SoFoBoMo Words to Remember

Colin breaks a camera on his first day of photography for SoFoBoMo.

And in writing about it, he writes (in part):

There’s nothing like standing somewhere and actually taking pictures for ending the theorising.

As he so often does, Colin drills straight to the heart of the matter. If you are trapped in the theorizing and can’t get started with the doing, head out into the real world and start doing. The abstract possibilities are stripped away in a manner most gratifying.

I was stumped on what I was going to do for SoFoBoMo. And then my most excellent friend Bill Saltzstein got me off my duff, into an empty theatre, camera on tripod, shutter open.

And the dust was blown from the crevices of my brain, my ambivalence ended, and the way was clear. And if you had told me the night before Bill and I entered that first theatre that I would not only do my SoFoBoMo book from this project, but that I’d do in in B&W and by the end of two weeks I’d be looking forward to pursuing this project way beyond the end of the fuzzy month and the SoFoBoMo book, I’d have told you that you were three times mad.

If you are thinking “At this point, each day of delay means I get less than 31 days to do my book”, there might be a clue, here. Go out, camera in hand, and make photos. Something will become clear. It might not be what you had in mind, but then that seems to be the way the world works. Make some photos. See what comes to mind when you look at them.

And then run with that idea, with faith and confidence. I predict that if you do this you will succeed.

Because, as Colin points out, there’s nothing like standing somewhere and actually taking pictures for ending the theorizing.

Rules and PDF Size

Graham writes:

What the hell is this?

Is this about photography or computers? I’ve just spent heart and soul creating something artistic, and now I need to worry about the computer science aspect of it? I do that all of the time at work, and even in my normal recreation time at home. I’m involved in the SoFoBoMo event, trying to do something different. A size sample PDF of what I might produce runs around 38M. By the sounds of it, that’s no good.

It’s about photography and computers, not one or the other. I certainly appreciate that you’ve invested heart and soul in your SoFoBoMo project – everyone who is participating appreciates that. But the project is not just making a set of 35 photographs, it’s also assembling them into a PDF book. And part of that is, as you’ve put it, the computer science aspect of it. So, yes, you need to worry about the computer science aspect of it.

I’m sorry you find this annoying. It’s not been hidden, however, and it’s not a surprise. If there’s a SoFoBoMo participant who’s finished and has NOT banged his or her head against the vagaries and gotchas of PDF generation, I’ll be mightily surprised.

In other words, you’ve discovered that there are hurdles to overcome for SoFoBoMo that you didn’t foresee. That’s part of the point – when we envision doing something, there’s the expected stuff, which makes up 99% of the work. And then there’s the unforeseen stuff – the part we didn’t know about in advance, and for which we didn’t plan – and that makes up the other 99% of the work.

I’ve fixed bad kernel sources for Linux, turning an uncompilable lump of source into a working piece of binary code. I’ve earned the label “Mad Scientist” from upper management to outside contacts (international business partners and nine-figure sponsors) for the things I can do with math and computers. In contrast, check my blog. Today I, the consummate introvert, spoke to complete strangers, giving all I could of myself to give something back to some real heroes. That’s not to mention what I did to get permission to take photos hassle-free in an airport, post 9-11, and actually end up chatting with both TSA inspectors and their manager.

Good for you. Seriously, and I’m not being the least bit snarky here, good for you. SoFoBoMo has stretched your limits – that’s a good thing. SoFoBoMo has goaded you into tackling things you wouldn’t have tackled before – that’s a good thing. I don’t need to check your blog, I’ve been following it all along, along with all the other blogs.

“Oh, that’s no good. Your PDF is too big.”

The rules were one month, starting no earlier than May 1, ending no later than June 30, do all of the work in that time, create a book in a PDF form that has at least 35 photographs. Have we this secret size limit too? Are others allowed to make and/or change the rules as per their sensibilities?

I have other things to do with my time. What are the rules?

No one has changed the rules. The rules remain the same. If you’ve got a PDF that contains your book, regardless of the size, you’re done. You’ve finished. You’ve created a photo book in one month, start to finish – no small feat. I hope you’ll accept my heartfelt congratulations.

Now, if you’d like to upload a copy of your book to the SoFoBoMo.org website, it appears there’s some work to be done. We’ve set a size limit. Some people are hitting that size limit and it’s generating a bunch of frustration.

Why is there a size limit? There’s a size limit because:

• bandwidth for the website is a finite resource, paid for by a private individual who’s contributing it directly from his own pocket, and if everyone makes their PDF humongous, the costs will be prohibitive. Understand that last year, we didn’t host PDF’s at all, and in general people agreed that some sort of hosting arrangement, however limited, would be a good thing overall, and we ended up where we are now. It might be that the current limit is set too low, although I don’t believe that’s the case. But we will see how it goes, and adjust as we go along, and in the end it will all work out.
• if the PDF file is too big, people will not download it. Since the goal of uploading it to sofobomo.org is to allow other people to see it, it makes sense to keep the files small.

People who have some experience with generating PDFs set the limit, thinking it was not unreasonable. Those people are highly interested in adjusting things so that everyone who’s finished can upload a version of their book to the sofobomo.org website, and then other people can download it and see the books that have been made. In some cases, those adjustments might need to be made on the sofobomo.org end of things. In some cases, they might need to be made on the participant end of things. We’ll see.

No one is going to be labelled a ‘non-finisher’ because they got caught out while we figured it out. In fact, since participants are pretty much responsible for deciding if they’ve succeeded or not, such a thing isn’t possible.

Please understand that this entire shebang is strung together by a very small handful of volunteers who are (in addition to doing their own SoFoBoMo books) putting together the website, running it, dealing with problems, answering questions, etc. They’re doing this in the midst of busy lives with commitments just like the ones you have. They’re getting the work done from all over the planet, in some cases doing it from on the road during their vacation, literally. Not a single one of them is earning a single penny, and some of them are in fact putting their own cash into the pot to make it all work.

And all of them very much want you to be able to upload a copy of your book to the sofobomo.org website, so that other people can see it.

Bottom line:

It will work out. Some adjustments are probably going to be needed on the participant end. If you have insights into getting PDF size down, please share them. If you’re having problems getting your PDF size down, ask for help. If you see someone asking for help, try to help them.

And if we have to make an adjustment to the limit on what size can be uploaded to the website, we’ll work that out, too. But first we’re going to give folks a chance to get the size down on their end. This is not unreasonable. Please be patient while we work out the details, and understand that some of the solution is going to be adjustments on your end.

Bottom Bottom Line:

If you have a PDF file that contains a photo book that conforms to the guidelines on the sofobomo.org website, and you met the time limits, you’ve finished. Congratulations!

Cameras

I just recently bought an EOS 5d mk II. Concise camera review: I like it. I like it a lot.

So I’ve been thinking some, recently, about that peculiar synergy between the photographer and a camera – the special mojo that makes a particular camera perfect for one photographer and an evil instrument of Satan for another.

Every once in a while, I read something that catches my attention because it sums up a meaningful insight very concisely. Usually when I read these, I think “Oh, that’s obvious. Duh.” And then I realize that it’s that sort of insight which is obvious once it’s been pointed out to you, but not before.

This morning I was reading Mike Johnston’s TOP, and read just such an insight. Mike wrote:

Cameras don’t take pictures, true; but then, people don’t take pictures either. People with cameras take pictures.

The Moore Theatre

The above photo is from my brief effort in the Bullitt Cabaret Theatre at ACT Seattle last week.

Yesterday’s SoFoBoMo photography session was at the Moore Theatre, in Seattle. (http://www.themoore.com/about/history.asp)

It was my first outing using the newly acquired EOS 5d mk II. So far, I’m thinking the camera is awesome.

Box score:

• time spent on site: 2 hours, 48 minutes
• # of exposures: 154
• setups: 64

So that gives me something like one setup every 2 and a half minutes, and an average of 2.4 exposures per setup.

A lot of the multiple exposures were burned fiddling with exposure. There’s some weird interaction between the 5d mk II metering system, live view, and extremes of shift with the 24mm TS-E lens. I’m slowing getting a grip on that but I admit that I burned a lot of exposures hunting for the right shutter speed.

ALL of the exposures were made with the 24mm f/3.5 TS-E lens. For this particular job, it seems to be the right thing.

Speed Chess

Long ago and far away, I played correspondence chess. Playing chess by mail is the opposite of playing chess with a clock. It’s not that you have unlimited time to decide on a move, it’s that you have ample time. I also enjoyed, at the same time, playing speed chess with a clock. The time control is very short – four or five minutes a side, and if your flag drops, you lose. Sometimes the time control is as short as a minute a side.

The interesting thing is that with correspondence chess, there are very few outright blunders, and the participants’ investment in the outcome of a particular game is relatively high. In speed chess, blunders are common even among very strong players, but because each game lasts such a short time, the significance of a single game is very low.

As people come to the end of their SoFoBoMo effort and begin to obsess about how the book will look and how it will be perceived, it’s important to have a little perspective.

SoFoBoMo is to producing your best effort photo book as speed chess is to correspondence chess. SoFoBoMo is fast, because fast means you don’t have time to second guess yourself. It’s somewhat crazy. It follows the same rules, but everyone understands that with the time pressure and the flag about to drop, blunders are going to be made.

And that’s ok. We learn from blunders. What we don’t learn from is doing nothing.

Strive on with diligence. But remember to relax and have fun.

SoFoBoMo completed books

You can now see a page with links to all of the completed SoFoBoMo books that have been uploaded to the sofobomo.org website at http://www.sofobomo.org/2009/browse/completed-books/

Enjoy!

(and if you’ve finished your book but haven’t uploaded it, please, do that!)

The Empty Space

Naturally enough, besides making photographs in empty theatres I’ve been thinking hard about theatres, and empty theaters in particular. One of the things I’m trying to understand is the set of properties of ‘empty space’ – space that’s used to provide a variety of experiences.

The following passage is the opening paragraph of Peter Brooks’ book The Empty Space: a Book About the Theatre:

I can take any empty space and call it a bare stage. A man walks across this empty space whilst someone else is watching him, and this is all that is needed for an act of theatre to be engaged. Yet when we talk about theatre this is not quite what we mean. Red curtains, spotlights, blank verse, laughter, darkness, these are all confusedly superimposed in a messy image image covered by one all-purpose word. We talk of the cinema killing the theatre, and in that phrase we refer to the theatre as it was when the cinema was born, a theatre of box offic, foyer, tip-up seats, footlights, scene changes, intervals, music, as though the theatre was by very definition these and little more.

It’s a surprise to go into an empty theatre – one without audience, without sets, without designed lighting and designed sounds – a space that is by intent and design a space that can be bent to different audience experiences. You expect that such a space has no particular experience of its own; that a space with such a design is fundamentally emptiness. Instead you discover that there’s a core experience there. Different theatres have different emptinesses.

Film, part two

Ed Richards raises some interesting points:

I am not sure the comparison is fair – if you were working with 4×5, would you have needed 100 images plus backups? Would you have needed the backups at all – how many sheets have you actually ruined in processing? I can certainly see the backups in once in a lifetime shots, but when backups get in the way of shooting, it seems a waste. You certainly would not be processing those backups. You also understand metering, so you are not going to be bracketing much. So maybe you shoot 40 sheets and get 10 good shots. Not as much as with the digital, but not quite such a production as 200 sheets.

I might not have needed 100 images plus backups, it’s true. The big thing, though, is that even though I’m pretty fast with the 4×5 when I’m in practice, it’s just not nearly as fast as the 5d. It’s heavier and bulkier and harder to move around. So I’d have to slow down some. Not a lot, but some. And that would slow down my ride up the learning curve. I’d probably do just as much bracketing – maybe more. It’s not just a matter of pointing the spot meter and calculating (although that would be complicated – how to you adjust for reciprocity when you’ve got brightly lit areas and nearly dark areas?)

And as for backups – what constitutes a once-in-a-lifetime opportnity? I can’t just call up the Paramount and say “Gosh, I ruined the film I exposed when I was there. I know you have a show on the stage, now, but could you please strike that expensive set so I can re-shoot?” These people who control these theatres are being very generous and supportive, but they do actually run a working theatre. The windows when I can get in there and photograph are narrow, and the patience of the people letting me in there is finite, and I *really* don’t want to get a bad reputation that will make it hard to get into other venues. I want a good reputation that opens doors for me.

So far I’ve worked on 23 images from that session. Let’s figure that I would have exposed two sheets for each of those ‘keepers’, plus two for similarly sized host of ‘also rans’. Some would be heavily bracketed, some not. So either I’m really fast with the 4×5 and burn film with abandon, or else I’m coming away with half as many images.

Coming away with 10 images when I could have come away with 25 seems a poor compromise. And it’s definitely not an improvement, no matter how you cut it. And I’d argue that the whole point of deciding between two technologies is ‘getting the photographs you want’. I mean, that’s the original reason we’re having this discussion – the proposal that this focus on technology (e.g. using a laptop to get rapid feedback) was getting in the way of getting the photos. Right?

I still use 4×5 and digital, and I do not find the 4×5 such a burden. OTOH, I have quit shooting anything with 4×5 that I can shoot as well with digital – no hair shirt mentality. Once I am on the tripod, the advantage of digital begins to dimish for me.

Ok. You don’t find there’s an advantage to digital over 4×5 once the camera is on a tripod.

I see the following disadvantages:

• It’s going to be really hard to focus this really short lens (figure a 75mm lens, which I don’t actually own) in near darkness. And depth of field is going to be an issue, going from 35mm to 4×5. I was working with a 24mm lens at f/8 and f/11. That means I’ll be right up against the limit with a 75mm lens, working two stops down at least from the 5d. I’d be working at f/16, f/22. My exposures just got, not just a factor of four longer (now they’re up at the two minute mark) but more like 8-10 times longer – round it off and call it 5 minutes. That’s ten minutes per setup, just to expose two sheets of film. Ten minutes, that is, instead of 30 seconds.
• Composing is going to be exciting. The ground glass on a 4×5 with a 75mm lens is pretty dim, even with a fresnel. And the existing lighting in these spaces is pretty low. It’s hard to see what I’ve got with the fairly bright finder on the 5d, so the 4×5 GG will be useless. Now, with the 5d, I can make an exposure and check the composition on the spot. And with the 4×5, not so much, unless I’m burning up expensive polaroids.
• Some of these photos were made with the camera in awkward positions. Ever made a photo with a 4×5 looking straight up? How about with the camera cantilevered out over a balcony railing? How about with the camera backed up hard against a wall?

There is only area where I wonder if it would have changed what you are doing in the theater shots – movements. I would be using a lot of movements, both for traditional perspective and for creative uses. Do you use TS lenses with digital or do you not miss the movements?

Yeah. Not having movements would be a hassle. I’ve been using the 24mm TS-E extensively. I suspect the 45mm TS-E and the 90mm TS-E might be in my future.

SoFoBoMo progress

Ok, I’m enthused enough about the empty theatre project that it’s definitely going to be my SoFoBoMo book for this year. This is a relief, since late last week I was still scratching my head and wondering what the heck I was going to do for SoFoBoMo, and time is rapidly running out.

But the good news is that this project seems to have helped me leap, with great vigor and vim, out of the slough of despond.

Out of Tuesday’s session, I found 23 images worth working up into prints. 23. Maybe that’s not a lot for you, but 23 images in one day is a lot for me. Now, of that 23, I wouldn’t want to put them all in a book. I think they’re fine quality wise, but some of them are too close to others in composition – I’d use either one, or the other, but not both. But I figure that I have two more theaters *scheduled* to photograph, and out of the 23 photos I’ve got already I could comfortably use, say, two thirds. Call it 14 photos, maybe 18 if I get pinched. Heck, if I get really pinched, I just use all 24.

But with two more sessions scheduled, I feel pretty comfortable that I’ll get at least the 35 that I like for the book. Whew.

Must now go check on charging batteries for today’s photography. I’m rarin’ to go.

Film

Every little while, someone suggests to me that the way for me to move my photography forward is to ‘go film’. This is often accompanied by a suggestion for a specific film or film/developer combo.

Since Tom was kind enough to make this suggestion in the comments, I’ll respond here, and perhaps set a few other minds at rest also.

But first, a bit on my past experience with film. I’ve used film. Actually, I’ve used film over several decades. I have dozens of binders filled with plastic negative sleeve pages, and those dozens of binders hold thousands of 35mm negatives. I used to buy 35mm TMY in 50 roll pro-packs.

And it doesn’t stop there. I’ve exposed thousands of sheets of 4×5 film.

I’ve printed those negatives, too, in a darkroom, on gelatin silver paper, both graded and variable contrast. I’ve spent many, many contented hours in a darkroom, both processing film and printing. I’ve even done color printing in a darkroom, both from color negatives and from transparencies. I’ve had articles on printing on variable contrast paper published in a major photo magazine. I’ve done a lot of work fine tuning a hybrid large format film/scanning/digital printing workflow.

I’m not saying this to brag. I’m saying it to drive home the idea that, to me, film is a known thing. I have been there, done that, and it does not hold much mystery for me. I know it all, well enough to know that it’s not some magic thing that will somehow transform my photography or accelerate my photographic advancement.

Tom writes:

Here is everyone worried and talking about the technology of how they may have arrived at better art. Guys and gals, may I simply suggest one lil’ thingie, please, sometimes, grab for your passion, the photograph.

That’s pretty much what I do – go for the photograph. I’m not particularly invested in technology for technology’s sake. I’m invested in technology to get results. More on this anon…

How could you have taken this better? With a laptop? Maybe a large format digital back, i.e., Phase One 65 gigatons?

Or……

Maybe a 35mm Film camera with some 1600 speed film, get in the dark room and THINK. Maybe a small investment in a Crown Graphic 4×5 Large format with some film holders? (ya, they still make the 4×5 film)

Actually, that was my point – having a laptop there would let me get more or less instant, constant feedback on what I was getting. And my view is that that feedback would have let me run up the learning curve faster, with less heartbreak, and better results. As for 1600 speed film – I’ve exposed hundreds of rolls, thousands of frames. I know what tricks it can do, what tricks it can’t, what it’s good for, and when I want to use it. This particular project is not well suited to ANY of the available 1600 speed films.

I’ve been there, done the large format thing (for quite a few years, the only camera I used was a Linhof Technikardan 45s), and if there’s something to which I would NOT look forward, it would be doing this project with a 4×5. To get the tonality I want, I’d be using a relatively slow film – probably Acros, assuming you can still get it in 4×5.

Yesterday, I made nearly 100 exposures, many of which were on the order of 30 seconds or so. Reciprocity departure would push those out into the minute range. I’d be struggling for depth of field in those photographs where I wanted it. Focusing in low light would be a serious trick, even using a laser pointer.

On top of that, doing it in 4×5 would mean either a BIG pile of film holders, or else a serious raftload of quickloads/readyloads. When working in 4×5, I generally make a backup exposure, so for yesterday’s session I would have needed about 200 sheets of film. That works out to 100 film holders (I actually own about 25 regular holders, and enough grafmatics that I could load up about 120 sheets). Or, if I decided to go with packetized film, it would work out to just 200 sheets, and the readyload holder. Badger Graphic Sales lists Acros 100 in quickloads for $2.80 per sheet. So yesterday’s photography would have burned 200 sheets at $2.80 a pop, or about $540 just for film. Either that, or a lot of time spent loading film holders, and about $400 in loose sheet film.

200 sheets of film works out to 20 runs on my Jobo. Each run takes about .5 hour (I have three drums, so I can let one drum dry while I process in one drum and load the third). So that’s ten hours just to process the film. And then I have to scan it, at least the the stuff I want to print. Oh, and don’t forget the cost of the developer, stop, fix, clearing agent. All told, call it another buck a sheet. Or I can have the film run at a lab – call that $5 per sheet. So now my costs are up to something between $600 and $1540, just for film and processing.

Let go, forgot the technologies just for a moment, I’ll beg you this one time. Try and then learn by studying your negs, your prints… Trust me on this one little point, try it, return to digital, and watch your craft in art go up about, oh, 1000 pct…..

There is no ‘forgetting the technologies just for a moment’. There’s just picking a technology that’s available based on your needs. I understand both film and digital – at least to a degree where I can make informed decisions about what technology to employ in a given situation, and make informed judgements about the tradeoffs involved.

I think film is great. I think there’s a place in the photo world for film. But I also think, based on my experience with both film and digital, that there is no such thing as a silver bullet technology. If you’re a photographer, your art can advance using film. It can also advance using digital. Or, as many photographers are finding, by blending digital and film.

Choosing between a film based workflow or a digital workflow involves a lot of tradeoffs – cost, time, space, quality, equipment properties. The choice determines a lot of things, and switching from one to the other changes a lot of things. That change might well jog you loose if you’re stuck. But if you’ve got experience with both, I don’t think changing, and then changing back is going to do much except waste time and money.