Walking Around

A couple weeks ago I got a chance to go up to Gainesville. With it being a growing city with one of Florida's largest Universities, I decided to go for a stroll. I passed by a developing neighborhood that only had 3 or 4 town house styled homes completed, and all on the same row. This left much open field to explore. As I got to the far end of the neighborhood, I approached a finished community park. On the ground was this pair of spray-painted Airwalks. I snapped a quick series, this is one of my favorites from the bunch.

JPEG vs. RAW

A question often asked when first introduced to professional Photography is, "What is the difference between shooting JPEG and shooting RAW?" First, lets consider how a photograph is made: you press a release, which opens the shutter, which allows light to reach a plane, which "exposes" a digital sensor. From here, the image is saved to your supported format.

A JPEG image is a compressed file. The objective is to process the image in a way that causes no quality loss visible to the human eye. In other words, the camera is saying "I don't need this data in order to show you an accurate image." This is great because it allows for small file sizes, and beautiful images. A standard 15mp image will be about a 4MB file. So did you catch that? The image is processed before it leaves your camera.

Every thing has a positive and a negative. No matter how you take it, JPEG is a lossy compression format. And each time you process the image, it loses considerable quality. What most are not conscious to is that the original image has already been processed once, in-camera. So when you edit that image, you are already re-compressing the file. This is where the term "post" processing originated (digitally at least). Another problem is that editing introduces artifacts which can soften or otherwise distort the image. It's like a one way valve, once the data is gone, it's not coming back.

Then we have the RAW format. A RAW file is uncompressed. No camera processing is done to the image after it is captured. That means you are starting with the original (like a negative), and have complete control over how the image is processed. There are obvious benefits to this such as the ability to make adjustments, especially white balance, without any loss in quality. On the other hand, a RAW file will take up about 5 times the space of a JPEG.

If you need the highest quality image, shoot RAW. At the very least, it provides one less round of processing (assuming you will be editing the images). If you are going to deliver pictures straight out of the camera, there is no need to shoot RAW. JPEG is a great format, but it wasn't born to edit; it was born to specify a codec in which images can gracefully be compressed.

MOFILM video contest

MOFILM.com is an organization that brings filmmakers to large coorporations. Every year they hold several contests that allow people to compete from all across the globe. The objective is basically to create an ad for a brand by using the supplied information about the company. You must consider the companie's objective, goals and creative strategy. The winners of the contest recieve cash prizes, and are usually invited to an awards ceremony. Recent competitions have involved the likes of John Landau and Spike Lee, so you can see how beneficial this could be to anyone involved on the project.

I really like the idea of the MOFILM. I also love that it is not an annual event, but rather several throughout the year and channeled through many different organizations, such as Cannes, BFI and Shanghai International. This is a big deal! Some of the prizes, such as the $2000 awarded to Matt O'Dowd's team for his Walmart commercial, seem a bit sub par compared to the industry standard, but they did get an all expenses paid trip out to LA Film school. Part of me sais this is just another way for coorporations to get commercial work for cheap, but the level of exposure you get in return may make it well worth it. The UK originated MOFILM is already among the top visited sites in Great Britain, and is rising fast in the US. The top three entries are awarded.

How to view TIFF images on Windows XP

When nitpicking and culling images from my shoots, I tend to immediately categorize all the groups to stay organized and make it easy to reference each client. One convenient way to view images on a Windows system is using the "Filmstrip" feature when in Windows Explorer (Finder on a Mac). The problem is that sometimes XP will not recognize a folder as a file that contains images. If XP does not think that images are present, it will not give you the option to view as a filmstrip [View>Filmstrip].
If this is the case, you can simply right-click on the folder and select Properties. Then navigate to the Customize tab and select the "pictures" template from the dropdown box. Hit ENTER and proceed to the folder. Now when you select [View] you will notice that the Filmstrip option is now available.

Working with TIFF images?
Another plus about the Filmstrip view is that it allows you to view your TIFF images without the need for opening Bridge.

VEVO is the FLU shot

This is the VEVO logo ==> VEVO

Many have noticed that "VEVO" seems to be taking over the music video scene on YouTube. Many users are upset at this as it is a distracting change in normal browsing experience, forces you to view advertisements and many have been banned for copyright cases.

But this is actually good for 3 reasons,
1) It takes away from the tendency of labels to nag about their videos on users channels
2) It gets the power-ego-trippers at Viacom off their back
3) Normal users don't care about the change, advanced users care enough to research the reasoning, and hackers that only upload a bunch of other people's videos are removed! Oh and labels make money. Everyone wins.

How?
If you remember in 2008, Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement of some 100,000 videos. It became so unconscionable that during the case, Viacom requested the viewing habits of the users as well as YouTube's source code. What? The movements were denied. I am sure that VEVO was a result of an agreement made to the case, and honestly, it's quite brilliant. I am also sure that the banning of copyright infringing users was a result.

VEVO is actually a partnership between YouTube and three of the "Big Four" record companies (perhaps the ones that chimed in on the case in favor of Viacom?). Now, anytime an artist's video is released, it is on the respective VEVO channel. It also added some functionality recently added to Myspace, the ability to purchase songs through Amazon and iTunes.

So you see, VEVO is kind of like the FLU shot; it sucks to get it, it hurts, but once it's over you reap the benefit (though the pain has already came and gone). VEVO = good.

Interesting fact: In 2009, VEVO officially launched it's own site of industry-related performances, hosted on YouTube. It currently ranks among the top 1000 most visited websites in the US.

A Jordyn Photoshoot

This morning I had the pleasure of working with A Jordyn of Brooklyn, NY. She loves to model and has an undeniable passion for art. For the past two years she has been a tattoo artist, and is currently attending school seeking her Masters. One great thing about working with Jordyn is that she enjoys the beauty of nature, and interacts with the environment [just keep the squirrels away]! She is the type of person that when she is out, she gets noticed. She has her own look, and if you are in the same room with her, you are probably going to have some type of conversation and you are guaranteed to share a smile. She was featured in the Duroseau Couture Fashion Show in 2008.

Youtube Beta-Testing Charging for Videos

I was cruising the web today and ended up on the site I end up on at least once a week, YouTube. I always go here to watch others music videos, also to watch my previous videos and note any progression. I think of it as studying. Recently, I started browsing the "Top Videos" section on the homepage, and today that landed me on hotforwords' channel. In the description, [and after realizing how hot this girl is] I noticed in bold letters "USD $0.99.

At first, I thought "huh, is she charging you to participate in the contest?" I clicked on the description and that revealed a link in which to download an .mp4 of the video. Then it clicked, YouTube is now charging people to download their videos. And wait, they probably give the partners a cut and it allows everyone to generate more revenue. Brilliant! Well, not really, it's just basic marketing. Their are obvious benefits to doing this, the main probably being to help control illegal downloads by offering a legal solution *cough* to make more $$$ *cough*

Apparently the option is only available to a limited group of publishers, just as they have run their beta tests in the past. The publisher may choose the cost and license type upon initiating the service. Google Checkout is used for making payments.

I suspect the system will officially roll out this Summer (I do not have any information to support this).

This is the video I originally saw with the option: