Eat At Joe's

At The Intersection Of Pickens & Gore - Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 10:52:00 +0000

--
Above: Canon EOS-5D, 15/2.8 Canon Fisheye Lens EF, ISO 100

No Contest Part III - The Art Institute of Chicago Doesn't Get It!

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:14:00 +0000

In mid-May, my ASMP Chicago/Midwest Chapter colleague Marcus Maddox and I took issue with the Art Institute of Chicago regarding the rules to their photography contest celebrating the opening of a new wing. The contest rules, like many others lately, contain insufferable language which amounts to an egregious rights-grab. We see this all the time, it's not unusual to find the corporate world (and their legal departments) seeking to get over on artists. What makes this exceptional is that it's an art museum seeking to get over on artists!!

The rules state: By entering the Contest, entrant grants Sponsors the non-exclusive, royalty-free, and irrevocable right to use, reproduce, copy, publish, display, distribute, perform, translate, adapt, modify, and otherwise exploit the photo and to incorporate the photo in other works in any and all markets and media now or hereafter known worldwide in perpetuity. Again, we expect to encounter this elsewhere, but not from an arts organization. Needless to say (I hope so, anyway), we let the Art Institute know how deeply saddened we were to see this behavior coming from them.

Two days ago we received a reply from Eric Hogan, the Art Institute's Director of Public Affairs, which read: Thank you for your comment regarding the Art Institute's photography
contest related to the opening of the Modern Wing. The contest is not directed at professional photographers, who should be and generally are well compensated for their work. The contest was meant to engage the hundreds of thousands of visitors who like to take pictures -- with their iPhones and non-professional-quality digital cameras--in the Modern Wing as a new feature of the Chicago landscape. We're sorry for the misunderstanding but certainly did not mean to imply that we were looking for "free" professional work. More than a dozen professional photographers have shot the building -- for magazine spreads, ad campaigns, and publications -- and all were fully compensated by the museum.

These are supposed to be bright, intelligent people. Do they really think an art museum can stage a widely publicized photography contest and that there would be no serious artists (professionals) entering images? Especially if the rules don't specifically exclude professionals and images made with professional instruments?? C'mon, let's get real, and please don't insult my intelligence with a lame response.

My point was, and remains, simply: An organization that's supposed to be dedicated to advancing the visual arts ought not be taking advantage of visual artists; and whether an artist's status is amateur or professional is wholly beside the point. The Art Institute of Chicago should not sponsor a contest in which the rules undermine the value of art and the artists who produce it!

Independence Day 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:52:00 +0000

Do You Ever Wonder?

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:11:00 +0000

Do you ever wonder what a photo credit tastes like? How about this: do you ever wonder how many miles per photo credit (MPCs) your car gets? I do. I also wonder if these thoughts ever cross the mind of people whose job description includes asking me for permission to publish my images, promising only a photo credit as compensation. Don't you?

This morning I received an e-mail via Flickr from a woman at the Irish Museum Of Modern Art saying,
I'm contacting you regarding the touring exhibition and monograph publication of the artist Lynda Benglis currently being prepared by the Irish Museum of Modern Art. As a comparative image to one of her pieces, we would like to include your image of the Statue of Liberty torch. Would you allow us permission to copy the image for an edition of 3,000 worldwide English copies? If so, can you send a high res copy? We will credit you as the author, though we might possibly want to crop it to only include the arm and flame. Would you allow that as well?

I'm wondering why she didn't ask to borrow my bicycle, too! Aren't you?

Breaking The Bank

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:21:00 +0000

Ken Lewis didn't ascend to the heights of the banking industry by being a pushover. Quite the contrary, Lewis, the CEO of Bank of America, has always driven a hard bargain.

One Sunday last September, at the urging of (then) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Timothy F Geithner; Ken Lewis made the deal of the century... or so he thought... in taking control of Merrill Lynch. Paulson & Geithner, knowing that Lehman Brothers was about to fail and that, despite their lofty titles, they were powerless to stop it, scrambled to find a buyer for the next domino in line before it, too, fell. They set-up a meeting between Ken Lewis and Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain. Paulson and Geithner were desperate for Thain to find a buyer for Merrill Lynch that very day, fearing that if Lehman fell and dragged Merrill down with it, the entire economy would collapse like, well, a line of dominoes.

Early that Sunday morning, Thain planned a 1:00 PM meeting in Merrill Lynch's corporate apartment at the Time Warner Center in New York with Ken Lewis. Thain offered Lewis a ten percent stake in Merrill Lynch, generating enough cash to keep Merrill afloat. But twelve hours later, Lewis, not content with a mere ten percent, had acquired all of Merrill Lynch.

Yes, Ken Lewis drives a hard bargain. He made John Thain an offer he couldn't refuse and took all the marbles.

Last week, photographers thought they'd got a glimpse of the competitive Mr. Lewis, up-close and personal. Bank of America had a new deal for photographers, or so it seemed. One of our correspondents wrote...

i cannot remember if it was this forum... that recently had a posting about Bank of America and their new all rights policy..but it seems to be true..although i was previously booked for a shoot for this coming weekend, today they inquired about their new contract which includes all rights for the same money.. i declined, offering alternatives, but this seems to be non-negotiable it saddens me to lose this client, but giving my work away for less than it is worth, is just not an option

This one comment unleashed a wave of criticism aimed at Bank of America... 40+ messages... and it wasn't until the most recent messages had been posted that we finally got to see the actual document.

When I read the text of Bank of America's new deal, the one that everyone's been up in arms about, it seems perfectly reasonable to me provided that the fee is commensurate with such a broad license.

There is one key passage which reads, Photographer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Bank of America from and against any and all liability, claims, damages, and costs arising from or incurred as a result of Bank of America using the Photograph as described above.

This is the only part I have any objection to, and only because it's exactly the reverse of my standard terms and conditions, which state that the client will, indemnify the Photographer and his Representative against any claims and damages, including reasonable counsel fees, arising from the Client's use of the photographs and the Photographer's or Representative's use of material on instructions of the Client.

Any time you're dealing with a large multinational corporation such as a top-tier bank or pharmaceutical company, you're going to be licensing a very broad rights package that doesn't necessarily enumerate each and every possible use. That's okay, if you price your license accordingly.

I'm a Bank of America customer and I get to see how extensively they use images. Newspaper, trade & consumer magazines, direct mail, POP, billboards, letterhead, web, brochures, annual reports, post-cards, posters, car cards, ATMs, envelopes, etc, etc... you name it. If your picture is central to their campaign it will be everywhere. According to the document I read, Bank of America seems to be willing to limit the length of time for each use and they're only concerned that you don't release the images for use by their competitors (it's not even exclusive, rather industry-specific). It's not an all rights in perpetuity throughout the universe in all media known and unknown, nor is it a Work Made For Hire contract. Bank of America doesn't seek our copyrights. It is, in fact, a limited use contract (a/k/a rights-managed) rather than an egregious rights-grab.

So what's the real problem? The photographer failed to negotiate a fee commensurate with usage. Except for the money, there's nothing wrong here. Oh, except that Bank of America's reputation was unnecessarily trashed.

Mama, Don't Take My Kodachrome Away

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:59:00 +0000

Sad news: This morning the Eastman Kodak Company announced that it would discontinue the manufacture of Kodachrome film, citing declining demand. Kodachrome, with its highly saturated colors, especially red, was my film of choice for many, many years; but Kodachrome now accounts for less than 1 percent of Kodak’s still-film sales, the announcement said.

Kodak estimates that the current supply of Kodachrome will last until October, and if the precedent set by the similar announcement of the demise of Kodachrome II is any indication, hoarding of the remaining supply can almost certainly be expected. The announcement also noted that Kodachrome processing is so complex that only one lab in the United States is still certified by Kodak to handle the film, Dwayne’s Photo in Parsons, Kansas. Dwayne’s said on its web site that they would likely continue processing Kodachrome through the end of 2010.

When Kodachrome was first developed in the 1920s, it was sold only to the motion picture industry. About fifteen years later, it was made available to the general public as a still picture transparency film, “with five layers of emulsion so thin that the total thickness is no more than ordinary film.” Indeed, the thinness of the emulsion and its additive dye process made it the sharpest, finest-grained transparency film available. Its use was so widespread among professionals that Paul Simon immortalized it in song singing, "Kodachrome, gives us such nice bright colors, gives us the green of summer, makes you think all the world's a sunny day."
Oh yeah!

Flag Day 2009

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:51:00 +0000

An Entire Career In One JPEG

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:55:00 +0000

Now Showing on flickr.com

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 08:23:00 +0000

Sunrise at Highwood, Illinois

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:56:00 +0000

Another Night At The Brickyard

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:08:00 +0000

At The Intersection Of Pickens & Gore

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:58:00 +0000

I'm as interested in the environment as most people, maybe a bit more but that's arguable, and I recognize that global warming is a man-made phenomenon and I'm doing my part to care for our planet. If you've been watching television lately you've probably noticed that environmental consciousness is really catching on. It's one thing when the hippies (that includes me) and Al Gore are talking it up, but when T Boone Pickens gets into the act you know there's something to it... not to mention it's profitable.

I can usually get up and get a snack during a TV commercial, or skip by them altogether if I've DVRed a program, but when the Repower America campaign (Gore's spots) or the Pickens Plan ads (Pickens' spots) air, I keep my seat and watch anyway.

And they're all pushing alternative energy with a fervor that suggests it's almost too late (it may be!), and they're telling us to build solar panels and wind farms. The part that I really didn't understand was that if we need to build these new power grids from the ground up, if it doesn't yet exist, where'd they get the footage? Well... I'm not as naive as I look, and I want to make pictures for the green revolution but, where are all these things? I know that the area around Palm Springs, California is studded with wind turbines, but I'm not going to Palm Springs. Aren't there any around here?

You bet there are. I did a little research using Google Earth and found the local wind farm. Yesterday morning I rolled out of bed at 3:15 AM, checked the sky and decided that it was clear enough to be worth driving two and a half hours to photograph a wind farm, so I hit the road and I was in the wind.

While at the wind farm I met a guy who was kind enough to explain the economics of the deal for the farmers who've allowed the turbines to be put on their land. Then he said, and it's clean... not like that!... and he pointed to the horizon north-west of where we were standing.

What are we looking at, I asked?

Byron, he answered.

Byron? He was pointing to a minuscule puff of smoke on the horizon. It looked insignificant to me, but that's because it was forty miles away (I said it was clear, remember?). According to my new friend, there's a nuclear power station at Byron and it's mucking-up the landscape. All he wanted to know was, would you rather live here with these clean, quiet, pretty windmills in your back yard, or there, with a reactor and cooling towers in your back yard?

Kind of a no-brainer, isn't it?

Sunrise at Montgomery, Illinois

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:16:00 +0000

--
Canon EOS-5D, 300/4.0 Canon Lens EF L Ultrasonic & EF2X, ISO 1000

Oil Change, Any Car: $19.95

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:32:00 +0000

Every so often something happens that makes me wonder why I work so hard to adapt to new technologies. I work so hard at it that, at least in one case... Internet web sites, I was first to market. Well not 100% first, but clearly one of the very first photographers to establish an Internet site. I was so first that when The New York Times did a story on photographers' web sites, they profiled my site in their story.

This morning I received an e-mail which began, "Hello, we are in search for a professional photographer that can take photos of....." When the e-mail starts with such a generic greeting as Hello and not a mention of my name... not Hello Mr. Pobereskin or Hello Joe it's immediately suspect. There were clues that this e-mail was legitimate. It was addressed to an e-mail address that can only have come from my web site rather than to Undisclosed Recipients or some other indicator of bulk mail, the headers revealed that it was indeed from the company the writer claimed to represent, so I called the person to ask a few questions and she told me she'd been to my site and seen my work.

It was comfort-inspiring and after a brief conversation I sat down and made an estimate, almost certain I wasn't necessarily wasting my time. Having said that, and having spent a few hours on an estimate for this new prospect; I was still not surprised to read in a response to the e-mail I sent with the PDF estimate, "Is the total quote for $8,110? We don't need anything creative, we just need photos taken. I can express that this is more than what we expected to pay."

I called back and asked, well, what did you expect to pay? My prospective client told me that the other quote they'd received was for $5000 less, so roughly $3000. We spoke about comparing apples to apples, etc, etc and I was referred to another in her company for clarification of the parameters so I could prepare a second, more realistic (competitive), quote based on real world expectations rather than what she initially thought we could do.

Later on, I had an e-mail from my friend Rob Rathe containing a funny video about clients and their expectations and we commiserated on our similar experiences but then I had to just check.... did my correspondent really visit my web site? Does she really know what I'd do for $8000? The answer is yes... and no.

A check on the logs shows that she did search on google.com for need a building photographer in New York city and the search did point her to my site, but the Access Log reveals.....

193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:27 -0400] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:26 -0400] "GET /gifs/pober.gif HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:27 -0400] "GET /jpeg/Picture4.jpg HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:28 -0400] "GET /gifs/eat.gif HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:29 -0400] "GET /gifs/asmp.gif HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:29 -0400] "GET /gifs/c3.png HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:29 -0400] "GET /gifs/celogo.gif HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:29 -0400] "GET /gifs/SAA-logo.gif HTTP/1.1" 200
193.138.113.23 - - [01/Jun/2009:11:49:30 -0400] "GET /favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 404

.....that all she saw was the splash page. She never looked at the web site, she never saw the quality, never learned of the value I bring to a project, never read my bio. I cannot believe (sorry if I'm sounding like John McEnroe), I cannot believe she didn't look at the web site!! She searched alright, but she failed to learn anything about me or my work. All she wanted was a number.

Is this what 23 years of hard work has come down to? Forget the expertise, forget the value, forget the eye, we don't want anything creative just tell us how much you charge for a picture? We don't want to see your pictures, we don't even care if you're any good at it, just come to the bottom line?

Okay, that's it, I've had it!! I'll change your freakin' oil, any car: $19.95!

Give Me Liberty Or..... Eat This, Dick Cheney!

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:06:00 +0000

I hate running scared. That's why, despite the fact that I'm not particularly a Donald Trump fan, I've always agreed with Trump about rebuilding the World Trade Center exactly as it was, except 10 stories taller.

Yeah, I hate running scared, and that's why I was dismayed when Bush & Cheney locked-down the Statue of Liberty after Sept 11, 2001... in the name of security. Sure, we don't want the Statue bombed, but we also didn't want the Empire State building taken down either, and that was never closed. Nor was Grand Central Terminal. I think Dick Cheney simply wanted to frighten us. In fact, I think he still does. Did you see him speak yesterday? That guy's scary!

The good news is that Bush is gone, Cheney's (almost) gone, and the National Park Service is going to re-open the crown of the Statue of Liberty to tourists on July 4th to celebrate the nation's 233rd birthday. Now everyone can once again enjoy climbing the 168-step double-helix spiral staircase to get to the crown, and one of the best eyeballs on New York City.

According to Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, the government wants to give Americans, "a special gift," by re-opening the crown to tourists. "We're once again inviting the public to celebrate our great nation and the hope and opportunity it symbolizes by climbing to Lady Liberty's crown for a unique view of New York Harbor," he said. The Statue of Liberty will be open for the next two years, then closed again for work on a long-term solution that will improve safety and security permanently. Salazar said officials are "worried" about safety and "we have to take precautions."

Line-up everyone. Thirty visitors an hour is the new limit. I'm glad I've already been there (and done that).

One Year In Chicagoland

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Tue, 05 May 2009 11:48:00 +0000

May 2, 2009 marked the first anniversary of my relocation to Chicago, which has led me to reflect just a bit.....

The past year has been somewhat tumultuous for many photographers, particularly so for me. In addition to a sagging economy, which is the bane of most of our existences, I rather abruptly undertook a move half-way across the country, leaving my business comfort zone behind. I took all the pieces and threw them up in the air, let them land where they may, picked them up and rearranged them. Are you shaking your head? Well, so am I (and I can hear the rocks!).

The New York City area is a target-rich environment for photographers and I'd built a reasonably good business there over twenty-plus years. Parachuting into Chicago on relatively short notice left me scrambling to do my reconnaissance as I hit the ground, rather than in advance as is more usual. Chicago is also a target-rich environment for photographers, but my targets are still largely unidentified. Nevertheless, I've managed to make some headway and have turned-in a few good projects.

After a slow start last summer and a stock market crash in September, the past six months have been somewhat rewarding. In addition to my stock photography projects, always ongoing, some interesting commissioned work and a personal project have borne fruit and I'm feeling satisfied, although in limited measure.

Perhaps the most interesting job was the one I initially misconstrued... an annual report for the Chicago YWCA. For some reason I saw, in my imagination, gymnasiums and exercise machines. The YWCA is, in reality, a comprehensive social services organization. I didn't see a gym anywhere.

Also fascinating, and I've written about this before, is a personal project photographing paroled C-Number inmates. It began as a personal project, caught the eye of an attorney working on prisoner's issues, and was recently published as a twenty four page book which was intended to influence members of, and likely appointees to, the parole and prison review boards. I've had some really wonderful compliments from everyone involved as well as recipients of the books. That work will continue, the book will be expanded and I'll likely publish my own version sometime later this year.

Another project, a brochure for the Openlands Foundation, led me to discover many spots in northern Illinois which have been preserved for purposes of wildlife conservation, land preservation and recreation. A very interesting journey of discovery for a new guy in these parts.

I was, at the outset, skeptical of how this move would work-out. I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised, and I'm looking forward to my second year in Chicagoland.

--
Tree: Canon EOS-5D, 50/2.5 Canon EF Macro Lens, ISO 100
Egret: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic & EF2X, ISO 100
Y Staffer: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100
Ra Chaka: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100
Y Social Worker: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100

26° & Snowing In Riverwoods, I'll Bet You Thought It Was Spring!

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:12:00 +0000

--
Ryerson Conservation Area - Riverwoods, Illinois
Creek: Canon EOS-5D, 28~105/3.5~4.5 Canon EF Ultrasonic lens, ISO 100
Trees & Flag: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100

The Real Problem With AIG

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:03:00 +0000

Everyone's already aware of the problems at AIG, American International Group, the world's largest insurance company. Everyone knows that their Financial Products company's credit default swaps have nearly brought the world economy to ruin. We all know about the ridiculous practice of paying bonuses to their employees even though the company is technically bankrupt. We all know that even though the US Government (that's you and me, folks) now owns an 80% stake in AIG they continue to operate several subsidiaries out of Bermuda to avoid paying U S taxes. The absurdity of AIG is well documented. Now for something you don't know.....

I have a colleague in New York City, an industrial photographer, Steve Mallon, who is also President of ASMP's New York Chapter. Just as the economy was grinding to a halt, 155 Americans faced yet another difficulty: the airplane in which they were riding was about to crash-land in the Hudson River. Have you heard about this one? I think you have.

What's the crash of US Airways flight 1549 got to do with Steve Mallon? What's the crash of US Airways flight 1549 got to do with AIG? What connects the dots? I'm glad you asked.

In the aftermath of the US Airways crash, Steve Mallon was hired by Weeks Marine, the crane company hired to lift the Airbus from the Hudson River, to photograph the recovery of the jet. Pretty cool assignment, eh? Don't you wish you'd been offered that job? When I first heard about it, I wished I'd been offered that shoot. Steve was pleased to get that job. Too bad nobody will ever see the bulk of his pictures.

Even though he had unlimited access... from land, from the river, inside the aircraft's cabin, anywhere, everywhere he wanted to go; Steve had the full cooperation of his client, the NYPD, the Coast Guard, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and US Airways.

The absurdities began about a week after the images went up on Steve's web site. He got a note from the NTSB asking him to remove them. He complied. Two weeks later the NTSB reversed course and allowed him to use the pictures on his web site again. He posted them again.

AIG, insuring US Airways, in a letter from their attorneys is claiming that Steve has no rights to his pictures, and that the pictures absolutely cannot be released to anyone, ever, not even news organizations for news purposes. AIG, through its attorneys, seeks total suppression of Stephen Mallon's photographs, indefinitely.

Why is AIG trying to keep a lid on Steve's pictures of the airplane's salvage? Everyone knows about the crash... it's been reported all over the world. I've seen it on televison no less than 100 times myself. What's the problem?

Well, there's a lawsuit brewing and Steve's images, if widely circulated, will damage one side or the other. But the public is losing its ability to witness something remarkable and to a layman it doesn't make much sense. The US Airways crash was an example of a flight crew doing everything right. Not one life was lost, the pilot and crew performed brilliantly... they're national heroes! It's difficult to envision a better outcome given the situation and if you had to be on an airplane going down, wouldn't you want it to be a US Airways flight piloted by Chesley Sullenberger? I sure would!

I've followed this story from day one. It was a flock of geese that caused the crash. No report of mechanical failure, the crew are heroes, no passengers were seriously injured. So why the cover up?

Stephen Mallon is sitting on 5000 great images. This wasn't a Work made for Hire and his client gave him a green light to publish the images in non-commercial venues (his website, for instance). In fact, according to the few who've seen all of them, the best of the take represent a fabulous documentary of the airplane's salvage. The pictures you see here have already been published elsewhere. Take a good look at them now because it's very likely that you'll see no more. Why? AIG is covering its ass.

New Coke Left A Better Taste In My Mouth! CPS Anyone?

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:15:00 +0000

Generally speaking I try to keep my children out of this but, trust me, today it's germane. Last May, my son qualified for an Illinois driving permit. It scared me to death that I'd have to teach my 15 year-old to drive. I'd taught my little brother to drive when he was 16 and that first driving lesson..... well, let's just say that it's forever etched in my mind. So I wasn't really relishing the opportunity to have to teach a 15 year-old. Just by the way, Dave turned out to be a great driver and Aron is ready to take his road test pending his 16th birthday.

So, Aron's driving, I can't believe it. It was sometime in the spring of 1994, I think it was April, that he first began to walk. That was pretty scary too. I remember coaxing him to let go of the coffee table and take the few steps toward me across the living room that would constitute his first solo. You should have seen the look on his face!

I quickly realized that his new-found mobility meant that I had to be a lot faster as a photographer. Add to that the fact that he wasn't very good at taking direction. I needed to adopt something new: auto-focus lenses.

I was a twenty-year Nikon user and they had this whizbang new auto-focus camera called the N90-S. I was ready to buy one and a couple of new auto-focus lenses to go with it. I was telling my friend Joe Berger about the plan and he said he thought I should take a serious look at Canon, first, because Berger thought Canon's auto-focus was faster than Nikon's and suggested I call them and borrow one for a test. I did a little digging around and came up with the phone number for Canon Professional Services (CPS), roughly akin to Nikon Professional Services (NPS) of which I'd been a member for years. I called both.

Nikon knew me pretty well already, so borrowing the N90-S and some lenses was easy. Canon didn't know me at all, and I was doubtful that I could get the loan, but after I explained what I wanted they sent me an EOS-A2 camera and three lenses to test against the comparable Nikon. I took everything out with me on a shoot and used them interchangeably, then looked at the results with a 16x loupe and..... Berger was right! Canon beat Nikon hands-down for lens quality, on focusing speed, on ease of use, Canon beat Nikon on features for the price. It's 15 years later and I'm still not used to mounting lenses in the other direction, but I'll get over it eventually.

Oh, I joined CPS immediately upon buying my Canons. You know, I had to replace everything when I made the switch. I don't want to tell you how much money I dropped at Ken Hansen's that first month, it still makes me want to vomit when I think about it (I'll get over that eventually, too), but suffice to say it was as sizable a chunk of change as it was a leap of faith.

Over time I've purchased an EOS-1 camera, two EOS-1N cameras, an EOS-A2, eleven EF lenses from 15mm to 300mm... mostly L series, a Rebel for the wife, then a couple of Sure-Shots. I was Canon all the way. And if I wanted sharper, more saturated color, all I had to do was buy different film, it cost the same six bucks. Then came digital. Then came the disappointment.

I love my EOS digital cameras. I use two EOS-5D bodies, constantly upgraded from several previous EOS digital cameras. I'd even buy a couple of EOS-1Ds Mark III cameras.... if they weren't eight grand a pop! Why not? Because digital is still evolving and I can get 21 megapixels from the 5D which is less than half the cost of the 1Ds, that's why. I'm also slightly miffed by the fact that every time they improve the resolution of the cameras I have to go out and buy new cameras to remain competitive, and they do that every 18 months. I've bought more new cameras (and flash cards, and bigger flash cards, computers, and faster computers, hard drives, more hard drives, even more hard drives, software, newer software) in the last five years than I did in the previous ten years. It's insane!!

Well, that's not the disappointment. I love my EOS digital cameras. I have so much more control with digital than I ever had with film. No, I'm not disappointed by the cameras. I'm disappointed by the company. Canon, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that to retain the CPS member benefits that I currently enjoy for free I need to upgrade all of my cameras and lenses to the latest, most expensive, models and pay a membership fee of a couple of hundred dollars. Why? The EOS-5D series cameras are not professional models, therefore I'm obviously not a professional. Really? I don't spend enough money on Canon already? Are they nuts?

The economy sucks, nobody's working as much as they were this time last year and what, we're all supposed to upgrade? Again??

The economy sucks, we're not working as much or making as much money as we were this time last year, and now Canon wants us to pay hundreds of dollars to remain members of their professional camera club, they want even more money? In this economy? Are they nuts?

Did I mention that I can remain a CPS member for free? Yes, I can, but I can't get the member benefits I've previously enjoyed, for that I have to fork-over another $300. For free I only get a worthless membership card. I'm not feeling the love here, Canon.

Let's see... why did I switch to Canon in the first place? Oh yeah, great products and superb support. Why do amateurs buy Canon? Because pros like me with the white lenses (their trademark) everywhere give Canon a big PR boost. Consumers pick Canon's point
and shoots because of the halo surrounding the professionals and their Canons. In one ill-timed, and otherwise bad move, Canon is tossing this marketing power out the window. This may be the biggest marketing gaffe since Coca-Cola introduced new Coke.

In the meantime, do you want to know where Canon can stick its free CPS membership? I'll tell you.

Monday C-Number Portrait

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:30:00 +0000

Michael Nolan
35 Years as a L#
USM Logistics
Chicago
--
Above: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100

Today's C-Number Portrait

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:03:00 +0000

Melvin Haywood
30 Years as a C#
John Hope College Preparatory School
Chicago
--
Above: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100

Another C-Number Portrait (and there are even more)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:32:00 +0000

A Sage Smith
27 Years as a C#
Bluhm Legal Clinic
Northwestern University School of Law
Chicago
--
Above: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100

On ASMP Elections (For General Members Only)

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:28:00 +0000

For those who don't know much about me..... I joined ASMP in 1972 as a Student Member. Since then I've been an Associate Member and, in 1983, I became a General Member. I've served four terms as a Director and been twice elected President of ASMP's New Jersey Chapter. I currently serve as a Director of ASMP's Chicago/Midwest Chapter and for the past nine months I've served as Vice President of ASMP Chicago/Midwest. For the record, this is not an official ASMP communication, rather my personal opinion.

Like yourself, I've been receiving e-mails from Scott Highton on various issues. Scott has a history of opposing most major initiatives of ASMP's National Board Of Directors. Most recently he's led crusades against giving the National Board control over setting ASMP member dues, the subsequent adoption of a proposed dues increase, and now he leads a crusade against the payment of speaker fees to ASMP National Directors.

Scott claims that the National Board Of Directors is engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to put large sums of money in each other's pockets... your money... and he's backed his accusations with 'facts' confirming his suspicions. The real fact is that Scott has weaved a web of half-truths and innuendo to support his allegations, and he's been doing so on a variety of issues, not limited to those mentioned above, ever since he lost his seat on the ASMP National Board.

Those he accuses in a conspiracy to defraud you are: George Anderson; Richard Anderson (2nd Vice President); Jim Cavanagh; Ben Coleman; Lynne Damianos; Blake Discher; Jim Flynn; Shawn Henry (Secretary); Todd Joyce (President); Bruce Katz (Treasurer); Richard Kelly (1st Vice President); Greg Kiger; Peter Krogh; Ed McDonald and Thomas Werner.

The conspiracy Scott alleges is that the Directors authorize ASMP to pay speaking fees to those participating in ASMP educational seminars. He claims that these ASMP members should share their specialized knowledge with the rest of us as volunteers, not paid speakers, and he further claims that your dues payments, your hard-earned money, is going into their pockets.

Of the Directors named above, only three are on the ASMP lecture circuit.....
Peter Krogh, Director, presents "Get Your DAM Stuff Together" and for this he is paid not by ASMP but by Microsoft. Blake Discher, Director, presents "I Stink At Negotiating" and "Is Your Web Site making You Money?" For the former, Blake is paid not by ASMP but by Microsoft, and for the latter he is paid not by ASMP but by Adbase & Live Books. Thomas Werner, Director, presents "The Business Of Fine Art Photography" and he is paid by ASMP. One out of three. That's some conspiracy!

Each of these seminars takes two to three days of the presenter's time (includes travel), not to mention the time it took to develop the program. Doing this for 39 chapters consumes approximately 78 days per speaker. That's 78 days away from their businesses and their families. It's worthy of compensation, regardless of who pays them.

Of the other seminars ASMP presents, Paula Lerner & Gail Mooney lead one on Multimedia & Video (paid by ASMP - neither are directors but Gail is a candidate in the current election), Susan Carr presents "What Do I Charge" (paid by Microsoft - she's not a director) and Judy Herrmann presents "Taking Control Of Your Career" (paid by Microsoft - she's not a director).

Even if all were paid by ASMP, that means that twelve board members who are not also lecturers would have to be involved in a conspiracy authorizing these payments. Well, what do they have to gain from all of this? I'll tell you: nothing!

Each of the members of the National Board, as well as your local Chapter officers, volunteer a significant amount of time to ASMP leadership. The vast majority are not only outstanding volunteers but outstanding photographers as well and some, those leading the seminars, are recognized experts in their particular area. These are precisely the people we want leading our Society.

These are tough times for photographers. Our economy is shrinking, advertisers and editorial outlets are cutting back, fees are spiraling downward. Those leading ASMP's Seminar Series are helping us stay abreast of trends, keep up with changes and teach us how to better compete in the marketplace... and because we're all competitors as well as colleagues, they're teaching us how to compete effectively with themselves. This is above and beyond the call of volunteerism, and as speaking fees and honoraria have become a normal part of their revenue streams, if we prevent them from earning a living they will have little choice but to resign their posts in favor of remaining profitable. That would only do damage to ASMP, and it's not a desirable outcome.

In addition to the speakers, Scott accuses the board of hiring each other to perform other tasks for the Society such as programming or assignment photography. This has been done in an above board and entirely proper manner, and only when the director was also the best qualified for the job. In fact, Scott Highton himself was hired to do some computer programming for ASMP when he was a national director. There was nothing sinister going on then and there's nothing sinister going on now.

Scott Highton has also served ASMP as an outstanding volunteer in the past but his recent tirades, his tactic of character assassination based on half-truths and innuendo is despicable and reeks of sour grapes, and gravely harms ASMP.

As regards the process: ASMP bylaws provide for representative governance. You choose national and local chapter leadership to represent your interests. We, in turn, are given the opportunity to declare either Pro or Con on pending referenda. Not a single National Director, not one Chapter President (after consulting the chapter directors) has declared as Pro on Scott's proposal. Not even Scott's local chapter leadership supports his proposal. Doesn't that tell you something?

I'm going to cast my vote as follows: for national director I'm supporting Chris Hollo, Todd Joyce, Kate Baldwin, Jim Cavanaugh and Gail Mooney; on the referendum I'm voting No. I urge you to do the same.

Seeing Things

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:19:00 +0000

In a post to this blog entitled You Don't See When You're Not Looking I wrote, Pay attention! You never know what you'll see, but you won't see unless you're looking!! The point, and I hope it was obvious, is that there's a difference between looking and seeing. The former simply requires waking-up in the morning, the latter requires vision. I try to remind myself of this simple fact every time I pick-up a camera.

Seeing comes natural to some folks, I guess, but I had to learn to do it. I always thought that it's not the kind of thing one can teach, you have to acquire it, like acquiring a taste for whiskey. Knowing this, or thinking I know this, didn't stop me from trying to teach it anyway.

A couple of weeks ago, my almost-16 year-old asked me, Dad, do you have any cameras that use film? I could tell I was in real trouble almost right away. This was worse than hearing that 15 year-olds qualify for a learner's permit in Illinois, and confirmation of my deepest fear: my first-born child, the one I swore to myself I'd protect from everything evil and dangerous in this world, wants to learn photography. Aaaaaargh!!

I'd already given him a digital SLR, my old Canon EOS-350D, now he wanted something a bit more serious for his high school photography class. Luckily I had a perfect solution... a Canon EOS-A2 camera that I hadn't touched in a couple of years, I could satisfy his need for a good film camera without sacrificing my need to retain the ability to shoot film myself (I still have two EOS-1N cameras and an EOS-1 squirreled away). Having set him up for film was going to be the easy part, the hard part was yet to come.

I really don't want to encourage him to become a photographer for the same reason my father didn't want me to become a watchmaker... advances in electronics are sure to ruin the industry and make it difficult to earn a decent living. My dad knew that the advent of the quartz-crystal movement would kill-off fine mechanical watches (well, almost) and he thought my desire to join him in a business that was in decline was not a good idea. I'm glad he lived long enough to see that after an initial shake-out where people, myself included, largely purchased electronic watches, there would still be a demand for fine watchmaking. Perhaps naively, I look forward to the return of film-based photography, but I digress.

Back to the hard part: last Thursday my son asked me to take him out shooting with me on the weekend. Now..... when I go out to make pictures I have a specific objective and a well thought-out plan. I've typically scouted my location and schlep all my gear, including a few tripods. I plant myself in a predetermined spot and make a lot of exposures, and minor variations in perspective, and come away with one image with which I'm, hopefully, satisfied. Yes, I also do some street shooting which is quite a bit more open-ended; but even then I have an objective and a plan, however loose it may be.

Sunday was cold, mostly cloudy, not really a day to be out wandering the streets with a camera, but rise to the task I did. We got in the car with our cameras and I started driving. "Where are we going," he asked?

"Highland Park," I replied.

"Dad," he said, somewhat dejectedly, "there's nothing to shoot in Highland Park. Can't we go somewhere else?"

I was thinking of a glib rejoinder, something along the line of, Where do you want me to take you, Istanbul? Rather than cracking wise, I told him, "There's lot's to shoot in Highland Park, you just have to learn to see." Then I told him a story that Jay Maisel had told me about a conversation he'd had with one of his workshop students. According to Jay, the student tells him that she's dying to go to Provence (or Tuscany, I can't remember) to photograph because the light's beautiful in Provence. Jay's reply: You don't have to go all the way to France, the light's beautiful in Brooklyn!

Amen.

So we set out for Highland Park, loaded his camera with a 36 exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X Pan film and I, thankfully, was able to point out that there is indeed quite a bit to photograph in a sterile Chicago suburb. You simply have to look... and see.
--
All above: Canon EOS-5D, 28~105/3.5~4.5 Canon EF Ultrasonic lens, ISO 400

Yet Another C-Number Portrait

noreply@blogger.com (Joe P.) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:08:00 +0000

Johnny Outlaw
27 Years as a C#
Radio Host on WBGZ AM 1570
Kennedy King College Outreach Center
Chicago
--
Above: Canon EOS-5D, 70~200/2.8 Canon Zoom Lens EF L Ultrasonic, ISO 100