The Online Photographer

Richard B. Merrill, 1949–2008

Seng Phomphanh, Pacific Northwest, taken using the first successful prototype Foveon chip

By Jim Kofron

A pioneer of the technology of digital photography has died. Dick Merrill, co-inventor of the Foveon X3 chip, passed away on Friday morning. A tribute thread is in the Sigma Forum at dpreview.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dick a couple years ago—we talked science and photography over dinner. He was a truly delightful individual: smart, funny, a dedicated photographer, and completely devoted to his wife Seng (and vice versa). Carver Mead, a scientist of some note, described Dick as the most creative engineer he ever met. All of us who have had the pleasure of knowing Dick (even briefly) mourn his passing, and our thoughts are with Seng and their families. My impressions of Dick were that he was not interested in seeking the spotlight; his passion for the engineering, science, and photography is what drove his work. I'll think of him often as I use my Sigma cameras with "Foveon Inside."

As a historical tribute as well as a glimpse into his photographic talent, you can see his gallery on Pbase. This particular set of photos was taken with the first successful X3 prototype chip—a 4k x 4k x 3 layer. I believe some of the full size images are still up there. I never asked about the frame rate, but I suspect it wasn't 8 fps. Those interested in the birth of Foveon can grab a copy of The Silicon Eye by George Gilder. It's an easy read, so don't expect it to be technically satisfying if you have a Ph.D. in physics.

Rest in peace, Dick. You'll be missed....

____________________

Jim

Send this post to a friend

Jim Kofron, Ph.D., a longtime TOP reader, is Senior Group Leader at Abbott Laboratories at Abbott Park, Illinois.

Don't Forget

Just a reminder—this weekend is the last opportunity to order a dye transfer print from Ctein if you want to.

The demand has been really pretty astonishing—much more than Ctein or I foresaw. One consequence of the high demand is that this will definitely be the last such offer Ctein will ever be able to make. When dye transfer materials were discontinued by Kodak, Ctein literally mortgaged his house to buy a large supply of materials—what he hoped would last 20 years. He virtually filled his basement with supplies. He says he has managed to locate a source for some more small dye transfer paper, which will keep him from having to cut down more of his big sheets to do these prints, but, even so, this print offer will exhaust nearly half of all the paper he has stockpiled.

We were originally thinking that if this offer were successful, we might be able to do another one six months or a year from now. But because of the high volume of the sales this time around, that won't be possible. Ctein can fill all of these orders, but after that he will need to reserve his remaining stockpiles for making full-sized, full-cost prints of the rest of his life's work.

Orders close on midnight Sunday, two and a half days from now. He really cannot accept orders after that, for the reasons we explained last time around.

The original sales notice is here, and Ctein's explanation of the dye transfer process is here. Here again (below) are the buttons for ordering [since removed; sale has ended]. If you previously placed an order and need to contact him, you can email Ctein directly.

{SALE ENDED MIDNIGHT U.S. CENTRAL TIME, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19th}

______________________

Mike

Featured Comment by Carl Blesch: "I'm pleased that I got my order in last weekend; had some Christmas and birthday money stashed away and was thinking of buying a photo book or two per this blog's recent recommendations. But when I saw Ctein's offer, I pounced. I was a real photo geek in high school—tried all sorts of films and papers, even considered blending my own developer at one point (but never got that far). Tried color slide developing (anyone remember Anscochrome?) and color printing (I tried Beseler's Unicolor, which was supposed to be way easier for home darkroom printing than the conventional Kodak processes). Sad to say, many of those Anscochrome transparencies and Unicolor prints sit faded in my photo cabinet. My ultimate challenge was going to be trying dye transfer printing. Had no idea how I was going to do it, but I figured I'd be able to take a crack at it someday. Talk about ignorance being bliss. Reading Ctein's description of the process and watching Michael Reichmann's video make me realize what a mountain that would have been to climb. So buying these two prints of Ctein's will be a small way of fulfilling my unfulfilled dream.

"Trouble is, if I like these small prints as much as I think I'm going to, I'll have to find a grand or two to buy some of his big ones. And I don't think birthday or Christmas money will quite cover those...."

Mike replies: I know what you mean, Carl. I've always had my eye on this one—I've seen it in the original, nearly 16x20, and I find it very powerful. But I have to face the fact that I'm never going to have that kind of money for discretionary purchases. You know what they say: Oh well.

Good Readin': Three Recent Articles

Searching for Robert Johnson

By Frank DiGiacomo, Vanity Fair

In the seven decades since his mysterious death, bluesman Robert Johnson’s legend has grown—the tragically short life, the "crossroads" tale of supernatural talent, the genuine gift that inspired Dylan, Clapton, and other greats—but his image remains elusive: only two photos of Johnson have ever been seen by the public. In 2005, on eBay, guitar maven Zeke Schein thought he’d found a third. Schein's quest to authenticate the picture only led to more questions, both about Johnson himself and about who controls his valuable legacy....

READ ON at vanityfair.com

-
Tech Terms to Avoid

By David Pogue, The New York Times

In two weeks, I'll celebrate my eighth anniversary writing this column. And if I do any ruminating during my 15-second celebration, I'll recognize that one thing still hasn't changed: there's still no single technical level of writing that makes everybody happy.

I still get complaints from total newbies, who are bewildered by terms like "smartphone" and "plasma TV." And I still get bashed by the gearheads, who find the column not nearly technical enough....

READ ON at nytimes.com
-

The Politics of the Retouched Headshot

By Virginia Postrel, The Atlantic

Last week, Fox News set off a short-lived controversy when it attacked Newsweek for not retouching the magazine’s larger-than-life cover photo of Sarah Palin. Calling the headshot "ridiculously unfair to her," anchor Megyn Kelly declared that "any respectable magazine should be doing a little retouching."

Demanding that a news magazine manipulate photos in order to remain "respectable" may seem odd, all the more so since Governor Palin looks quite attractive in the photograph. But the criticism reveals more than ratings-plumping partisan grievance. In an image-savvy culture, we’re increasingly forced to consider just what constitutes a valid portrait. The way most of us instinctively answer the question demonstrates the difference between objectivity and truth.

Consider the apolitical act of selecting a personal headshot: a bridal photo, a website image, an author portrait. You don't just face the camera and accept the first photo that come [sic] out. That's for driver's licenses, mug shots, and security badges—the ID photos most people find not only embarrassing but somehow untrue. At the very least, you want to choose a shot where your eyes are open, your smile looks genuine, and your cowlick is under control....

READ ON at theatlantic.com

____________________

Mike  (Thanks to Marshall Smith, Stephen Rosenblum, and Oren Grad)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Greg Smith: "Thanks for the reading tips. Especially enjoyed the Robert Johnson piece which was as much about the music industry, indirectly, as the photograph of Robert Johnson."

 Featured Comment by John Camp: "Good reading indeed.

"I disagree with a number of Pogue's comments, though; some of his tech terms have (sometimes subtly) different meanings than his plain-English interpretations.

"For example, 'price point' does not mean the same thing as 'price.' If you say, 'The new iPod has to hit the right price-point,' you're referring to fairly complex competitive considerations. 'Price' alone doesn't do that. 'Device' is a more general word than cellphone, so what word do you use for software that may be loaded onto different, uh, devices? What if you can't 'turn on' the GPS because it has not been enabled—after you get it enabled, then you can turn it on. (I've been dealing with that in a way that seriously pisses me off. I spent almost $4,000 for a top-of-the-line Mac, and found out—nobody told me—that it doesn't have built-in wireless, which even cheap $500 notebooks have. I was also told that I can't just plug in a card. I have to take apart the whole heavy system, and drag the tower back to an Apple store, so some guy there can put the card in, which means I'm going to lose the computer for a day or two. In other words, I have to get it enabled so I can turn it on....)

"Generally, I strongly agree with what Pogue's saying. However, I also like the Einsteinian sentiment: things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Featured Comment by Geoff Wittig: "Interesting stuff for sure. Seeing as how photography has definitively replaced the painted portrait as the standard for visual representation of political leaders, a whole new range of concerns and conventions are applicable. Painted portraits of royalty have traditionally been analyzed in great depth, looking for all kinds of 'meta' references to the individual and his/her social or cultural 'meaning.' Now photography, having clearly supplanted the rôle of painting for official portraits, is appropriately coming under the same kind of scrutiny."

Mike adds: We need to keep some (photographic) perspective about the NEWSWEEK Palin cover. 1) The McCain campaign has severely limited access to Palin; 2) The disputed shot pretty clearly comes from the same shoot as the RNC cover a few weeks earlier... 3) ...Which was itself probably shot under considerable time/access constraints. The picture editor's task is therefore to pick a shot of Palin that camouflages as well as possible the fact that 1), 2), and 3) are true. To do this, he/she has to avoid, for example, batting the reader over the head with the fact that Palin is wearing the same clothes in both covers. Reading too much arcane symbology into such a shot—whatever one's motives—without taking the logistics of the shoot into account is probably misdirected: the "extreme close up" was probably more of a kludge based on exigent externalities than a) a plot or b) a deliberate artistic choice.
 

Hmmm?

Just thought we should all take another look at this. You can ignore me.

__________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Jeffrey Goggin: "The reason why Sigma can't easily make the DP-2 into an 'M-mount rangefinder' [as mentioned in other comments —MJ] is because they would first have to install a shutter assembly inside the body and as you can surmise from the photo of my disassembled DP-1 below, there simply isn't enough room for that and the necessary electronics. (Yes, it's dead...fell off the roof of my car at 30mph. Oops!) With a fixed lens, Sigma can make the lens aperture do double duty as a shutter, as is commonly done with most digicams."

Mike adds: Wow...sorry for your loss, as they say.
 

Random Excellence: Markus Spring

Markus Spring, Sri Lankan villagers returning to the remains of their village which they had to leave due to combat between army and insurgents two years ago
-

Markus Spring is an official with the City of Munich, Germany. He has made many trips to Sri Lanka as organizer of Munich's assistance to that troubled country. In the framework of a European Commission funded program, he works at capacity-building for water and sanitation in order to improve the living conditions of those the tsunami affected. The program is empowering local government to use modern planning techniques, as well as establishing a well drilling school, and has built numerous wells, rainwater harvesting tanks, and toilets.

In addition to that work at his day job, Markus has been amassing a strong portfolio of photographs dealing with the large number of internally displaced persons in that nation plagued by disasters both natural and human-caused. More at his blog.

____________________

Carl Weese

Send this post to a friend

Carl Zeiss PhotoScope

In a "world's-first-and-only," Carl Zeiss has announced the PhotoScope 85 T* FL, a spotting scope with a fully integrated digital camera. The 15–45X magnification lens includes calcium fluoride elements for complete elimination of chromatic aberrations. (15X is wide on a spotting scope—into the range usually provided by binoculars—making for easier location of the object you might want magnified.) The imager is 7MP and recording is enabled with standard SD cards. No word on exactly how it works, although Zeiss says image capture is simultaneous with viewing and creates no vibration (a beam splitter?). It'll be ready for release in Spring/Summer 2009.

Spotting scopes are telescopes optimized for terrestrial viewing, used by birdwatchers and hunters. And now photographers.

______________________

Mike  (Thanks to Onno Nugteren)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Tim: "This is a very smart move by Zeiss. Sport optics are a growth area and digiscoping is very popular with bird watchers. There is a whole industry making adapters to fit cameras to spotting scopes."

Featured Comment by Dave Polaschek: "Mike, 15–45x is a standard range for low-end spotting scopes. That's the most popular scope magnification range, and a usable scope can be had for a few hundred dollars. Go high end, and you might see 60x, but then you're talking a Swarovski that'll set you back $2k before you get the tripod to set it on, and you'll want a rock-solid tripod to boot.

"FYI, they're also used by competitive shooters, since it's hard to see .30 inch holes out at 200–1000 yards without some big glass. Gotta see where you're shooting in order to correct, unless you want to spend a lot of time walking down-range to peep at the target up close. Also FYI, the rifle-scope used for the actual shooting at 600 yards and beyond is generally over 10x, but seldom over 20x. The bullseye at that distance is 3 or 4 feet in diameter (on a 6-foot paper square), but the 10-ring is only 10 inches, and the X ring is five inches."

Featured Comment by David Bennett: "There's a YouTube video, with a Zeiss representative showing the outfit. And it is 600–1800mm in 35mm equivalent and ƒ/4–5.6 and takes SD cards, and it's waterproof. Yummy."

Mike adds: You're not supposed to speak the unspoken, but can I assume that people are not missing the fact that this is likely going to be used for peeping and spying and other kinds of, um, people watching...spotting scopes being not just  for the feathered kind of "birds"...?
 

Some Perspective on Perspective

Tangential to Ed Taylor's G10 review below, I'd just like to make a point in passing about the zoom range on one of the G10's competitors, the Panasonic Lumix LX3.

-                                                                              Salgado

Consider first the lenses that Sebastiao Salgado, one of the world's greatest living photographers, used for a great deal of his best and most famous work. While I don't know what he carries now, when I heard him interviewed in the late '80s he carried three cameras. In the customary fashion of many working photojournalists, he didn't change lenses on the cameras—rather, he used interchangeable lenses to "customize" each body, leaving one lens on one body all the time. He used two M6's and one R6. One M6 had a 28mm and the other a 35mm, and the R6 had a 60mm ƒ/2.8 macro. I don't know which 28mm or 35mm he preferred, but I believe they were the Elmarit (ƒ/2.8) and Summicon (ƒ/2) respectively.

That was it: 28, 35, 60.

Compare that to the 24mm–60mm ƒ/2–2.8 lens on the Lumix LX3.

Just a thought, in case you might be wondering whether the LX3's lens has "enough range" for you....

(I guess this is actually a rant. I just ran across a tirade by some wet-behind-the-ears tyro who was going on and on with great bitterness about how limited the LX3's range was, sure his creativity would be desperately crippled by it. Although, in fairness, in his case he was probably right.)

And if the LX3 hasn't entered your radar space yet, here's a link to Lawrence Ripsher's excellent, not-too-long review. Good readin'.

____________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

ADDENDUM: This just up: Michael Reichmann's review of the Panasonic LX3.

P.S. Some people don't like how I've expressed myself here in light of my rule against ad hominem (possibly because they were standing in the same vicinity where the arrow was aimed? If the shoe fits, and all that; still doesn't mean the arrow was aimed at them). But it's not "argument against the man" (ad hominem) when there's no "man." Jousting at ghosts is not the same thing as jousting. My slings weren't aimed at an identified, or identifiable, person. Wasn't named, wasn't quoted, wasn't located. Ergo all I'm decrying is an attitude.

You have to consider the market as a whole: like any other sales-driven specification, fixed-lens zoom ranges have been exaggerated grotesquely until practically all we have available to us, on either p&s cameras or "ultra-zoom" faux-SLRs, are swollen, physically unstable, overly slow monstrosities...almost none of which even have enough range (right, just for some of us) at the right end. In this context, when one solitary manufacturer (okay, one and a doppelgänger) comes out with a lens that generously wide and impressively fast, my inclination is to defend its choice against the darts of prejudice indiscriminately tossed at it by people who don't appreciate how unusual and brave a choice it is.

Lens range is just a choice, and anyone who doesn't like an offering can just choose something else...as long as there is something else to choose. Consider how many choices there are for someone who wants a 24mm f/2 on a digicam, and perhaps you can understand why I take a dim view of anybody who wishes it were a 35–XXXmm like everything else. —MJ

Canon G10 Review

First Impressions 

By Edward Taylor

For serious photographers, whenever we turn our attention toward small cameras, we want to know if we are able to do serious work with them. We all know that even a plastic toy camera can produce stunning art, but that is not what we mean. We want a camera that is responsive, flexible and has sufficient image quality—so that small size is an advantage, not a compromise.

Many of us T.O.P. readers have been excited about the prospects of a Decisive Moment Digital (DMD) camera—a small carry around camera that is responsive and has image quality near that of current DSLRs. As each new potential DMD is announced, excitement builds. My excitement about the Canon G10 was tempered by my belief that only a larger sensor could give me the kind of image quality that I seek, and I knew the sensor in the G10 was still small (1/1.7- inch CCD) and was crammed with even more megapixels (14.7)  than its predecessor, the G9. We all learned a long time ago that increasing the pixel count alone is not the answer to image quality. The size of the pixels, as well as the processing engine, among other things, are even more important. In fact, many of us have become annoyed with the megapixel race, because, although it may be a good marketing tool for selling cameras to those who do not know any better, it does not answer the image quality concerns of the serious photographer. Has Canon found a way to get that DSLR image quality out of a small sensor with so many pixels?

The past is prologue
I have been using a Canon G9 (12 megapixels) for some time, and I think that, for me, it has been the best choice as an "all around" point and shoot camera. The G9 is responsive enough and compact enough. The photos from the G9 are detailed and technically quite good, but its image quality paled in comparison to that of my DSLRs. The quality problem seems to be at the pixel level and can easily be seen on screen. Pixels just look mushy or muddy and the images don’t pop the way those from my Canon 5D do. Even RAW files look slightly processed at higher magnification. Prints look pretty good, but I am still not satisfied. I also used a Sigma DP1 for a while. Unlike the G9, it has a much bigger sensor (APS-C size) and it shows. The image quality is quite spectacular at times, but inconsistent. I liked the DP1 at first, but I eventually stopped using it because it was too slow and I was missing too many shots.

Welcome the Canon G10
The Canon G10 is a solidly built camera. It feels good and looks good. It does not exhibit much fluff. It is meant for business. It is quiet and goes almost unnoticed in a crowd of people. These are all things that will make it attractive as a serious tool for serious photographers.

Operation
The G10 starts up quickly and is fairly responsive. Shutter lag is minimal. Focusing sometimes takes a little longer than I would like, but pre-focusing is possible by depressing the shutter button half way. If I miss a shot, it is rarely the G10’s fault. The image stabilization works well. The maximum shutter speed has increased to 1/4000 from the G9’s 1/2500. The battery is bigger than in the G9, and I can shoot all day without charging.

Ergonomics
The G10 is noticeably bigger and heavier than the G9, even though their size specifications do not appear all that different. It is easily carried, though, and with a wrist strap (rather than the neck strap it comes with), it still fits easily in a jacket or coat pocket, but not in your shirt.

I really like the layout of the controls on the G10. I rarely have to use the menu while shooting. The ISO wheel is now under the Mode Wheel and there is an Exposure Compensation Wheel where the ISO wheel is on the G9. I use exposure compensation all the time now because it is so easy to get to. There are two programmable Custom Modes that are selected with the Mode Wheel and there is a Programmable Button on the back. The LCD has gone from 230,000 pixels to 416,000 pixels and is now useful for checking focus. I wish it would flip out.

Lens
Another change from the G9 is the lens. It has a shorter maximum focal length, but gets wider. Instead of the G9’s 35mm to 210mm (equivalent) lens, it has a 28mm to 140mm (equivalent) lens. The wider angle is frequently appreciated, and I rarely miss the longer telephoto on the G9. Its maximum aperture is ƒ/2.8 but it shuts down to ƒ/4.5 at full telephoto. Minimum aperture is only ƒ/8, so there is a neutral density filter that adds an additional 3 stops of light intensity reduction. I am pleased with the lens overall. It is sharp, has minimal distortion, and has almost no purple fringing.

Image Quality
I usually shoot RAW. I am not a big fan of Photo Professional (Canon’s RAW software). The G10 is not currently supported by ACR and this makes evaluation of image quality a little tougher. However, it is easy to see that Canon has done something amazing with all those pixels it crammed into that small sensor. In a well lit, well exposed photo taken at low ISO, the image quality is so good that I was caught off guard. I kept checking to make sure I was looking at the photos from the G10 and not my 5D or 1Ds. The images have plenty of detail, nice saturation, and definite "cropability." Even blown up to ridiculous proportions, the pixels are not so mushy. The photos also hold up well in post-processing. In the past, if I took a great shot with a point and shoot camera, I would always wish I had taken it with a DSLR instead, because I was sure the shot would have looked that much better. I am not so sure anymore. I no longer regret having used the G10 instead of my 5D. The image quality is that good.

There must be a catch, you say. Well, unfortunately there is. Under less than perfect conditions the G10 behaves more like the G9 and other small cameras. It is not as good as a DSLR with regard to low light performance, as the image quality deteriorates at higher ISOs. Shadow detail is not as good as it is in a DSLR, either. I should point out, though, that as an enthusiast, I am being a tough critic. The image quality may not quite match the 5D, but your average point and shooter would rarely find fault with the images from the G10. Only my photographer friends, after a careful look, could really differentiate the files from the G10 and the 5D. Even in less than ideal conditions, the images from the G10 are still pretty darned good.

For the last 6 months, the Sigma DP1 has been the gold standard for image quality in a pocketable camera. Even though I still like the images from the Sigma DP1 better for overall look, the significant resolution advantage of the G10 is hard to ignore.

Convergence
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about convergence between still and video photography. I think many point-and-shooters have always appreciated the fact that they could capture a small video clip with their camera. After all, these cameras are mostly used to document family or personal experiences rather than to create fine art. Canon’s new 5D mark II has some amazing video capabilities, and I would have expected this trend to show up in all of Canon’s newer cameras. I was disappointed to find that the G10 no longer shoots "HD" video. The G9 could shoot video at 1024 x 768 pixels at 15 fps. The G10 shoots a maximum 640 x 480 pixels at 30fps. The G10 does not have the G9’s time lapse options either. In other words, it has fewer video options than the G9. I think Canon really blew it here, as any form of solid HD video capability would have been a strong selling point for a camera such as this.

Conclusion
There has been a lot of activity lately in the DMD arena. The new Micro Four Thirds systems seem really promising with small size cameras, larger sensors, and interchangeable lenses. Also, Sigma has announced that there will be a DP2.

Is the G10 a DMD? It does not fulfill all of Mike’s requirements, but it's getting close in many ways. Perhaps it depends on the needs of the photographer using it. Canon has now demonstrated that a small camera with a small sensor can provide the ergonomics, speed, flexibility, and image quality that would please most serious photographers.

_______________________

Ed

Canon G10 at Amazon U.S.
Canon G10 at Amazon U.K.
Canon G10 at B&H Photo
Canon G10 at Adorama

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Steve E. Miller: "Man, no timelapse? I have found that function is what I use my G9 for more than anything. Some pretty cool examples can be found from a shoot that I have done in the commentary on my flickr page for the Autumn Arts portfolio.... Thanks Mike!"

HDR Photography

Recommended this week: Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography, by Ferrell McCollough. (Here's a U.K. link.)

Perhaps the most controversial processing technique in digital is "HDR" or high dynamic range photography, whereby two exposures of the same subject are merged using a software program to create an image with rich detail in both the shadows and the highlights.

The problem with it seems to be that some (most?) people who practice it overdo it, creating images with an instantly identifiable "look," one that is often bizarrely surreal. This tends to polarize opinions: some love it, others hate it.

But a tool is just a tool, and doubtless some photographers use the technique with subtlety, or to rectify specific problems.

I'm not an expert in HDR, but this book seems to provide a serviceable introduction to the technique, at about the right level for otherwise capable photographers desirous of learning something new to them.

And, it's cheap. ;-)

___________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Geoff Wittig: "Ferrell McCollough's book is a good, practical introduction to HDR imaging, and will get you up and running quickly. There are four other books I'm aware of. Christian Bloch's very in-depth HDRI Handbook reviews a lot of the underlying principles and available software, and it's probably the best resource for folks who want to 'go deep' into the topic. I found it fascinating, but it's probably a bit much for the casually curious. Michael Freeman's Mastering HDR Photography has just a bit more depth than Ferrell McCollough's book. Chris Weston's book I haven't looked at. There's also a new book by Jack Howard that is similarly approachable.

"I think a lot of the 'overcooked' appearance of many HDR images has to do with the available software. Photoshop CS3 has a very clumsy HDR implementation that is best ignored. Photomatix is the default industry standard HDR software, and it's endlessly flexible, but what initially appears attractive on screen tends toward a certain artificial look that has become a kind of cliché. Used with more restraint, it's a very effective program. Another option is FDR Tools, a deceptively powerful scripting editor with a simple graphical interface. This handles moving objects like clouds or waves more elegantly than Photomatix and it defaults toward a more 'photographic' and less 'illustrated' appearance, but it's a bit more challenging to use. There are a number of other HDR programs with numerous powerful options, but these tend toward the arcane and require serious study. For the more casual amateur Photomatix and FDR Tools are the first place to look."

Random Excellence: Martin Waugh

A map of the world on the wall behind it is refracted through a water droplet. Check out the strange and wonderful world of Martin Waugh's Liquid Sculpture.

Martin Waugh at work, by Charles Waugh

__________________________

Mike  (Thanks to Michael Gottlieb, and Martin)

Send this post to a friend

Black Silicon

"Forcing sulfur atoms into silicon using femtosecond laser pulses creates a material called 'black silicon' that is 100 to 500 times more sensitive to light than conventional silicon, in both the visible and infrared spectrums, according to SiOnyx, a venture-funded Massachusetts start-up that just emerged from stealth mode. Today's New York Times has a piece about the serendipitous discovery of black silicon inside the laboratory of Harvard physicist Eric Mazur. Meanwhile, a report in Xconomy explains how black silicon works and how SiOnyx and manufacturing partners hope to use it to build far more efficient photovoltaic cells and more sensitive detectors for medical imaging devices, surveillance satellites, and consumer digital cameras." (Waderoush, via Slashdot)

____________________

Ctein

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Ben Rosengart: "100x sensitivity = 6–7 stops. 500x sensitivity = about 9 stops. This has been a public service message from the Powers of Two Council, Blogs Division."

Featured Comment by David Bennett: "I had to look it up: A femtosecond is one billionth of one millionth of a second."

William Claxton, 1927–2008

William Claxton by Gary Friedman / Los Angeles Times

William Claxton died on Saturday of congestive heart failure, one day shy of his 81st birthday, at a hospital near his home in Los Angeles.

He was best known as a jazz photographer, but was a stalwart of the photo community in Los Angeles for many years, photographing movie stars and musicians of all kinds. He did many album covers and published 14 books, including the famous Jazz Life, issued by Taschen in a slipcased 25th Anniversary edition only a few weeks ago (there is also a deluxe edition). He exhibited widely, and his pictures were published in many magazines, including LIFE, Paris Match, and Vogue.

He was a founding member of the Recording Academy, the organization that runs the Grammy Awards.

He also worked as a fashion photographer, most famously photographing designer Rudi Gernreich's "topless swimsuit" in 1964. The model was Peggy Moffit Claxton, to whom the photographer was married for 49 years.

His publisher and friend, Benedikt Taschen, said of Claxton, "he was a great photographer and a wonderful man who touched the lives of his friends through his generosity, charm and kindness."

William Claxton's website

Jon Thurber's L. A. Times obituary

_______________________

Mike (thanks to Tim)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Ron W: "Sorry to hear that. He is not the only noteworthy jazz photographer to pass. Michael Smith passed away a few weeks ago. He documented every New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival until health issues forced him to retire, along with Mardi Gras Indians, the Spiritual Churches and so much more. Did not mean to hijack the obit of Mr. Claxton who may be better known, but I would think that many may have seen some of Mr. Smith's work."
 

Some Things About Some Things

Sculpture by Tom Coben

Glenn Gordon has collected some examples of his favorite "encountered" art. And some of them aren't even meant as art. Isn't this kind of "noticing" what photographers do? (David Vestal once referred to photographers as "professional noticers.")

A quote: "...the minimalist ideal—divine economy, the feeling of zero—is a state to be striven for...it’s sort of what Zen and yogic practice aspire to...the antidote to bloat."

____________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by Robert Meier: "This column is a great example of Glenn's work, which I've been reading for a long time. He has a quirky, individual, iconoclastic point of view and writing style that are refreshing, inspiring, and just plain wonderful. Thanks for including this here—he deserves the exposure."

Mike adds: I'll say 'ditto' on every point.
 

Old Snapshot, circa 2008

I don't normally post stuff like this, but I thought this was funny.

I was messing around with some pictures in Photoshop on Saturday evening and found myself doing some strange things to one particular image. I was almost finished with it before I realized what I was doing: without even really being aware of it, I was making it look like a Kodacolor drugstore print from maybe the 1970s—complete with the distinctive look of slight fading of the yellow dyes typical of old snapshots. Once I stopped chuckling at myself, I added a dingy border to it to complete the effect.

I need to spend more time away from the computer, no question.

The boat is a catboat, with the mast set well forward, a "barn door" outboard rudder, and a gaff rig. The boom is low so you have to keep your head down. Aboard are Al and Mary P. of Burt Lake, Michigan.

______________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

ADDENDUM:

What the original looked like out of camera. This is a different frame, but you get the idea.

What the...?

Okay, now I really am getting famous, in an internetty kind of way. Check out the "Fan Profile" this week at What the Duck.

____________________

Mike  (Illustration by Aaron Johnson)

The Naked Truth

Manet's favourite model, Victorine Meurent, has often been dismissed as a drunk and a prostitute. But as V. R. Main discovers, she was actually an ambitious artist

By V. R. Main, The Guardian

Picture the predicament. She is 18, working-class, poor, with a secret ambition to become an artist. He is 30, rich, aristocratic, and a painter. The year is 1862; the setting, his studio in Paris. She is modeling for him, and, as they talk, their ideas merge. Two of the paintings he produces with her will become among the most famous in the world. But the majority of his biographers will ignore her influence. They will say that she was a prostitute and an alcoholic who died young. And, with that damning description, her contribution will be erased from art history.

It was more than a century after Edouard Manet's death that the art historian Eunice Lipton discovered that his model, Victorine Meurent, had actually lived to be 83. And it seems unlikely that she was his grisette—a young woman in a casual relationship with an artist—let alone a prostitute....

READ ON at guardian.co.uk

____________________

David Emerick

(V. R. Main's new book is A Woman With No Clothes On, from Delancey Press. U.K. link.)

Send this post to a friend

...And Damned If You Don't

In a truly parallel-universe, Bizarro-World kind of irony, Fox News has found something truly innovative to whine about. Most photographers are familiar with the controversies that have ensued when journalistic publications, especially newsmagazines, use pictures, especially on their covers, that have later turned out to be manipulated. The prototype situation in modern times was perhaps Matt Mahurin's notorious TIME magazine cover of O.J. Simpson thirteen years ago (that's Matt at the right), which was revealed to have been darkened and dramatized when Newsweek ran the same photograph on its cover the same week. Newsweek's was unretouched, which highlighted the changes TIME had made. (Mahurin, for his part, considered himself a photo-illustrator, only doing his job.)

So what's Fox complaining about this time? Another episode in the episodic war against fakery? Hardly. It's complaining that the current Newsweek cover of Sarah Palin was not retouched. It shows skin pores and "unwanted facial hair." OMG!

Seriously. Not enough Photoshop! Now that's a new one.

And this from the same network caught with its pants down grotequely distorting I.D. photos of several New York Times reporters it disliked, in order to ridicule them. (The reporters had written a story about Fox's declining ratings.)

Poor Nigel Parry—the guy snags two Newsweek covers in as many months (probably from the same shoot, as PDN points out), and still can't win for losing. (That's Nigel, above.)

PDN Pulse has the whole scoop.

_____________________

Mike  (Thanks to David E., Scott Kirkpatrick, and several others)

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by WeeDram: "One thing we can all agree on about Newsweek's cover: They did a pore job."

Mike replies: Oh, no more scotch for you!
 

Ctein Dye Transfer Print

Ctein, Competing Ferns

For about a year now, I've been after our regular contributor, Ctein, to see if he'd be willing to offer to our readership a fine example of a dye transfer print for a bargain price. Dye transfer (Ctein is perhaps the leading expert in the world today on dye transfer printing from color negatives—other specialists tend to work from transparencies) is the print equivalent of Kodachrome, the granddaddy of deluxe color techniques. Even in its heyday it was reserved for Rolls-Royce projects: advertising photography for reproduction and museum exhibition prints. It has always been expensive.

To really "get" what photographic print quality is all about, you need to see it for yourself. Words only go so far. One of my own ideal collections would be one that contained good samples of many of the great variety of photographic printing techniques. My little personal motley (you can't really call it a collection) contains tintypes, platinum prints, 8x10 contact prints, daguerreotypes, SX-70 prints, '40s snapshots, photogravures, and a lot else besides. A collection like that without a dye transfer print simply isn't complete. When museums and collectors want the absolute finest in color printing, they still call for dye transfer. Dye transfer prints have a richness and depth unmatched by any other kind of photographic print. Before the latest pigment inkjet prints on the best papers, they had the best longevity of any viable color print process. It still has the largest color gamut of any process. Dye transfer prints can show extraordinary subtlety of tone and hue, combined with a brightness range of 500:1 from blackest black to whitest white. No other print, black-and-white or color, matches that.

I'm happy to say Ctein's schedule has finally cleared, and for a very limited time (really, for reasons I'll get to in a moment), exclusively through T.O.P., we're very pleased to offer a choice of two excellent examples of dye transfer prints, "Kahili Wild Ginger" and "Competing Ferns." Large versions are available at Ctein's regular price, $1,100, but for this offer, you can get smaller (though still nicely-sized) versions for a radically reduced price—$100 for one, $180 for both (when ordered at same time and shipped to same address).

Ctein, Kahili Wild Ginger

Note that you will be making your payments directly to Ctein via Paypal, and he will be sending you your print(s). He promises delivery in time for Christmas.

To make this possible, it is necessary to take orders in advance and then print to order; it's only by printing all at once knowing in advance that each one is already sold that Ctein can make these prints for anything like this price. For that reason, ORDERS WILL BE TAKEN FOR TEN DAYS ONLY. (Last day will be Sunday, October 19th.) This isn't an arbitrary deadline; he needs to know how many to make. After that, the orders will be closed and the number of prints that were ordered will be produced.

Shipping costs are included in U.S. orders only. For out-of-country orders, shipping will be an extra $15 to Canada and $25 to all other countries. You'll need to arrange a separate payment of the extra shipping charge to Ctein. Prints will be shipped Priority Mail International, but delivery times are uncertain and he can't guarantee foreign delivery before Christmas (although he'll try).

Further details: The image area of Competing Ferns is 7.5 x 10" and of Kahili Wild Ginger is 8 x 9". Prints have at least one inch white borders around the image area and are signed and titled on front in archival ink, signed and dated on back in pencil. All prints will be shipped flat and sturdily packed, first-class mail, uninsured (Ctein will replace any that get damaged in shipping).

The image area of the large prints is approximately 14 x 19" for Competing Ferns and approximately 15 x 17" for Kahili Wild Ginger. Those will ship insured. (Note that there is no time limit on ordering the larger prints; these are regular sizes at regular prices. The time limit is for the low-cost versions.)

If you have placed an order and need to inquire about it please just email Ctein or me directly.

{SALE ENDED MIDNIGHT U.S. CENTRAL TIME, SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19th}

I can say with confidence that there's absolutely no other way to get a dye transfer print at a price anywhere near this low. Just having a custom dye made from your own original (from one of the only three or four people other than Ctein who still do it) would cost on the order of $1,200 to $1,500. The craftspeople left in the world who can still make dye transfer prints could fit into one large living room. The materials are discontinued; the process is on the cusp of disappearing into history.

I'm not saying this is your absolute last chance to own a dye transfer print—not the case, yet. But the opportunities are getting scarcer (and most of them, more expensive) with the passing of time.

______________________

Mike

Send this post to a friend

P.S. If people can't see the photographs well enough here to feel comfortable ordering the prints, here are links to higher-quality JPEGs on Ctein's web site:

Kahili Wild Ginger

Competing Ferns

Still Crazy (And Making Dye Transfer Prints) After All These Years

By Ctein

Here's an understatement: dye transfer printing is time-consuming and expensive. Making the first dye print from a negative costs me over $100 in materials and several days' time, and demands extraordinary skill, understanding, and good artistic judgment. It's no wonder that few printers make dye transfers.

A dye transfer picture is not created chemically in paper; it's more analogous to the mechanical printing process that magazines use. Instead of plates engraved with a screened halftone image for each of the colors, though, dye transfer uses three continuous-tone sheet film plates called matrices. The matrices are soaked in water-based cyan, magenta and yellow dyes. The matrices are rinsed clean of excess dye and squeegeed against a sheet of gelatin-coated paper, much like regular photographic paper but without the silver compounds. The gelatin absorbs the dye from the matrix. The result is a continuous-tone dye photograph on paper.

The details are a wee bit more involved...

First, I need to separate out each of the individual color images that comprise a color negative. I use red, green and blue filters to enlarge the individual color negative images onto sheets of Pan Matrix Film. I process that to produce a relief image: the thickness of gelatin left on the film base after processing is proportional to the amount of light that hit the film.

Now I can work by room light. I soak the matrices in "acid-fixing" dyes. Gelatin will absorb just so much acid-fixing dye out of the dye bath. That's what makes dye transfer work. The thickness of the matrix relief image is proportional to the original exposure, so the amount of dye picked up by the matrix is also proportional. More light means more gelatin, which means more dye in the print.

The red-, green- and blue-exposed matrices go into cyan, magenta and yellow dye baths, respectively. I can adjust the contrast of each dye image by changing the acidity of that dye bath. I have sets of different contrast dyes, much as black-and-white printers have different grades of paper. Sometimes, I even use different contrasts for the different matrices to correct for some unusual color balance problem, like aerial photographs that are too blue in the shadows.

The matrices absorb all the dye they can in five to 10 minutes. I rinse each matrix in 1% acetic acid to remove the excess dye from the surface; because the dyes are fixed (held in place) by acid, they don't wash out of the gelatin. Incidentally, the large amounts of dilute acetic acid used in the process leave the prints smelling faintly of vinegar for months-to-years after printing.

I take the first rinsed matrix and use a roller squeegee to press it emulsion-to-emulsion against a sheet of dye transfer receiving paper. The dye molecules transfer to the paper's emulsion. After 5–10 minutes, I peel off the matrix; I now have that primary color's dye image in the receiving page. I wash the matrix in hot water, after which I can dry it or dye it for another print. I repeat this for all three matrices. Voila, a full-color dye transfer print.

It probably won't be right. It'll be too light or dark, too contrasty or flat, and/or off-color. The shadows may not have the right amount of detail, or the highlights may need a little more sparkle. Or etc., etc.

Endless control
Before Photoshop, we had dye transfer for the ultimate print control. Dye transfer printing provides me with a vast (even daunting) number of ways to control the appearance of the print. I can use masks when making the matrices to adjust the color balance, color rendition and tone scale of the print. I can control the density and contrast of each matrix individually during exposure and processing. I can adjust the acidity of the dye baths to change the image contrast and density (which looks different from changing the matrix contrast).

I can lighten or darken an image by changing the composition of the rinse baths; I can even add dye selectively to shadows or remove it from only the highlights. I can make additional transfers from each matrix to fine-tune the image. Each primary color image adjusts completely independently of the others, using any combination of these tools.  Learning how to judge what corrections will take me from a first print to that perfect final one is what's really demanding about dye transfer.

Of course, my technique must be meticulous. If I don't process the matrices with perfect evenness, I get uncontrollable color shifts and blotches. Wet matrices are fragile beyond belief and demand careful handling. If I roll a print too lightly, I'll get dye bleeding and patchy, unsharp prints. If I roll too hard, I'll stretch the paper and get color fringes. Any air bubbles or dust between the matrix and paper prevent the dye from transferring at those spots, making for much retouching and spotting later. I must do everything right while handling large sheets of wet, floppy film and paper.

But, it's like getting to Carnegie Hall. Thirty years of practice, practice, practice and I'm there! Believe me: the results are worth all the effort.

______________________

Ctein

Send this post to a friend

Aardenburg Imaging & Archives

Fujifilm DL 400 "Drylab."

By David Emerick

I must applaud Mark on the development of his Aardenburg Imaging & Archives site! It has come a long way and continues to develop nicely. There is a load of information on the permanence of digital printing.

"Aardenburg Imaging & Archives was founded in 2007 by Mark McCormick-Goodhart. It is located in the historic Hyde House in Lee, Massachusetts. AaI&A collaborates with serious amateur and professional print makers, photographers, and artists who work with digital printing processes. We are carefully building an archive of digitally mastered photographs and fine art prints. Our goal is rigorously to document the late 20th and early 21st Century digital printing technologies used to make photographs and fine art prints. Aardenburg's collecting policy emphasizes the materials and processes rather than any specific genre of artists or subject matter. "

Hyde House in Lee, Massachusetts, in 1857, 65 years after it was built (Ambrotype).

______________________

David