Rantings on Photography

Is it Chopin, or is it Memorex?

2011-03-22T18:24:00.004-05:00

This is said to be a photograph of Frederic Chopin, the famed composer, shortly after his death. The owner says it's legitimate. If so, it would be only the third known image of the composer in existence.

Photographer and gallery owner Wladyslaw Zhukhovsky claims that he acquired a Daguerreotype image of the composer on his deathbed in 1849 from a Scottish collector.

Check out this video from Reuters:

The photo is said to have been taken by Louis-Auguste Bisson, the noted 19th Century French photographer.

Many believe it is a hoax and that the photo is a fake.

Stay tuned to this one.

Marilyn Monroe and Her Nikon

2011-02-03T20:19:00.004-05:00

This is just too cool for words.

Two of my favorite things in the world–Marilyn Monroe and Nikon cameras.

Even though this is in German it doesn't matter.

Just check it out.

Goodbye Old Friend

2011-01-02T18:06:00.009-05:00

Kodak's venerable Kodachrome film, which was officially discontinued at the beginning of 2010, now has no place to be developed. So if you have any rolls laying around, you'll either have to develop them yourself (good luck with that!) or keep them around as a reminder of the "good ol' days."

Dwayne's Photo, a lab in Parsons, Kansas, was the last lab still processing Kodachrome. But the lab souped its last roll on Dec. 30th.

Kodak introduced Kodachrome film in 1935.

The company said when it discontinued the film that:

"Sales of Kodachrome, which became the world's first commercially successful color film in 1935, have declined dramatically in recent years as photographers turned to other films or digital capture. Today, Kodachrome represents just a fraction of one percent of Kodak's total sales of still-picture films."

Kodak also said that developing Kodachrome involved a highly complex process and a relatively few labs worldwide were equipped to handle the film. At one point there were 25 labs worldwide developing the film.

The company in 2009 gave the last roll of Kodachrome off the production line to Steve McCurry of National Geographic. He's posted the shots from that roll on his blog.

And the Award for Creepiest Album Cover Goes To...

2010-10-26T15:31:00.006-05:00

...Nicki Minaj for her album Pink Friday.

The concept: an abused Barbie doll. With no arms and grotesquely stretched legs.

According to the photographer, GL Wood:

"Nicki wanted to rip her arms off to really do the whole Barbie theme, like when little girls trash their dolls. She wanted to look like one of those broken Barbies."

Wood also says that few female artists are pushing the envelope these days like Ms. Minaj.

I don't know. I have two young girls and probably two dozen Barbie dolls in the house. Not one of them is missing its arms and has its legs stretched out like the album cover. The worst that happens to the dolls in my house is they end up laying around with no clothes on–but all their limbs are intact.

The Pink Friday cover is just creepy.

Affordable Medium Format Digital

2010-10-12T18:02:00.005-05:00

It looks like medium format digital is finally beginning to come down to a price point that many can afford. The magical $10,000 mark is finally a reality.

First, we have Hasselblad, which announced the the H4F-31, an H4D-31 camera, 80mm lens and back bundle that will retail for less than $10,000. And for those with a closet full of CF lenses, the bundle is available with a Hasselblad CF lens adapter instead of the 80mm HC lens at the same price.

Next up we have Pentax announcing that its long-awaited 645D medium format system will finally be available in the US. The camera body is expected to ship in December for $9,995.95, along with an SMC Pentax-D FA 645 55mm ƒ/2.8 lens for n additional $1,199.95.

There will be a limited number of 645Ds available in the US, so if you want one, you'd better get in on a pre-order. B&H, Adorama and Samy's Camera are among those expected to take pre-orders soon. The camera also is supposed to be available on Pentax's web store, but it's listed as "out of stock."

TSA to Photogs: Only Terrorists Hang Around Airports with Cameras

2010-09-13T18:27:00.006-05:00

If you take photographs of private planes at or near smaller, local airports (known as General Aviation facilities), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) considers you a terrorist, not a photographer.

That's the only conclusion that can be drawn from a new poster distributed by the TSA to GA facilities across the country. The poster depicts a hooded figure with a camera, standing outside a chain-link fence. Beyond the fence is a small, private jet. The poster encourages people to report suspicious activity to the police

The TSA's stance is pretty ironic considering it does not have jurisdiction over these facilities. These GA facilities are non-commercial, locally run facilities, not federal. The TSA just advises them on security.

A TSA spokeswoman said the posters were given to GA facilities across the country, but they are under no obligation to hang them. She also said she did not know why the posters depict a photographer, rather than, say, someone trying to break into a local airport facility with burglar tools.

The spokeswoman also said she suggests that photographers wanting to take photos at a local airports should check with the press office at the facility and get permission beforehand.

This sounds reasonable, but there are two problems with this advice.

For one, many small GA facilities don't have press offices. In this case, there is no one to go to for permission.

And more importantly, a photographer does not need permission to take photographs of anything from public property. So standing on public property taking photographs outside a fence that just so happens to have a bunch of airplanes behind it is not illegal.

Despite what the TSA may be trying to say in its posters, this does not make you a terrorist.

What the posters may end up doing is giving more headaches to photographers. It encourages average citizens to report suspicious activity. It depicts a hooded figure with a camera in a suspicious light. What conclusion do you think the average citizen will draw from this? That when the weather gets colder and you go out wearing a hooded sweater to take pictures near an airport, you'll most likely have the cops called on you because someone thinks you're suspicious.

Besides, real terrorists don't need to hang around airport fences in hoodies with cameras to get their intel on the facility. They can probably get all they need from Google Earth.

"Lost" Ansel Adams Negatives Bought at Garage Sale for $45

2010-07-27T12:21:00.011-05:00

Ten years ago, Rick Norsigian was at a garage sale in California and picked up two small boxes of various items. The seller wanted $70 for the two boxes, Norsigian offered $45. The seller accepted.

Ever since, Norsigian has been trying to convince everyone he met that the 65 glass negatives that were contained in the boxes were shot by Ansel Adams in the early '20s and that they were of scenes the famed photographer never printed–negatives that were thought to have been destroyed in a darkroom fire in 1937.

Well, Norsigian finally succeeded, sort of. Experts have "authenticated" the glass negatives as belonging to Ansel Adams. They are indeed scenes the photographer had never printed they say and could be worth as much as $200 million, if genuine.

But are they? According to the Matthew Adams, Ansel's grandson and head of the Ansel Adams Gallery, writing on a gallery blog, they probably aren't. And the "experts" who have authenticated the plates got it wrong.

Photography expert Patrick Alt, who helped confirm the "authenticity" of the negatives, thinks Adams carried the negatives with him to use in a photography class he was teaching in Pasadena, California, in the early 1940s.

"It is my belief that he brought these negatives with him for teaching purposes and to show students how to not let their negatives be engulfed in a fire," Alt told CNN. "I think this clearly explains the range of work in these negatives, from very early pictorialist boat pictures, to images not as successful, to images of the highest level of his work during this time period."

Norsigian plans to sell prints made form the negatives to museums and collectors.

However, the "experts" may not be so expert after all. Apparently they are not actually Ansel Adams' photos, but Uncle Earl's.

Oakland resident Mariam L. Walton saw a picture of the famous Jeffrey Pine on Sentinal Dome at Yosemite during a report about the photos on a local news station and said she immediately recognized the image as one taken by her uncle, Earl Brooks, back in 1923.

Read her story here.

Every Picture Tells a Story, Don't It?

2010-07-05T19:16:00.004-05:00

Well, yes it does. That's why photojournalists (or in this case, their editors) should not screw with their photos.

Case in point, the cover of a recent The Economist issue (on the left). Apparently an editor felt the need to remove the two people standing with President Obama. As a result, they've changed the photo. Or, more precisely, the visceral experience you get from looking at the photo. And they changed the meaning too.

The original picture (on the right) was taken by Larry Downing for Reuters. The altered cover shot was created by Emma Duncan, Deputy Editor of The Economist. Here's her explanation for the alteration:

"We often edit the photos we use on our covers," she said. And this particular cover was altered because "the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers."

This is a ridiculous explanation. If any element of the photo is "puzzling" to the viewer, it can be taken care of in the caption. That's why captions were invented.

And the fact that President Obama is standing with two unidentified people is not very puzzling. Sure, I'd like to know who the two people he's with are. But for me, it's not essential that I know. I can infer from the photo that he's probably standing with some Gulf State officials, or maybe locals. To get the full effect of the photo, it is not essential to know who the other two people are.

Taking them out completely changes the meaning of the photo. Instead of President Obama leaning down to hear what the woman is saying (as he is in the unretouched photo), he's now hanging his head in shame, or embarrassment at the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of BP being the bad guy in the photo (as they are in the unretouched version), now President Obama is the bad guy.

But, what do you expect. Both The Economist and BP are owned by British companies. So, I guess we know where their loyalties lie.

Truth in Advertising

2010-06-17T19:22:00.005-05:00

Does the model at right look like she needs extensive retouching? Would you consider her ugly? Would you use this photo as is in an ad to sell a product?

Well, according to British department store Debenhams, she's perfect just the way she is. For their new swimwear campaign, the store decided to use photos of models that were unretouched. And to also use photos of the models that show how much retouching generally is done to a photo.

An article in the UK's Daily Mail noted:

A sign in the Debenhams window will read: ‘We’ve not messed with natural beauty; this image is unairbrushed. What do you think?’
It will also show customers an example of just how much the image could have been altered.

It's all part of a growing trend to portray women as they really are. An effort to promote a body image that is natural and not artificially created for a magazine cover or an ad.

According to Mark Woods, the store's director of creative and visual:

Our campaign is all about making women feel good about themselves – not eroding their self belief and esteem by using false comparisons.

Not only does it make sense from a moral point of view, it ticks the economic boxes as well. Millions of pounds a year are spent by organizations retouching perfectly good images.

We are proud to bring the issue of re-touching into the main stream when the likes of Britney Spears and Madonna are using unairbrushed but over-lit images as a shock tactic.

I, for one, think it's about time.

Happy Birthday Mr. President

2010-05-19T17:30:00.004-05:00

It was 48 years ago today, that Marilyn Monroe sang "Happy Birthday" to President John F. Kennedy at Madison Square Garden. And LIFE photographer Bill Ray was on hand to photograph the event.

Ray's rare photos are posted in a gallery on Life.com.

Check them out. And while you're at it take a look at Ray's web site.

Apparently Film is not Dead

2010-02-17T13:28:00.004-05:00

If you thought digital killed the analog star (translation: digital cameras eliminate the need for film) you're wrong. Lots of photographers – particularly landscape and fine art photographers – still use film. And the film they prefer is large format.

Eastman Kodak announced yesterday that they will make Ektar 100 film available in April in 4x5 and 8x10 sheet sizes.

"Now large-format photographers will be able to enjoy the impact and flexibility that EKTAR 100 brings. With ultra-vivid color and ultra-fine grain, it's the ideal choice for creating high magnification enlargements for commercial display," Kodak says.

I haven't shot film in a long time. Even for my personal projects. I still have a refrigerator full of old 120 and 35mm rolls and some sheet film. But it's nice to know it not completely going away anytime soon and is there if I want it.

Pilfered, or How I Unapologetically Violated Someone's Copyright

2010-01-29T16:17:00.006-05:00

In this age when magazines are folding left and right, it's nice to see new ones being born. It's especially nice to see new photography magazines. The world needs more magazines of every stripe -- except this one.

A web-only publication called Pilfered Magazine has been born. And true to its title, it features photos and art stolen from the Web. And the publication makes no bones about it. It is proud of the fact that it flagrantly violates people's copyrights left and right.

The publication claims that it is not responsible for any violations arising from what it publishes and that it takes no responsibility. If you send it something and get sued, you're on your own.

The magazine's Privacy Policy states that its web users may not upload any material that "...may infringe the intellectual property rights or other rights of third parties, including trademark, copyright, trade secret, patent, publicity right, or privacy right..."

But that's exactly what the publication encourages. That's their whole reason for being.

It also says it will credit the photographer/artist when known. But instead of doing it the old-fashioned way (trying to track down the copyright holder themselves) they ask their readers to provide the owner's name if they know it. So the credit ends up buried in one of its web pages somewhere and looking like this: October Issue, Page 21. Photograph by XYZ. This is not proper credit. No reader will see a photograph and then search through hundreds of comments left by other readers with "attribution."

(Note: I pulled the photo above from the magazine's web site. But I couldn't tell you who the photographer is because I couldn't find any credit anywhere on their site. And lest you think I'm not practicing what I preach, this blog operates under fair use. It's editorial criticism people.)

From the magazine's About page:

[The magazine's] founders...have in the past spent hours surfing the web to put together presentations for various commercial ad and editorial jobs…and noticed the hours it took to gather images and felt it was time to have a massive image collective shared by the people, for the people. The goal was to make this process easier and a lot more community oriented and fun.

And this is precisely what's wrong with this picture. The notion that just because it's on the web, it's fair game for anyone who wants to use it. That information on the Internet "wants to be free." If you subscribe to that theory, then you either put your stuff out there not caring what happens to it, or you place it out there under a Creative Commons license.

I love the part about them spending hours surfing the web looking to comp their ads and editorial projects. I bet these projects got published too. I wonder if their bosses knew or cared that their comps were stolen from the web.

The problem with this whole thing is summed up nicely by one commenter on the Pilfered Magazine blog:

PILFERED IS THE ROBIN HOOD OF THE WEB. The internet
is not about ‘me’, it is about ‘we’. I publish therefore i am. A copyright generation has to adjust to the copyleft movement…where if i can get it, it is mine…to remix, to comment on, to share, to blog about, to twitter.

It is precisely this idea that "if I can get it, it's mine" and that it can be changed to fit the thief's whim that is the problem. People that make their living charging for their art copyright it to protect from this kind of theft.

For amateurs I guess it doesn't make a difference. Some might even be flattered that someone spent the time to steal their art and rework it. But to a professional, this takes money out of their pocket and ultimately bread off their table.

Why bother producing art in the first place, if someone is going to come along and rework it anyway? It is no longer the artist's vision then. It becomes the possessor's vision. It akin to stealing a Picasso from a museum and repainting it to suit your own vision. It no longer is a Picasso at that point.

But it's still stolen property.

UPDATE 2-12-2010: Apparently the publication has seen the light (or more likely the threat of multiple lawsuits) ans says it is going straight. It posted this on it's web site: " “With respect to our community, we would like to announce we are officially re-imagining our perspective...we would like to continue receiving your suggestions and encourage you to help us build this platform by submitting only copyrighted and permission-based content.”

I'm A Professional - Now What?

2009-12-16T10:22:00.002-05:00

True to this blog's title, this installment is going to be a rant (for a change).

As a professional photographer, there are a lot of things I know about photography and the business. There also are a lot of things I don't know. To find out about what I don't, I go to forums, read magazines and ask other photographers.

Seems pretty reasonable - right?

One good way to poll other professional photographers about what they know and what you don't, is to ask questions in forums. Specifically, forums dedicated to professional photographers, or ones that have sections frequented by professionals. There at least you can get good, solid, information from working professionals that are up on the latest trends.

Umm. Not so much.

There are few free forums dedicated to professional photographers (other than the ones associated with the professional organizations) and even fewer paid ones available. And even the ones dedicated to professional (with very few exceptions) seem to be populated by wannabes and amateurs.

For example: On one popular forum that deals with photography and photographic technology, there is a section for professionals to post questions and answers. While not strictly prohibited from doing so, amateurs are discouraged from posting and answering questions, because, well, they're not professionals. This is not to say that an amateur can't have the answer to a specific question or a solution to a problem that may be useful. But the odds are against it.

Here's a typical question in the "pro" section of the forum:
I am planning to start a photography business in my basement. I will be doing weddings, seniors, children, but plan to do scenics as well. What camera would be suggested?Never mind the grammar problems. It's an International forum so the poster may not be a native English speaker.

Then there are the amateurs that want to know how much they should charge and what equipment they should bring because they have to shoot a wedding in a few days!

First of all, how do these people get hired to do these jobs with no experience? Second of all, why do these people even get hired with no experience?

I realize everyone has to start somewhere. But jumping in with both feet on day one is not a recipe for success. Not only that, but it hurts the industry.

When Joe decides he wants to become a professional because he has a little point and shoot camera and his mom tells him he takes good pictures, and he convinces his brother/friend/co-worker to let him shoot the family Christmas card for no or little money, and he does an OK job and takes a snapshot, everyone thinks it's great. But then everyone starts to think, well Joe is OK and he will do it for free. Why should I pay you -- a "professional" -- upwards of $300 for a Christmas card?

They don't expect high quality (because Joe can't provide it). And they expect it for next to nothing (because Joe can provide it). So they don't want to pay a professional -- who has to pay rent on a studio, pay for advertising, buy equipment and supplies, maybe pay an employee or two, pay insurance, etc., etc.

The old saying is true here: "You get what you pay for."

I'm not opposed to amateurs trolling the professional forums. I'm not even opposed to them asking questions. But I am opposed to them asking stupid questions that are not well though out and researched. Do some preliminary research on your question first, then if you get stuck, ask in the forum.

Don't ask what you should charge for a particular job. No one knows how much you should charge, except you. It depends on a number of factors, including the job at hand, what the end use of the photography is (will it be a wedding, stock, advertising, portrait), the market you're in, what your time is worth, what your overhead is, etc.

Don't ask something like: "I'm setting up a portrait studio in my 2x4 foot basement with an 8 foot ceiling. Where can I get Profoto equipment at a cheap price and what should I charge the client? I also plan to do models and nudes."

First of all, you're not doing any of these things. You have to decide to do one thing and do it right. Shoot family portraits. Shoot models. Shoot children. But you can't do all three successfully in a tiny basement room. Basically, you can't shoot anything successfully in a tiny basement room, but that's another story.

I know what, you're thinking. "So what if an amateur asks a stupid question. You were an amateur once. How else is someone going to learn."

Well, yeah, I was an amateur once (a long time ago). But there are plenty of amateur forums out there where amateurs go to learn and ask questions. I bet some pros even hang out at some of them offering advice.

The pro forums should be a place for pros to talk to one another and ask questions relevant to their business, without having to put up with the incessant "What should I charge?" and "What equipment do I need?" questions that have been asked and answered about a million times in the past.

Eggs, Meet Basket

2009-11-16T16:36:00.002-05:00

Can you say "eggs all in one basket." The Digital Journalist sure can.

The fine photojournalism publication is finding out first hand that putting all your eggs in one basket is never a good thing. The publication say that it's December issue may be its last. That's because its major sponsor, Canon, is shutting off the spigot.

According to editor and publisher, Dirk Halstead:

"Unfortunately, our principal sponsor, Canon, whose market has also been impacted by these turbulent times, has decided they can no longer afford to provide their financial backing to The Digital Journalist."

In an effort to make up for the lost funding, the publication is seeking donations from subscribers -- I'm sure donations from non subscribers will not be turned down. It has even set up a PayPal link for said donations.

The publication, according to Halstead, has been online for 12 years. That's an eternity in Internet time. And it's an excellent publication. If you're into photojournalism -- or just good photography -- you should check it out.

"If you value The Digital Journalist, this is the time to step up and make a pledge. If enough people do, we may be able to keep The Digital Journalist -- and visual journalism -- alive. Consider it as an investment in yourself, and the future," Halstead says.

I don't know Halstead and have nothing against him personally. I've read The Digital Journalist and it's an excellent publication. But I find myself of two minds on this issue.

On the one hand, I feel for the guy. Running a business is tough. And when the money stops coming in, it gets even tougher. Whenever a good photography publication is threatened or goes under, it's never a good thing.

On the other hand, I can't help thinking "Who's fault is it pal? What do you expect with only one sponsor?"

Having only one major sponsor is a tenuous prospect at best. Even if that sponsor is a giant like Canon. Halstead had to have known they could have pulled the plug at any time.

To be fair, I'm sure The Digital Journalist tried hard to attract other major sponsors. But for whatever reason, their sugar daddy came in the form of Canon and no one else.

As for Canon, it couldn't be costing them a whole lot of money to sponsor a publication with about 10,000 subscribers. Would it kill them to bite the bullet and continue sending out the checks? They probably waste more money on paper clips than they spend on The Digital Journalist. It just doesn't seem fair.

So, by all means, help out a fellow photographer and donate to the publication and help keep it alive. If it lives past the December issue, you can subscribe.

Oswald Photo Genuine?

2009-11-06T09:44:00.002-05:00

A computer scientist at Dartmouth College says the iconic photograph of alleged John F. Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is genuine, and not a composite as has been thought for years.

The photograph, of Oswald holding a rifle and Communist newspapers in the backyard, would have been nearly impossible to fake, according to Professor Hany Farid, director of the Neukom Institute for Computational Science at Dartmouth.

The biggest bone of contention about the photograph has been the shadows. Many people claimed the shadow under Oswald's nose and the long shadow falling behind him point to two distinct light sources. The conclusion has been that the head was taken from one photo and composited onto the body of another.

Using forensic modeling software, Professor Farid says he's convinced both shadows were created by a single light source and that the photo is genuine.

According to Farid:

"You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect," Farid said. "As an academic and a scientist, I don't like to say it's absolutely authentic ... but it's extremely unlikely to have been a fake."

Oswald himself claimed the photo was a fake.

Dartmouth has posted an interesting video of Professor Farid explaining his findings.

Don't Screw Us

2009-10-07T14:50:00.004-05:00

Actually, it's Don'tScrewUs.org. And they are responsible for one of the best PSAs I've seen in a long time.

The basic gist of the organization (set up by the American Society of Media Photographers) is that photographs are intellectual property and IP is and should be protected. According to the Don'tScrewUs.org Manifesto, "Just because a photograph is on the Internet it is not free." You can't just take it and use it as you see fit without the copyright holder's permission. And just because everyone does it, that does not make it right.

The organization made a nice little video to drive home their point. Give it a look. It's one of the best I've seen in a long time.

Medium Format Digital From Pentax?

2009-09-24T19:19:00.004-05:00

The long-rumored Pentax medium format digital camera -- the Pentax 645D -- could be a reality by the Spring. According to Pentax, the 645D is now in development and the company hopes to have the camera available for display at PMA in February.

"We've started development and the plan right now is to have it released by Spring 2010," said Ned Bunnell, president of Pentax Imaging USA.

The camera is said to have 30 megapixels of resolution. Little else is known about the camera at this point.

Canon Rears its Ugly Head Once Again

2009-09-03T14:45:00.005-05:00

I may be being overly sensitive here, but this is the kind of thing that really gets my goat, particularly on photo blogs. It probably wasn't even meant the way I'm taking it.

But still...

On the usually excellent Strobist blog, there's a post entitled "Lord of the Ring Flash" about an excellent article on Joe McNally and his lighting techniques in the latest issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine. If you're not familiar with Joe's work (what the hell is wrong with you, you should be), he's a master at lighting using Nikon speedlights (mostly) and the Nikon CLS system.

Anyway, read the article, it's a good one.

On Strobist, David Hobby quotes Joe McNally as a way of introducing the article, which he rightfully urges everyone to read.

According to Hobby:

Quoth Joe McNally, in a nice, long QA-style piece in Digital Photo Pro. It is Nikon CLS-centric, but still worth a read to anyone interested in lighting in general.

The part that gets me is the second sentence. As a lifelong Nikon shooter, I take umbrage at all the Nikon-bashing, usually done by Canon shooters. Why categorize the article like that, as if being Nikon-centric was a bad thing? If it was a Canon-centric article I'm sure there would be no mention of it. It would be taken for granted.

I get that Strobist is heavily Canon weighted. But they are pretty democratic and do not usually discriminate. I just think it is unnecessary to make a statement like that. Particularly since Joe McNally is universally recognized as a master at lighting and as a Nikon shooter. I'm not aware of any Canon shooter in the same league as McNally.

Custom Stock Refuses to Die.

2009-08-10T16:23:00.003-05:00

And die it should. And it should stay dead.

But, apparently they are giving it one more try. A company called CustomAdArt.com is trying to revive the custom stock business -- essentially a business that lets photographers shoot on spec and receive very little compensation for their efforts.

A few years back a company called OnRequest Images tried the same thing. Thankfully they didn't last very long.

But the people at CustomAdArt.com are doing their best to give it a go. According to the site, the company's goal is to connect photographers and advertisers, to the mutual benefit of both. More like the benefit of the advertiser and no one else.

They note:

The stock photography industry is broken. Photographers shoot and upload images in hopes that they will be noticed. Advertisers then scour these sites, hoping to find a match for their ads, oftentimes having to alter headlines and copy for lack of a proper image.

Boo hoo. Poor advertisers. If they knew what they wanted and had a clear vision of what the campaign would look like, they'd easily be able to find images on any number of stock web sites.

Sure, the stock industry is broken. But this is definitely not that way to fix it. Here's the deal, for a minimum of $150 ($50 to post a request for images and a minimum of $100 to the photographer) advertisers can get an image with an exclusive license, forever. That's right, the photographer gives up the rights to the advertiser forever, for a meager $100. The advertiser has the right to use the image any way they see fit. Of course, not every advertiser is cheap and will pay more than $100. But some do cheap out.

In a recent request, an advertiser was looking for a shot of a kid doing the "cannonball" into a pool. The shot was to be used in a magazine ad. The advertiser got 12 submissions to choose from and paid $150 for the shot. There were no details on where the ad would run, what the circulation of the magazine is, at what size the photo would run, etc. I hope the photographer they chose got those details with his/her $150 check.

Let's hope this business does not catch on. It's bad enough there are microstock business out there cheapening the stock industry. We don't need this too.

(Full disclosure: As you can probably tell, I am not a fan of this kind of stock. I have images with Mira.com and Alamy.com.)

Songs About Pictures

2009-07-23T11:22:00.007-05:00

For some reason, lately there seems to be a spate of web site lists of songs about photographs (or cameras or photography). You could make a list of 10 or 20 songs and probably no two lists will be exactly the same.

Arguably, the most famous pop song about photography is Paul Simon's "Kodachrome." And, yes, it's on the lists. Usually at Number One.

Anyway, without further ado, here's a (slightly less than comprehensive) list of the lists:

PDNPulse's "PDN's Top 20 Songs About Photography"

PhotoShelter's "10 Songs About Photographs"

SharpShooter's "Top Photo Songs"

PhotoJournalist's "Best (and Worst) Songs About Photography"

There's a ton more out there. Just do the Google for hours of fun.

Focus People. Focus.

2009-07-10T18:38:00.003-05:00

And I don't mean pay attention. I mean turn the focus ring on your lens until the subject of your photograph is sharp.

The trend lately, at least in art photography circles, has been toward out of focus photos. The more out of focus, the better, apparently. This is a trend that drives me nuts.

This photo by Erin Malone is typical. It's called "Mystery Forest, Yosemite National Park, CA 2007." I get it. It's mysterious, so it's out of focus. It's considered art.

But, still, to me it's an out of focus photo. If I shot this photo I would consider it a mistake. And I would trash it.

Now, I don't mean to pick on Erin. And I'm certainly not casting any aspersions on her talent. I don't know her. I just ran across this photo and thought it illustrated the point pretty well. Visit her web site and check out her work.

Maybe it's because I was trained as a photojournalist. In photojournalism, if your main subject is out of focus, the shot is trash. It will never see the light of day in a publication. Well, maybe a fine art publication.

I don't like out of focus photos. I don't consider them art. And I certainly wouldn't pay big bucks to hang one on my wall.

Apparently, I'm in the minority. There seem to be more and more publications dedicated to "fine art" photography that feature portfolios of photographers where at least one shot is totally out of focus. Some even feature entire out of focus portfolios.

And don't even get me started on out of focus highlights. The so-called "bokeh" of a photograph. Bokeh is an entirely made up concept that characterizes the quality of the highlights in an out of focus area of an image. It does not have character, it is out of focus. Bokeh was made up in 1996 by the editor of a photo magazine.

But that's a discussion for another time.

Kodachrome 1935-2009 - R.I.P.

2009-06-22T08:48:00.007-05:00

Yet another icon of the film era has fallen victim to the digital age. Kodak announced today that it will discontinue the manufacture of Kodachrome film this year after 74 years of continuous production. The company expects film supplies to run out sometime in the early Fall.

Kodak said sales of the film have fallen dramatically during the years, today amounting to less than 1 percent of its overall film sales. The film's complicated manufacturing process, its complicated developing process, and Kodak's development of more modern emulsions -- not to mention the increasing popularity of digital capture -- led to Kodachrome's demise, Kodak said.

As a tribute to this legendary film, here's a clip of Paul Simon singing his song "Kodachrome."

Copyright? I got your Copyright Right Here!

2009-06-20T21:32:00.003-05:00

Author, photographer and blogger (isn't everyone a blogger these days?) Scott Bourne has an excellent post about Copyright on his blog Photofocus today. I think it's a must read for everyone who makes a living by publishing something.

In this Internet age, Bourne says, many people think it's OK to take a photograph from a web site without permission and use it for their own purposes -- usually commercial -- without paying the photographer for the right. Some people even go so far as to say copyright is no longer necessary in the Internet age.

Bourne has done the ranting for me on this one. I agree with everything he says in this post. Like Bourne, the subject is one of my pet peeves too. You do not have the right to take my work and use it for your own commercial purposes without my knowledge and without paying me for it. I don't need the "credit," "exposure," or the "clips." I need the cash. If you plan on making money on it, why shouldn't I?

Read the post. Now.

New Marilyn

2009-06-01T18:15:00.007-05:00

I guess it's fitting that on what would have been her 83rd birthday, Life.com has published some newly uncovered and never-before-seen photos of Marilyn Monroe.

In their effort to digitize Life magazine's vast library of photos, Life.com came across some negatives from a photo shoot in 1950 that Marilyn did with photographer Ed Clark in Griffith Park in Los Angeles. The story that the photos were to accompany never was published in the magazine and the negatives were placed in a file.

So, feast your eyes on some new Marilyn photos, courtesy of those nice people over at Life.com.

New Photo Blog from The Times

2009-05-18T07:49:00.003-05:00

The New York Times has jumped on the photo blog bandwagon with its new photojournalism blog called "Lens: Photography, Video and Visual Journalism."

In one of the initial essays, photographer Fred R. Conrad pulls out his 8x10 camera to shoot some amazing Black&White shots. In the essay, entitled "Slow Photography in an Instantaneous Age," he explains why he prefers large format cameras and Black&White film.

I hope that film and large-format cameras stick around for a while. I love the results and I cherish the process. More importantly, when I have the time and opportunity to shoot big film, I feel a connection with photographers who came before me. That may be the most important reason.

Conrad says he shoots Fuji Neopan and Efke 25 and develops them in Rodinal.

With exposures that may take as long as an hour, you really don’t know what the end result will be. There is a little bit of faith involved, and a lot of imagination. That, and the fact that you have to wait to develop the film, just adds to the excitement.

The Times notes that in Lens, it not only will showcase its own extensive library of photographs, but that of other magazines and newspapers as well.

Cokin Must Think We're Stupid

2009-05-12T14:35:00.008-05:00

One of the very few complaints about Nikon's great new 14-24mm 2.8G ED super-wide angle zoom lens is that the bulbous front element precludes the use of filters without severe vignetting. Nikon marketed the lens as a great landscape lens, but you couldn't use it with filters. To many landscape photographers, shooting without a filter is not even a consideration.

Enter Cokin, the French filter manufacturer. They have come out with the X-Pro Series Circular Polarizer filter kit to fit the Nikon lens. The kit consists of a X499-N Universal Filter Holder Ring, X-Pro Holder and a #164 Circular Polarizer filter.

Finally, you say. Now I can use filters on my beloved 14-24mm (which by all accounts is one of the best lenses Nikon has ever produced).

Well, not so fast. The Cokin Filter System for the lens retails for a whopping $625. That's right, over $600 for a plastic filter ring and holder. And, get this, the filter system does not -- I repeat -- does not preclude vignetting with an FX camera at any setting below 18mm. So basically, the filter system is only usable at 18mm, 20mm and 24mm on Nikon FX like the D700 or the D3. You can't use it at 14mm or 16mm without vignetting. But, hey, what do you expect for $625 anyway?

Cokin, which is a French company, must think we're morons. Who would pay $625 for a filter system that doesn't even work most of the time? Of course, you won't have this problem on a DX camera. But who buys the 14-24mm for a DX camera (even if it works reasonably well on one, though it's the equivalent of 21-36mm -- hardly super-wide angle across the full length)? It's an FX lens after all.

So let's put this in perspective. To be able to use filters (some of the time) on the Nikon 14-24mm lens, which costs about $1,800, you have to pay an additional $625 -- for a total cost of $2,425.

For that price you could buy a Nikon D300 body and a who slew of filters. Heck, you can probably find a new D700 body for that price if you look hard enough.

(edited to correct equivalent mm in paragraph five. -- D.T.)

Marilyn Monroe Breaks the Color Barrier

2009-04-20T09:18:00.006-05:00

This 1952 photo of Marilyn Monroe and her favorite costumer, William Travilla, you've probably never seen before. That's because the studio she worked for at the time tried everything it could to suppress it. They even went so far as to crop the photo to suit their backwards idea of propriety.

What the studio objected to, apparently, is that their rising star was photographed with a -- gasp! -- black man. How dare she be seen in public with one of them? And to make matters worse, she was photographed in the 5-4 Club in South Central Los Angeles, an all-black club.

If you've ever seen this photo printed anywhere, you saw this cropped version -- with the unidentified black man cropped out. I bet you were wondering why William Travilla was looking off into the distance, as if he was looking at some unknown person out of camera range.

According to the Travilla Tour web site, the story of the photo goes like this:

The story of this photo, as Travilla and Bill Sarris tell it, is that he and Marilyn spent the evening at an almost exclusively black club in Los Angeles - something that just wasn't done in 1952. The studio was outraged, especially after her nude photograph scandal in March of that year, and the fact that she had just been on the April cover of Life magazine and hailed as 'The Talk of Hollywood.' As a result of being 'caught on camera,' they fired Travilla from the film they were working on. But Marilyn - one of Travilla's closest friends - stood up and said 'If he goes, I go.' And of course, they let him stay, but they were successful in keeping this picture out of the press."

"Travilla: The Man Who Dressed Marilyn Monroe" is a show of William Travilla memorabilia touring the country. In addition to Marilyn Monroe, Travilla fitted costumes to a number of stars, including Jean Harlow, Donna Reed, Morgan Fairchild and Judy Garland.

Luminous-Landscape Nikon D3x Review Off the Mark?

2009-04-16T11:15:00.006-05:00

To answer the headline question, yes, it is.

Let me explain.

I hardly ever agree with the guys over at Luminous Landscape. Their heavy Canon and Phase One bias makes me nuts. Not that there's anything wrong with the products being made by Canon and Phase One. There isn't. But when you go out of your way to tout them over other brands -- particularly Nikon -- that's not a review. They like to characterize us Nikon-users over at LL as "fanboys."

I freely admit I am a loyal Nikon user. I've been using Nikon cameras since 1973. I've owned other brands and even considered switching to Canon at one point a few years ago. But I never did. Nikon has always come through for me and I see no reason to change. I have nothing against people who use other brands. If they get the results they want and are happy with their equipment, more power to them. I certainly wouldn't put them down for using a particular brand.

Which is more than I can say for the guys over at LL.

Anyway, back to my point.

In a review of the new Nikon D3x, the guys over at LL just couldn't overcome their bias, falling short of calling the camera what most people agree it is -- the best damn camera in the world, period. They came close however.

You can tell from the headline, "The World's Best DSLR...But."

I tend to agree. The Nikon D3x is great, but at $8,000 its way overpriced. Still, Nikon has to make its money back and I'm sure they realize pricing it so high is not an ideal situation. There must be a good reason for pricing the camera so high.

The LL review is generally favorable. Performance and output are great. The body is a bit too large. Little things here and there are not perfect. It's the same old story. Read any forum and you'll get the same criticisms. Nothing new here.

Yet they couldn't resist putting in a dig at Nikon and calling out the "fanboys."

Now, compound this with the appearance of the Sony A900 at about the same time as the Nikon D3x. It's also a full frame 25 Megapixel camera at nearly a third of the cost of the D3x; $3,000 vs $8,000. And, as is widely known, and admitted by Nikon, the sensor used by both cameras is essentially the same fundamental device. (Yes, I know that there's a lot of proprietary Nikon goodness in their version of this chip, but it does use the same die).

So, here's the bottom line to this conundrum. Nikon is charging a $4,000 premium for the sensor in the D3x, yet Sony is selling their top-of-the-line A900 camera, which contains a very competitive sensor, for just $3,000. What's wrong with this picture (no pun intended)?

Before the Nikon fanboys burst a blood vessel I will stipulate here and now that the sensor in the D3x is better than the one in the A900. This is so in one area at least, and that's high ISO. Beginning at ISO 800 one definitely has to give the advantage to Nikon, as seen in my Dec, 2008 three-way noise comparison. Other aspects of image performance are not as clear cut, but it's not my purpose here to do such a comparison or nit pick the differences between the sensors.

This is fundamentally wrong and I think the problem with all their reviews. Obviously, the product can't be perfect because it's not made by Canon. That's the first problem.

The second and more obvious problem with this review and this passage in particular is right out there in plain sight. LL admits the chip in the Nikon D3x is the Sony chip (there's no dispute there, Nikon has noted this too). But, as they say in the review, Nikon has added some proprietary stuff to the chip (software, whatever). So while both the Nikon and the Sony cameras start out with the same chip, Nikon adds stuff to it that Sony doesn't. It may use the same die, but after Nikon gets through with it, it's not the same chip anymore. It's capable of doing things differently and/or better than the original chip.

That's like saying because the Audi Q7 , Porsche Cayenne and the VW Touareg are built on the same chassis, they are identical cars. This is obviously not the case. Each company adds their little touches and improvements to make their models uniquely theirs.

The problem with LL is that they are constantly comparing apples with oranges. Their reviews are not unbiased and not even fairly set up. Sure, they offer some good hands-on experience with the products. And to their credit they don't just run out with the camera for a few hours in the fields near their house. They actually take the products out on expeditions for months at a time and give it a good workout.

But they are starting from a preconceived notion that Nikon is still trying to catch up to Canon (which I don't think is true anymore). And that everything Nikon does is to go Canon one better.

While they admit the Nikon D3x is a great camera, they stop short of anointing it the best because it costs so much. And also, even if it is the best, it won't be for long because Canon is coming out with new features soon that will have Nikon scrambling to catch up again.

There's no use in doing a review of a camera if you start out with a bias. If the camera could never be as good as Canon in the first place, why bother? The Nikon D3x would be great if it weren't so big, so heavy and so expensive, according to LL. Now the Canon 1Ds MKIII (the D3x's direct competitor) is as close to perfect as you can get -- despite it being just as big, just as heavy and nearly as expensive at $6,000.

Dead at 40

2009-03-27T16:01:00.003-05:00

The venerable Pentax 67 series of cameras (the 67 and the 67II) are no more. In a notice posted on its web site, Pentax says the last 250 67iis will be sold and no longer be available after April. The Pentax 67 cameras were first released in 1969.

The text is in Japanese, but the gist of the release is that the Pentax 67II cameras, which were released in 1998 as an upgrade to the Pentax 67 medium format film cameras, will be discontinued. The company also is discontinuing the 645NII cameras.

Back By Popular Request

2009-03-10T20:28:00.003-05:00

Photographers asked for it and Kodak listened.

Back by popular request is KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100 Film in 120 format. Currently only available in 35mm format, Kodak says EKTAR 100 will be available for medium format shooters in April.

The ISO 100 speed film features high saturation and ultra-vivid color, incorporating KODAK VISION Motion Picture Film technology to achieve what Kodak calls its "unparalleled fine grain."

It is ideal for photographers who want the superior resolution of medium-format film and look for extraordinary enlargement capability when scanning and printing, the company says.

Video may have killed the radio star, but at least digital hasn't killed film -- yet.

Welcome Back Polaroid!

2009-03-10T08:58:00.003-05:00

If you thought Polaroid was out of the instant photography business for good, think again.

The company, which developed (pun intended) the instant photography business in the 1920s, recently debuted the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera. The company claims the PoGo is the first digital camera with an integral printer available in the US.

According to Polaroid:

With the push of a button, the full-feature digital camera allows consumers to select from among the digital photos on the camera, crop or edit them, add fun borders and in less than 60 seconds, print full-color, 2x3-inch prints – all with a single device.

The PoGo uses ZINK Imaging's sticky backed photo paper and ZINK Zero ink printing technology. No inks or ribbons are involved in printing, instead the ZINK paper uses embedded, heat-activated crystals to develop the photo.

The PoGo should be available this month for about $199. The ZINK paper is available in 10-packs for $4.99 and 30-packs for $12.99.

“Unlike traditional instant film, photos from the Polaroid PoGo™ Instant Digital Camera emerge fully developed,” said Jon Pollock, vice president and general manager, Digital Imaging. “While many of our most passionate customers tell us ‘shaking’ a Polaroid photo is part of the fun, with any Polaroid photo, the ‘shake’ is totally optional.”

Welcome back Polaroid. We missed you.

Can You Say, Prescient?

2009-01-27T23:36:00.002-05:00

I'm not one to toot my own horn (he says as he puckers his lips and expells air into his horn), but I predicted the Nikon D3x a full two-and-one-half years before it even existed.

Don't believe me?

Check out this Rantings on Photography post dated March 24, 2006. You'll notice in the last paragraph, near the end, I specifically mention the D3x.

Ha! Take that Ken Rockwell and DP Review.

An Historic Photograph

2009-01-15T14:01:00.002-05:00

You are looking at an historic photograph.

It's historic not only because it's the official Presidential portrait of soon-to-take-office Barack Obama. It's historic not only because it's the official Presidential portrait of the first African-American to be elected president of the United States.

More importantly (I think), it's historic because it's the first official Presidential portrait to be shot digitally.

Newly-hired White House Photographer Pete Souza took the shot with his Canon 5D Mark II. Us loyal Nikon users would have preferred he'd used a Nikon to take the portrait, but you can't win them all.

Does This Photo Suck?

2008-12-19T21:37:00.002-05:00

At least one blogger thinks this is the worst photograph ever taken.

I disagree. It's not the most beautiful, but it's not the worst either.

Here's the deal. Mike Johnston, who writes the wonderful photo blog The Online Photographer, says this shot by Annie Leibovitz for the Lavazza 2009 Calendar, is "the worst photograph ever made" and offers "inspired badness."

I'm a fan of Mike's blog and his writing. I've followed him since he was associated with two of the best photography magazines ever produced: Camera & Darkroom (the original one) and PHOTOtechniques. But I don't always agree with him. This time I only half agree with him.

Here's what he says about the Leibovitz photo that I agree with:

But for inspired badness, this recent "photograph"* by Annie Leibovitz for the Lavazza calendar has it all: a pandering (unto capitulation) to empty style; excessive color which is nevertheless unattractive; an attractive model who is also unattractive (though she got legs! But what the hell is with that expression?); a really woeful idea (Romulus and Remus and their wolf-mother—oh, please) that nevertheless doesn't even work; heavyhanded overproduction; no trace of irony; a blatantly fake background that doesn't even try to match the studio-shot foreground; a baby butt, for that touch of smack-you-with-a-dead-fish cuteness; campy makeup, kitschy hair; and, to top it all off, a hilariously incongruous product placement like an embarrassing pimple.

Yes, the photo is all that.

But, he also goes on to say this, which I don't agree with:

This picture as a whole has absolutely zero connection to reality or honest depiction, but is unredeemed by any countervailing expressive or artistic purpose. And (and this puts it out in front of many other contenders) it was all done intentionally, front to back, top to bottom, money-no-object, by an army of the most talented professionals, from art director to stylists to make-up artists to baby-wranglers to lighting assistants to photographer to digital retoucher, all working assiduously in concert in pursuit of the utterly pointless.

That's what I call the "Well, Duh!" paragraph.

This is advertising, not art. Lavazza is in the business of selling Espresso coffee and by extension Italian culture. Of course it has "zero connection to reality," it's advertising. It's fantasy, fiction, fake, stylized unreality. Did I mention it's advertising?

Do Ansel Adams' Photos Lie?

2008-11-14T09:12:00.006-05:00

"The camera doesn't lie."

We all know this is not true, especially in this day of digital manipulation. We see it all the time on the newsstands on magazine covers. Photos are retouched, manipulated, transposed and composited within an inch of their lives on a regular basis.

I've complained about this numerous times in this blog, particularly when it comes to magazine covers.

But is there ever a time when manipulating a photo -- photographing something that essentially is not really there -- OK? Well, sure there is.

When you're dealing with something like, say, journalism -- where you're supposed to be telling a story and just giving the facts -- manipulating photos is definitely out of bounds. You photograph what you find, whether you like it or not. Whether it's pretty or not. It's not OK to take a photograph and change some elements because they interfere with your concept of what the reality should be.

In advertising it's done all the time. You could argue since advertisers are trying to sell a product -- and reality has little to do with it -- that it's OK to manipulate photos in this context.

One of the places where manipulating photographs is accepted as "normal" is in art. After all, the art photographer is giving you his vision of reality, not actually reality.

All of which is a long way of asking if it's OK for Ansel Adams to manipulate his photographs or not. His mission was to show us the beauty in nature. Using his talent and vision, he would photograph what he considered some of the most beautiful places in the United States and spend hours meticulously spotting, dodging and burning his prints to present his exact vision of what he saw before he took the photo.

He wouldn't manipulate his photographs, in the sense that he would never physically remove or reposition objects from the scene he was photographing. The only manipulation he would do involved waiting for a certain type of light to appear while he was photographing or use a certain combination of chemicals in the developing or printing of his photographs to achieve his vision.

But what about his 1944 photo "Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, from Lone Pine, California"? (seen at left) This may be the only instance when he actually removed an object that appeared in the photograph.

According to Adams in his book "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs."

I set up my camera on my car platform at what I felt was the best location, overlooking a pasture. It was very cold — perhaps near zero — and I waited shivering, for a shaft of sunlight to flow over the distant trees. A horse grazing in the frosty pasture stood facing away from me with exasperation, stolid persistence. I made several exposures of moments of light and shadow, but the horse was uncooperative, resembling a distant stump. I observed the final shaft of light approaching. At the last moment the horse turned to show its profile, and I made the exposure. Within a minute the entire area was flooded with sunlight and the natural chiaroscuro was gone.
I used my 8×10 Ansco view camera with the 23-inch component of my Cooke Series XV lens with a Wratten No. 15 (G) filter. The film was Isopan, developed in Kodak D-23. The negative is rather complex to print. It is a problem of agreeable balance between the brilliant snow on the peaks and the dark shadowed hills.
The enterprising youth of the Lone Pine High School had climbed the rocky slopes of the Alabama Hills and whitewashed a huge white L P [the letters “L” and P”] for the world to see. It is a hideous and insulting scar on one of the great vistas of our land, and shows in every photograph made of the area. I ruthlessly removed what I could of the L P from the negative (in the left-hand hill), and have always spotted out any remaining trace in the print. I have been criticized by some for doing this, but I am not enough of a purist to perpetuate the scar and thereby destroy — for me, at least — the extraordinary beauty and perfection of the scene.

So there you have it. Adams actually removed a "feature" of the landscape he was photographing. He manipulated this photograph to eliminate a part of the landscape he was not happy about.

So is this acceptable or not? As you can see from the photograph at right (with the offending "LP" clearly visible in the circled portion) I think Adams was justified in removing this "graffiti."

Since the rocks spelling out "LP" did not form themselves into that configuration -- they were put that way by some kids -- they are not a naturally occurring part of the landscape. The landscape, in effect, was already manipulated before Adams got there. Since the offending rocks don't actually belong in that configuration and do not add anything to the photograph, he was right to remove them. It's as if he climbed up the mountain and removed some trash he found lying around. By spotting out the rocks he essentially restored the landscape to the way it would have been had those kids not gotten around to putting them there.

Science as Art

2008-09-27T22:20:00.003-05:00

The journal Science, in association with the National Science Foundation, has named the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge winners. Each year the magazine awards the prize to scientists who produce the best photographs, illustrations and interactive media "that visualize science and technology." This is the sixth annual prize.

According to the magazine:

The winners -- in categories including photography, illustration, informational graphics, and multimedia -- captured the crystalline beauty of diatoms, the expanse of the human circulatory system, a fairy tale tea party re-invented, and the dynamic life of a plant cell.

The winner of this year's Photography prize went to Mario De Stefano, of The Second University of Naples, for his photo "The Glass Forest," (seen above) which depicts a community of microscopic diatoms -- unicellular algae with a peculiar glass-like cell wall -- attached to a marine invertebrate (Eudendrium racemosum). De Stefano captured the image with a scanning electron microscope.

Starting a War with Photoshop?

2008-07-10T08:54:00.005-05:00

The mainstream media are falling all over themselves reporting the fact that Iran has been testing missiles that supposedly are capable of reaching Turkey and Israel. In their efforts to put out the story, many media outlets pulled photos form the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's web site, supposedly showing the four missiles Iran test fired.

But wait, was it four missiles, or three? And was it one test firing or two?

Well, the answer depends on which media outlet you listen to/read.

According to The New York Times:

As news spread across the world of Iran’s provocative missile tests, so did an image of four missiles heading skyward in unison. Unfortunately, it appeared to contain one too many missiles, a fact that had not emerged before the photo appeared on the front pages of The Los Angeles Times, The Financial Times, The Chicago Tribune and several other newspapers as well as on BBC News, MSNBC, Yahoo! News, NYTimes.com and many other major news Web sites.

Apparently the Iranian Revolutionary Guard knows how to use Photoshop! Oh, the horror!

A photo picked up by just about everybody in the world (apparently lifted from the Revolutionary Guard's Web site) shows four missiles being launched. However, some sharp eyed observers noticed that missiles three and four (from the left) look identical. The plume of smoke from both of them appears identical. Did the Iranians Photoshop the photo to beef up their missile test?

Apparently they did. Because they released another photo a bit later showing only three missiles being fired.

But wait. Was the second photo from a totally different test firing? Some media outlets seem to think so. They seem to think that the second photo showing only three missiles was from a second round of test firing.

Or was it the correct photo from the original (only?) test firing. The two photos are identical, save for the extra missile in the first one, which looks identical to the missile next to it.

So, did the Iranians fire off two missile tests? Did they release a doctored photo from the first test? Did the conduct one test and release two photos?

At this point, nobody knows. It's clear the Iranians fired off some missiles. How many and in how many tests is unclear.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks this whole thing is a bit fishy. Martin Eisenstadt posted a piece about the same time as I did.

This whole thing makes my head hurt.

The Big Picture

2008-06-24T15:48:00.002-05:00

Boston.com, the web site of The Boston Globe newspaper, has started a photojournalism blog featuring photography from around the country -- and elsewhere.

The site, called The Big Picture, features photography from newspapers, wire services and even NASA. Each photo is a blog entry that features some text about the story behind the photo and additional photos from the shoot.

The site is updated three-times a week. Give it a look. It's well worth your time.

Your Own Personal Paparazzi

2008-04-20T18:12:00.002-05:00

Always wished you had your own paparazzi on retainer to treat you like a celebrity every time you went to the supermarket? Well, now you can have one. Actually, you can have nine of them.

A company called eParty Unlimited is selling a set of nine plastic Paparazzi that can be at your beck and call. All for the paltry sale price of $15.49.

Here's how the company describes the tiny photographic terrors:

Longing to be in the spotlight?

Now you can have the true red carpet experience. These eager paparazzi are poised and ready to snap your picture and get an interview.

Each set includes nine 2-1/2" (6.4 cm) to 4" (10.2 cm) tall, hard vinyl paparazzi, complete with a cardboard "velvet rope" to keep the throngs at bay.

Now, you too can know what it feels like to be Britney Spears.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

2008-04-09T14:38:00.003-05:00

Pictures don't lie. Or so the cliche goes. Well, actually, that's not true. These days, pictures can be made to say whatever you want them to say.

Case in point: this week's cover story in OK! magazine about Jennifer Aniston's and Orlando Bloom's supposed "romance." It must be true because they have photos, right?

Wrong.

The photo in question, the original of which can be seen here on the right, has been heavily cropped. So heavily in fact, that Eva Longoria -- who joined Aniston in greeting Bloom -- has been cropped out altogether. The photo also has been flopped. The doctored version ran on the cover of OK! and is seen here on the left.

All this just to sell a crappy rag with fake stories about a star's supposed budding romance.

R.I. P. Dith Pran 1942-2008

2008-03-30T14:17:00.003-05:00

Cambodian photojournalist Dith Pran, made famous by the movie "The Killing Fields," passed away March 30 in New Jersey from pancreatic cancer. Dith was 65 years old.

Dith, who came to the United States in 1980, worked for The New York Times as a photographer.

According to The Times:

Mr. Dith saw his country descend into a living hell as he scraped and scrambled to survive the barbarous revolutionary regime of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979, when as many as two million Cambodians — a third of the population — were killed, experts estimate. Mr. Dith survived through nimbleness, guile and sheer desperation.

Since coming to the United States, Dith spent much of his time fighting against genocide around the world.

Open Medium Format Platform?

2008-03-19T20:41:00.003-05:00

Phase One and Mamiya Digital Imaging have joined forces to introduce what they call the "world's most flexible, open medium format digital camera platform."

That might be a bit of PR hyperbole, but it's not far from the truth. The new medium format camera, branded as Phase One but really a Mamiya 645AFDIII, is able to accept digital backs from many different manufactures -- not just Phase One and Mamiya. It also accepts film backs. In addition, it can use a variety of lenses, including Mamiya 645 series lenses, Hasselblad V-system lenses and Pentacon Six lenses.

According to a joint Phase One-Mamiya press release:

It is designed to achieve shutter speeds from 1/4000 sec. to 60 min. The camera features anergonomic molded grip and provides direct control of critical camera settings using manual dials -- both of which are essential elements for the professional photographer engaged in day long hand-held shooting sessions.

The camera is expected to be available in the second quarter of the year. Full system specs and options will be made available at that time, the companies said. It is expected to sell for about 9,000 euros, or about $14,000.

Fuji Hints at New Medium Format Film Camera

2008-02-01T09:09:00.000-05:00

At this year's PMA show, Fujifilm quietly tossed off some information about a new medium format film camera it is developing.

Buried in a press release about new camera offerings, the company said it is working on a prototype for an upcoming exhibit.

Medium-Format Film Camera
In a special exhibit, Fujifilm will feature a prototype of a new portable medium-format film camera. Even as the company innovates in digital imaging technology, Fujifilm remains true to its heritage and to the acknowledged superior image quality delivered by professional photographic film products. Fujifilm is committed to further expanding the world of imaging whether in digital or analog technologies.

That's the extent of it. No more information was forthcoming. But it is good news for all of us who still shoot film. Anyone who owns one of Fujifilm's medium format rangefinder cameras knows how much fun they are to use. A new rangefinder, or even an SLR, from Fuji would be wonderful.

Stay tuned.

UPDATE FEB. 7 - According to the photo we just obtained, it looks like the new Fuji is going to be a 6x7 rangefinder with a folding 80mm Fujinon lens.

I've Been Looking So Long at These Pictures of You

2007-12-30T20:11:00.000-05:00

This is hilarious.

I don't know what's funnier, the crappy portraits or the captions.

You decide.

Who says there was nothing funny about the '70s?

The New York Times Flips Over Buffalo Bill

2007-12-11T16:30:00.000-05:00

The New York Times Store is selling what is probably the rarest Buffalo Bill Cody photograph. In fact, the photo is probably one-of-a-kind.

For $199, you can own your very own 11x14 inch copy of the "Upside Down Buffalo Cody - Circa 1910" photograph!

Of course, the photograph is not really upside down. Just The New York Times. Apparently no one realized the photo was flipped when they put together the Web page.

Quick, check out the photo in its native habitat before The Times realizes its mistake and Buffalo Bill once again gains his feet.

UPDATE 1/16/08 - It looks like The Times finally realized their mistake and corrected it. But now their watermark on the photo is backwards!

It's New. It's Cheap. It's Chinese. It's Not Digital.

2007-12-09T19:37:00.000-05:00

Possibly as a reaction to the digital explosion (but more likely a result of cheaper labor) the Chinese have done it again. No, not painted more toys with lead paint, but introduced another low-priced view camera.

This one is known as the Chamonix 4x5. It is a lightweight folding camera made of hardwood, aluminum and carbon fiber composites. It weighs in at about four pounds without a lens and costs $700.

Check out the GetDPI forum for some more info.

The Chamonix joins the Shen-Hao view cameras in the low-enough priced that anyone can afford to buy a view camera category. And no matter what any photography snob tries to tell you, you can get just as amazing photos from a $700 view camera as you can from a $3,800 Ebony view camera. After all, a view camera is just a light-tight bellows with some movements. It's the lens that makes the camera, not the type of wood used.

Want Your Film back in an Hour? Don't Hold Your Breath

2007-10-09T08:18:00.000-05:00

Like most things photographic these days, digital has claimed yet another victim: the one-hour photo drop-off. remember the days when you used to be able to go to a supermarket, drug store or even a Fotomat? Well, those days are nearly gone.

In an article in today's The New York Times, the sad scenario is laid out for us.

According to the article:

Some 35,000 locations in the United States still develop film, mostly drugstores, supermarkets and discount retail stores, as well as photo specialty stores.

And then there's this:

Over the last four years, the sale of film has been dropping at a rate of 25 to 30 percent each year. In 2006, 204 million rolls were sold, a quarter of the 800 million sold at the peak in 1999.

The article points out that Kodak,which has seen its film sales decline in the face of digital, is looking to third-world countries with a smaller installed base of computers to extend the life of its analog products. It also has a stallwart base of professional photographers in the U.S. The company recently introduced an improved formulation of T-Max 400 black & white film.

And That's the Way it Was -- Oh, Really?

2007-09-26T08:17:00.000-05:00

The New York Times has an interesting opinion piece today by filmmaker Errol Morris.

His subject is two photographs taken by Roger Fenton during the Crimean War, part of his Valley of the Shadows of Death series in 1855. One photos shows a battlefield road, with cannonballs lining the side of the road (above left). The other shows the road with the cannonballs littered throughout (below right). His question? Which photo came first and did Fenton stage the photo by scattering the cannonballs along the road?

The essay was initiated after Morris read a passage in Susan Sontag's latest book On Regarding the Pain of Others about the photos. She concludes the photo with the cannonballs on the road must have been staged and that it was taken after the shot of the road without cannonballs. Morris says there is little evidence to come to this conclusion.

He's asked Times readers to judge for themselves.

Famous Photographer Dies. Obituaries Tout His Achievements. No One Realizes It's All A Lie.

2007-09-04T08:52:00.000-05:00

When "photographer" Joe O'Donnell died in mid-August, a number of newspapers, including The New York Times, ran his obituary. Nothing unusual about that. All sorts of people get obituaries when they die.

And why shouldn't O'Donnell get some posthumous ink? He was a famous photographer right? He shot the iconic photo of John F. Kennedy Jr. saluting his father's casket at President Kennedy's funeral after all.

Well, it turns out that it was all a lie. O'Donnell never took any of the photos he's allegedly famous for. Unless you use "took" in the sense that he stole them and tried to claim them as his own. A section of the Stan Stearns original photograph of John-John saluting at his father's funeral is reproduced above.

It's a complicated story, but Marianne Fulton in The Digital Journalist does a good job in unraveling the mystery.

A section of O'Donnell's cropped and appropriated version of the famous photo is at left. It's clearly the same photograph, just cropped differently.

Here's how the mystery came to light, according to Fulton:

When Gary Haynes saw the reproduction of the John-John salute alarm bells went off. Haynes, a retired UPI photographer and author of "Picture This!" (Bulfinch Press, 2006), a compilation of great UPI photographs, got in touch with The New York Times. "I alerted The Times, on Aug. 15, the morning after the obit ran, that the photo they had credited to 'O'Donnell' was, I was 99% certain, the famous UPI photo shot by Stan Stearns…. There's no question that the photos are identical. It is impossible for two photographers, even if they are gaffer-taped together, to come up with identical photos.

Still, the central question in this whole mess remains, will the newspapers, magazines and news outlets who ran the glowing obituaries of O'Donnell touting his photographic achievements run corrections?

O'Donnell's son answers some of the criticism here.

The obit also ran in American Photographer magazine. Fortunately some astute readers have commented on the article and corrected the mistake in the comments section of the magazine's web site.

The Nikons Are Coming! The Nikons Are Coming!

2007-08-27T19:21:00.000-05:00

Just when I went and sold all of my old manual 35mm Nikon lenses, Nikon goes and announces the Nikon D3, the successor to its amazing D2x and D2xs cameras, which sports a full frame sensor.

It figures.

Anyway, the specs look good on the new 12 megapixel D3. According to Nikon:

New 12.1 effective megapixels FX-format (23.9 x 36mm) sensor

The D3’s new and original 12.1 effective megapixel FX-format CMOS image sensor features a series of technologies that enable it to deliver superior quality pictures throughout the camera’s exceptionally broad ISO range. In addition, the sensor’s high-speed 12-channel readout allows the camera to shoot 12.1 megapixel images at up to nine frames per second.

Wide sensitivity range

The camera’s ISO sensitivity range is extremely broad, allowing photographers to shoot low noise photographs in a variety of situations. The camera’s normal range is from ISO 200 to 6400, and this range can be extended using the camera’s built-in settings of Lo-1 and Hi-2 for the equivalent of ISO 100 and ISO 25,600, respectively.

High-speed performance

The D3 is designed to deliver high-speed performance in virtually any situation. With a shutter release time lag of only 37 milliseconds, camera start-up time of 0.12 seconds, and continuous shooting speed of up to nine frames per second with full resolution 12.1 megapixel images, the D3 is the world’s fastest digital SLR camera in its class. The D3 is also capable of shooting at up to 11 frames per second when using the camera’s DX-
format mode, with 5.1 megapixel images. The Nikon D3 is also compliant with UDMA memory cards, enabling recording speeds of up to 35 megabytes per second.

New EXPEED Image Processing System

The D3 features Nikon’s new EXPEED Image Processing System that is central to the speed and processing power of the camera. EXPEED delivers optimized performance for the camera and its features and ensures high-image quality and high-speed image processing.

Not bad for $5,000.

Nikon also announced the D300, its successor to the D200. The D300 is expected to sell for $1,800.

An Idea Just Crazy Enough to Work

2007-07-19T20:22:00.000-05:00

If you photograph kids, especially small kids and babies, you know how difficult it is to get them to stand still and actually look at the camera once-in-a-while.

Well, Federico Sartorio has come up with an ingenious idea to keep their attention: Pez dispensers. That's right, a good old-fashioned Pez dispenser.

Here's how it works. You buy a Pez dispenser, the more outrageous the better. Cut it's feet off and slide it into your camera's hot shoe. And Voila! Instant attention grabber.

According to Sartorio:

The best use for this attachment is to make people laugh and quickly snap a joyful portrait of them. You can then reward them with a sweet for added happiness. I've tested it on kids and friends and it works most of the time!

It's such a simple -- and inexpensive -- idea, that it can't fail.

Vanity Fair is at it Again

2007-06-07T20:19:00.001-05:00

Vanity Fair, which has been accused in the past of not being quite so upfront about its digital manipulations of cover shoots, is at it again. This time it's for the July issue of the magazine. The cover shoot -- featuring 21 different celebrities and world leaders on 20 covers -- was again handled by Annie Leibovitz. The July issue -- a special Africa-themed issue -- was guest edited by U2 lead singer Bono. The covers were supposedly his idea.

The problem, however, is that not all of the celebrities photographed "together" on the covers were actually in the same place at the same time. The covers were digitally manipulated composites that make it look like they were photographed together.

For instance, while President George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice actually were photographed together for one cover, President Bush and Bishop Desmond Tutu were on the cover of another version together, but actually were photographed separately in separate countries on separate days.

According to Photo District News:

The print magazine, in which all the cover photos are reproduced inside, offers clues that portraits are composites, but never says so directly. "We decided that 20 different covers had a nice ring to it. That meant 20 individual photo shoots," Graydon Carter writes in his editor's letter.

Now, it's no mean feat to photograph all these people in separate locations and to do all the post-production digital work on deadline. That's not the problem. The problem is that Vanity Fair once again failed to disclose that the photographs were composites -- or photo illustrations as these things are called these days.

In fact, Ms. Leibovitz worked pretty hard to get the shots, as evidenced by her itinerary, which was published on the magazine's web site:

Annie Leibovitz's globe-trotting, record-breaking cover-shoot time line:

March 1, 2007: Bono and [Graydon] Carter [Vanity Fair's editor] finalize cover plans in Manhattan.

March 19: And she's off! New York to Winston-Salem, North Carolina (470 miles).

March 20: Shoots MAYA ANGELOU; Winston-Salem to Greenville, South Carolina (150 miles); shoots GEORGE CLOONEY; Greenville to New York (615 miles).

March 23: Shoots JAY-Z.

March 25: New York to London (3,440 miles).

March 26: Shoots QUEEN RANIA.

March 27: Takes well-deserved break from Africa Issue shoot; shoots Queen Elizabeth instead.

March 28: London to Dublin (280 miles).

March 29: Shoots BONO on day of his knighting; Dublin to Chicago (3,660 miles); Chicago to Seattle (1,710 miles).

March 30: Shoots BILL and MELINDA GATES; Seattle to New York (2,410 miles).

April 4–7: Shoots Bruce Willis for June 2007 cover story in Mojave Desert and on Turks and Caicos: New York to Los Angeles (2,470 miles); Los Angeles to Turks and Caicos (2,980 miles).

April 8: Turks and Caicos to New York (1,330 miles).

April 10: Shoots IMAN and ALICIA KEYS; New York to Los Angeles (2,470 miles). Shoots DJIMON HOUNSOU; Los Angeles to Phoenix (370 miles).

April 11: Shoots MUHAMMAD ALI.

April 12: Phoenix to Omaha, Nebraska (1,020 miles); shoots WARREN BUFFETT; Omaha to Washington, D.C. (995 miles).

April 13: Shoots GEORGE W. BUSH and CONDOLEEZZA RICE; Washington to New York (230 miles).

April 16–17: Editing photos.

April 18: New York to Chicago (740 miles); shoots OPRAH WINFREY; Chicago to Washington (575 miles).

April 19: Shoots BARACK OBAMA; Washington to New York (230 miles).

April 20: Shoots CHRIS ROCK.

April 25: New York to Los Angeles (2,470 miles); shoots BRAD PITT and DON CHEADLE; Los Angeles to New York (2,470 miles).

April 26: New York to Seoul, South Korea (6,870 miles).

April 27: Seoul to Osaka, Japan (520 miles).

April 28: Shoots ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU in Kobe, Japan.

April 29: Japan to London (5,920 miles).

April 30: Shoots 20th and final cover, MADONNA, in London. London to New York (3,440 miles).

Total mileage: 47,835 miles, almost two times the circumference of the earth.

The magazine alluded to the fact that the covers were composites, but never came right out and said it. This is a big no-no in journalism. Photographs are not supposed to lie. And if they do, the reading public should be made aware of that fact in plain, easy to find, language. But at least Vanity Fair is being consistent. It never usually makes it clear when it has manipulated its photos.

I Heart Photography

2007-05-26T18:51:00.000-05:00

It all started in 1977 with the "I Love New York" advertising campaign. The "love" was represented by a heart. Now, it seems, everyone "hearts" everything.

But if you "heart," err...love photography, show your support by making your way over the What The Duck's I Love Photography site and pick up a T-shirt, poster, calendar, mouse pad, hat or mug.

The I Love Photography merchandise features an eye, heart and a camera, instead of the words. Pretty clever, eh? If you're into photography, or even cool graphics, pick yourself up some of WTD's merchandise.

They're available in a variety of colors, styles and sizes for men and women. Heck, they even have a T-shirt for your dog!

Is This the World's Most Expensive Camera?

2007-05-02T16:44:00.000-05:00

And is it the first commercially available camera?

According to Viennese the auction house WestLicht, it most likely is.

On May 26, WestLicht will auction off this Le Daguerreotype Susse Freres 6.5" x8.5" full-plate camera from 1839. The auction house says the camera features "soft wood, stained black, brass fittings, a manufacturer’s label is affixed to one side with the legend: LE DAGUERRÉOTYPE, D´aprés les Plans officiels déposés par Mr. DAGUERRE au Ministére de l´Interérieur. SUSSE Frères, 31, Place de la Bourse."

The Susse Freres camera was produced according to instructions from Daguerre and was marketed about 10 days earlier than his brother-in-law Alphonse Giroux's own Daguerreotype camera, which was widely believed to be the first commercially available camera. The Susse Freres camera were rumored to exist, but no known examples were ever seen. Some doubted they ever existed.

Apparently the rumors were correct.

According to the auction house:

The overall, original condition of the camera is exceptionally good and it has never been restored...Numerous experts attest that it is very likely the oldest commercially-produced camera in the world. An expertise by the well known specialist for early photography and author of numerous books on the subject, Michel Auer, is included.

The starting bid for the Susse Freres camera is 100,000 Euros, about $136,000. The final price for the camera is likely to go for much more than the opening bid. If it is indeed the first commercially available camera, I would be surprised to see it go for 10 times the opening bid. Online bidding via eBay will begin May 16.

All Hail the Return of Velvia 50!

2007-04-15T15:14:00.000-05:00

All you landscape photographers out there who have been mourning the untimely death of Fujifilm's Fujichrome Velvia 50 rejoice. The film is once again available for sale.

As noted at the PMA Show in Las Vegas in February, Fujifilm once again plans to manufacture the film. According to the company, Velvia 50 was discontinued because:

At the beginning of 2005 Fujifilm announced the discontinuation of previous Fujichrome Velvia for Professionals (RVP) due to difficulties in procuring some of the key raw materials used to produce the product. However, since the last stocks were sold earlier last year, the company received many requests from photographers worldwide to restart manufacturing, as they had used Velvia for many years and consider it unmatched in terms of quality and character. One of Fujifilm’s main priorities is to nurture the culture of photography, so those requests were taken very seriously. As a result, Fujifilm research and development teams have been working hard to develop substitute raw materials and new manufacturing technologies that enable the company to restart production of this famous emulsion.

The new Velvia 50 is available in Japan now. You can distinguish the new version from the older version by the large "50" on the box. The "50" denotes the Velvia's film speed.

Fuji said it plans to make it available in the US this summer. Fujifilm Velvia 50 is available in 135, 120, 220, 4x5 (loose sheets and Quickloads) and 8x10. It is also available in 5x7 as a special order.

If you don't want to wait for it to be released, or can't get to Japan, you can order it from Megaperls Webshop, importers of photographic products from Japan. A 5-pack of 120 costs $28.88 plus shipping.

Annie Shoots The Sopranos

2007-03-07T19:48:00.000-05:00

Photographer Annie Leibovitz shot The Sopranos cast members -- both present and past members -- for the April cover and an inside spread of the new Vanity Fair magazine.

On the Vanity Fair website, there's a nice video of the shoot.

The article in the magazine chronicles the history of the show and offers this tantilizing teaser:

See the April issue for Peter Biskind's feature on how the greatest show in TV history got made—and how it all ends.

The show ends its nine year run this year with nine new episodes, beginning in April.

Disrespectful?

2007-02-28T14:36:00.000-05:00

If you live in Santa Monica, CA and wonder why this ad has disappeared from all of the Big Blue buses cruising around town, its because the transit authority thinks the ad promotes a show that's disrespectful to women.

The ad, for the CW network's television show "America's Next Top Model" starring supermodel Tyra Banks, promotes the upcoming season of the show, which premieres tonight. The ad features 13 bikini-clad contestants -- and Ms. Banks -- in front of a waterfall.

According to the Associated Press:

Most of the complaints were from people concerned that the city might be endorsing a show they believed was disrespectful to women, said Stephanie Negriff, director of transit services in the beach city.

"It's a matter of public taste," she said. "We try to be sensitive to the community."

The ads ran for two weeks before anyone thought to check if the show is actually disrespectful to women or not.

In the past, the city has taken down bus ads for other TV shows because of similar complaints.

RIP: Kodak's Film Business?

2007-02-09T12:14:00.000-05:00

The Times Online, the online site of the Times of London newspaper, is reporting that Kodak is considering selling or spinning off its film business. The sale could generate $1.5 billion, the Times Online said.

Kodak projects film sales this year at $3.4 billion, declining to $2.7 billion in 2008. At that rate of decline Kodak has at least five good years left in its film business. Though digital cameras have all but killed off amateur film sales (and a large portion of professional sales as well), Kodak still does a healthy business in film stock to Hollywood (though that business is in decline as well).

Still, at $2.7 billion in sales, one would think a company could survive nicely. Many smaller companies would kill to have one-tenth the sales of Kodak's film division.

Kodak began producing dry plate film in 1880. It introduced its first roll film around 1885. In 1886, it began selling film specially coated for motion picture use.

Hasselblad to Publish New Magazine

2007-01-26T10:24:00.000-05:00

In this age of digital everything, it's nice to see that some companies still think analog has its place.

Victor Hasselblad AB is publishing a new magazine called Victor by Hasselblad. The quarterly publication will be a glossy 60 pages and will be published the old-fashioned way on paper, not a PDF or electronic version.

The company describes the new magazine this way:

Welcome to Victor by Hasselblad. The new magazine from Hasselblad that will be as uncompromising, as innovative and as passionate as our company's founder, a magazine that will continue to blaze a trail of high-end imaging, defining the very concept of photography itself and providing useful tools for present and coming generations of photographer.

The magazine will cost $16 per issue, or $49 plus shipping for a yearly subscription. You can subscribe here. But be warned. I could not sign up using the online form on either a Mac or a PC using various browsers. The form insisted that I live in Alabama (which I don't) and no matter what I did, it would not let me change it.

New York Post Cranks Up the Wayback Machine to Ilustrate Taxi Rate Hike

2006-12-01T09:25:00.000-05:00

Is the New York Post living in the past, or are their photo researchers too lazy to actually look at the photos they buy to use as story illustrations?

For a story headlined "Ticker Shock at Real Taxi Hike," the Post dug up a stock photo of a "businessman" in a taxi talking on a cell phone. The photo was provided by Getty Images and shot by Getty photographer Michael Goldman. It's a legitimate stock photo and I'm sure the Post paid for its use -- in 1997 when the photo was most likely shot.

If you look closely at the photo the Post used to illustrate the story, you'll see that the "businessman" in the taxi is indeed talking on a cellphone -- one that's at least 10 years old judging by the size of the phone. Obviously this photo was not shot just for this story. It was probably purchased as an illustration for the story, but the paper clearly states the photo was shot "yesterday." The caption states that the "businessman" is in the taxi waiting in traffic in Midtown Manhattan, as the new rate hikes are going into effect. This is patently untrue. The photo is probably 10 years old. It may very well have been shot in Midtown, but not in this decade.

The Post is a tabloid in the very best (worst?) British tradition. It shouldn't be surprising that what they do can hardly be called journalism.

Sexism and the Associated Press

2006-11-15T11:02:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press proves that it's an old boys network, out of touch with modern sensibilities.

In this photo of incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the AP made sure to mention who made the suit she was wearing and what color it was. Apparently it's important to point out what powerful people are wearing and who the desinger is -- at least if they're women. Men, on the other hand, don't even rate a mention of the color of their ties.

Why is it important to mention who made Pelosi's suit. Particularly in an AP photo. I could understand if the photo ran in a fashion magazine, then the caption would be perfectly fine. But the AP is a general news organization. It doesn't mention what male politicians are wearing, so why do it with women?

Can you say Double Standard?

Lange Internment Photos Unearthed

2006-11-06T12:47:00.000-05:00

Nearly 800 rarely -- if ever -- seen photos by Dorothea Lange have been unearthed in the National Archives. The photos, from the winter of 1942, cover the roundup and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II by the US government.

According to The New York Times:

Lange’s work unflinchingly illustrates the reality of life during this extraordinary moment in American history when about 110,000 people were moved with their families, sometimes at gunpoint, into horse stalls and tar-paper shacks where they endured brutal heat and bitter cold, filth, dust and open sewers.

There's also a book, titled "Impounded" that features many of the "lost" photos.

'Moonrise' Sets Record for Ansel Adams

2006-10-20T08:34:00.000-05:00

A London photography dealer, acting on behalf of a private client, paid $609,600 for a print of Ansel Adams' "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" earlier this week, setting a record for the print. The previous record for Moonrise was $136,000, set in 2002. The previous auction record for any Ansel Adams photograph was $352,000.

Moonrise is one of Adams' most famous prints. It was taken in 1941. It is unknown how many prints of "Moonrise" exist. Adams didn't start printing the negative of "Moonrise" until 1948. Each print is different, as Adams interpreted the negative differently each time. Each print of Moonrise gets progressively darker.

Two other "Moonrise" prints at the same auction sold for about $33,000 each. Both were printed in the '60s or early '70s with much higher contrast and a darker sky than the 1948 print.

The sale shows that photography collecting is about the print — "their provenance, the type of paper, and the artistic interpretation," explained a photography dealer.

The Camera Doesn't Lie

2006-10-17T15:21:00.000-05:00

Not by itself, but it surely can be made to with today's technology.

Check out this short film from the people that make Dove soap. It's an ad for something their touting called The Campaign For Real Beauty, part of the Dove Self-Esteem Fund. I think the point is that advertising gives women a distorted view of what their bodies are "supposed" to look like.

The film is an eye-opening look at how a "plain" model is turned into a supermodel through makeup, lighting tricks and Photoshop.

Interesting.

From the Cover of the Rolling Stone, to the Cover of the Newsweek

2006-09-29T22:17:00.000-05:00

Photographer Annie Leibovitz is the cover story in this week's Newsweek magazine.

The story coincides with Leibovitz's publishing her new book "A Photographer's Life:
1990-2005." An exhibition of the same name, with more than 200 photographs, is being mounted at the Brooklyn Museum.

Interestingly, Leibovitz notes in the story that she still shoots film for her personal work, but recently switched to digital for her celebrity portrait and advertising work.

She told the magazine:

I still shoot black & white 35mm for my personal work. But three months ago I delved into the digital revolution for my assignment work. It turns out that I love it.

Another one seduced by the almighty pixel.

No, It's Not a Blimp. It's the World's Longest Telephoto Lens.

2006-09-18T19:26:00.000-05:00

And it's from Zeiss.

The lens, an Apo Sonnar T* f4, 1700mm telephoto, was commissioned by a private client, whom Zeiss will not identify. Judging by the Arabic writing on the side of the lens, it was probably a wealthy Middle Eastern client. The lens is rumored to cost in the six figures and weighs 542 pounds!

According to Zeiss:

Never before has the world of photography seen such a lens. Developed for long distance wildlife photography this supertele lens provides 21x magnification. In search of the highest imaginable image quality the client decided for 6x6 medium format and the Hasselblad 203 FE as the best camera he is aware of.

The company said building the lens required new ways of controlling a lens, including "servo-controlled aiming and focusing."

Joe Rosenthal 1911-2006

2006-08-22T08:57:00.000-05:00

Joe Rosenthal, the Associated Press photographer who gave us the now iconic image of five Marines and a Navy corpsman raising the American flag on Iwo Jima in World War II, died Sunday. He was 94.

Ironically, the photograph -- arguably one of the most famous images to come out of World War II -- was taken by a man who was rejected for military service because of poor eyesight.

According to The New York Times:

His photograph of the flag-raising atop Mount Suribachi on Feb. 23, 1945, may be the most widely reproduced photo in American history. It was recreated on at least 3.5 million Treasury Department posters publicizing a war-bond campaign. It was engraved on 3-cent Marine Corps commemorative stamps that broke Post Office sales records for first-day cancellations in 1945. It was reproduced as a 100-ton Marine Corps War Memorial bronze sculpture near Arlington National Cemetery. And it brought Mr. Rosenthal a Pulitzer Prize.

Since the day the photo was taken, there has been a controversy that Rosenthal staged the shot. He spent his life denying this. In fact, other photographers at the scene when Rosenthal snapped the photo back up his claim that it was not a staged photo. There also is film of the flag raising showing it being erected in one uninterrupted motion. Some have noted that if the photo was staged, the flag-raisers would be looking at the camera. None of them are facing the camera in the shot.

On the 10th anniversary of the flag-raising, Rosenthal had this to say about the fame the photograph had brought him:

To get that flag up there, America’s fighting men had to die on that island and on other islands and off the shores and in the air,” Mr. Rosenthal wrote. “What difference does it make who took the picture? I took it, but the Marines took Iwo Jima.

Another One Bites the Dust

2006-08-01T13:13:00.000-05:00

Durst Phototechnik AG, which produced photographic equipment in Italy, said it stopped manufacturing its enlargers as of yesterday, July 31. The company, which produced enlargers for the past 70 years, said sales have been dropping off since 1982. The company's production and sales peaked in 1979 at 107,000 units.

The proliferation of minilabs and the services provided by the imaging sector sounded the death knell for its enlargers, Durst said in a statement.

During those 70 years over 500 patents for enlargers were filed, including for groundbreaking features such as the dichroic filter, the electronic integration of light measurement and colour calibration, the closed-loop system, etc.

So on 31st July 2006, after 70 years, we will cease production of enlargers, as for years now annual sales have been minimal, running at below four figures.

Parts will continue to be available through the company's web site, Durst said.

Oregon State Cuts Photography Program

2006-07-28T08:58:00.000-05:00

It's a sad day when a college or university doesn't have enough staff to continue teaching the courses it has offered for years.

According to the Oregon State University newspaper Oregon State Daily Barometer, the college plans to eliminate its photography degree program due to lack of teaching staff.

According to the paper:

“There is simply not enough staff to teach courses for a stand alone degree,” said Jim Folts, chair of OSU’s art department. “It will continue to be available under the fine arts program.”

The paper noted the college does not have the funding or the staff to continue offering photography as a degree course. Photography classes will still be taught, but students will no longer be able to get a degree in it.

Prof. Folts said since most students have digital cameras, the college will probably begin offering a course in digital photography.

It's a shame the college cannot find enough qualified staff to continue teaching traditional photography as a degree program. But at least they aren't eliminating photography altogether.

In order to excell in photography you need a good grounding in the basics and the traditional methods. Digital photography is not a different type of photography, it just uses different equipment. But the basics are the same. You still have to know how f-stops affect light and how ISO values will affect the final outcome of your phots.

New Films are On the Way!

2006-07-14T14:27:00.000-05:00

In this day and age, when giant photographic companies like Kodak and Fuji are dropping films from their catalogs like they're...ahem..going out of style, it's nice to know that someone still cares enough about analog photographers to try to fill the void.

Enter JandC Photo of Overland Park, Kansas. The retailer says they plan to manufacture and coat their own films to help replace some of the best loved films that have gone extinct lately. The company says it will manufacture black and white film in ISO 25, 100, 400 and an 820 nm Infrared film. The films will be available in 35 mm, 120 and sheets.

According to JandC Photo:

As many of our customers know we have spent the last few months looking at how to best provide as many film choices as possible. We have looked at many was to bring new films to the market. This includes plans going forward right now to operate our own coating facility and producing high quality films in various formulations.

They also plan to introduce some specialty films and paper in the future.

If you haven't shot film in a while and miss it, or you're a digital photographer and never shot film, go to the JandC Photo web site and buy a few rolls of film from them. Even if you never use it, buy it anyway. We need to support companies that continue to support photographers. Particularly you digital photographers, go buy a few rolls from them. After all, it's your fault we're in this mess in the first place.

(I'm joking. I don't totally blame digital photographers for the state of the analog market.)

Only Known Photo of Mozart's Wife Found

2006-07-07T11:29:00.000-05:00

More than 160 years ago, in 1840, a photograph of a family was taken in the Bavarian town of Altoetting. Seated at the left of the photograph is a 78 year old woman. This is the only known photograph in existence of the woman and is thought to be the only time in her life she was ever photographed. She died in 1842.

The woman in the photograph is Costanze Weber, the wife of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the composer. Mozart died at the age of 36 in 1791, when Constanze was 29. She later married a Danish diplomat.

The print, a daguerreotype, is one of the earliest examples of photography in Bavaria. It was found in the town archives. It was taken at the home of the Swiss composer Max Keller, whom Constanze used to visit regularly.

The daguerreotype shows Constanze at front left, next to Max Keller. His wife Josefa is on the right. Behind them are (from the right): their daughters Josefa and Luise, Max Keller's brother-in-law Philipp Lattner and the family's cook. They are outside the Keller family's home.

Say Goodbye to all of This. And Hello to Oblivion.

2006-06-28T12:56:00.000-05:00

Microsoft has acquired iView Multimedia, the company that makes iView MediaPro and other DAM software products.

iView Media, which was initially developed for the Macintosh and then ported to the PC, will continue to be developed for both platforms the company says. In typical fashion, however, look for Microsoft to put Mac support on the back burner and for future versions of the software to become increasingly unstable on the Mac. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft drops the Mac version altogether, though it is a formidable competitor to Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom.

Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder

2006-06-23T10:19:00.000-05:00

Taiwan-based Acer, best known as a maker of PC computers, has debuted an 8.28 MP digital camera, the CP-8660.

This is one butt-ugly camera. And I predict it won't win any design awards.

Still, its specs sound impressive for a point-and-shoot:

8.28 MP resolution
1/1.8" CCD image sensor
6X optical zoom
A 2 cm super macro mode
Anti-shake DSP
17 preset shooting modes suit any shooting situation
25 MB of internal memory
Secure Digital (SD) card compatibility
Video recording with 640 x 480 pixel resolution at 30 fps

There's no word on the price or when the camera will be available.

Get Thee to the ICP to See Unknown Weegee

2006-06-09T08:33:00.000-05:00

Hard as it may be to believe, there actually are some Weegee photographs that have rarely, if ever, been exhibited or included in printed collections of his photographs.

The International Center of Photography in NYC, which has a collection of more than 18,000 Weegee photographs, is mounting a show through August 27 called "Unknown Weegee." The show will showcase 95 of his photographs - many on view for the first time. ICP has some images here.

The New York Times has an article with a nice slide show here.

Get yourself down to the ICP for the show. It's your chance to see the work of the man who practically invented photojournalism and who made the Speed Graphic famous.

Arnold Newman Dies at 88

2006-06-07T08:38:00.000-05:00

R.I.P. Arnold Abner Newman 1918-2006.

Read The New York Times obit here.

Check out Newman's Wikipedia entry here.

Photo District News has a nice site dedicated to Newman here.

The Digital Journalist has a few nice articles here.

Check out this Apogee Photo Magazine article.

The ASMP did a lengthy interview with Newman in 1993.

The National Portrait Gallery in England has 55 of Newman's portraits on its web site.

He's Still in Shock

2006-06-05T08:41:00.000-05:00

The battle between photographer Michael Yon and giant French publisher Hachette Filipacchi Media heats up, with Yon publishing a long article on his blog denouncing the publisher's tactics regarding its new magazine Shock, which he alleges used a photo of his on its cover illegally. He also claims Hachette has threatened to counter sue him. We previously wrote about it here.

According to Yon's blog:

...[T]hey intimated in writing that they may have a claim against me for defamation based on the complaints they received from third parties about their unauthorized use of my photo.

Shock's future depends on counter sales. I hope the number of people who will pay about two bucks for the "opportunity" to look at a two-page close-up of a pile of bloody chicken heads is not enough to support a magazine with a print run of 300,000 copies.

There's no word from Hachette on this issue. They have, however, pulled the cover in question from the Shock web site and replaced it with another. The company said it was a "good faith effort" because of Yon's lawsuit.

Yon's lawsuit may not be the only problem for Shock, however. There is another magazine called Shock out there, and they have a trademark on the name. The other Shock is a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Hachette may have more than just a copyright infringement battle on its hands, it may also have a trademark fight coming.

UPDATE: Ad Age is reporting that Hachette and Yon have settled their dispute out of court and that Hachette will pay Yon a licensing fee for the use of his photo. There is no word on how much money is involved in the settlement.

Nikon Introduces the D2Xs

2006-06-01T15:46:00.000-05:00

Nikon has updated its flagship D2X to the D2Xs model. Featuring only minor improvements over the original, the D2Xs will cost about $1,000 more than the D2X currently goes for.

Improvements in the D2Xs include a new in-camera black & white mode, new high-speed ISO settings (incremental between ISO 800 and 1600) and a larger rear screen.

Considering the price, these improvements are not earth shattering. The now discontinued Kodak SLR/n offered similar characteristics two years ago. It's disappointing that Nikon chose not to offer upgraded dynamic range and better high ISO noise reduction. I guess they're saving that for the D3x.

The D2Xs will be available in July.

UPDATE June 5: Take heart D2X fans. Nikon says it will provide a firmware upgrade for the original D2X that will update the camera to much of the functionality in the new D2Xs.

Is Nothing Sacred?

2006-05-30T13:17:00.000-05:00

According to photographer Michael Yon not only is nothing sacred, but the use of this photo is copyright infringement. He notes on his web site that the debut issue of Shock magazine features a photo he took in Iraq of a U.S. soldier cradling a dead Iraqi child on its cover without his permission.

According to Yon:

I first became aware of the infringement when stunned and angry readers contacted me under the mistaken belief that I allowed Shock magazine to use it on their cover. I did not, and never would have agreed to their usage. I regularly turn down usage requests for this photo–uses that could earn money–because this photo is sacred to me and is representative of the U.S. soldiers I have come to know. It is also representative of the horrors of the enemy we all face.

Yon notes that he has advised his attorneys of the matter and that they will ask that all issue featuring the photograph be removed from circulation and the Internet.

UPDATE June 1: According to Yon's lawyer, discussions with the magazine's publisher "are going nowhere," so he plans to sue for copyright infringement.

Canon is Latest Camera Maker to Dump Film Cameras from Lineup

2006-05-25T08:40:00.000-05:00

The latest camera manufacturer to join the growing list that includes Nikon, Bronica, Konica Minolta and others, Canon Inc. said yesterday that it would stop developing film cameras.

The company noted that film cameras are quickly being relegated to an "enthusiast" niche and are no longer profitable.

According to an AP story, Canon executives said they would continue developing the film cameras that currently are in production, as long as there is a demand for them.

Meanwhile, Tsuneji Uchida, president of Canon, told reporters that demand for film cameras will be limited to "special needs" like camera buffs, Kyodo News agency said.

"It won't pay off as a business even if we would make a new development" on a film camera, Kyodo quoted Uchida as saying.

For a good look at the history of Canon Cameras, check out the Canon Camera Museum.

Japanese camera manufacturers sold nearly 65 million digital cameras last year and slightly more than 5 million film cameras. Digital cameras may outsell film cameras by more than 10-to-1, but it's pretty sad when a sales of more than 5 million units cannot sustain an industry.

30 Seconds With the President

2006-05-24T11:12:00.000-05:00

Ever wondered what the life of a White House Press Photographer is like? Seems glamorous doesn't it?

Well, if you want to get a glimpse of what it's like to have a photo op with President George W. Bush, in real time, check out this audio slideshow by the Chicago Tribune's Pete Souza.

Kodak to Raise Paper and Chemical Prices

2006-05-23T10:21:00.000-05:00

Hard on the heels of a similar announcement by Fuji Photo Film Co. last week, Eastman Kodak Co. said it too will raise its prices on silver-halide based photographic paper and darkroom chemicals. The price hikes, expected to be between 4% and 10%, will affect both professional and consumer products and will take effect in July.

Kodak blamed the impending price increases on the inflated costs of raw materials:

Over the past several years, Kodak has been absorbing unrelenting increases in the costs of raw materials used to manufacture photographic paper and chemistry, including pulp, silver and petrochemicals. Other costs tied to the escalating price of energy–including transportation and packaging–also have increased. These pressures have reached the point where they can no longer be offset by Kodak's ongoing productivity programs.

What Kodak didn't say, however, was that the increasing acceptance of digital photography and its decreasing sales of traditional film, paper and chemicals has necessitated this increase. You can read Kodak's press release here.

I'm Ready for My Close-Up Mr. DeMille

2006-05-23T09:02:00.000-05:00

There seems to be a disturbing trend brewing among magazines to use extreme close-up portraits on the cover. These extreme shots are often post-processed, making the subject look scary, evil or maniacal (pick one).

Politicians seem to be popular subjects for this kind of treatment. Recent cover subjects include former Vice President Al Gore (who appears to be a favorite).

I can understand the urge to be creative, but these portraits are less than flattering to the subject. While that's probably the point with most of these shots, it's a disturbing trend nonetheless.

Mamiya Lives!

2006-05-18T21:24:00.000-05:00

The death of Mamiya (to paraphrase the old saying) has been greatly exaggerated.

According to a press release issued by Mamiya Optical Company in Japan, the new company Mamiya Digital Imaging (which is the old Mamiya Camera & Optical Division and has been sold to Cosmo Digital Imaging) plans to continue developing, marketing and selling its existing cameras, lenses and digital backs. It also plans to have new products at Photokina in September.

Here's what the company had to say about its plans:

Mr. Tsutsumi, President of Cosmo Digital Imaging, the company acquiring the Mamiya Camera & Optical Division, stated "We will concentrate our efforts on expanding development of the Mamiya ZD Digital Camera, the Mamiya Digital Back, and the continuation of the current series of Mamiya cameras and lenses."

Mr. Tsutsumi went on to say that Mamiya Digital will concentrate on producing products for professional photographers. The way I read it is the company will continue developing the Mamiya ZD, its digital backs and a film camera in the lineup (maybe the 645 AFD?).

It seems I jumped the gun when I wrote about Mamiya getting out of the camera business in April. See Et Tu Mamiya?.

The Price of Doing Business in the Digital Age

2006-05-18T11:09:00.000-05:00

You knew it was going to happen sooner or later (at least you should have suspected it if nothing else). The Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd. said it plans to raise the price of its photosensitive materials (read its FujiFilm and photographic paper) between 3% and 20% effective June.

The company blamed digital photography (natch) and the rising costs of raw materials like silver for the price hikes.

You can read their short press release here.

Apparently Film is Not Dead Yet

2006-05-12T17:53:00.000-05:00

It's nice to know that the Eastman Kodak Company is still conducting R&D into silver halide films.

At the recent International Congress of Imaging Science, Kodak presented a paper entitled "A High-Speed, Direct Positive Photothermographic System." You can read the abstract here.

Basically what the paper says is that Kodak is doing research into a silver halide film that the company says can have an ISO of up to 24,000. You read that right. Kodak is looking into developing a film with an ISO of 24,000! How's that for a low-light film?

There's no word if Kodak will actually develop this film, if it ever will be commercially available or if we'll ever see a version for 35mm, medium and large format cameras.

I suspect Kodak is thinking about this film for astrophotography applications or possibly surveillance, not consumer applications. It probably is being looked at as a scientific film. But it would be nice to see Kodak developing new films – and some unconventional ones at that.

On the Cover of the Rolling Stone

2006-05-11T12:42:00.000-05:00

Rolling Stone, in celebration of its 1,000th issue, has a nice feature with photographers Annie Leibovitz and Mark Seliger – who between them have shot 266 covers for the magazine. The piece shows a number of the cover shots by each photographer and offers some insights into how the shoots came about. There also is an audio version available.

It's an interesting look into what goes into a Rolling Stone cover shoot.

Stunning Nikon?

2006-05-04T11:56:00.000-05:00

If you're into skinny British supermodels and slim digital point-and-shoot cameras, then you'll love Nikon's new campaign for its upcoming Coolpix S6 camera featuring Kate Moss.

Let's just say Moss adds a bit of sex appeal to the camera (as if it really needs it).

Check out the commercial: .

Nikon also has produced a web site teasing (in more ways than one) the new S6 called Stunning Nikon.

Book 'Em Dano

2006-05-03T11:39:00.000-05:00

Interested in photography? Interested in books? Interested in photography books? Well, then have I got a blog for you.

I just ran across this new blog about photography books that looks interesting. Its called Photobook Guide and describes itself like this:

Photobookguide.com aims to show the history of photography reflected through the photo book. The web gives the world a new and easy way for anyone to publish their photos. But before the web, photographers immersed themselves in mass media by way of the photo book. PhotobookGuide.com celebrates that long, rich history by presenting a web survey of landmark photo books.

The blog is new so there isn't a whole lot of content yet. But it's worth bookmarking and keeping an eye on.

R.I.P. Aperture?

2006-04-28T18:33:00.000-05:00

Could this be the end of Apple's Aperture software?

Think Secret is reporting that Apple has fired its entire Aperture engineering team. The Aperture project was characterized as a "mess."

There's some concern that Apple will drop Aperture altogether. But there's also talk that a new team will be brought in to revamp the software.

Let's hope it's the latter and not the former. Aperture 1.1 was pretty good. Not great, riddled with bugs, but nothing that couldn't be improved on. Let's hope Apple finds a team to rework the software and make it ready for prime time.

Ah, Nostalgia

2006-04-26T09:06:00.000-05:00

If you yearn for the good 'ole days of film photography. Specifically Kodak film photography, then check out this article on the Christian Science Monitor's online site.

It offers a look at some web sites that feature the glory days of Kodak. Web sites included in the article feature Kodak Brownie cameras, old ads and other great Kodak stuff.

It's a good read. And you'll probably find yourself spending hours going through the web sites.

Et Tu Mamiya?

2006-04-21T23:02:00.000-05:00

Say it ain't so, Mamiya.

Endgadget is reporting that Mamiya is getting out of the medium format camera business. Apparently it's digital business has not been doing so well (not surprising considering how long it took to get the ZD out).

Anyone want to buy an excellent condition Mamiya 645 Pro TL with a bunch of lenses?

A Pulitzer in Dallas

2006-04-18T09:34:00.000-05:00

The photography staff of the Dallas Morning News in Texas was awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

Check out some of the photos here and here.

Congratulations to the DMN staff. Well done!

Homage or Ripoff? You Decide.

2006-04-13T12:41:00.000-05:00

On of my favorite photographers, Annie Leibovitz, is in a bit of hot water over her recent Vanity Fair cover shoot.

According to Women's Wear Daily, the May 2006 issue of Vanity Fair (dubbed the "Green Issue" even though it does not use recycled paper!) features a Leibovitz cover that is very reminiscent of a 1948 shot by Irving Penn called "Ballet Society." The Vanity Fair cover features Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Al Gore, Julia Roberts, and George Clooney and has a series of articles about the environment (thus the "Green" designation).

Critics claim that Leibovitz ripped off the Penn shot for the cover. It does look like an exact duplicate of the Penn shot. But, Leibovitz says the cover shot was "inspired" by Penn, not a ripoff.

Here's how Woman's Wear Daily described the cover:

Although there's no mention anywhere in the magazine of the connection, the composition of the two photos is virtually identical, down to the leafy garland on Roberts' head.

WWD points out that while Leibovitz may have liberally borrowed from Penn for the shot, she is not very forgiving of others borrowing her work. In 1991 she sued a movie studio for using one of her shots (the famous cover shot of a naked, pregnant Demi Moore) in an ad campaign. The studio replaced the head of her subject with the head of the lead actor in the movie. The court ruled the ad was a parody.

Point and Shoot Indeed!

2006-04-10T14:23:00.000-05:00

This one is a bit over the top.

A print ad is running in Thailand (and probably other Asian countries) for the Nikon Coolpix S4 that shows a soldier shooting a rifle, with the S4 as the gun's site. The photo depicts the soldier in a war, with burning buildings in the distance.

Obviously, Nikon couldn't get away with running such an ad in the U.S. Particularly these days. But one has to wonder what they were thinking with this ad.

Some of the blogs attribute the ad to JWT Thailand, but Nikon is not listed as one of the clients on their web site. Whichever agency put together this ad should not have their contract renewed. Nikon should rethink this campaign.

Going Off the Rails on a Crazy Train

2006-04-03T12:48:00.000-05:00

The extreme right-wingnuts are at it again. This time the object of their affection is Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia Cynthia McKinney.

Head wingnut Matt Drudge over at the Drudge Report has a lead photo that shows the Congresswoman looking like a psychotic mental ward escapee, which he copped from here. She apparently was having a bad hair day. But the right-wingnuts took the opportunity to pounce and hooked it to her recent scrape with Capitol Hill police.

By using such an unflattering photograph, the right-wingnuts are sending the (subtle as a sledgehammer) message that Rep. McKinney is crazy and probably guilty of hitting that cop. The fact that she's a Democrat and an African-American is all the more reason they must be right (or so they think).

The Drudge Report photo links to a story on CNN.com that has a photo also (still taken on the same bad hair day, but not nearly as unflattering as the one Drudge dredged up).

Then there's right-wingnut talk radio dunce Neal Boortz, who said on the air that he thinks Rep. McKinney's hairdo makes her look like a "ghetto slut."

This is typical behavior from the right-wingnuts, who are running scared these days because of a number of factors, not the least of which is that most of their shenanigans are starting to unravel before their eyes. Like eight-years-olds, they resort to name calling, and showing their true, prejudiced, selves to everyone who cares to look. They really have no ammunition against the Democrats, so they fall back on their tried-and-true tactic of calling them names.

Photos are very powerful weapons. In the wrong hands they can do great harm. But most intelligent people will see through this ruse as they do all the others.

By the way, some people are calling for Boortz to be suspended for his comments. I think he should be fired for this and other racist diatribes on the public airwaves. I'm all for freedom of speech, and Boortz is certainly entitled to his, but this goes beyond free speech and is just racist stupidity. And it should not be tolerated by anyone, particularly someone with access to the public airwaves.

You Can't Handle the Truth!

2006-03-31T10:28:00.000-05:00

According to this story on BostonHerald.com, the Archdiocese of Boston's newspaper fired a freelance photographer who took a photo of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia making an obscene geature. The paper's editor said it wasn't personal, but he needed people on staff "he could trust."

The photographer, Peter Smith, apparently breached that "trust" not by taking the photo, but by making it available to the press. Smith said he released the photo after Justice Scalia said a story about the incident in the Boston Herald incorrectly characterized the gesture. Smith said the paper got the story right and that Justice Scalia was spinning his actions to deflect criticism.

By "trust" I presume the editor means he wants to hire people that will tow the Conservative line and not make waves. Smith, a 10-year veteran of the newspaper, apparently is not one of those people.

Smith should not feel bad about being fired by the Archdiocese of Boston. In fact, he should be relieved. They obviuosly don't stand for Christian values. They obviously don't believe in freedom of the press. And they obviously don't believe in the truth.

(Full Disclosure: I was raised Roman Catholic and attended Catholic schools for 12 years).

But then, this is the Catholic Church we're talking about here. I don't think anyone should be surprised by this.

News Flash: Microsoft Has a Sense of Humor

2006-03-29T11:47:00.000-05:00

Apparently Microsoft does have a sense of humor. Case in point: on its Piracy web page, the graphic at the top of the page features a man holding a laptop. But the thing is, the laptop is an Apple iBook G4

Someone at Microsoft obviously is having some fun at Steve Jobs's expense.

Pretty funny.

Pictures Don't Lie. But Politicians Do.

2006-03-29T10:50:00.000-05:00

It seems that San Diego Republican Congressional candidate Howard Kaloogian is trying to pull one over on the voters by posting a photo on his campaign website of what he says is Baghdad, but to most everyone looks more like Turkey. The photo shows a peaceful city, with people milling about enjoying a leisurely day. Kaloogian says this proves that the media is only reporting the bad news and that things in Iraq are not as bad as they are making it out to be.

Here's what the would-be congressman has to say about the photo on his web site:

We took this photo of dowtown [sic] Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism.

The trouble is that everyone on the blogs has been picking apart the photo: the fact that the shops lack Arabic writing on their signs, the women are dressed in decidedly un-Moslem garb, one sign says "2.Noter", which is Turkish for Notary (the 2 probably means the business is on the second floor).

Josh Marshall has a good piece about it on his Talking Points Memo blog.

I can understand why the Republicans would want to push the idea that Iraq is improving (even if it isn't). They want to win an election in the midst of an unpopular war. But in their zeal to win, they've gone overboard on this one. Kaloogian did not need to post a bogus photo and claim it's Baghdad. I'm sure you can get some photos in Baghdad today that would look calm and peaceful (at least in the Green Zone anyway). There's no need to keep lying about things and cheating, though that seems to be the Republican way these days.

UPDATE: The mystery has been solved (now that didn't take too long, did it?) The photo was taken in Turkey, the Istanbul suburb of Bakirkoy. Here's the proof.

UPDATE 3-30: The Kaloogian saga keeps getting better and better. This clueless hack has now apologized for posting the bogus Iraq photo (he blamed it on a staffer who stopped in Turkey on the way beck from Iraq) and replaced it with one that shows how peaceful Baghdad really is. Check out the photo here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page.

Something fishy is going on with his website. It's being redirected to another, unrelated site. I don't know if it's been hacked or it's intentional. Anyway, the posted photo is an aerial view of a section of Baghdad showing building and trees, no people, not even anything identifiable as Baghdad. There's some question as to whether this photo too is really of Iraq.

All I have to say is WTF!

Hello, Sweetheart. Get Me Rewrite

2006-03-26T17:48:00.000-05:00

Ah, the photo magazine. That bastion of knowledge about all things (increasingly these days, digital) photographic. Apparently, all things journalistic don't come into play these days.

Case in point: the March/April 2006 issue of Picture Magazine Their cover touts a story about Apple Aperture software. Trouble is they refer to it as Adobe's New Aperture software. Now either Adobe is putting out a new product to compete with Apple's Aperture (they do, it's called Lightroom), or the editors screwed up the coverlines of the March/April issue.

Curiously, on page six in the latest Picture they have a thumbnail of the cover with the photographer's credit. But the coverlines on the thumbnail are in a different order than on the actual cover. Still, the story about Aperture says Adobe's Aperture.

There is a two page spread ad for Apple's Aperture on the inside cover of the magazine (called the second cover in the magazine biz). Since the coverlines are usually the last thing that gets done, you'd think the editors would be aware of their mistake. I find it hard to believe that an editor for a photo magazine would not be familiar with both Apple's and Adobe's products. Even if they weren't, it's an easy thing to check.

But, you argue, the editors do not know which ads go where in the issue. Ah, but they do. The editor-in-chief, managing editor and copy editors all have what's called a "map" which shows the layout and page each ad is on, who the advertiser is and where the editorial pages go. Anyone in editorial and advertising can get a copy of the map if they need one. They would have known that there is an Apple ad on the second cover. It may have even said "Apple Aperture." Though generally the map is not that specific, only naming the advertiser, not the product advertised.

Still, given such prominent play on the cover, you think someone would have noticed the mistake before it was too late. Since the mistake is repeated on the cover, the thumbnail inside the issue and the cover on the magazine's web site, there was ample opportunity for someone to spot it and change it.

Picture generally is a good magazine. This is just sloppy proofreading. Certainly its not the only magazine with these problems. The king of sloppy proofreading has to be View Camera magazine. But that's another posting for another time.

Can We Finally Shut the Hell Up About It Now?

2006-03-24T16:05:00.000-05:00

Even before Nikon announced a launch date for its D200 dSLR earlier this year, there was speculation on the newsgroups and blogs that it would be a D2x killer. The camera would have as many, or more, megapixels than the D2x, it would be just as fast and it would have better high ISO noise levels.

All but one of these turned out to be true.

As is often the case on these newsgroups, the ill-informed, uninformed, and downright stupid people crawl out of the woodwork to give their opinions (which, by the way, are not based on fact, but speculation and stuff they've read posted by other ill-informed morons on other newsgroups). What passes for information is not informative, helpful or correct.

Well, the Nikon D200 has been out for a few months now and all indications are it's an awesome camera. I never doubted this. I knew it would not be a D2x killer, but also knew it would be a worthy camera to add to one's arsenal.

Thom Hogan, a well-respected reviwer of all things Nikon, recently posted a comprehensive review of the D200 on his web site. He admits it's a great camera, but don't dump the Nikon D2x for it.

Here's what Hogan has to say about the D200:

Don't delude yourself into thinking that the D200 is the equivalent to a D2x. It isn't. It may come close in many ways, but if you were to ask me which I prefer to shoot with from an image quality standpoint, my unqualified answer would be the D2x at ISO values up to 400. There's an intangible quality to the D2x images that I'm not able to reproduce with my D200.

Despite what I wrote in the last paragraph, the differences aren't so great that the D200 doesn't make a usable backup body for a pro who normally shoots with a D2x. It does.

So, there you have it. Hogan says it's a worthy backup to the D2x, but won't replace it in the pro's arsenal.

Maybe now all the nattering nabobs on the newsgroups can go back to spewing their ill-informed stupidity about the Nikon D3x and shut the hell up.