The sea of images

[Worker 11811]

As the digital medium and the ubiquity of cheap equipment informs the pool of photographic imagery inhabiting the galleries - our set of requirements for 'quality' will slowly shift to accommodate this new work and new kinds of quality that we cannot yet imagine perhaps. What WE consider high quality will become nearly invisible to others (and even to ourselves) as this happens.

I recently had an experience like this while installing a digital projector in a theater. The factory technician had just finished making final calibrations on the system and ran some test material. Everybody was standing around, watching the picture, marveling at how good it looked. I walked in, looked at the picture for about a minute and said that the color was off and the contrast needed to be adjusted. They all got real quiet and the technician looked at me like I just killed his puppy.

The test reel ran again and I pointed out the problems. "This person's face is too dark. The background is all blown out. There is a blue color cast. Etc." The technician looked for about a half minute but couldn't see the problem. The rest of the people just turned around and walked out. It was clear that nobody WANTED to see the deficiencies in the image and they were willing to ignore them because they wanted to believe that "digital is better just because it's digital."

A little while later, people started talking about how there is no dust or scratches in the digital image like there is with film. My answer was, "If the film projector is cleaned and properly maintained, there won't be dust or scratches." ...Silence... "But the film projector has a jittery image," one person said. My answer was, "If you replace the worn out film guides in the projector and adjust the gate tension like it's supposed to be, that won't happen." Again, dead puppies!

I'm a techie guy. I love to tinker with computers and digital stuff. I know that film has its strengths and weaknesses just the same as digital does. I like to work with BOTH and I like to make both images look as good as I know how. In my view of a perfect world, film and digital will work side by side, each to its own strengths and with operators who work to use both kinds of equipment to make the best product they can.

I agree with you. There are many people who just can't see the difference and there are many people who just refuse to admit that the can see a difference. Out of the group of people who can see a difference, many of them are quickly loosing the ability to tell the difference at all.

 

[batwister]

Everybody was standing around, watching the picture, marveling at how good it looked. I walked in, looked at the picture for about a minute and said that the color was off and the contrast needed to be adjusted. They all got real quiet and the technician looked at me like I just killed his puppy.

If you walked into my place of work with this 'method', I couldn't care less about your expertise. There are better ways to bring people round to your way of thinking.
There's a sense of pride in your anecdote. You seem to really enjoy being a jerk.

The test reel ran again and I pointed out the problems. "This person's face is too dark. The background is all blown out. There is a blue color cast. Etc." The technician looked for about a half minute but couldn't see the problem. The rest of the people just turned around and walked out. It was clear that nobody WANTED to see the deficiencies in the image and they were willing to ignore them because they wanted to believe that "digital is better just because it's digital."

This is such a fundamental flaw in social perception, and just general thinking, I can almost imagine exactly what you're like to be around. No, they didn't believe it was better, they almost certainly walked out because of your overbearingly putrid smugness.

 

[removed account4]

If you walked into my place of work with this 'method', I couldn't care less about your expertise. There are better ways to bring people round to your way of thinking.
There's a sense of pride in your anecdote. You seem to really enjoy being a jerk.



This is such a fundamental flaw in social perception, and just general thinking, I can almost imagine exactly what you're like to be around. No, they didn't believe it was better, they almost certainly walked out because of your overbearingly putrid smugness.

batwister

i don't think randy was being a jerk at all.
if you know anything about him, you know he is a projectionist at a movie theatre
who knows his craft. you know that over the last few years the studios have
forced theatres to "upgrade" their projection systems to obscenely expensive digital systems
which is forcing the smaller projection houses to not show, while at the same time
making HUGE profits, and cramming poorly projected images down our throats that we pay 10$/ seat for.

the sorry fact is that society is being dumbed-down. ..

what matters is all that matters, and no one really knows what that is yet,
and chances are they won't know until it is too late.

RIGHT ON RANDY !

 

[ntenny]

presumably because things like 'detail' are easily replaced by 'jpeg aliasing' - the photograph has become largely uninteresting to the gentry except for the values/fashions it connotes... well I hope it's not THAT bad... but I wouldn't be so surprised if it does soon...

I have to say, I think people have always thought that. Not about JPEG aliasing specifically, of course, but it's a truism that the history of photography is full of convenience triumping over image quality, and corresponding wailing and gnashing of teeth from the old guard about what IGNORANT PHILISTINES the dry-plate/film/medium-format/35mm/p&s/d*g*t*l/d*g*cam/phone people were and how it would all lead to THE END OF THE ENTIRE WORLD. (I hope the hyperbole is obvious---I don't think you're being nearly that distraught really.)

And on the one hand, it's true; there's a significant loss of image quality between an 11x14 wet plate and an iPhone. On the other hand, for most viewers, and not just naive or uneducated ones, subject, light, and composition will trump technical image quality every time, and a photo that was shot is always better than one that wasn't. (I'm looking at a personal favorite of mine, a spontaneous candid of my 4-year old son, taken in a restaurant in Malaysia; 35mm Tri-X in Diafine. Lots of grain, lots of contrast, dynamic range limited by the push to EI 1250, resolution and tonality limited by the miniature format---but well lit, decently composed, and a badass portrait of the kind of living-in-the-moment concentration that only small children display regularly, if I do say so myself; and of course utterly impossible to take at all on that 11x14 wet plate!)

On the other other hand, I have one of my great-grandfather's prints on the wall at home; it's an 11x14 contact print on Azo, and to the educated eye it looks like it---it has that almost-3-dimensional Azo thing, you can just plunge into the detail, and so on. And people notice that even though they don't know what they're noticing. More than one person has spontaneously said "Holy sh*t!" out loud the first time they saw it; non-photo-geeks, I'm speaking of, people who have some sense in their heads and can make their own aesthetic judgements, but people who wouldn't know a contact print from contact dermatitis if they had one in each hand. So the tools can make their virtues known through the strength of the image, which I think we all believe or we wouldn't be here.

Bottom line---I just think that, as people who perpetrate images, we assume the responsibility to make our tools work for the image. And that goes for the painters and the mixed-media assemblage artists and the iPhone photographers as well as for the film folks. Sometimes that means something unique to the tool (think of cyanotypes---you couldn't really produce that look with any other technique), sometimes it's just a strong image made with what happens to be the artist's toolset of choice. I don't see that the increasing convenience and popularity of certain tools changes that responsibility in any way.

</soapbox>

-NT

 

[batwister]

You can't walk into a room with the attitude of "I know best, move aside", even if you do. This aggressiveness towards 'the ignorant' is a dangerous and growing problem - partly fueled by the internet; 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing' as they say. You see it with the new wave of Atheists too, using every opportunity in conversation to create tension with their views. These self-righteous and crusading ideas about declining quality need to stop, people need to take the middle ground a bit more. I say this after recently selling my last DSLR lens, which hasn't been used for a year.
I was out of line to call him a jerk, so apologies, but I still think it's twisted to boast about ostracizing people.

I understand the movie situation. I've actually just watched 'Side by Side', a film which deals with the issue. Beside the fact that it's not a very good film, there isn't a conclusion drawn, even from great filmmakers at the top of their game. Even Wally Pfister, incidently, has come round to the digital idea. But I guess he has little choice, in the end.

 

[removed account4]

... so what you are saying is
a paid professional who installs a film projector system
isn't allowed to tell the people who own the projector ...
after the test reel of film went through it for the first time, that the
color balance and contrast is off ?? and the same EXPERT
isn't allowed to say, that the reason why the film projector
seemed to project so poorly is because it needed to be MAINTAINED
not because film isn't or the "dated" technology ?!

no idea what you are calling ostracizing ...
is it because the other people in the room didn't want to believe what they heard ?

it was his JOB to have an opinion and i would imagine
if he didn't tell the client ( or his boss ? ) the contrast and balance needed
adjustment, and the projected movies with a poorly adjusted projector
and got complaints from the people paying 10$ / seat he would not have been
in a good place.


oh well ...

 

[batwister]

no idea what you are calling ostracizing ...
is it because the other people in the room didn't want to believe what they heard ?

I think this quote applies to his post:

"I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity."

 

[Diapositivo]

I think the wrong assumption in the video is that quality is hard to judge.
Quality is never hard to judge for the trained eye, and the trained eye is much more "uniform" in understanding quality than the untrained eye. I mean "quality" meaning "quality" not "art" which can entirely exist without quality.

Art is too subjective for us to spend a word more. It's the typical useless discussion.

"Quality" is different. Quality is blatant when it is there, to the knowing, the trained eye (or taste etc.).

The "knowing" is knowing because he saw thousands of pictures. The mind knows how to differentiate. Human minds inevitably recognizes the best in the sea of the ordinary. It only has to swim enough.

The same can apply to ceramics, watchmaking, cuisine, wine making, leather goods etc.

I wouldn't tell a proper Rolex from a faked one. A dealer or a knowledgeable customer (or a thief) would distinguish them at distance.

 

[removed account4]

I think this quote applies to his post:

"I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity."

i think you are reading things into what he said, and how he said it that probably didn't happen.
you are claiming that he made these people feel like ignorant fools, and dopes, and to be honest
that seems like it would be out of character for randy.

i have been asked my professional opinion about things and even given unsolicited advice ...
my opinion went against the beliefs of the people who asked me for it ... does that mean i am a jerk too ... ?

:munch:

 

[JBrunner]

There are many great photographers that never get anywhere because they are lousy marketers and lousy businesspersons. That in a nutshell is what it is about. Being good at it is simply the first thing that is necessary. If you seriously think the kitten and sunset brigade are competition, you are doing it wrong.

 

[Alan Klein]

There are many people who just can't see the difference and there are many people who just refuse to admit that the can see a difference. Out of the group of people who can see a difference, many of them are quickly loosing the ability to tell the difference at all.

My complaints about movie theaters are that they display the movie too dark. Daytime scenes look like nighttime and night shots look like, well. I've heard they do that to save electricity on the arc used for the light. Less electricity less light in the film projector although I don't know how this applies to digital projectors.

The funny thing I'm only one who apparently notices. When I check with my wife, she says why make a big deal out of it. So I complain to the theatre manager and they say, yes they'll take care of it right away and nothing happens. So I swear off that theatre and go to another that projects dark movies too.

Not one of the other patrons seem to care. So theatres don't care either and display dark film. I want my money back!

 

[henry finley]

This world today is totally swamped to suffocation by drowning in "momentary visual captures". Some people call it photography. Whatever. Photography is film, but I digress. Knowing what you're looking at requires only the gift of snap-judgememt. A gift that is all your own, to roll your eyes and forget what you just saw. This said, most images these days come at us from the viewpoint of the activist agenda. I've been seeing it since the 1960's when that orthodoxy first got its steroid shots from the political class of the day. From then on, an army of militant activists have abused photography to promote an agenda. Today with the digital camera spitting out images at .00002 cents apiece, the problem is all the worse. And I am acutely keen at seeing a photo (image) and judging whether it is more activist bilgewater from a lunatic with a camera, or if it is a good thing.

 

[Worker 11811]

Xenon lamps in movie projectors, be they digital or film should not be operated below 80% of their max ratings. Doing so will shorten their life. The cost of replacing a xenon lamp, $1,000 and up, is far more expensive than the cost of the savings in electricity. Further, xenons can and occasionally do fail explosively, taking out the reflector, damaging film or the inside of the projector. In a digital projector, the cost of a new light engine is a significant fraction of the cost of a new projector.

The reason why movies are dim is twofold:
First digital projectors project dimmer pictures. The standard brightness for 35mm. film projection is 16 ftL or 54 cd/m2. The standard for digital is 14 ftL or 47 cd/m2. That's nearly 15% lower. That's the standard. Many theaters do not meet those standards.
The second reason theaters are dim is because they don't replace their lamps as often as often as they should. The warranty lifespan on the average xenon lamp is between 1,000 and 2,000 hours. If a lamp fails under warranty, you get a prorated refund toward the cost of a new lamp. If the lamp explodes while it is under warranty, through no fault of your own, the company will often pay part or all of the cost of repair. Most theaters burn their xenon lamps for 1.5 or 2 times the warranty life span. That is quite reasonable to do. It saves money on the cost of replacing lamps without undue risk. However, if you burn your lamps much longer than that, two things happen: the risk of failure/explosion increases and the lamps lose brightness. Still theater managers try to cut costs by burning their lamps beyond reasonable limits. That's probably the biggest reason why movies in theaters are dim!

When I was a field service tech for one of the largest theater chains in the country, I was regularly called to theaters to solve problems with dim pictures, often because of numerous customer complaints. 90% of the time, replacing the lamp solved the problem. I regularly replaced lamps that were 3,000 hours old or longer. On occasion, I found lamps that had been running for 6,000 or 7,000 hours! The glass envelopes were BLACK!

No, it wasn't supposed to be my job to change lamps. That's supposed to be a job for theater personnel. I was responsible for maintenance, upkeep and repair for 100 screens in 10 or12 theaters spread out over five states. My job was to train people to change lamps, not necessarily to do it all myself. Many theater personnel are either lazy, inept or think they can save money by being cheap.

Those are the real reasons why movie theaters have dim pictures. That's also the reason why may attitude sometimes appears to be so stubborn. I was paid to be an asshole. Some say I play the part well. (I resemble that remark! )

When there is a customer complaint, that presents problems for theater management. They often give rain checks or passes for free movies but are usually hesitant to give refunds. The movie distributors in Hollywood take as much as 80% or 90% of theaters' box office revenue. That figure is based on ticket sales. They don't care if you gave refunds or not. Theaters still have to pay. A theater manager who gives a refund is losing money.

I now operate a single screen, special venue style theater, similar to IMAX. I am solely in charge all phases of daily operation from box office to concessions to operating the equipment. I try very hard to do things right and to make the best presentation possible but, yes, I still make mistakes.

If I got a complaint from a customer like Alan, I would do everything I can to fix it. If the guy was as knowledgeable as him and if I had time, I'd likely give him a quick tour of the booth. Unfortunately, I could not give a refund unless the movie was interrupted or did not play but a rain check or pass isn't out of the question.

Most people who have concerns are usually happy with that and, maybe, some free popcorn.

 

[Alan Klein]

Randy Thanks for the info. The worse part about my complaining is that they really just ignored me after I complained. Some beautiful movies are just destroyed because they are so dim. That's a shame. It's like looking at photos here that are a stop or two too dark. With less contrast. Anyway I appreciate the background with Xenon lamps and how the industry works.

 

[Worker 11811]

The worse part about my complaining is that they really just ignored me after I complained.

With xenon lamps, you can't change them or make repairs without shutting down and interrupting the movie. In the old days, when carbon arcs were used, operators could make some adjustments on the fly. (Arc gap, positive/negative carbon alignment, feed rate and reflector alignment.)

I have operated carbons only a few times. The guy who showed me even demonstrated how to change carbon rods without extinguishing the arc. (Joinable carbons.) I would never do that! 100 amps DC and 3,000º C! I ain't going near that while it's live! This guy was an old-time operator. That's the way they did things, then. A good operator will know how fast his carbons burn and how much film he has left. He'll make sure he has enough "stick" in the projector before he starts.

 

[Worker 11811]

Silly me, got off on a tangent without addressing the question...

The point I was getting at was, even if the staff at the theater took your request seriously, they wouldn't have been able to do anything until the movie was over since they were probably using xenons. If there was a competent tech on staff, they could have done the maintenance in between shows. A good tech can change a lamp in 30 minutes or less. If there was not a competent person on staff, it should have been done by the next day.

When I was a field tech, I would occasionally be called to a theater to handle the problem but, as I said, it wasn't strictly my job. There should be somebody there who is able to do it. If I had to go to a theater to do it, I might need a day or more to get there, depending on what else was happening. Unless that theater was down or unless there were major complaints, it would not have been a priority. Driving 8 to 12 hours and staying overnight in a Motel 6 just to change a stupid light bulb is not something I would relish doing, neither would the company want to pay my mileage, room and food bills. If I had other theaters with more pressing problems, I would have to handle them first. Changing lamps would normally be a low priority call. I would probably end up doing a drive-by as I was going between theaters.

The real problem is what we were talking about to start with. Most people have a lower expectation of quality, these days, and I really do believe that many people no longer have the capacity to tell the difference.

Your average, apathetic, teenaged theater employee who watches movies on his iPhone just doesn't understand what a good movie presentation looks like and, when he is called away from the important business of chatting up the girls at the popcorn stand, he finds the request to be more of an annoyance.