A New Year and a New Website…well, another update.

What’s that Crazy Font you say! – Well Sir, Madam, it’s “Eloquent Regular” by Jason Walcott after the long lost Pistilli Roman. Just the perfect Tonic to Pick You Up I say! Peppy? And How! Well, where can I get some? Veer!

There is some confusion on the intertubes about who created it first-either John Pistilli or some other blogs say Herb Lubalin and Lou Dorfsman-I am sure some typophile can correct me. Depending on how it is deployed it can either look playful or ‘eloquent’ or classic like Bodoni/Didot.

It gets a little funky small so I am not sure about the blog header, but I wanted consistency.

And yes, designed by me. The function parts come as before from Slideshowpro and Director, it is based on their layered thumbgrid demo for those that care, with some custom ActionScript thrown in. I posted before about it here.

The site coding is from Freeway Pro. I don’t know of any other web design software that allows a total idiot like me to make a decent website.

Every site is a trade off, for me my goals are to get people to see a lot of work quickly and big if they want to. So the update saw me redo every image for the site at 900 px wide-This is about as large as I want to go.

Also performed an upgrade on the portfolio-

Went for a couple portfolio meetings yesterday and one editor was surprised by the physical porfolio-she was seeing a lot of laptops. Really? Talk about No Plastic Sleeves! Speaking of, yes those are acetate sleeves, the International House of Portfolios kind (iHOP). I’ve read a lot kvetching over there about the practice-but Really? You want to change the order of your book or one image and you can end up reprinting most of the book? And what if you don’t want to print on any of the double side offerings- or on matt paper? I love Harman Gloss. It is what I print on Period. And it ain’t two-sided. You think I’m gonna glue that sh– together? Really? You think acetate is going to lose you work? Really?…I think bringing a laptop in is gonna lose you work. You have no idea what it really looks like.

Another editor said they were seeing a lot of Blurb books. For the price it might be cheaper even. But then you give away control of colour I would expect, and what you can print in CMYK is nothing like what you can print on inkjet or c-print. Which brings me to my final point; minilab develop and scan. I had a roll done recently just to see what was up, what was out there. Picked the wrong lab. L&I on 22nd. Can you say rip-off? 18$ for dev+scan-get this a whopping 15mb scan. Do you know what that really is? 2 Megapixels. Yes, your iPhone has 2mp resolution. But they call it 15mb-which is a to confuse the point, 1700px x 1100 px is ~5mb per channel RGB- there’s you double digit file size-15mb! Thanks a lot! And colour-don’t get me started! But it did make me think about what I am seeing from the gang rediscovering film-

wonky purple shadows, no detail, stained highlights. Excuse me while I book an ad shoot. Off to look for another lab.

Following on the heels of a story in NYT here, I made a few changes, added the Flyover States video, and a random function to load a few images at launch. Yes I had to do a lot from scratch because blah blah blah Flash CS3 is not Flash CS4. Its 2:35am…Just pay for a site is my advice…

We all need an August party right now! SLPS to the rescue. 6:30 to 11:30 at Canoe Studios, 601 West 26th Street, suite 1465. Admission is free, but they are going to do a priority line for members who donate. Since there is nuthin going on this week, people are starved for beer, I’d suggest getting on the priority line with a donation to SLPS.

Featuring me-and my mini project Flyover States in full multimedia mode. See you there.

…Angela Voulangas has contributed to my Team for Kids charity goal of $2500-and will be receiving the 8×10 of her choice. See here her book “The Handy Book of Artistic Printing” with co-writer Doug Clouse. I photographed some of the samples for same. If you are into the soulfully intense ornament, this book is for you! Buy it here!

HEHE-trust me folks, no photoshop here! Well, a little burning on the clouds…

In other news, a big $100 donation for Team for Kids has come in and someone will be the lucky recipient of a whopping 16×16 or whatever they want of this:

Film baby yeah!

Only $2325 to go. Donate here remembering my name “Wright” and number 361112! Instructions here.

Commentary to what happened here-

Edit: ok so this is what I should have written-I did say off the cuff…there were so many errors I did not want to perpetuate any misunderstandings-it was the Magazine, not the paper, in which this ran. I had that wrong. So I rewrote the post.

The whole thing struck me as odd-”long exposures but no manipulation”-why exactly are you telling me how these pictures are made-it is like when they do a panorama-”a panorama is a series of photographs put together”-I wrote about this before, about the little girl in the Microsoft ad who is 4 and an PC, and how she sends a photograph to her family, she knows more about digital imaging evidently than we are giving the rest of society credit for…

It is ham-handed, and when someone lies, you get stuck with your hand in the cookie jar as has happened here.

What they should have done was run Edgar Martins own words, his own artist statement:

With artful composition and controlled framing—but no digital manipulation—Edgar Martins creates sublimely beautiful views of often un-beautiful sites. Minimalist nighttime beaches, forests ravaged by fires, and Iceland’s stark terrain have all served as subjects for his large-scale color photographs. He also explores the unexpected impact of modernism on the landscape, including startlingly graphic airport runways and colorful highway barriers that, at first glance, read like abstract murals.-Aperture

Nothing more. Then when it hits the fan, you turn on the author and say, you were telling the truth no? Like Oprah got caught vouching for James Frey-there is ambition on both sides of that equation, and it is not pretty.

Why is NYT running explanations of the ins and outs of digital photography? It is not their place. You can’t fact check a photography, even in film. It could be staged. All you have are trusted sources. How do you have trust? You establish relationships with photographers over a period of time and assignments and then they don’t lie to you. This also means you might not want to run with the flavour of the moment, the MFA grad who just had a sold out show. Because you never know.

Update

An interview here with the person who called it first (evidently). Thanks Simon.

Difficult to tell at this size, but

getting pretty close to perfect. Yesterday I had most of the factors working in my favour, a steady stream of jets overhead, some puffy clouds, the right vector, victor.

Still not there though. He’s not centered on the pin, the cloud is a little too big in the frame, it feels heavy on the left. But he is “on” the pin, there is no overlap, no space. At least in the pixel realm of 400% enlargement, you cannot tell.

And a reminder that for a small tax deductible donation to Team For Kids, you can have a print from me. $50 gets you whatever you want from me. Smaller donations are also welcome. 18 weeks to the New York City Marathon…

Couple weeks ago I got an email from NYCphotoWorks:

Greetings Photographer,

I’m writing to you today to tell you about a new Manhattan based
company, headed by photgrapher Marc Asnin, that is working for
photographers.  NYCPhotoWorks is a company that is designed to help
photographers on all levels become better photographers, gain
professional insight and exposure, and eventually get work.  We offer
services in many different aspects of professional photography, from
consultations on personal branding to meeting face
to face with the top editors in the magazine world, to workshops taught by
working professionals.

NYCPhotoWorks will be hosting Portfolio Reviews in the fall that are
certain to provide photographers with unprecedented opportunity and insight.

On October 22nd-24th, NYCPhotoWorks will be hosting a Portfolio Review
event at the newly renovated Sandbox Studios in lower Manhattan that will
bring together more than sixty of the top photo editors in the business.
Participating publications include Time, People, Stern, Vanity Fair, Conde
Nast, Details, Forbes, ESPN, Fortune, Sports Illustrated, National
Geographic Adventurer, Redbook, and many more.  Photographers must apply
to be accepted into the event in order to ensure quality of work.  If
accepted, the photographer will be given the chance to meet with 14 photo
editors 1-on-1 over two days, plus a third day of workshops taught by the
Directors of Photography for Conde Nast Traveler, People and Redbook.
This is an unprecedented opportunity for talented photographers to
personally show their work to top photo editors and build lasting
professional relationships.

In a world as competitive and dynamic as editorial photography it’s not
enough simply to drop off or mail in your portfolio.  Meeting the editors
in person lays the foundation for a working professional relationship.
Don’t miss this chance to personally present your work to the top editors
of the magazine world.  Spots fill on a first-come-first-serve basis and
you must submit your work prior to being accepted into the event.

For more information about NYCPhotoWorks please visit our website at
www.nycphotoworks.com

Thanks for your time and please feel free to contact me with any
questions.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Is it me or do they go out of their way NOT to mention money?

So I apply and get taken to a very nice website with a lovely list of editors. Two weeks later, voila, I am accepted and get a login to register.

WHAMO!

$699-599-499-399-Just like iPods, one for every size…

I’ll do the math for you, that’s roughly $45 dollars a sitting.

Ok so you say, Robert…everyone knows it is pay to play…what is your problem? This is no different from paying for LeBook or a promo piece or portfolio pages.

Well, it is different. It is like the wheel has finally come around full circle. Really? Really?

It’s not like I am not already paying out of pocket to do editorial. You know my views on that. But now I really am paying out of pocket! Have we all forgotten folks that we used to drop portfolios off at magazines and have meetings and actually sit down in conference rooms and lobbies and show work to editors for free? This was how business was conducted, the editors need to meet you to get an idea of what you were like, they needed to see prints, they wanted to form a relationship so that you could work together. It was part of their job. Some even liked it! And if it went well, it was not some cherry pick one time assignment where because you shoot waterbuffalo on painted backdrops with a ringflash in your MFA portfolio they just knew it had to be you? But after that, via con dios…

So apart from the efficiency aspect of being able to deliver 200 (? I have no idea the size of this cattle call) culled photographers to 50 editors for example-because, we really are doing them a favour-the magazines, getting their editors all on site on two days for a blitzkreig portfolio review-they are going to come away with something don’t forget-I just don’t get it. Yes, it is highly efficient to be able to see 14 editors in two days, literally, something that would take weeks or months to do conventionally-now. But do you really have a portfolio that is suitable for Business Week, ESPN, Field and Stream, Popular Mechanics, NYTimes Style, Lucky, Prevention and Redbook? Does it make any sense? So right there, out of 32 publications represented, just how many are you really suited for? And if you respond, ‘all of them’, then I think your portfolio needs some cutting…

Sure you could spend $699 every quarter and do a very nice printed Z-fold of new work and blanket all your contacts and I know that might have zero results. But this is no different. Except for the fact that it is something that used to be free, and now, or going forward, probably will not be. File this under “blame commoditization…”

On a secondary rant, part of this has to do with the myth of “personal work.” I guess now that no one is working we all have time to do “personal work.” I’m doing it as fast as I can…have you noticed yet? Perhaps someone with a little more history in the business can corroborate this, but to my recollection, this little bit of slight of hand came up in the 90’s. It was a differentiation tactic. Pure marketing. It said, “you are not just a commercial photographer.” Well I ask you, for example, when Ad agencies are looking for a TV commercial director, and they are shopping reels, do they ask-”hey, where is the personal work? Lemme see his friends half naked at the beach?” Sounds ridiculous huh?

The situation is comparable to the rise and fall of indy cinema, first as outlier, eventually as profit center, with no investment-does this sound familiar-and now as undifferentiated from the rest.

To be “truthy” there is nothing wrong with hiring a photography to do what they do if all they do is shoot to assignment (brilliantly?). You see the perversity of the logic when in the last couple of years we have seen what I would term the “exploitation” of artists in the commercial realm, being hired to reproduce on assignment what they do for themselves. Can anyone put that logic right-side in? How is it any different from hiring an assignment photographer to reproduce what they do on assignment?

If anything, I trust the assignment photographer who has had to deal with more crises on location than the photographer hired to reproduce personal work, which by definition, is work made under the circumstances of the photographers choosing.

Can you imagine asking an Avedon, a Penn, a Meisel, etc, so, where is the personal work? Like the assignment is not good enough?

Various from Flyover States.

I am not opposed to providing prints from other work. Yeah the demand is that great…

UPDATE!:

Let the love flow! I wonderful generous First Donation from my friend Emmet Malmstrom…thank you!

Emmet Malmstrom