©Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/01/last-minute-advice-for-those-covering-gustav/

One of the first big decisions I had to make upon returning home from 18 days in Beijing – was wether or not to pack right back up and go cover Hurricane Gustav.   A major news magazine was asking me to go – and they gave me overnight to make a decision.   While the newsman in me definitely wanted to go, I knew that A. I just didn’t have the mental energy to live through another Katrina after an Olympics and B. it just wouldn’t be fair to my wife who had just spent 18 days alone taking care of our son.

So I passed on the assignment – which is never an easy thing to do for any photographer –  but I’m now confident that it was the right move (I’ve been catching up on a LOT of sleep these past few days – your body and mind know when to decompress and let go…)

So I thought I’d throw a few last minute thoughts together for those to covering the storm:

I. Even though the current headlines are stating that the storm will miss New Orleans or move to the West – never write off a storm.   Similar things were being said about Katrina – and some people put their guard down.  The levees, not the storm, are the story for New Orleans.

©Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

II. Make sure you have plenty of:  Fuel, water, snacks, baby wipes, maps, quarters (for payphones if they work) a fair amount of cash, extra batteries and a power converter for your car to charge laptops, cameras etc – and have a second power adapter for your laptop as it can fry easily when plugged into power converters.  Buying a few extra car fuses for the fuse box is not a bad idea either – as those blow rather easily when you plug too much into the car’s AC port(s).   Boots, bug spray, sunblock, first aid kit, and one of those cans to re-inflate your tires.

III. Remember that having all of this makes you a huge target – always watch your back.   Always have an exit strategy.   Your first consideration whenever you drive into anywhere is:  can I get out of here 15 minutes from now or a few hours from now.  Always think things through before you take any action – or it can literally be your last… don’t depend on anyone else to come rescue you – try to be entirely self-reliant at all times.  Never walk too far away from your car:  it’s your only way of getting out -and there are too many valuable things in it – to let it sit unattended.  Remember – there are no tow trucks, no police cars coming, no ambulance on their way – and likely no one manning the 911 switchboard.

©Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

IV. If you have any cell provider other than Verizon – you might want to consider picking up a disposable Verizon phone – they have the contract with the federal government and agencies – and will be the first to put emergency towers up should cell coverage become a victim to the storm or it’s aftermath.

V. Travel light – at least in terms of camera gear.   Having a backup camera and lens in a Pelican case is a good idea in case your main camera gets dunked in the water.

©Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

VI.  Don’t lose perspective:  the big story here in my opinion – is not necessarily the storm.  We’ve already seen that in Katrina… the story here is:  how much better prepared are we as a nation and how will our government deal with the aftermath this time… has any real progress been made since the horror of Katrina?

©Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

VII.  If you want to get into a helicopter – make sure you’re working with experienced people… most of the “good” pilots and helicopters were booked days – if not weeks – ago – by the oil companies to get their crew off of the oil rigs in the Gulf (and they are holding the helicopter – paying them to stay safely on the ground at the ready – to go back and put those men back on the rigs ASAP – for repairs and to resume work.)  So getting one now is close to impossible.  But keep trying.  I left my name at a local airport at their front desk – and pilots ended up finding me in the end… you never know.  And sharing a helicopter with someone else is always a good option in these situations.

VIII. Obey law enforcement – and especially the National Guard – in times like these.  This is not the time to argue.  If the storm does happen – they will be stressed out, and mentally and emotionally exhausted.  Not the time to argue with people on edge who have guns at their disposal.  In fact – it’s safe to assume most people out there have guns – so be careful.  You will be entering the Wild West.   I made friends with the national guard last time because I had extra (empty) fuel tanks – which they needed.

©Vincent Laforet/The New York Times

I’m hoping this storm fizzles out – for the people in New Orleans and the Gulf area.   No one deserves to go through this again.   To all of the photographers, journalists and other rescue workers out there (not to mention the citizens of course!)  - Good Luck!

This shot confirming Michael Phelps victory in the 100 M butterfly took years or planning. ©Heinz Kleutmeier/Sports Illustrated

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/31/assistants-should-you-use-their-photos-under-your-name/

I finally got one of the issues of Sports Illustrated today from the Olympics (a good friend of mine had mailed it to me because I was “lucky” enough to make it into the Leading Off section – no – not a photo that I made, but a photo of me – in the scrum of photographers covering Phelps getting a hug from his mother after the race…) and I saw something extremely refreshing:  the credit read: Photo by Heinz Kluetmeier and Jeff Kavanaugh.

Why is that special?  Because Jeff is Heinz’s long time assistant and it’s incredibly rare for photographers to give their assistants any credit for the images they take while on assignment with them.  I thought this was an incredibly classy move by Heinz and SI.   Jeff is also a great guy and deserves the accolade – he was one of the guys I spent more than 13 hours with waiting for the fireworks on the Great Wall and was intricately involved in getting that remote camera working.

“So you mean that even if someone else shoots a picture, as in an assistant, the main photographer generally gets to take credit for the image?” you ask.   Traditionally – yes.  More on that in a bit.

As it turns out – Jeff was instrumental in making sure the remote worked, working out how to splice the ethernet cable going from his seated position from the side of the blocks, all the way down to the remote underwater camera below.  He was able to have the same ethernet cable both trigger the camera – as well as send the images back to his laptop on his lap – LIVE.   And yes: he did actually push the button to trigger the camera.   And man was the timing perfect – sure he let the camera wail away at 9 frames per second and he and Heinz got the defining image of the Beijing Olympics in my opinion.   No other image or clip of video shows as definitively that Phelps won the race – and this is easily one of the most, if not the most – impressive Olympic records of all time.  Not too shabby.  You can read an interview with Heinz about this image here.

So where does Heinz fit into this?  Well actually – he played the key part.   I was staying at the same hotel as the SI crew – and I had breakfast with Bob Rosato, another SI staffer, the day after this shot was taken.  He told me that Heinz had stated the following to him at breakfast two days prior to the race:  if Phelps loses or wins the epic 8 gold-medal record – it will be on the 100M butterfly race – and it will be close.   And that’s why Heinz is who he is – and was one of only two people to perfectly position his camera in this position showing both lanes with the #1 and #2 finishers of the race…  MASTER.   More often than not – great photography is made by people who THINK… (at other times it’s luck, people who just “see” better, or made by people who “feel.”  There’s no golden rule or approach.. in fact Henri  Cartier-Bresson says the last thing you want to do when making pictures is to “think.”

So it’s only fitting that Heinz gets most of the credit – as truth be told he was one of the first to ever put a remote camera in a pool at the Olympics (he might even be the first – Barcelona if I’m not mistaken – but don’t quote me on that) but I think it’s incredibly classy of him to share credit with his long time assistant.

So back to taking credit for an image that your “assistant” took.   It’s actually been pretty common practice throughout photographic history.   It’s not uncommon for a photographer to go to a big event, and shoot from one location with his/her assistant(s) shooting from another vantage point.  After all – the main photographer can only be at one place at a time – and more specifically with sports, the action is too unpredictable and moves to fast for remote cameras to be effective.   If s/he tells the assistant what lens to shoot with, at what settings, where to point the lens, how to frame the shot and when to fire off the frame – one can arguably state that is indeed his/her image…

Legally though – unless the two have a signed contract where the assistant relinquishes all rights to those images to the photographer – that assistant technically owns the copyright btw – or so a series of NYTimes lawyers told me a few years ago.  So beware… always have your assistant sign a contract if you’re going to do this – otherwise THEY technically own the image’s copyright… doesn’t matter who’s gear their using, who told them to do what etc.

That being said – I’ve never been a big fan of the practice.  It just feels a little icky to me – and that’s just a personal preference of mine – not a judgement on others at all.  I have had others helping me at times doing the exact same thing – but I’ve had the following agreement with them:  if they are clearly shooting under my specific instructions, the image will run in the publication with my credit (and perhaps theirs if I chose) but that assistant is also free to run the image in their own portfolio with their sole credit underneath it – that feels more fair than most other agreements – and it never hurts to help someone else jump start their careers.

I’m totally expecting to have some people disagree with me on this one (from both sides of the issue)… so go ahead and share you thoughts…

©Damon Winter/The New York Times

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/29/mad-props-to-damon-winter-new-york-times-photographer/

Off to a crack-o-dawn shoot this morning…. so here’s an early post:  If you haven’t done so already – check out Damon Winter’s Neighbors Lens series – something that I think truly separates Damon from most newspaper photographers out there.  It’s absolutely inspirational – not only is it old school – but man does the guy have … well … you know…  cojones.  Double exposure on 8 X 10 sheets of film – two exposures on one single sheet of film over a 4-8 hour period – an entire day’s work… wow.

I’m just humbled by the attempt and result.  I mean, I just shutter at the idea of showing up early in the day, setting up a clunky camera on a heavy tripod – and stressing out the entire time about having a single person (or myself) bump the camera prior to my second exposure… as they show up to see the movie that night.  (Damon – tell us:  are you really exposing only one sheet of film for the entire day… or a few just to be safe?)

Simply fantastic – and what photography should be all about.  I particularly love “Metropic”  ”Double Take” and well – frankly – every single one of those photos from his series…. (make sure to click on “previous lens series” towards the bottom of the page to see every double-exposure Damon has made.  It’s well worth it!)

Here is another slideshow of his  produced by The New York Times – it’s of Damon’s coverage of Barack Obama over the past few months.  It’s one of the strongest slide shows on politics I’ve seen by a single photographer on the nytimes.com site.

Kudos to Damon (you can see his personal site here), and Michele McNally for making this hire – one of many excellent hires the Times Photo department has made in recent years.  Damon previously worked at the Dallas Morning News, and the The Los Angeles Times – and now New Yorkers are lucky to have his work land on their doorsteps every day.

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/28/to-delete-or-not-to-delete-that-is-the-the-question/

One of the most common questions that have been posed by people on this blog is:  Do you delete your images in camera and do you delete images on your server or in your Aperture Library?

I think it’s a very important question, and my answer for the most part is: No – I don’t.

Why?  Well here it is:  I’ll point to the following events in specific:  My coverage of Hurricane Katrina, and my coverage of (actually pretty much any) Olympics.  In all of these events – I was often rushing to make a deadline and under severe pressure.  I had a clear idea of what the “news of the day” was and what images I needed to get out first, and I was all too often sleep deprived – in that state, I become pretty close to being my own worst editor.

And here’s a big lesson: once you make that initial edit – you almost NEVER MAKE a second edit of that work – EVER.   All too often you move on to the next event or day – and never get the luxury of looking back.

And why is that dangerous?  Because editing on deadline, or frankly editing your own stuff is like playing Russian Roulette for most photographers…

Simply put: Photographers are all too often their own worst editors – add to that a little stress, exhaustion or deadline pressure, and you’re playing with fire.

I can tell you that I borrowed someone else’s eyes – even complete strangers’ eyes – throughout the Olympics almost every day, to help cut down my 15 images down to the top 5.  That is the hardest thing to do when you’re editing your own stuff.

Why?  Because a photographer is always attempting to achieve a certain result with their photographs, they have their mind dead set on a specific goal or result – and they do not always achieve it.  It takes someone else to tell them either: A. hey – I don’t really see the picture at all – I think you didn’t quite make it…it’s “not quite there mate” as one of my favorite Allsport editors Darrell Ingham used to say or B. hey – what about that picture (you haven’t even tagged) that I see over here?

In fact, my mark of a good photo editor, is not one who can pick between pictures A or B – but the one that sees photo Z – one that you never even knew was there yourself.  I’ve met only a few editors who can do this throughout my career- but when you do, know that you’ve found a gold mine.  These editors can literally help shape both your vision and career.  They are the ones that see things in your work that you may not yet see – and they can help you shape the way you see and capture images.

I kind of skipped on this – but having a photo editor by your side is always (well almost) always,  a good thing.

As with any profession – some are good and some you need to steer clear of.   What you need to do is to form a relationship with an editor – let them know what you are trying to accomplish with your photography – and hopefully the two of you can go from there (and perhaps they can help you get there.)  Some editors I actually go to to find out which photograph NOT to pick – I’m serious.  I’ve worked with some that I can go to on a consistent basis – and when I offer them up photo A or B – if they pick B – I’ll go with A every time.  While this might lead to a chuckle or two out there – it’s not necessarily because they’re bad editors – it’s because you know your style is just the polar opposite of theirs.

Something to always be aware of as both a photographer and editor: over the years, people become conditioned to edit in a certain style – often their publication’s style.  You edit because you know what type of images your publication will likely run – and don’t give them ones you know will never make it in (even though you, and perhaps even your editor knows – that image is a significantly better image.)

This is one of the most dangerous aspects of working at the same publication or for the same client for too long – or for your entire career- it truly limits your growth, and the development of your vision.  It can stunt your growth as a photographer.  I can say that because it’s happened to me a number of times already in my career.  I equate it to shooting with “your blinders on.”  You stop seeing images – and are just on the lookout for the ones you know your publication will run.  And that’s the death of you photographically in my opinion.

So back to deleting – sorry – I’ve gotten off target a little here.   Without exception, every time I’ve gone back to do an edit – whether it’s after a 15 minute break, a 15 hour brake, a 15 day break or a 15 month break – my view of what images matter has dramatically changed.  So much so – that I just can’t justify deleting images (unless they’re completely out of focus, or over exposed or under exposed beyond recovery (but hey – who knows what software they’ll write in 20 years that could potentially fix those images – you see where I’m going…???)

Think about a lot of the classic images we look at that were shot 20, 50 or 100 years ago – while some are true classics, let’s be honest: some of them really weren’t that spectacular at all when they were shot.  But with time – even the most banal image – is fascinating to look at.   I love to look at what people were wearing in the 1920s or what the streets looked like in New York City, how the signs in front of stores were hand painted etc.  And the same will be true of what you’re photographing today – that’s a lesson my father taught me very early on – and one that I’ve never forgotten – and a big part of why I don’t delete anything if I can help it.

Sure you may think an image of an umpire walking in the background that your AF jumped to by mistake (instead of the star player in the foreground) is something you should delete immediately.  But what if we don’t have umpires anymore 20 years from now (due to instant replay)… what if, that umpire happens to become one of the most famed umpire in history over time… or worse – gets into a car crash and dies that evening.  You NEVER know – and keeping the frame is often the best thing to do in my book.  The fact that we never really know what images will become valuable or relevant over time – is one of the magical parts of photography for me.

When I look back at the Beijing Olympics I can already see images now that I missed in my initial edit (and I might do an edit of “images that didn’t make it” at some point soon and post it on this blog) – or images that I did not chose to edit and transmit because of news value.  Even more so – when I look back at my images from Katrina, I can see an entirely different edit of that event – mostly because my shooting style has changed quite a bit since then.  Given that I have kept every frame – I will have the option of going back through these and every event, 10-30 years from now and / or having a great editor do the same for me.

Don’t forget: your shooting style will change with time- and the images you like now are not necessarily the ones you’ll like 20 years from now… in fact some of your current “rejects” may become your selects as your style changes…

What is the downside?  Obviously, you have to buy more CF cards so that you can keep more images as you shoot, it takes longer to copy them off of the cards and import into your editing software, and you need more hard drives to store these things.  But given the cost of hard drive space – it’s pretty much a non-issue for me.  Look at these stats for example:

The cost of hard drive data storage seems to drop by a factor of 10 every three or four years. This means that in two years, a terabyte hard drive should cost about $20.

Here’s the cost of 1GB of Storage over the past 22 years:

1986: $100,000

1990: $10,000

1994: $1,000

1997: $100

2000: $10

2004: $1

2007: $0.20

Kinda makes you think doesn’t it?  So is it worth deleting that 1 Terabyte of images?  Isn’t there a chance that a single one of those might sell for over $20 in 3 years???  Remember I shot about half a terabyte of images in Beijing – if these price predictions above are true – isn’t it worth $10 for me to hold onto every single frame given the historic nature of these Olympics?

Look at Dirck Halstead – a former Time Magazine photographer.  His illustrious career of fantastic images has come down to one image – that was buried in a slide sheet deep in some abyss.  Remember the Monica Lewinsky photograph – her embracing Bill Clinton?

“When the Lewinsky story broke, all these organizations started to go through their files, and found nothing.

I hired a researcher, and she started to go through the piles of slides in the light room. After four days, and more than 5,000 slides, she found ONE image, from a fund-raising event in 1996. “

Well – needless to say, Dirck never would have known that his career would come to be in many ways defined by that one image – one that many of us would have likely “thrown in the bin” had we wanted to save slide sheets, or in our days hard drive space…   I’d be surprised if not every single one of you hasn’t already regretted deleting an image at some point already in your careers.

Lastly – I can’t tell you how dangerous it is to delete images on the fly on the back of your camera.  First – you miss hundreds of images – subtle  (sometimes not so subtle at all!)  images – that are happening right in front of your as you are  ”chimping” on the back of your LCD screen   And then – you’ll also delete good images because you’re rushing, and because you just won’t see them on that small LCD screen – remember, the mirror was up when the action was happening,  and there’s a strong likelihood your eye never saw THE moment as you shot that last series of frames…   so why rush to deleting those images instants after you shot them – don’t they deserve a second look?

I can tell you that using software such as Aperture has also been a game changer for me – I have over 400,000 images in my main library – and the app still zips through for the most part.  So keeping all of my images is not a big consideration for me.  I also chose to render large previews for each image/project in my libary- this allows me to travel with my large library and make edits on my laptop – even though the raw files are back on my server and offline.

I also won’t tell you the number of “famous photographs” that have come to define certain photographer friend’s careers – that I know for a fact they completely missed during their initial edit – and someone else saw on the light table or monitor and said: “Hey – did you see this one?”   I won’t mention names out of respect, but that alone should make you think twice.  I’m talking “classic” single images that you associate with this one photographer or another… World Press Winners in fact…

So the next time you’re about to delete images – ask yourself: out of the thousands of sub-”1 Star” images that I’m about to delete – am I absolutely sure that there’s not a single image on there that will ever sell or become more relevant throughout the rest of my career (or after I’ve passed on.)   Wouldn’t it be wise to keep them for now – just to be safe?   Given how cheap the cost of hard drives is – and how it will continue to drop – shouldn’t I just be conservative and store them?

At some point soon – I will be putting up some more information on my workflow – and long term strategies for backing up all of my images – and how you can keep the “best ones” stored in your library on your expensive redundant RAIDS – and how to put the “outs” on cheaper long-term media stored externally.  While keeping every single image is something that I’m preaching – there IS a smarter and more practical way to do this with the software out there today.  More to come…

Nikon D90

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/27/the-cat-is-out-of-the-bag-slrs-now-shoot-hd-video/

So – IT happened – Digital SLRs can now shoot HD Quality video – and the repercussions this will have on our industry are going to be pretty fascinating to watch in the upcoming years. While most newspaper photogaphers will be thrilled not to have to carry both SLR and video camera systems to perform their new duties, sports photographers may find that these cameras create serious headaches for them going into venues with broadcasters who own exclusive rights to the video content being broadcast from that very venue.  These will be very interesting times that will lead to some very precedent setting debate.

I had a very strong feeling that this was coming down the pipeline and mentioned it in several previous articles over the past few years, including  the “Cloud is Falling” article that I wrote a few months ago.  I should mention that never had I heard anything coming out of either a Canon or Nikon rep about video – it was kept TIGHTLY under wraps – until Nikon revealed the Nikon D90 yesterday.   The buzz about this upcoming announcement was circulating amongst a few people “in the know” at the Olympics – I hadn’t heard any solid information on the details of this camera but did know something was coming out  – and I was expecting it to be announced at Photokina in about a month from now.  The rumour going around was that one or more manufacturers might be releasing a camera that could shoot both video and still images – but not simultaneously.  This first amateur camera can neither autofocus, nor simultaneously shoot stills and video.   That – my guess is  – will be what the professional cameras will do – and soon.

Here are a few more details from Gizmodo:

“It shoots 1280x720p video at 24fps with a 16:9 aspect ratio for up to five minutes, producing around a 600MB file. It’s essentially recording the Live View feed (which gets its own button) so focus is locked because the mirror has moved out of the way, and you get mono sound. The major appeal is that it’ll work with any of your lenses, so you can do wacky HD clips with a fisheye lens on the (relatively) cheap or be artsy and use a shallow depth of field.”   And the price is only: $999 which is kind of a bombshell in it’s own right.  That price is an industry changer in my opinion – very much in the same way that the RED camera sells for 5 to 10 times less than it’s competitors.

And a little more of the same from Nikon: “For the first time in digital SLR photography, Nikon introduces the addition of the D-Movie mode, allowing consumers to create their own HD movie clips (1280 x 720) with sound from their D-SLR camera. Photographers will appreciate the cinematic qualities that come from the 24fps frame rate, which matches theatrical film, whether producing vacation clips or creatively melding stills with video. Additionally, the large size of the D90’s DX-format sensor, combined with the optical superiority and broad selection of NIKKOR lenses, provides shooters with the ability to capture amazing perspectives not possible with typical camcorders. D-Movie clips also benefit from Nikon VR image stabilization, which is automatically activated during recording to aid the low-light capability that trumps many other hybrid devices. Users can record movie clips onto an inserted SD / SDHC card, created as Motion JPEG AVI files that are easily edited with widely available video editing software. The D90 also features an HDMI terminal, allowing viewing of both pictures and movies on High Definition television”

So – here we are at a crossroads.  I see this as all positive – I’ve always wanted to shoot more video/film – but didn’t want to make a new investment in lenses and gear… now I no longer have to… think about it.  Although I have no insider knowledge on what Canon is working on at this time – common sense would lead me to believe they’ll have an answer to this soon enough.   I say this, because the rumors being traded back and forth at the Olympics, from non-Nikon or Canon people – was that Canon was going to be the one making this type of announcement first… we all in fact knew that some big announcement was coming from Nikon on Monday (this past Monday – it came out Tuesday as it turned out)  so who knows…   The reason we are at a crossroads is the following:  TELEVISION and their fear of the traditional print media tresspassing on their turf.  A turf they have paid for – and are unlikely to share for free.

Given that all of these rumours were going around quite a bit in Beijing – I sat down with two very influential people who will each be involved at the next two Olympic Games.  Given that NBC paid more than $900 million to acquire the U.S. Broadcasting rights to this past summer games, how would they feel about a still photographer showing up with a camera that can shoot HD video?

I got the following answer from the person who will be involved with Vancouver which I’ll paraphrase:   Still photographers will be allowed in the venues with whatever camera they chose, and shoot whatever they want – shooting video in it of itself, is not a problem.  HOWEVER – if the video is EVER published – the lawsuits will inevitably be filed, and credentials revoked etc.

This to me seems like the reasonable thing to do – and the correct approach.  But the person I spoke with who will be involved in the London 2012 Olympic Games had a different view, again I paraphrase: “Those cameras will have to be banned.  Period.  They will never be allowed into any Olympic venue” because the broadcasters would have a COW if they did.   And while I think this is not the best approach – I think it might unfortunately be the most realistic.  Do you really think that the TV producers and rigths-owners will “trust” photographers not to broadcast anything they’ve paid so much for.  Unlikely.  Remember that every two years – photographers are allowed to go and see the dress-rehearsal for the Opening Ceremonies at each Olympics and every time we have to sign releases promising NEVER to publish those.  We are granted access so that we can better prepare to shoot the actual thing.   Nonetheless, someone did publish these pictures in Athens for example… and once those promises are broken, it gives TV the excuse to shut us down (although they haven’t – and did let us shoot dress rehearsals this year.)  But do we really trust all of our breatheren to ahere to these “restrictions” – forever?   Well – I don’t.  And that’s why I think we’ll have problems – big problems – coming down the pipe with these cameras for the photographers who shoot in “closed” events where someone has bought rights to said event.

So tell me what you think in the comments below – I’m quite interested in starting a bit of a back and forth on this topic – and it will very likely change the face of our industry more quickly than anyone expected, and continue to blur the distinction between a still photographer and videographers/filmakers.

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/27/how-much-did-i-shoot-in-beijing/

Well, I just got done copying the files from my trusty 17″ MackBook Pro and 3 External Hard Drives over to my server overnight… and here are the facts:

In Beijing, with a total of 6 cameras, I shot: 28,444 files for a total of a whopping 480 Gigabytes of Images!  That’s INSANE!  Even I am shocked.

So I looked into at what Sports Illustrated shot during the Olympics with their ten staff photographers there – SI shot over 300,000 images of which their staff kept 17,000.   One of their editors took that down to 1046 “super selects” and then their director of photography Steve Fine, edited his selection down to 135 images.  That means their “best of” turned out to be 0.045% of what they shot.

These numbers may – and should – look crazy to most of you.  But truth be told – it’s what happens when you have cameras that now shoot bursts at 10 frames per second – and when you’re likely firing not one – but two or three cameras at once (via remotes.)  In fact mon ami Bill Frakes had more than 18 cameras firing at once each time someone crossed the finish line at the Athletics (Track & Field) venue for example-  so imagine the volume coming out of the track venue.  Hallucinating.

With simple arithmetic, it looks like I shot just a little under what the SI shooters did – but there is one important distinction:  I saw many of them editing their images live on the back of their cameras.  In other words – they would look at every series of images after they’d shot them (either during events or in between each rotation for example) and delete the poor or out of focus images – this to make sure that a “bad” one didn’t make it into the magazine – as someone else would end up editing their images.  I on the other hand – never deleted a single frame – and that’s because I would be the only one editing my take each day (and not have to explain myself for missing a key frame to any editor.)  I don’t believe in deleting images on the back of the camera myself – I’ve deleted quite a few keepers out of “sleep deprivation” or just by rushing in the past, and in fact missed more moments that happened right in front of me because I was “chimping” (term used for looking at back of one’s camera, and jumping up and down and howling like an ape, when one finds a good image, often showing it off to the person to the left or right of you.)  So I keep everything.  Given that those guys tended to mount a few more remote cameras thanI did – I’m sure it evens out things a bit further.

My next step will be to open my Aperture library from the Olympics back up here in New York – and start to select thousands of “rejects” from these takes – all of the duplicate remote files, out of focus frames,  files that have no potential for future re-use.  And purge those.  I assume I’ll get rid of more than 50% of the volume.

So out of the 28.444 frames that I shot, how many of them had “one star or better?” 1,509.   Of those how many were transmitted?  273 – that’s just under 1%.  Yikes…

Finally – just to give you perspective, shooting this much volume equates to shooting 790 rolls of 35mm 36 exposure rolls of film.  If you assume that while we commonly had 15-18 hour days in Beijing, we generally got to shoot only for 6-10 hours on average (let’s say 7 hours of total shooting on average) that means we pressed the shutter: 1,777 times per day, 253 frames per hour, or 4.23 images per minute – which sundenly makes this seem a tad bit more reasonable – that with the goal of the Newsweek crew to produce 4-10 good frames per day.

My ultimate goal will be to put every image with one star of better into one project in my Olympics Aperture library – I will then export that project and re-import it into my main library.  That way I can always have access to the important images – without having to bog down my large main library with images I’ll likely never go back to.  If a strange request comes down the line – I can always go back to my Olympics library and see everything there – that Aperture library is 36.31 GB by the way – as each image has a large preview generated within it for example.  Having these large previews embedded within the library would allow me to travel to future speaking engagements/workshops and show people raw takes of each shoot for example – without needing to travel with the close to 500GB of RAW images.

So there it is – we’ve veered far off of the path of shooting one sheet of film at a time haven’t we?

Here’s a simple one that most of you likely know – but for those who don’t – it’s so essential that I have to go over it.

When you get back from an assignment and want to copy files from your laptop over to your desktop machine or server – simply restart your laptop and hold down the “T” key on your keyboard.

This will start your laptop in Targe Disk Mode (or any Apple machine btw- this is a great way to get files back and forth or to “diagnose” certain things.)   Meaning your hard drive(s) from that machine will simply mount on the desktop of the host machine as regular hard drives.  It’s the fastest and easiest way to get files on and off any machine – especially if you use Firewire 800 cords.  (Firewire 400 cords are half as fast.)  You’ll see the icon you see at the start of this blog post on the screen of your laptop or other machine – once it’s entered Targe Disk Mode.  Simply plug the firewire cord from one machine to the other – and voila – your drive(s) appear on the host machine.  You’re good to go as far as copying anything off of, or on to – that machine.

Once you’re done copying, unmount the laptop or machine from the host computer by dragging the icon of that hard drive to the trash (or pressing the Apple + E Keys) and restart your original machine that is in target disk mode (hold down the Control + Apple (Command) + Power button for a quick sec.)

Here’s another tip: If you don’t want to reboot your machine you have two other options.

1.  Launch iChat on both machines – they have to be on the same WIFI or LAN (Ethernet) network.  Press the Apple (command) + 2  key combination – this will launch the Bonjour window.   You should see the other machine pop up (you need to launch iChat and open the Bonjour window up on it as well!)   iChat will also ask you to enable “bonjour” if it’s not already enabled.  Simply drag a file, or folder onto that computer’s name that pops up in the Bonjour window,  and the files should transfer instantly.  Not as fast as firewire – but works great nonetheless – and with both Tiger and Leopard.

2. If you have Leopard installed – make sure you have “File Sharing” enabled in your System Preferences – in the Sharing settings.  When you then open up your hard drive – you should see all of the other machines that are being “shared” over your WIFI or LAN network, (this works as well as by using an ethernet cord to plug the two machines into one another.)  You are automatically logged in as a “guest” and get access only to that folder (or the folder(s) you specify back in that sharing window) – alternatively, you can actually log on as the full user – and access the entire contents of the other computer.  This too is an incredibly useful and quick way to share things.   You can also do this in Tiger of course – by mounting the hard drive by pressing Apple (Command) + K – and entering it’s IP address.  (That’s slightly  but you’ll easily find examples on the web.)

3. Of course – USB keys always work as well – but they’re much slower…

There are also some cool third party utilities that have drag and drop interfaces to get files from one computer to another – very very simply.  The tricks above are more than simple enough for me – so I really haven’t looked into them – anyone have a favorite to share?

THIS BLOG HAS FOUND A NEW HOME–TO READ THE MOST CURRENT VERSION OF THIS POST AND TO LEAVE COMMENTS PLEASE GO TO:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/08/24/farewell-beijing-it%E2%80%99s-been-a-%E2%80%9Cdream-job%E2%80%9D-to-cover-these-olympics/

By the time many of your are reading this post, I will be on my way to the airport to catch my flight back to New York City.   The Beijing Olympics will have concluded and thousands of others will be making their way home – some with gold medals, some with memorable images and stories, others with bruised egos and many with goals of practicing for the next four years in order to shave an extra few hundreds of a second off their performances in times for the London games in 2012.   I for one couldn’t be happier.  This has been the best Olympics I’ve experienced – and while the host country has played a good part in this, other factors have been much more instrumental in making this a “great success” as Borat would say. (MORE)

Here are a few more images from last night. The first two are of China’s Liang Huo who was the Olympic favorite in the men’s 10M diving final. He came in fourth, behind Australia’s Matthew Mitcham in a stunning upset that prevented the Chinese from a gold sweep in diving. Given that I’ve shot diving from the overhead position, beneath the surface through a window, and from almost every possible side angle, I decided to take my last tilt-shift of the games, as well as to play with pans shot between 1/8th and 1/15th of a second. (MORE)