100th Post :(

I haven't blogged for awhile, for reasons I will discuss later on. I did want to point out that this was my 100th post since starting blogging in June of 2009. That isn't much to brag about, as it works out to just about one post per week on average. I am pretty weak as a blogger. But, I have enjoyed it, mostly because it has given me the chance to talk about a subject I love to talk about: photography.

Sadly, this will also be my last post on this blog. I was informed by Google a couple of weeks ago that my AdSense account, which has generated ads for this blog, was disabled because the Google team feared that I pose a risk of generating invalid activity - i.e. clicking on my own ads or other malicious activity. Here is the full text of the email they sent me:

After reviewing our records, we've determined that your AdSense account
poses a risk of generating invalid activity. Because we have a
responsibility to protect our AdWords advertisers from inflated costs due
to invalid activity, we've found it necessary to disable your AdSense
account. Your outstanding balance and Google's share of the revenue will
both be fully refunded back to the affected advertisers.

Please understand that we need to take such steps to maintain the
effectiveness of Google's advertising system, particularly the
advertiser-publisher relationship. We understand the inconvenience that
this may cause you, and we thank you in advance for your understanding and
cooperation.

If you have any questions or concerns about the actions we've taken, how
you can appeal this decision, or invalid activity in general, you can find
more information by visiting...

Notice that the email doesn't say that there was any invalid activity, just that I pose a risk of generating invalid activity. I appealed to Google three times and received canned responses that they cannot give me any more details and that my account cannot be reinstated. As the email mentions, they confiscated all of my earnings, which I am embarrassed to say amounted to less than $100 for the entire 20 months that I have been blogging. Not exactly enough for me to quit my day job. They have not addressed my request that my revenue be returned to me less the amount generated by the activity in question.

I don't consider myself a reactionary person and I don't hold grudges against brands, so I won't be making any promises about unraveling Google from my life. I am unhappy with their customer service and will definitely have to think hard about engaging them in the future for anything more than email service. Google does make some wonderful products and I have been generally happy with them in the past. I'm not sure their slogan - "Don't be evil" - is necessarily accurate, as providing terrible customer service, while not evil, is certainly not good. So, they can feel smug about having avoided being evil, while at the same time not being good either.

Anyway, thanks to my few readers and best of luck to all of the photographers out there who are making great images one weekend at a time.

Cheers!

Good Advice from William Neill

I came across this article a few days ago and liked it very much. I agree that immersing yourself in a particular area will help to you see it in new ways and will push your photography. If only I had a better landscape to immerse myself in.

Mixed Bag

I've come across a few articles in the last couple of days that I wanted to post and comment on. First, is this one, on using HDR and tonemapping techniques in photography.

To a certain extent I agree with the author. HDR (I think tonemapped is a better term for what he describes) images show up everywhere and it is becoming apparent that this technique is becoming a band-aid for fixing any image that hasn't been correctly exposed or was taken in poor lighting. Photomatix and PS CS5 make it easy to do, and hobbyists are using it as much as pros. I agree that there are images that are painful to look at because of its overuse. And, he is correct that incorporating better technique would eliminate much of the need for tonemapping.

That being said, I would be surprised if the author would reject the use of an on camera flash or tweaking sharpness in PS, so am curious why he would oppose the judicious use of tonemapping in images. It is a tool, just like any other, that can be used well and create beautiful images, or can be abused. Swearing it off totally doesn't solve the problem.

Many of the commenters to the article make good arguments for the limited use of HDR. One I would put forth is that on occasion it allows a photographer to adjust an image so that it more accurately reflects what her or she saw when capturing the image. Ansel Adams did it through dodging and burning. HDR is just another tool at our disposal, albeit one that needs to be used sensibly.

The next article is this one, on the subject of becoming a fan of other photographers' work.

I am a strong proponent of looking at images captured by other photographers, and even expanding that into enjoying visual art in all its forms, painting, sculpture, etc. That is the idea behind the Feature Professional posts I have done in the past (and hope to start doing again soon). A big part of my learning photography is seeing what others are doing and working from it. Besides being fun, looking at other people's work is a great way to see what is possible. As often as not I come away from looking at good images and wonder how (both technically and creatively) someone was able to capture it. Take time to trawl flickr and similar sites. They are full of gems.

The third article is this one, on using the rule of thirds.

Not much commentary here, other than to say it is always good to remember the basics. You can't break rules effectively until you understand them. Breaking a rule you don't know or understand isn't breaking it at all. Not all photos need to be composed according to the rule of thirds, but we all benefit by keeping it in mind as we compose our images, whether we decide to abide by it or not.

Soap Opera

I wrote a while back on the supposed discovery of 65 Ansel Adams negatives at a garage sale by Rick Norsigian, and his attempts to sell prints of the negatives. I have been busy with other things and lost track of the story over time, but recently became curious and searched online for any news.

Some background: Rick Norisigian, a painter for a school district in Fresno, California purchased a box of glass plate negatives at a yard sale in 2000 and over a ten year period sought out experts to confirm his theory that the negatives were made by Ansel Adams. He approached several people with ties to Adams, including members of the Ansel Adams Trust, all of whom rejected his theory and refused support. He eventually did find supposed technical experts who were willing to go on record as believing that the negatives were made by Adams. None of the experts had any experience authenticating photographic works. Norsigian also had an art collector value the collection of negatives, who came up with a $200 million total for the lot. Norsigian announced he would be selling prints and was then sued by the Adams Trust. Around mid-2010 a woman came forward to say that prints made by her uncle look suspiciously like those made from the alleged Adams negatives. Shortly after that, another woman came forward saying that the photos resemble those made by her photographer grandfather. The Adams Trust was caught twisting the arm of the Center for Creative Photography (CCP, which houses Adams' archive of negatives and prints, notes, correspondence, etc) to get them to deny that the negatives are Adams'. Both technical experts have recanted their testimony to one degree or another; one changed his mind completely, while the other is mostly sure they are not Adams'. (While not terribly thorough, I believe this summary is accurate. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.)

Both sides, the Adams Trust and Norsigian and his experts and lawyers, have made fools of themselves. They are tripping over themselves to disprove the other party and making what should be a fairly straightforward process into a circus. Why, if they believe so strongly that Adams made the negatives, doesn't Norsigian and his crew let the CCP perform actual tests on them to verify that? Why don't they let independent experts, not paid by Norsigian, examine them? Why doesn't the Adams Trust encourage this and make things easier for Norsigian to do so? If in fact they are found to be Adams' work, Norsigian can't sell prints of them as such without the permission of the Adams Trust, so what's the problem?

Anybody interested in this saga needs to check out the blog of A.D. Coleman, a noted photography critic and expert. He has followed this story closely and been in contact with many of the main players. Of anybody else involved in this topic, his views are the most measured and well thought out. Read all of his posts, if you can. It will take a little time, but he has some very good insights.

As for me, I continue to believe--as I said in my previous post--that the negatives are most likely not Adams'. I am sure that Norsigian believes they are, and is pursuing this quest in that belief. He has unfortunately surrounded himself with some well meaning, but poorly informed people, as well as some bloodsuckers. He has invested a great deal of time and money in his pursuit, to say nothing of his pride. We all know how hard it is to face being wrong, especially in such a public way, and would probably fight just as hard as Norsigian to prove we are right. I could easily be wrong in my assessment, as I am no technical expert and am drawing conclusions based only on what I have read. But, in the absence of any compelling evidence, I feel strongly that authorship of the negatives should not be assigned to anybody: Adams, Earl Brooks, or anybody else. We'll see how this plays out.

Also, you can check out the LA Times coverage of the topic. There are several articles on the subject, most linking to the article I have referenced.

North American International Auto Show

I know this is supposed to be a photography oriented blog, but occasionally I get to see and do cool stuff that I want to share that isn't photo related. A few days ago I was able to go to the supplier preview day of the North American International Auto Show in Detroit with work to see what was going on in the industry. I am a marketer by trade and this was a great opportunity to see the things that each car maker does to distinguish their brand from the others. The show itself was incredible. Each automaker had a large and very expensive pavilion and most had brought their entire car lines to show off. The concept cars were were very impressive. Overall it was a great experience. Check below for photos and more details.




The photos above are, in order: the Honda Civic concept, Hyundai Equus, Hyundai Curb concept (front and side photos), and Hyundai Veloster prototype. The Civic concept was not dissimilar from the production model but had much more aggressive styling and looked like a race car. It is good to see this from Honda, as they seem to be content with their reputation for reliability and not much else. The last few years have seen other automakers (Ford, Hyundai, etc) catch them in reliability and surpass them in styling, innovation, and other areas. Their sales in the wake of Toyota's problems should be enough to indicate to anyone that they need to make some changes. The rest of their lineup was not as exciting as the concept, but were still some nice vehicles.

Hyundai was in my opinion one of the standouts of the show. The Equus is a very impressive luxury vehicle and can easily go toe to toe with a Lexus. In fact, it was one of the nicest luxury cars there, aside from Bentley, Jaguar, and their type. The Curb concept had suicide doors and styling that I think would appeal to younger people if it were ever to make it to production. The Veloster was an auto show highlight: not a true concept, as it is almost a given that it will be in production soon, three doors (four, if you include the hatchback), and, again, styling that will appeal to younger folks. The three doors (one on the driver's side, two on the passenger's) are a surprise, a good one. Hyundai has done a fantastic job building their brand in the last few years and I like that Hyundai is willing to take risks and have fun like this.




In order these are: Porsche Panamera sedan (front and rear), Audi R8 Spyder, Tesla Roadster, and Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG E-Cell concept. The Porsche I am not a big fan of. I have a hard time believing that Porsche can sell a sedan without damaging their brand. Undoubtedly people will buy it, and they have moved successfully into SUVs, but just because you can sell something doesn't mean you should. Porsche built its brand around sporty roadsters, this feels wrong to me.

The Audi was an interesting vehicle, in that it showed off a couple of recent trends in high end vehicles: carbon fiber and matte finish paint. You can see the black, carbon fiber paneling and spoiler on the car, which does a great job of reducing weight without sacrificing strength. The matte or satin finish paint does a great job of sacrificing cost and making hand prints more noticeable. Without a glossy overcoat it looked a bit dull. This is a fantastically beautiful car, but I don't get the matte finish trend.

The Tesla was a neat car and a very popular pavilion. They were also showing off their new sedan, to come out sometime in the near future. But, they only could display an unfinished body hovering over a frame, with the battery pack, motor, and powertrain visible.

The Mercedes I believe will be in production in the future, so lookout for a yellow highlighter colored sports car rocketing past you on the freeway. It is a pretty car, aside from the paint job--which, incidentally, was also matte finish--but, I wish they had been displaying it with the gullwing doors open. Electric vehicles like this were a big thing at the show, which I'll discuss later.



These are: the Venturi Buckeye Bullet, Chevy Volt, and an LCD cluster display in a Lexus. The Venturi is an electric test vehicle that set the land speed record of 302 mph for an EV on the Bonneville salt flats near my hometown of Salt Lake City, Utah. Venturi is also working on street model EVs. The Volt photo was an obligatory one for anyone who went to the show. It isn't a bad looking car, but I don't know that I care as much about it as I am told I am supposed to. We'll see if it does in fact revolutionize the way we drive. The Lexus display is very cool: it is an LCD display that is customizable to show any number of things, along with speed, fuel, etc. This is a technology I am very excited about, as it seems to be full of possibilities in terms of in-car apps, communications, etc.


These are: the 2011 Ford Explorer and 2012 Ford Focus. Ford had probably the most crowded pavilion at the show and made some of its most exciting vehicles. These photos don't do the cars justice. They are both very good looking vehicles. Ford is doing a fantastic job of designing cars that people want to drive. We recently bought a car and seeing the Explorer made me wish we had been able to wait for it to come out. They also were showing off a cool crossover concept that may replace the Escape in coming years.



In order, these are: the Volkswagen Blue-e-motion concept, QR codes used at the Audi and Subaru booths, and an augmented reality display at the VW booth. As I mentioned before, EVs were huge at the show. Every automaker was showing off an EV or hybrid of some kind. It is a technology that has some incredible potential if we can overcome several large hurdles and also come to grips with the reality of where the energy for such vehicles is going to come from.

The marketer inside of me was impressed by some of the neat things I saw. I loved the QR codes that Audi and Subaru used in their displays. With one quick scan I was able to download brochures and product info that was much nicer than walking around with a bunch of printed materials in my hand. I was also impressed by VW's augmented reality display, where you would hold a cube with various technologies printed on the sides up to the screen and it would then build the technology in front of you. It is hard to see in the photo, but there is a TDI engine being shown to the left of the reflection of my hand. Very cool stuff.

As I said, this was a very exciting opportunity for me. I wish I could have spent more time at the show.

National Geographic Contest Winners

Check out the winners of the National Geographic photo contest.

Art Apps for iPad

Due to the weather where I live and my current family and work obligations I haven't been able to shoot much at all in the last few months. So, over the holiday break I decided to try sketching and painting on the iPad. I have had several art apps on my iPad for the past seven months or so, but have used them very little. I have done some work in Brushes on the iPhone and a little on the iPad and added Art Studio a few months back and have enjoyed using it. Last week I added SketchBook and Inspire Pro and have spent a little time on each. I have also used Adobe Ideas once or twice. I am impressed by the variety and robustness of the art app offerings for the iPad.

This won't be a thorough review, as I haven't used each enough yet to be able to form a strong opinion about any of them. I do have some impressions about each, however.

The first is that Brushes seems so far to have the most friendly interface. It has fewer features than some of the others, perhaps this is why it is easier to navigate. Moving around between images and layers and colors was easy and fairly intuitive. SketchBook has probably the best color mixer, with Inspire Pro not far behind. Art Studio's color mixer is lacking a little bit, but that is one of the only areas it does lack. It has a wider range of features than any of the others. Some features, like the smudge tool, I can't believe aren't on the others. SketchBook, however, has a great set of templates that can be imported as layers; things like grids and perspective guides. Adobe Ideas is the most basic of the five, but is not bad for being free.

I hope to give each app some more time in the coming weeks and will post a more thorough review when I have worked them over some more.