5.13.2014

Camera Crazy. After a crazy decade of buying and selling digital cameras what have I got to show for it?

All material ©2014 Kirk Tuck and presented exclusively at www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.com  If you are reading this on another site, without proper attribution, it is not an authorized use of the material. If you are reading this on an unauthorized site DO NOT CLICK on any links in the body copy as it may infect your computer with serious viruses. Sorry to have to put this warning here but a recent search turned up dozens of similar infringements. Thanks for your authentic readership.


©2014 Kirk Tuck.

Cameras change, business changes, taste changes and intentions change. When I started out this century I had my feet in so many camps. We still had a complete Rollei Medium format system with extra bodies and lots of lenses. We had Leica R series cameras and lenses and then we had Kodak digital cameras and Olympus digital cameras and lenses for everything. In the lighting closet we have Profoto Electronic Flash Packs with a gaggle of flash heads as well as four or five Profoto Monolights, every size of soft box imaginable, barrels of umbrellas, and a forest of light stands.

Over the course of the decade that followed we followed the trends like everyone else. We upgraded to better and better digital cameras and got rid of the film cameras. While the nostalgia and sentiment attached to the film cameras was almost overwhelming there were few to none clients ready to either wait for results or ante up for film and processing and then scanning in order to use the film stuff.

The idea in the moment was to get rid of the film based gear while it still had some value. Which we did. Sadly. But business is business.

I bounced back and forth between Canon, Nikon and Olympus until my two year flirtation with Sony product. All the while adding and subtracting "fun" cameras, niche cameras and a vast assortment of lenses.

After I wrote the book, Minimalist Lighting, I got small flash religion and got rid of all the Profoto lights.  And I'm glad I did because by that point we were no longer doing the big production, big studio work for which they were designed. I replaced them with smaller, lighter and far less expensive Elinchrom D-Lites which have served the portrait part of the business well. More often I just take along a little bag of battery powered flashes and a few triggers and make due with them...

Were I "just" a photographer at this point the logical gear to buy would be something like a Canon 5D mk3 or a Nikon D800 or even a Sony A7 and the holy trio of professional zoom lenses. But on the way to uniformity I took a left turn and decided that video will be vital to my business (not everyone's) in the next few years. Starting now. And that makes me think about different gear than I would if I were only concentrating on still images.

To make a long story shorter I'll just head to the punch line: I have fewer photographic tools, fewer cameras, fewer flashes and fewer accessories than at any time since my tenure at the ad agency which ended back in 1987.

I bought a Panasonic GH3 camera just before Christmas in 2013 and I tackled a few video jobs with it. From a video perspective I was sold. The images, even just at 50 mps, are very good and easy to edit. The audio is straightforward and more than good enough for interviews and the kind of work I've been doing.  Based on my early experiences with the 3 I bought a second one. Interestingly enough we always had back up cameras in the film days but we had them as insurance against downtime in the event that our main camera died. Cameras did that.

I've been reflexively been doing the same with digital cameras. I also justified the additional expense with the idea that I could put one lens on each camera and cut down on both time changing lenses and possible dust on my sensors by changing lenses less often and just grabbing the alternate camera and lens system instead. But video opened my eyes to a new use for the cameras: simultaneous recording of b-roll or alternate angles. Now there's a totally legitimate reason to carry extra camera bodies. They can be pressed into service getting additional coverage on every take which means lots more editing possibilities in post production.

While the GH3s are great for most stuff the GH4 is a refinement and opens up the potential to offer even higher quality video, more control over the video (and photographic) image quality and a better ergonomic experience provided by a much improved EVF. You can read the reviews on the web; the video out of the GH4s is nothing short of amazing. Especially when you consider the price. But the added bonus for me is that even the Jpegs from the GH4 are a step up from the GH3. When I've used the camera for commercial still jobs I have been routinely impressed with color and sharpness, even more so when I use the camera with one of the two X lenses or the very impressive Sigma 60mm Art lens.

What do I have left? I have the three GHX cameras. Two GH3s and one GH4. I have the wonderful Sony RX10 camera. And I have the two Samsung cameras, the NX 30 and the Galaxy NX. That's it. That's all. When I go out to shoot video or video+still photography it's nearly always with the GH series cameras. For the first time in a long time I don't feel torn between multiple systems and multiple imaging formats. All the menus in the GHX cameras are nearly identical. The cameras uniformity means I can get comfortable with them in a way that's never possible when you are constantly reaching across multiple brands.

For the first time I have more tripods than I have camera bodies!

So, what do I really have to show for a decade (and nearly four more years) of buying and selling digital cameras? The realization that we can make the work with just about anything and that it's fun to choose gear that's good for your intended use and not to fit into a uniform profile of general users.

My goal lately has been to detach myself from the goods. To become more gear agnostic. To absorb and embrace less of the religion of photography gear and legend. With every piece I sell or give away I feel lighter and less tethered (leashed) to the expectation that I'll have to do jobs that I no longer am interested in.

Back in the early days of digital I had a complicated rig and some dedicated lenses to do macro photographs of processor chips. One of my major clients was Motorola. We'd shoot chip dies on a weekly basis. Then Motorola split up, the manufacturing got fragmented and ended up at chip foundries in other countries and the use of chip die images became passé. But I held on to the copy stand and the mounting jibs and the specialty lenses for years after that and in some corner of my brain I reserved space and time for a resurfacing of the chip die business. When I sold off all the gear I felt a huge weight drop from my mental camera bag because I knew that I would never have to do that kind of painstaking, complex imaging (and inevitably retouching of manufacturing flaws) again.

Every time I let go of another piece of gear I let go of the implied obligation to be a jack-of-all-trades for another sector of clients. When I let go of my full frame cameras in deference to the Panasonic gear my friends and readers admonished me. Didn't I just do an assignment photographing 18 different people which needed to go on big posters at high res? Whatever would I do?

Well, we get asked to do a job that goes up really big about three times a year. They all happen in a studio. They all happen with pretty standard lenses. My local retailer, Precision Camera, rents Nikon D800's, Canon 5Dmk3's and Sony A7 cameras, along with assorted lenses, by the day or the week. If I owned the gear every kind of job would be designed around what I owned. Now, if a job that requires tremendous resolution comes up I'm free to transcend the choices I outlined just above and consider anything. Blue sky. No limits. Maybe the next time around the job would be even more fun if I shot it on the new Phase One camera with the new CMOS 54 megapixel sensor.... A camera I would never want to own but would love to shoot with.

More and more I want to be hired for what I know and not what's in the bag. At the same time it's incredibly convenient that my interest in video corresponds with the introduction of cameras that seem perfect for my level and my intention and do a good enough job at still imaging to allow me to do all but three or four jobs a year well with them. The basics are good. Everything else is rentable.

What do I have to show for all this? The thought process that allows me to peel off unnecessary layers and align my business with my own interests instead of slavishly serving too broad a market for my own comfort, and ultimately, my own profit.  Just a few thoughts about the changing nature of my business.

Knowledge. A good differentiator!

Studio Portrait Lighting


Jaston Williams as "Maid Marian" for an upcoming Zach Theatre Production.

All material ©2014 Kirk Tuck and presented exclusively at www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.dom  If you are reading this on another site, without proper attribution it is not an authorized use of the material. If you are reading this on an unauthorized site DO NOT CLICK on any links in the body copy as it may infect your computer with serious viruses. Sorry to have to put this warning here but a recent search turned up dozens of similar infringements. Thanks for your authentic readership.

Jaston Williams in costume with boots.

I love working with Jaston. He's funny, brilliant and amazing. The first time I saw him perform was in the famous play that he co-wrote and in which he co-starred, Greater Tuna. I've watched him as Truman Capote and in a number of other roles in which he was uniformly superb. But I've rarely laughed as much in a marketing photo shoot as I did when he played it up for me as Maid Marian. It's a wildly comedic role based on someone from Jaston's past.

5.12.2014

Out for "ice cream" with the tantalizing trio. The Sigma Pixie "Art" lenses.

All material ©2014 Kirk Tuck and presented exclusively at www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.dom  If you are reading this on another site, without proper attribution it is not an authorized use of the material. If you are reading this on an unauthorized site DO NOT CLICK on any links in the body copy as it may infect your computer with serious viruses. Sorry to have to put this warning here but a recent search turned up dozens of similar infringements. Thanks for your authentic readership.



There's always something going on in downtown Austin. This past weekend one of those events was the "Gelato World Tour." I wouldn't have known about it but my swimming buddy, Emmett Fox, is the owner of several fine restaurants in Austin and was telling all of us about the Gelato Fest after workout on Saturday. They held it in Republic Square, which is usually a deserted block of land in the middle of downtown, next to the Federal Court building. I decided to drive down and check it out. 

The weather was hot and sticky with bright sun. I took along a Panasonic GH3 body and three new lenses. I recently bought the three Sigma dn "art" lenses for the m4:3 cameras. They are also available for the Sony Nex cameras...

All three of the lenses have f2.8 maximum apertures and all three of them have a smooth, shiny metal focusing ring that gives the lenses a very minimal aesthetic. I like slower lenses for general shooting. It's my understanding that it's many times easier to design and manufacture a very, very high quality camera lens with a modest aperture than it is to even add one stop of speed. It all has to do with the precision required in shaping and polishing the glass elements. According to a Leica expert (Erwin Puts) it requires eight times more precision for every doubling of a glass element diameter. The faster the lens the harder it is to make the elements meet the design criteria. 

5.09.2014

"Snarkasm."


Snark-asm. The leaving of snarky, sarcastic, snitty comments on blogs. Love my readers. At least most of them. But there's always a hand full that are just......unpleasant. That's why we're going back to not allowing anonymous commenters. I realize some of my readers just want to stay off the grid and others are bothered by Blogger's commenting labyrinth and I am sorry for the inconvenience but I'm spending too much time moderating smugness and sniping to actually enjoy the process of blogging so I'm dropping that feature.

Wanna say something devastatingly cute, smug and insulting? Sign up for an I.D. and I'll gladly moderate your non-anonymous comment (that way at least you know I'll read it....) and then toss it.

To all the other 99.99% of VSL readers: Thank you for coming by and reading.

Knowledge. A good differentiator.



Studio Portrait Lighting

What is the archival potential of CF cards? How long do memories on a card persevere? Were cameras any worse in 2000 AD?

All material ©2014 Kirk Tuck and presented exclusively at www.visualsciencelab.blogspot.dom  If you are reading this on another site, without proper attribution it is not an authorized use of the material. If you are reading this on an unauthorized site DO NOT CLICK on any links in the body copy as it may infect your computer with serious viruses. Sorry to have to put this warning here but a recent search turned up dozens of similar infringements. Thanks for your authentic readership.



Belinda walked into the studio yesterday holding a CF card in her hand. She handed it to me and told me she'd found it in a desk drawer. She wanted to know if I needed it anymore. I don't think she assumed that there were images on it because we're both pretty good about always backing stuff up. The card was a MicroTech 64 MB (megabyte, not gigabyte) card. Records show that it is one I bought in 1999 for a trip to Madrid for a company called Tivoli (now a subset of IBM).

I expected that a fifteen year old card would be corrupted by now but I stuck it into the card reader and opened up all the files in Preview. The files originated in a Nikon Coolpix 950. It was one of Nikon's swivel body compact digital camera, sporting a whopping 2 megapixels of sensor resolution and a 3X zoom lens. It took four double "A" batteries and its native ISO was around 80.  You can buy one used on Amazon now for about $35. If I remember correctly the cameras costs about $1200 when they were new.

I used that camera as well as a few other Nikon Coolpix swivel body variants do document trade shows back in the very early days of digital, in conjunction with film. The film shots were for posterity and the digital shots for uploads to news sites and web sites.

When I moved on to bigger cameras, like the Kodak DCS 660 and 760's I handed the Nikon 950 to Belinda to use for fun, social picture taking.

The two images above are of me and five year old Ben. We're playing the Pokemon version of Monopoly which nicely combines two of Ben's favorite games.

While the images were taken with direct flash I think the camera did a good job at exposure and it certainly did a good job getting everything in focus. The skin tones are nice and there's enough detail for a decent snapshot.

I guess CF cards are decent medium/long (10 years?) storage devices. I guess I'll figure out a use for this stack of newer Sandisk, high capacity cards sitting in a stack on my desk. The only camera I have left that uses them is the Sony R1 and I think a couple of 32 gig cards will be adequate for that camera for some time to come....

5.07.2014

And while we're on the subject of economics and change..... Get ready to lose your film printers.


I walked into my local Costco today to pick up some prints I'd ordered online. They were all profiled with the latest profiles and they looked perfect. My wife sent me along to Costco with a small envelope that had three 35mm negatives that she also wanted printed. Costco had printed work for me in the past and had done a nice job. I smiled at the clerk and asked her if she would help me remember how to do a print order. She smiled that oh I'm sorry to tell you this smile and nicely told me that they no longer could actually print from negatives. No prints from film of any kind. None.

When I got back home I started doing a little research on line. Prints from negatives have fallen dramatically for mass marketers like Walmart and Costco. So much so that Costco has started designing a new generation of stores with no photo finishing departments at all. None. And many others are following suit.

But it doesn't stop with film. My quick research shows that overall print sales in consumer mass merchandizing stores, grocery stores and drug stores chains is down by as much as 40% year over year. The decline seems to match, in slope, the same relative decline that happened when digital imaging eclipsed film cameras. The slope is quicker than many expected.

My feeling is that we've hit another inflection point in our society's transformation from artifact collectors to digital information consumers. We want the  visceral delight of seeing our digital images immediately, on our little screens. We are no longer interested (as a cultural) in getting the little envelope of actual prints and looking at them and then storing them somewhere until they retire from our memories.

You will no doubt write to tell me, anecdotally, of all the people you know who crave physical prints to hang on walls and send to aging aunts and grandmothers but that may be because you are a selective and self-selected audience and not representative of the mainstream demographic for whom the machine print 4x6 was a ubiquitous (pre-digital) sharing medium. People with the ability to chose have chosen. Images are meant now to be enjoyed on screen. Not as shuffles through an envelope filled with paper prints.


Terminal Ubiquity (tm). When everyone offers it no one needs to buy it...

This photograph is unique to me because it is my own kid.
He's running a cross country race in the Texas heat. 
The image reminds me (as if I needed reminding) that  
he is a great son. 

I read too much. But I kept reading things that reinforce some thoughts I've been having. One is that when everyone pursues the same goals and everyone has a horse in the race at some point whatever is offered becomes truly ubiquitous, loses the values that make it special and reinforces a commodity expectation. Take online advertising for example. The early and ongoing promise for companies advertising on the web was that, like early TV, people would be magnetically attracted to content and would complacently look at any advertising a company cared to pair along with the paid content. In the earliest days this meant absolutely horrible banner ads and then pop-up ads which led users to invent ways around the pop-ups while helping the target market become immune to even acknowledging the banner advertising. 

But, of course, the web is built around the pervasive idea that everything should be free and that content will drive profit everywhere. As an example this blog is hosted for free on Blogger which is a Google service. Google monetizes the "bold" Blogger experiment with Google Ad Sense. That is the part of Google that generates lots of innocuous, little ads that bloggers can choose to sprinkle around and through their content. The ads, theoretically, will pay for the cost of maintaining Blogger and also return a profit to Google. Not sure how that's working out. I tried working with Google Ad Sense in the early years and the system placed a number of totally unrelated or competitive ads on the site and returned less that ten bucks, total, to me as their affiliate. At some point Google may decide that the decade of blogs is over and shut the whole thing down. That's one of the downsides of stuff being free, you don't ultimately have any control over it. 

But what really got me thinking was a news story I heard about Alibaba, the giant Chinese company that will be going IPO on the NYSE sometime soon. The company is into everything, and it sounds like a blend of Amazon and Google but the operating theory is all about selling advertising. The products are secondary or even loss leaders for the service, it's the advertising space sales that currently bring in the revenue. And that's their business model. And Twitter's business model. And Facebook's business model. And DPReview's business model. And Yahoo's business model. And Pinterest's business model. And Instagram's business model. And everyone else's business model. 

It's almost gotten to the point where everyone's business model, no matter what service they provide or trinket they push, is really all about selling advertising surrounding the service or trinket to other businesses around your neighborhood, your city, your state and your country. But if everyone everywhere is selling advertising space does this mean that the market for advertising is infinitely scalable? I don't think that's really possible. 

I get that there's room for growth in emerging markets but the trend in the U.S. period already points to both deceleration and declining web ad revenue. The media buys are already too fragmented to achieve perceptible, measurable momentum and results for any but the most enormous marketers and, the fragmentation of the market continues unabated. Twitter stock recently took a big dive because investors are unsure how adding more advertising in yet another space within an already over crowded market will ultimately drive profitability. I'm sure the same will follow along for most of the purveyors of user generated content spaces because of the sheer amount of space available. 

It all comes down to supply and demand. When ad space in a demographic sector (high capacity web users, hipsters, middle America Online ) becomes closer and closer to infinite the value of said space drops to nearly zero. A recent example is as close at hand as stock photography. Once upon a time stock images were hard to find, hard to get and hard to physically deal with. Now they are just electrons, they are sourced directly from your mom and your daughter and your Facebook pages and tens of millions of free stock image generators. The search and delivery is totally automated and we can now access billions and billions of images at the click of a touch pad. The supply has gotten closer and closer to infinite and so now the value has dropped to nearly zero. Supply and demand. In fact, Getty is giving most of your stock photography away free because they too believe the mantra that the key to profitability is to sell advertising space and they are using their product (your product) as a "loss leader" to drive eyeballs to their site in order to capture enough data to convince all the same prospective advertisers everyone else is chasing about the wonderful value of their space. 

Wouldn't be surprised in the least if Amazon was making more money in the placement, advertising and marketing of the products that they sell than they do in the actual margins on the products you queue up to buy. Wouldn't it be bizarre to find out that your camera purchase or your purchase of Nike running shoes on their site is partially subsidized by advertising revenue delivered by selling space on their own site to their own merchants. Even if it is a less than direct methodology. 

But let's dive a little deeper and see what we think the end results might be.... So, imagine a publisher starting a newspaper in a big, literate town which currently has no newspaper at all. They bring in a staff of reporters, designers, layout people, editors, sales people, distributors and all the rest. A big investment. But...they have an exclusive market for their style of advertising: Display ads in among the (riveting) content as well as consumer (user) generated ads in the "want ad" area of the paper. The newspaper makes a good profit. Which attracts another newspaper that comes in with the same basic offers and the same space. They split the market and both papers make a profit, although now the overall profits to both are reduced.

Now imagine a metro market of half a million people who are offered two thousand newspapers. All with very similar content. All with very similar ad space that is moving toward infinite availability. There are not nearly enough advertisers to go around (not enough demand) so the papers start price wars in attempts to get more of the market share. The prices drop because there is a huge supply of space resources and no increase in overall demand. As the ad space nears infinity the revenue from that ad space effectively approaches zero. But if the quality of the content remains the same that means costs remain fixed. 

So, now the papers have two options. They can try to institute a much higher price subscription paradigm but they quickly find out that they have done a good job teaching their target markets (both advertisers and end consumers) that all information and ad space should be almost free (remember that the ad revenue was supposed to be the driver that paid for the overhead). The other option is to reduce the cost of content. They could do this by crowdsourcing the content and laying off their pro staffs but in the end they may find that the unvetted and unreliable content is no longer good enough to drive consumers to consume the papers in enough numbers and with enough loyalty to lure advertisers into buying ad space to reach said consumers. 

At some point, across the board, the revenue starts to zero out. When the revenue starts to zero out the entity can no longer afford the content that drove the site in the first place. Or the market they once enjoyed in an almost exclusive way is now split between hundreds of very similar vendors, most of whom did not have to bear the same costs and time investments to create the market at the inception. 

This then triggers Kirk's immutable law of virtual content and virtual delivery economics: Terminal Ubiquity (tm). Infinite, nearly identical offerings, drive markets to zero profit. When they approach zero profits the ability to supply differentiating content also vanishes and creates a death spiral for that particular industry.

While Amazon.com may be doing well now imagine how much different their battlefield will be when there are hundreds and hundreds of nearly identical marketers, some subsidized by the governments of their countries of origin, all competing for the same high value customers. Delivery costs can't be driven to zero. The cost of actual product is just as inflexible. At some point the margins will fall to unsustainable levels. As they have in royalty free stock photography, video tape rentals, office supply stores, camera stores (outside of the three thriving U.S. markets) and many other businesses. 

When all of the web based businesses realize that Kirk's rule is also inflexible, that ubiquity drives out profitability, they will either have to offer consumers products with embedded value or they will have to exit the business. The point at which the profit/saturation curve crosses over is falling due for a number of players. Call it a bubble. Call it a thinning of the herd. The bottom line is death from Terminal Ubiquity

As an adjunct to the idea that this is a business model failure only of big social sharing and information websites it would be wise to apply these ideas to every other kind of business extant. The Chinese and Bangladeshi workers offer nearly ubiquitous labor which destroys the  markets in other countries for the manufacture of clothing. Photographers offer their work free to magazines and clients in the hopes that it will generate future, paid, work. It's a cycle that is also unsustainable. 

At some point someone will have to make something that other people would like to have. Something that can't be imitated easily. Then real profit will be returned to the businesses and they will prosper. Right now most web businesses are running on an unfulfillable promise. Infinitely scalable advertising space needs.  And we have a good idea of where that will end...