a good print or proof.

So here's the deal. For a $150 flat fee, I come in, calibrate your display with my big, expensive i1 Pro. I check your Color Settings and your workflow to make sure it's the best it can be, for what you need to do. And I profile your favorite paper for you...

Besides getting you a little tune-up, and a chance to get some questions answered, it gets me out of the office for a bit...

Interested in a Color House-Call from Dr. T? Shoot me a note, we'll make it happen...

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Facebook Friends. and High School. (philoking blog...)


This is only kind of tangential to photography, except that every photographer I know not only has a personal FB page but also fan pages and group pages and business pages. It's a great post, too, much more balanced that what I feel every time I swear I'm going to get off FB forever.

"What Facebook taught me about friends and high school" from Jason Burns site sums it up...

You've got a lot of issues going on here. They all are, for me, rooted in the idea that you've got to get your name out there, and in so doing, take all comers. After a while, though, I think the secret to managing this access is to weed contacts out occasionally. I just did so. Here were my criteria.

If I thought someone was a jerk, either back in the day, or even just recently, I give them a chance to show they're not, that I was wrong. If they re-prove to me they're a jerk, they're gone. If, after a few months, they haven't shown signs of promise- either no activity, or just the same old stuff, then they're gone.

If you have someone who just isn't active, maybe has a few friends, but doesn't update and doesn't respond to messages, they're gone. Well, they were never there, really...

If someone contacts me that I don't know, I'll usually accept their contact. If, however, they are simply "collecting"- that is, trying to add contacts just to either add contacts, or to promote themselves with no particular reciprocal promotion or support, then they're gone. This could be either a photographer or company or something, or one of the big superstars. But generally the superstars aren't going to be approaching me, I will have approached them. Same rules apply, though.

...that is, unless I get something out of the contact. John Nack, for example, of Adobe, does great FB updates- both from his blog, helping with Photoshop issues, but also just hysterical stories and photos from his family... fun stuff. He stays.

You may wonder why you should eliminate contacts. Noise, pure and simple. As soon as I got my "friends" down to a manageable level, I started seeing the feeds from the people I cared about again. You can say, just hide them. Why hide them if you don't care to keep contact with them?

A little story. I've done every type of marketing and promotion known, as far as I know. Getting a response has been increasingly hard, as we're all inundated by messages one way or another. I just sent an email out to a very select group of friends and contacts. Just 25 of them. I got about 8 people responding- emails, even phone calls. This was not a personal message, mind you, this was promoting a service I'm offering... that was OVER 25% response, simply unheard-of. Another guy I heard speak, recently, says we're back to a hand-written card. He was funny- he said it's going to stay on the desk, nobody will throw one of those away.

When did you last get a hand-written card? Still have it? I put them on my board...

The point is, blanket emails, huge contact lists, Twitter feeds and blogging and such, unless you're John Nack or somebody with some huge horsepower just feeds the wave of stuff we get hit by and ignore so effectively. Whittling down to the people who care about your message, and you care about, is the secret to making and keeping good contacts.

This, from Jason's post:
"Once you survey the landscape and figure out who is meaningful to you, drop the outliers. Build a clan, share your life and have fun.

The real value of Facebook to me is those interactions. I would wake up tomorrow a happy man if a virus ripped through Facebook over night and shredded all of the fan pages, the Mob Wars, faux-causes and quizzes. Those things are on a one way trip to ignore-ville for me anyway. But I still thank Facebook for helping me put some perspective on relationships that I have questioned for years, and helping me find new ones."

Monday, January 11, 2010

Drawdown Redux

computer tips. how to make symbols

File this under stupid stuff I am too lazy to figure out and just stumbled on. But anyway. Here are "accent codes" for Mac that I've wondered about for a really long time.

First there's the essential Copyright emblem. Option(ALT) G gives you that. ©
Next, there's the equally essential cents symbol. You know, like, when people post on discussions and don't know how to say, "...just my 2¢"? Option(ALT) 4.

Now, what got me onto this question was the fact that it's 10º F outside. Option(ALT) 0 will do the trick.

Oh yeah... to make a little heart on FB and Google Chat, it's < 3 . ♥

(...cut and paste works wonders, too.)

Here's the complete geeks guide. Now go take some pictures.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Visualizing Data

Visualizing the Gawaher Interactions of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber from Computational Legal Studies on Vimeo.


This has appeared in a few places, but it came from here, at the Computational Legal Studies Blog,"Visualizing the Gawaher Interactions of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber".

See more of the images of numbers here, on their Vimeo site. Lovin the Cash for Clunkers example...

Friday, January 8, 2010

badge of Honor

Dear ted w dillard,

This is notification that you have been temporarily banned from the dpreview.com forums


Nice to see Phil holding to form.



(hmmmm. you think he's noticed that h2hreviews has, in 5 months, got to a page rank of 5? oh, maybe and that we actually REVIEW products? and don't LIKE some even though they are sponsors? ...just sayin.)

My response:

My apologies... I thought the threads I was starting, such as the MFDB vs DSLR thread, were making a significant contribution to your discussions, at over 100 comments. I've been making a concerted effort to keep valuable discussion here, while adding additional information through links to my other work, but I'm sorry you feel this was "promoting" my site.

I'll refrain in the future. Is my signature also objectionable? I don't want that construed as promotion either...

Ted

Labels: , ,

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Predictions for the Upcoming Decade

OK, I'm not in the habit of posting to my own posts, but this time I'm making an exception. I've thought about it long and hard, and played and watched... the whole HD video thing in a photographer's hands is going to change everything, and we're only starting to understand it.

My post here, on H2H Reviews.

I’m not interested in idle gossip, or obvious trends. I’m interested in what’s going to change the game, and I think it’s what is now being called HDSLR, or, HD video capture with a DSLR camera.

Here’s the thing. Many photographers, pro and amateur alike, have dabbled with video cameras and have played with the video on their phones and point-and-shoots, maybe even doing some editing in iMovie and posting to YouTube and Facebook. Yet, having HD video on a camera like a Canon 5DM2 still, I suspect, for many of us feels like kind of an added extra, something that is fun, but not essential to the camera. I suspect it’s going to change everything, and here’s why.

First, and most importantly, a still photographer has a different sensibility than a videographer or a filmmaker; a different way of seeing, if you’ll indulge me. Once you get past the idea that you’re goofing around with this thing, and start thinking seriously about shooting with the camera, we’re seeing amazing, and amazingly unique work. Here’s a piece via Lightstalkers’ Poul Madsen incorporating the stills and video from the Canon 5DM2 (video here).

In an economic climate that is incredibly challenging for all photographers, and in particular for photojournalists, this is arguably a completely new “product”- a film shot by a still photographer.

Second, the equipment gives you a “35mm look”, with lenses that most photographers know and love. And already own. To make a long story short, you’re shooting to a full 35mm frame, as opposed to a small three-chip array in a video camera. Shooting a portrait with, say, my favorite portrait lens (the Nikkor 105 f2.8) I’m going to get a perspective and depth of field effect that I want, and is difficult, or impossible, to achieve with a smaller format.

Again. It’s a 35mm photographer’s vision, not the vision of a filmmaker or videographer. And by the way, with a Canon 5DM2 you can shoot full-res stills during a video recording without missing a beat. That is way, way too much for me to try to juggle, but photographers who master that skill will truly break new ground and create a new medium.

filter questions? Peter Kelley with all you really need to know.

If you are already decided
and resigned to be derided
then take a look at this site,
to help make your choice just right.

When Kodak film was all the rage,
then a UV filter was wise and sage
to lift the blues and colours faded,
that would leave all shots looking jaded.

Now UV has no effect I'm sure
and digital sensors need no cure,
they'll still protect from rain and dust,
so feel free to use one, if you must.

My advice remains the same:
reasons for are pretty lame.
Unless conditions are close to hell,
a hood will work just as well!


brilliant! Here's Peter's site...

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

site- Benjamin Kanarek



OK, no really, I have to get to work, but I REALLY wanted to get this post up. This is Benjamin Kanarek, and I found him through his blog, in a post about editing. Been reading through his blog like a book you don't want to end, and his work as well.

Thanks Ben! Here's his main site, too.