WhiteHouse Custom color is doing the printing, short runs of 25, 50, 100, etc. Makes it real easy to send out quick hits. About the only paper I like from them is their Art Recycled.

Got an email back from him saying he was really happy with the picture and felt it reflected who he is, which is interesting- you spend a couple hours with someone and try to put that into a picture. From experience I know that the way I see someone in their picture is often very different from how they see themselves. Nice when the two dovetail.

Another view;

In case you are not on the list.

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…

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

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.

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.

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…

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

Team For Kids is the charity “leg” of the New York Road Runners Foundation dedicated to bringing quality in-school educational programs to 75,000 kids in NYC, nationally, and internationally. There are many reasons why kids are not getting enough physical activity today, even before the recession, and TFK provides:

• Training for teachers, coaches, field managers, and site coordinators
• Incentives for children to maintain attendance, sportsmanship, and achieve running and personal improvement milestones
• Entry fees and transportation for kids to compete in races and attend events with professional athletes
• Resources to establish programs in areas of greatest need-

This is what is going to happen: Robert will run the New York City Marathon November 1 2009. 26.2 miles. Obviously this charity appeal is self-serving: I really want to run this race, in this city, this year. 2009 is the 40th Anniversary of the race, and is going to be something extraordinary. I have watched from the sidelines on 4th Avenue many years, as I am sure many of you have, watched them all go by, and thought, I would like to do that. This is going to be the year.

One person inspired me to try running (again) last year and it comes down to that simple act, to inspire something in someone else. You (my family, friends, coworkers, random strangers…) have all responded with admiration, amazement and encouragement. I have even tried to get one or two of you to go out and lace up a pair yourselves.  Well now I am trying to inspire you to make a difference for someone else. Hit the TFK website link above, enter my New York City Marathon entry number “361112″ and last name “Wright” and make a TAX DEDUCTIBLE (yes!) donation to TFK.

Here is the deal: you can donate whatever amount you want. $26.20 is an obvious choice. But, for donations of $50 and above, I will make a print for you, you can select or I can choose, I will post some possibilities soon.

Now if someone wants to get a little outrageous, there are lots of options on the table. A portrait sitting with me, in studio or at your swank pad, the full kit, lights, backdrops, assistant, film or digital…Pet Photos are A-OK! Want me to snatch a lollipop away from your baby? Fine by me! Who needs jill-whatshername! Its all ON. Just give till it hurts:) Think about my pain running 40 miles a week folks…

So this is how we do it:

Go to this page and this is what you see:

now enjoy feeling good.

Soooo…the alternative is to wait until next year when I know I will get in because of the 9+1 entry system that I am 3 races away from completing. Or charities. The official NYC Marathon charity is Team For Kids-dedicated to alleviating childhood obesity by providing funds for access to physical education for those with little or no access.

I grew up with good schools, we had phys-ed, outdoors summer and winter! While I was not a jock by any stretch, I was a band geek, we had a great music program too, I do have a very detailed memory of wanting to die the first time we had to run four laps of the 400m oval. Plus our school had a long history of various all-school athletic challenges, one being the Harrier, I believe a 5k run through the streets. At least a great way to get out of class…

But I watched more than my share of TV, was addicted to Pepsi, and chocolate milk, but somehow managed to avoid what is called an epidemic now, childhood obesity. I believe genetics played the major role, but also our family eating habits were pretty conventional, meat and two veg as they say, and kids were allowed to go places on their own riding bikes, walking, running. I do not remember being strapped into anything resembling a car seat or stroller, perhaps I would not remember this anyway. It seems we shepherd our children everywhere now, from cars to strollers to buses. And just looking at my own lifestyle, the amount of time spent in front of a screen, I fear that our future is some version of Wall-E.

Sooo…floating a balloon here folks, I can register for RunForKids but I must commit to raising a minimum of 2500 smackeroos for them. Taking a page from Jen Bekman’s outrageously successful 20×200, I thought, why not do a print sale for RunForKids-50×50? I will produce a print (50 prints x 50$ea) and take donations via Paypal towards the charity. I’m not taking anything for the prints or the shipping costs, this is 100% charity. I have not done the research yet, perhaps RFK has it’s own payment system, however it gets done, ya’ll will get a print from me, have the pleasure of hearing me complain about training in the heat of August, and know that the money raised is going to make sure the ‘kids are alright.

Does this have legs?

What am I talking about? A quiet revolution, the cottage revolution. The Sham Wow Revolution. Direct Marketing. Rooney. Ctein. Lavalette. Zeldin. Many many more.

Subscriptions seem to be the newest thing. The idea is give a mouse a cookie once a month and the mouse rewards you with a print. Or something like that.

I just wish I could figure out a way so that when you opened my blog a “blow-in” would fall out on your desk. Look for an announcement, just don’t hold your breath.

Watch and Listen here.

An interesting piece over at Democracy Now!- Thomas Geoghegan takes another perspective on the financial crisis we are in. Also David Brooks over at NYT with his take. I’ll summarize for you. I promise this has something to do with photography:

Brooks details the two narratives that have emerged; you either think that it was Greed, where government deregulation lead to an excessive expansion of the financial sector, or you believe in Stupidity, where overconfidence, too many MIT grads and a phony understanding of risk combined to produce a tsunami size correction. Or some combination of both.

Geoghegan has a caveat to the first narrative: usury. We have broken the basic law of finance that has existed since shekels were in circulation, the charging of excessive amounts of interest on loaned money. What is interesting about his analysis which I encourage you to listen to or read (it’s in Harpers) is that he connects the dots in a way that you can explain to your parents from the “Greatest Generation” about why things are so different today.

My parents are in their seventies and eighties, and remember the bulk of their lives spent before credit cards. Or should I say “saved” before credit cards. With the exception of their home, they bought everything with cash, like many people of their generation. They were wage earners, working most of their lives for one employer. Both were in powerful unions. They experienced a real wage growth from the 50’s through the early 70’s.

And what happened in the 70’s, the first oil shock, and subsequent recession, then the slow climb to Reaganomics is where the change begins. It was at that time that they got their first credit cards. In the beginning, it was nearly impossible to get them to use them. It basically went against everything they had been taught about financial prudence.

Geoghegan talks about how a few changes to the banking laws removed the caps on interest charged. Ever wonder why all the credit card companies are located in Delaware and the Dakotas? At first the states regulated interest, most had tough usury laws, and the limits were less than 10%. But some states had no limits, like Delaware and South Dakota, and banks began locating their credit card divisions there. Long story short-the credit card companies could charge whatever rates they wanted across state lines.

The joke in my family is that my dad spent more time on strike than at work. The contracts at his factory came up every four years, and every four years, they went out. There was not one contract that was not disputed over several decades of his employment. Even my mother was forced onto the picket line from her staid government job. What was going on? Was this really a labour-management struggle, or was their something larger going on?

Geohagan says that as more and more money began pouring into the financial sector, it started becoming the engine of the economy. We were borrowing money (from foreign lenders in the form of importing more from them than we exported) to buy goods made elsewhere, essentially choking off our own manufacturing by not investing in it, and simultaneously expecting greater and greater investment returns, which ultimately were only coming from Wall Street. So by not creating real jobs in America, by denying Union Cards as Geohagan says, and issuing Credit Cards, we turned the America economy into a debt creator, not a wealth creator.

This is what my parents were bumping up against, fortunately their working careers ended with the semblance of the traditional social-compact intact. I only hope their pension funds don’t get raided. The key point is you can create economic activity two ways, either by a healthy consumer class that has money to spend, and has some choice in employment, health care and benefits. Or you can create the investor class, which is a euphemism for the debt class. Deny people a living wage, deny people health care, deny them a dignified retirement, decent education etc. BUT offer the sop of unlimited easy credit to smooth it all over. And offer them the illusion of control over their own health care and retirement in the form of INVESTED savings in 401k’s and MSA’s. You have the tax code encouraging investment, trillions pouring into Mutual Funds.

The working world that I have occupied for the twenty years is nothing like my parents world. Photography is hardly a bellwether industry, but I believe you can see the narrative that Geohagen proposes operating in this industry. Just as we have moved away from producing “things” to producing “wealth” photography has seen media consolidate and reorganize to deliver investor returns at the expense of everything else. The content that is created exists only to drive share price because this is what an investor economy demands. Companies are not traded on fundamentals, they are only traded as speculative plays. If you have any questions about why you see the dreck you do on newstands and television, for the most part, the content is secondary to the return on investment. That is why, in this recession, the only strategy we have seen from media is slash and burn. There is no talk of innovating out of this problem. That would be to focus on the product. Used to be, the idea of business was you created something, a better mousetrap? and people beat your door down-how do I get one! But now we are focused on share price, which at this point, I’d have to say is not going to reflect anything but fear.

Another part of Geohagen’s critique applies, when he talks about denying Union Cards and issuing credit cards. In photography it is an old saw that editorial rates have not increased since MC Hammer uttered the immortal words “Can’t Touch This”. Or whenever. And the banana thrown back at us was the law of supply and demand, plus a steady stream of people willing to work for nothing.  It was our own fault. I have argued in the past that this not the true story, and Geohagen’s analysis gives me another arrow to fire into this straw man. Consider for example that if publishers really were focused on the product, if this were actually true then there would be an incentive to hire talented photographers, allowing for the occasional breakout success, but the bulk would have to come from people who really knew what they were doing and would know what it was worth. There would be little incentive to hire the freshest cheapest face out there willing to work for whatever was offered. Good photography and good writing is not free, or at least it didn’t use to be (…).

I think the reality is that publishers have increasingly focused on the bottom line to the exclusion of everything else. Every title in every category has to profitable, and profitable year over year. So where are those pressures coming from-Wall Street of course. And also think about the burden of an inefficient heath care system that the employers are paying out for to another racket, Health Insurers. And the matching 401k’s going out to Schwab. When we think of great magazines, we tend to think of titles long ago, with great writers and photographers covering stories that meant something, not merchandise. We should not wonder why no one reads anymore, the content available online is more varied, engaging, even if it is sometimes crudely illustrated or edited. But it is about SOMETHING. And writers and photographers actually have control over that content.

We can debate all we like about what is going to replace newspapers, magazines, etc. Or how we are going to pay for content online. But none of this matters if the basic economy is not focused on balancing the needs of workers with the needs of investors and corporations. So far the debate has basically been the rationalization of a crisis situation. Slowly there has been talk about how we got here. This is very important. I certainly don’t want to live in a country where the primary option is basically the nuclear option, go big or go home. The different sectors of the economy, manufacturing, eductation, science, health, resource, finance, media, and service have to offer jobs at meaningful wages with opportunities for success. Many of the old jobs will not return. We have been told that this was the consequence of globalization, but it is also the consequence of relying on finance to be the prime mover in the economy. Well, we all can’t have jobs on Wall Street. It’s just not that big a street. And we’re not going to sit in Starbucks and eTrade on our iPhones as a way to make a living. This is not an American Dream that I subscribe to. I think media is just going to have to suck it up and leave print for online, and charge for it. Publish special editions, or luxury titles. At prices that pay. If the content is good, people will buy. This will also have the side effect of “draining the swamp” as I like to call it, it will leave all the aggregators (barnacles) high and dry with nothing to parasite from. Unless they pay. This has to happen. There is no other way.

The last thing I want to mention is how speculation has bent the photo industry. It is another example of how finance has warped our world view. Going into a career in photography has always been risky, but the focus now on emerging talent, I would say the strong focus on new and emerging talent, is a speculative play. If you look at the culture overall, with the abundance of contests and judging and voting the focus is on an endless stream of contestants vying for attention. And we can all enjoy betting on our favourites, or indulge ourselves by becoming a contestant too. American life has always been about winning, but currently the system is highly optimized around making bets on the future you could say, speculating, looking for the next big thing. Presumably the next big thing will be the thing that rescues us from our problems. The emerging phenomenon in photography is no different. By focusing on the speculative you get to ignore the real effort in photography, which is making meaningful images again and again. There may be a one hit wonder in all of us since photography is so deceptively simple. In a speculative industry, enabled by the long tail of the internet, that may be enough to ruin many long careers. Careers that never get a chance to mature because the oxygen in the room has been sucked out by all the new emerging flames. This is why I worry about Google….

But that is an screed for another day.

Wishing Evanly and Tar success in launching TAR. Will it be remembered as the last magazine to ever launch? I hope not.