The California Files

Excellence Gone

Photography and music. Two of my favorite things. But it seems that the technology that each use these days is marching backwards, in terms of quality of reproduction. And so are the expectations of most folks. In fact, many folks seem to be willing to accept standards that are – well, lower than the belly of a snake that’s crawling along the bottom of a ditch. Low.

Photography, for instance: We’re told that point-and-shoot cameras now are nearly obsolete. That’s because every cell phone now has a built-in camera and that’s what people are using. Oh, you think a cell phone is capable of the same kind of photographic quality that even the rankest point-and-shoot is? I. Think. Not.

Some folks still do make prints of the photos they shoot, but most apparently are interesting in sending photos over the Web. I like prints. But when I shopped for a new printer not long ago, I had to work hard to find what I want – most don’t provide the kind of sharpness I require. This certainly is true of hobbyist printers, and it also seems to be true of at least the lower levels of the semi-pro large-format printers. And don’t get me started on those printers that will print directly from your phone, with its crappy little plastic lens – oh, and when was the last time you cleaned that lens?.

I find this curious: Why would you not want your images just as crisp and tack-sharp as possible? And as big?

People these days seem to insist on HD television, so they seem to know what a great image looks like. But they don’t insist on great images when it comes to their own photography. This baffles me.

The concept of high fidelity also seems to be obsolete. When was the last time you saw a store that specialized in high-fidelity reproduction equipment? Sure, you still see speakers and things, but these days they’re oriented toward surround-sound systems for video.

Rather than listening to music over a stereo system that offers actual, you know, high fidelity, people listen over iPods. Or maybe they dock their iPods in chintzy little devices that channel the iPod’s contents through tiny speakers.

Oh, you think your iPod qualities as hi-fi? I. Think. Not. And if you’re downloading music, because of the extreme sampling rate used, you’re getting low-fi material that’s on a par, in terms of reproduction quality, with the old 78-rpm records. And maybe not that good.

For sure, I take pictures with the camera in my phone. And I listen over an iPod (though the music is all transferred direct from CDs, so actually is quite detailed). But when I’m serious about photos and music, I used a real camera, a real printer that will produce killer, tack-sharp 8 x 10s. And when I want serious music, I crank up a stereo system – one of several in the house – that will provide a near-concert-hall experience.

Otherwise, what’s the point?

Or maybe I’m just showing my age and general crankiness.

-JFT

 

The Second Curtain

Nope, not talkin’ about the things that hang in windows to provide décor and perhaps some privacy. I’m talking about timing one’s photographic strobe to flash at the end of a long exposure, rather than at the beginning of a short one, which is the way they usually work. It’s called what it is because the shutters in SLR cameras is sometimes called “the curtain.” In this scheme, you’re popping the strobe at the curtain’s second action (closing), rather than the first (opening).

Though she had photographers hired to do the usual documentary stuff at the event she produced last night, Laura asked me to come along and just shoot some environmental stuff that highlighted not the people, for a change, but the décor and the auction setup. She wanted some new images for her Web site. If you’re at all interested, you can take a look at it by pointing your browser to

Wait, Wait! I Get to Shoot NPR!

I had one of my better experiences Saturday night. Laura asked me to attend the grand opening of the new studios, in Pasadena, of our local National Public Radio station, KPCC, which I think is at 89.3 on the FM dial here in the Lost Angeles area.

She asked me to do this because her company produced the grand-opening event. As her (more-or-less) tame, in-house photo maven, I do this sort of thing for her a lot – sometimes she uses the photos for the Your Great Event Web site, and sometimes my photos reach such a stunningly sufficient degree of mediocrity that she forwards them on to her clients for their use.

My assignment was to shoot a pair of informal panel discussions featuring NPR reporters Guy Raz and Sylvia Pogiolli. I thought that these might turn out to be mildly interesting. And of course after listening to them for years, I was curious what they both look like.

Banishing Camera Movement Forever. Maybe.

I've owned, for close to 15 years, a really nice tripod, for which I spent quite a lot of loot. I haven't used it much. It's a pain in the ass, for three reasons:

First, I've found it to be a pain, nothing less than fiddly, to screw the camera to the tripod every time I want to do a setup that requires the 'pod.

Second, when I do screw the camera to the top of the tripod, I can never get the thumb screw that mates the camera to the 'pod so tight that the camera doesn't move around on top of the mounting pad. I get that screw plenty tight, mind you, but not tight enough to preclude at least a little pan rotation.

Third, when I went through J-school, matriculation included a large and serious photographic component. One of the things we were taught to do was hand-hold a camera down to about an eighth of a second. I can still do that and get marginally satisfactory results, and that's made me just a teensy bit stubborn about this. But I've had to face the fact that while hand-held results may be good enough for news photos, they're nowhere nearly good enough for the really fine photography to which I aspire. Even a little camera movement is way too much camera movement.

But I'm determined to raise my photographic game, and that includes capturing shots that require show shutter speeds, shots where it's important to have a long depth of field. Also, shots using a long lens, which are very difficult to hand-hold without movement. That means getting friendly with my tripod, right?

So here's what I've done: I just went over to Samy's Camera in Pasadena (it was jammed, as usual) and bought myself a quick-release adapter. This consists of a pair of precision-matched metal plates that lock onto each other. One of them screws to the tripod mounting pad, and the other screws onto the bottom of my camera.

Using hand tools, I've firmly affixed both plates where they're supposed to be. No movement at all.

Now, I just clip the camera, with its mounting plate, into the tripod mounting plate. It fits beautifully and I hear a satisfying metallic snap when the plates seat. Zap, the camera is locked onto the tripod and it's absolutely not going anywhere. To remove it, you throw the release lever and it's unlocked.

I should have done this long ago. Now all that's left is to learn how a tripod and its metal tubes is going to confuse the folks at airport security. That should be interesting.

-JFT

Ah, These Digital Cameras!

As I think maybe I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I bought Laura a camera to take on last year’s holiday trip to Greece. It’s a Canon Rebel XTi.

We’ve had several digital cameras, starting with a Nikon swivel-body 990, and they’re just amazing, as you probably know. They just keep getting better and better. I bought this one because – well, Laura does fine with the Canon A620 point-and-shoot I bought her a couple of years ago, but she’s used to shooting with an SLR-type camera. The thing is, she’s got an artist’s eye, and routinely turns our stunning images, no matter what she’s shooting with. So she needs a great piece of hardware.

This XTi fills the bill. Like all digital SLRs, this thing is a very sophisticated computer that just happens to wear a lens. It’s incredibly easy to use and easy to handle. I like that a lot, and so does she.

Compared to my Canon 10D SLR, which I bought in early 2003 (I think it was, which makes it way   obsolete), it’s much nicer, light-years ahead of it in most areas, except one: It’s output is in 75 dpi, no matter what size or definition you select. The 10D, on the other hand – and for that matter, also the little A620 – outputs in 180 dpi. Photoshop will scale the 75 dpi images, or images at any of those other dpi specs, to any dpi setting you want, but I’d rather have a sensor that does this so that the image definition isn’t compromised in any way – not even in my imagination.

As it turns out, this appears to be no real problem in the real world of doing reasonable digital prints. I’m hugely impressed. It’s a really nice artistic tool. Now, a tool is a tool, right? A wrench is a wrench, a screwdriver a screwdriver? That’s may be right, as far as it goes. But I once bought a Nikon, spending a lotta loot, thinking that it would be the last camera I’d ever need. Well, how wrong was that?

Clearly, the digital revolution has changed everything. What kills me now is the apparent need to upgrade every few camera generations – yes, and also every few Photoshop generations – to get the best images your eye and brain can imagine. Because at the end of the day, the quality of the image is what it’s all about. As ever, all it costs is money. Samolians. Long green. But when you’re getting the kind of images Laura is getting with her XTi, it’s worth it.

-JFT